Full auto vs. 3 round burst

N

Nightcrawler

New member
Okay. One of the primary reasons the United States adopted 5.56mm over .308 is because the military wanted an individually issued automatic rifle, and .308 just kicks too much for most users to control on full auto. So, we got the M16A1. Then, in the 80's, they were making improvements to the M16. Easier to adjust sights, different rifling twist, slightly improved action. But then they got rid of full auto, in favor of a burst limiter that, in my experience, sometimes fires three, sometimes two, sometimes four, and so on, but it's usually a burst of about three. The thing I don't understand is, WHY? I talked to one of my fellow guardsmen about this. He insisted that 3RB was better, because it was "more accurate". Okay, isn't that what SEMIAUTO is for? Since when do you need to put three bullets into the same badguy?? Then there's the M4 carbine. 3RB. Then they adopted the M4A1. Back to full auto. The M16A3, used by Air Force Spec Ops. Same detachable handle arrangement as the M4A1 carbine and other flattop ARs. Full auto. It's crazy. What are some opinions here?


Of course, the US could just adopt a rifle like the HK33, which fires 3RB AND full auto, but we all know it'll be a funny day before the US military industrial complex chooses to spend tax dollars on a new rifle instead of high-tech superweapons.

Also, another gripe about the A2. It weighs noticably more than the A1. I'm a grunt. The lighter my rifle is, the happier I am. I guess I'm spoiled, though. I owned a Professional Ordnance Carbon-15 before. An AR variant that weighs 3.9 lbs empty. I just know how light an AR can be. :)

http://www.professional-ordnance.com

[Edited by Nightcrawler on 01-01-2001 at 12:28 AM]
 
Never spend money on training when you can solve the problem with technology. Troops on F/A kept running out of ammo.

One report I heard was that the USA expended over 200,000 rounds in Vietnam for each enemy killed. Snipers used an average of 1.3 rounds.
 
I suspect the 3rd burst option on the M16a2 also led to the adoption of the nastiness called the M249 SAW. The SAW fills that F/A gap. There wouldn't be a reason for the SAW if the 16s can go F/A.
I agree that the 3rd burst option is useless, but I didn't mind the weight on the a2, beats carrying the SAW. Would be great if we adopt the HK G-36...*foams at mouth*
 
It's training. The military doesn't spend enough money to train all troops to use full auto in a disciplined manner.

Most of the units that use the non-bust M16's are better trained and funded, like Special Forces and similar. I understand the SeaBees use a version of the M16 that is safe-semi-auto, called the M16E2?

If it were up to me, I'd have line units at the range on a weekly basis and support units there on a monthly basis. It's a matter of where they put their spending priorities: acquire new techno gadgets or train to perfection with what they have now.
 
I think the whole idea was a shotgun type situation in that if one round didn't get them the other 2 might. In reality it appears the first round goes where it was aimed and the next two fly over the target harmlessly. Maybe it was also in consideration the the 5.56's percieved lack of knock down power in close range situations (but please lets not go there again :barf: ) From what I've heard, which is limited it appears a lot of nations are now steering away from the burst as it does not appear to be very effective.

Considering this topic, can we add just semi-auto to the versus question. Anybody else think we might be better off dumping the burst and full auto for just semi operation on the general issue rifle?

Thanks, Blue Duck
 
M16A1

My guard unit still uses M16A1s. We get to fire them once, maybe twice a year. The first time we fire them for qualification is on our short indoor 25m range. We have to use special bolts and blue-tipped plastic frangible low velocity ammunition that REALLY mucks up the barrel and chamber.

I'm a SAW gunner. I've fired the SAW once. We get to fire them at AT. I never touched or saw one in Boot Camp, but we had had a class on them prior. Instead of giving me a 200 round belt, the extra barrel, and the asbestos gloves, I was shooting SEVEN round belts at a little pictogram on a paper target 15 feet in front of me. It's really hard to squeeze off single shots on a meat grinder like the SAW, lemme tell ya. That was last summer, at Annual Training. I haven't fired it since. Heck, we have a hard time geting belted BLANK ammunition for our FTXs....

So, to date, despite being in the military for going on three years, I've never fired a full magazine on full auto. I fired a couple magazines on burst one day in Basic Training, and 50 rounds out of an M60E1 in basic, but that's it for my full auto training.

Fortunately, I'm a good shot. :)
 
Wow there getting even worse, at least back in 87 in basic they let us fire one mag full auto just to show we couldn't hit anything like that. Take that back.. The sky, we could indeed hit the sky with shots 3-30.

Blue Duck
 
The Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon don't see fit to keep me informed of their reasoning, more's the pity...I'd have to guess that the 3RB is somebody's notion about dealing with the issue of "fire discipline".

Side note: It's easy to fire only three rounds from a full-auto Tommy Gun. For aimed fire at 100 yards, if you hold about crotch-high, recoil walks three rounds up the length of a torso.

Anyway, fire discipline has been a problem since we got away from the trap-door Springfield. There's a reason for the magazine cut-off on the '03 Springfield!

I've never been in combat. I've read on numerous occasions over the last 35 years that lotsa guys wasted lotsa ammo on full-auto. A fair number of comments about the problems of resupply that this caused were not written in a manner which was friendly toward such shooters.

I have fired an M-16 on full auto, at rocks and cactus and such, out to maybe 150-200 yards. It was easily controlled to put everything into a five-gallon bucket at around 100 yards or so.

I guess like anything, it goes back to training. I'd like to know I had the capability of full-auto for suppressive fire if that were necessary, or for "room-cleaning" if I caught bad guys in a cluster. Otherwise, it would seem that "normal" fighting would be done on 3RB or SA. The world's greatest rifle ain't worth squat when you run dry.

Semi-auto only? Well, if you come around a corner and there are five or so enemy you didn't expect, five aimed shots are slower than a hose job...Dunno; ain't been there.

And for those who've commented about the ridiculous lack of ammo for training: That hasn't changed since at least 1954.

:), Art
 
Look at the bright side, the training is still worlds better than com block countries. At least in the old USSR many [most?] units were lucky if two or three people in the unit got to practice ever with equipment. Say driving a tank or truck. At least here in the US most of the troops can afford to buy ammo and practice shooting on their own time...though the way things are going that might not last.

Still remember back as a college Freshman the strongest arguement I was able to give for 2nd Amendment to my philosophy profs was the fact that allowing indiviual ownership of weapons reduced the training cost needed to maintain high level of skill for people. Even if only 1% were any good on their own at shooting that at least gave you a group of trainers to start with when you start mobilizing.

IMHO I think similiar logic could be used as arguement to encourage US citizens to freelance in wars/conflicts around the world. Say with tax benifits or college tuition?
 
Hopefully I won't start to ramble.. this is a baaaaad subject to get me started on!

Having spent some time with the M16 (in original and updated versions) the bottom line is that the "modern" military puts less emphsis on firearms traning then they do on friggen feel good BS sensitivity training!

You would think that a firearms enthusiast/modern martial artist would be looked highly upon at least in the Marine Corps... but NOOOOOOO. While I consider myself still in training when it comes to the use of firearms I was considered a Gun Nut by I'd say 95%+ of the Marines I've met.

If it was up to me, and I expressed this view may times, combat arms units would be at the range on a bi-monthly basis and support units on a monthly basis. And I don't mean just known distant ranges... reactionary ranges, CQB ranges, etc.

The way I look at it it just may save not only their life but the service members around them.
 
I agree

I wish we could go to the range more. I wish we could get out to the field more. But...we are "blessed" with M113A2s. Needless to say, most of our drills are spent doing maintenance, to keep operational should the baloon go up. Fortunately, here in upper michigan,there is a very active gun community. Most of us are experienced shooters.

You hit on an interesting point. Has anyone else noticed that many people in America's "warrior caste" don't seem to have anything more than a passing interest in firearms? Isn't that odd, that people who would choose to live and die with a gun in thier hands aren't really that interested in weapons? The more you knwo about weapons and fighting, the better soldier you'll be. I'm only in the Nat'l Guard, sure. But I've been around the M16 since my freshman year in High School, courtesy of JROTC. (the modern cadets aren't allowed to touch the weapons. Soccer moms didn't like their kids being little soldiers. They no longer issue BDUs to the kids either) I wasn't trained so rigorously in boot camp, but I can field strip an M16 blindfolded. The same goes for an AK and a FAL. Now, if it weren't so danged cold outside...it's 20* warmer in my freezer than it is here at night. I coudl go running more often and stay in better shape. Ah, well...
 
. Now, if it weren't so danged cold outside...it's 20* warmer in my freezer than it is here at night. I coudl go running more often and stay in better shape. Ah, well...
Click to expand...

:eek: NOT a good enough excuse Marine! Do like we did up in Alaska... SKI MARCH! (or for you not familure with winter military operations... cross country ski)
 
Marine???

Hey now...

I don't have any skis. I am not without cardiovascual exercise, however. Try shoveling six stalls of frozen horse droppings...

you're right, though, it's not an excuse. I'll just have to accept frostbite as the price of fitness...what the heck, I've had it before...
 
In defense of 3rd burst...
I am a fairly competent shooter. When I fire an Hk53 on full auto, I can get (maybe!) 3-5 rds. on target before it walks up and misses target by a few inches. But a miss is a miss. Target is a smallish torso sized jug at 25 meters.
It's just like pistol shooting...no substitute for aimed fire! The SAW is for cover fire, don't confuse that. I was taught by a Marine ex-FAST team member that you may use full auto, but usually firing "controlled" bursts or you're wasting time and ammo. "You can't miss fast enough!"
The 3 rd burst on the A2 shoots the controlled burst for you as most US combatants don't have enough experience under fire to control their burst rate and aim (it's sad).
Unless you're cleaning out bunkers, squirting out 30 rds. in 2 seconds is a waste of lead.

By the way; what is the average life expectantcy of a SAW gunner in combat?
 
Nightcrawler: I had the privlidge of inspecting a JROTC Drill meet in Kent, Washington a few weeks agon. I'm happy to report that the cadets were indeed handling weapons and most of those were M-1's with two units carrying M-14's, two with M-1903's, and one with fake guns. My arm got tired after 12 armed units (Averaging four cadets per unit...) but I lived. They were shooting pellet rifles as part of the competition and all of this in the heart of the Pinko-Commie environmentalist stronghold of Seattle.

While in the Air Force, we qualified with M-16 once every two years as Aircraft Maintenance troops. I've fired the .22 conversions twice, that blue tipped crap once, and live rounds the rest of the time. We shot semi-only and got to put 80 rounds down range if I remember right. These were reduced silhouettes at 25 feet to simulate targets up to 300 meters.

Back to the subject. I think the burst fire is effective for numbskulls who can't keep their finger off the trigger. They expend less rounds in a given period of time and have more to use when they need them. That's ten jerks of the trigger per magazine. It makes the magazine last three times as long and still keeps heads down. It also has the effect of letting the the gunner watch the rounds hit, adjust the next squirt, and watch those rounds hit. Rather than taking 20 rounds to walk the fire on to a target, the gunner can get the burst pretty close by the second or third burst.

If the Army isn't going to train these people well enough to control their own bursts, the mechanical tripple-tap is the most cost-effective means of achieving their objectives. If you spend the time to train soldiers proper burst fire techniques, you still don't have control over their fingers in combat. I'd be willing to bet they'd still rock-and-roll most of the time.

My opinion? Give every fourth soldier a grenade launcher and every fifth one a SAW. Arm the rest of them with M-4's with safe/semi triggers and good optical sights like the ELCAN. Have the SAW's lay down suppressing fire while the riflemen pick off targets and the Grenadier busts barriers and foxholes. I'd still like the option to rock-and-roll if need be, but I doubt the average Grunt would have the discipline to pop off single, aimed shots if given the option.
 
Wunderwaffe
The M249 is a good piece of gear. Not really sure about the G36, some that have tested say it still is having teething problems.

badgerarms
That is the concept of a fire team, 1 automatic weapon, 1 grenade launcher and some riflemen.

Schmit
Not sure when you retired, but today the problems are a short fall of money and people combined with over commitment. In 1998 GTARS cut by a third all ammo for Marines in the GCE, we got things like FATS and where promised trainers for our artillery pieces (never got the artillery trainer though). Than you have units that are way below staffing goal, hell the only units that are ever at TO/E are the locked on MEU (SOC)s, but that doesn't stop the tasking. So we never have the people let alone money and equipment, we needed to do all the train we wanted. So my unit normally saved it ammo for it big quarterly FFEX and used it then.
 
STLRN: First, the 200rd plastic drum= while fine if you are in a static position, its bulky and gets in the way when doing fire&move. The soft pouch solved that problem but it holds 100-110rds. Forget about using M-16mags in a SAW unless you prefer to spend the time clearing jams instead of shooting. I thought the M60 is finicky about cleaniness, SAW is even worse.
Rate of fire is great...but sustained fire just isn't happening with that barrel. 5.56mm isn't a MG round, so its range and power is limited. To think at first, the SAW was to replace the M60..hahah.
Before I begin to really spew venom about the SAW, I'll say the SAW does have a spot in a MOUT situation: to save the valuable m60s or m240s from being casualties.
 
STLRN,

I retired 2.5 years ago. And I am well aware of the problems you mention. Worked alot with FATS when I was stationed in Alaska (we had one set up on the second deck). Not a bad system but it leaves alot to be desired.

Still, you have to admit that even with the budgitary concerns there are things that can be done away with and those funds funneled into firearms training.

My belief is to take the current annual requal and go to the next level. You use to have two weeks at the range, one for snapping in and then a week of firing culminating in Qual day. That was changed to one week of firing and you get to choose if you want to take your score at the end of each day. This, so they say, saved man hours away from their job, ammo costs, allowed for higher qualification rates because the shooters were not under pressure on qual day. Of course due to the higher qual rates/scores this is also tied into promotions (more so at the NCO level but also at the SNCO/Officer level).

What I would do if they want to save man-hours and ammo would be to have just a one day qual. No snapping in, no nothing... go to the range and fire for qual.

Now, I know what your going to say. The qual rates will go down. Alot of Marines will not be able to handle the stress! Etc, etc, blaa blaa blaa..

I agree. As for the qual rates going down. What you do is set up MWR ranges open in the evenings and weekends with T/O weapons. Marines could purchase the ammo (at a very nice reduced cost... MWR could make like $.05 or whatever a round over cost, which would be used to pay the RO/Instr at the range).

This would allow Marines to hone their firearms skills (which they need for promotion (not to mention possibly during the next conflict), with little or no cost to the "budget". It would also cut the man-hours/ammo spent for requal.

As for the "stress" of one day take your score firing. If they can't handle the stress of that how the hell are they going to handle the stress of someone shooting back at them when they are trying to shoot them? Train as you fight, fight as you train huh?

Now, here is the kicker on why this will never happen. Promotions/budges. Those that utilize the above, on their own at their own cost would get higher qual scores. Those that don't would probably go unqualified.

Those that did would be getting promoted faster (and hence they should IMO as they have the warrior mindset and understand that small arms skill is a needed skill). Those that "are just in it for the job" would not be getting promoted and eventually would have to be discharged due to non-competitiveness.

Now, as we well know the budget is tied into manpower (year end strength). Less manpower, less money the next year. BS! Leave the budget at a certain level that is tied into operational commitments not manpower. Any excess left over from manpower can be moved to where it is needed (recruitment, operations, supply, etc). Keep it like that with yearly increases needed for operations/equipment. Eventually IMO you would draw in people to fill the manpower shortages because of the warrior commitment. And they would be more dedicated... not just in it to learn a skill.

Oh, man... I knew I was going to get on a soap box on this one. :D But so is the world according to Gy Schmit.
 
The SIG550 has all the options - 0-1-3-20.

We were told never to use more than semi-auto since one couldn't hit
reliably at 100 meters with bursts or full-auto. 50 meters distance is
something rather different, the burst would probably hit home with all
bullets.

Full-auto is only good if you don't have a machine gun handy.

I prefer to shoot semi-auto, and in a SHTF situation, I would even go
as far as exchanging the selector levers for semi-auto only.

It's not the bullets fired that count, but the HITS. And a SIG 550 is
essentially a sniper gun.
 
HeySchmit and Nightcrawler I really like the thought of one of my air control officers " Why walk when you can ride, why ride when you can fly, and why fly when you can sleep".:D

I always had an idea that if there was a major house cleaning at the Pentagon every member of the ground forces that were probable to face hostilities could fire sixty rounds every day all year without hurting the budget. The only way to stay proficient is to shoot. When I went to the requal range I had to really work to get back in the groove. Look how many training rounds a B-2 would buy.

The spray and pray really got started with the notion of fire superiority in a firefight. Throwing lots of lead at the enemy will make him duck till you are reloading or out then he will kill you. There needs to be training is fire dicipline.:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top