Nightcrawler
New member
The closest thing to that I've gotten is the M60. Has anyone here ever fired a G3, FAL, or M14 from the shoulder at full auto? IS the recoil managable, with practice?
Has anyone ever fired a .308 rifle full auto from the shoulder?
- Thread starter Nightcrawler
- Start date
Yes I have. I have found the G3 to be easy to shoot well with a little practice. However, there is a reason the retractable stock is called a "meat grinder". It's more like a meat tenderizer though. If you don't put the buttstock in the pocket of your shouder you will know for the next week what not to do the next time! The 91 with a legally converted trigger pack is about the same so long as the conversion was done right.
------------------
Guns cause crime like spoons cause Rosie O'Donnell to be fat!
I hunt, therefore I am.
------------------
Guns cause crime like spoons cause Rosie O'Donnell to be fat!
I hunt, therefore I am.
Nightcrawler
New member
Cool! My personal experience with machine guns is limited...50 rounds out of an M60 and about 20 rounds out of a SAW... (they gave us SEVEN ROUND BELTS and had us shooting at a paper target 10 feet in front of us to QUALIFY...)
Viceroy808
New member
With all the $$$ they spend on boomers and stealth aircraft you'd expect DoD to put out a wee bit more for ammo ...
Stephen A. Camp
Staff In Memoriam
Hello. Yes. Fired an FAL full-auto. A very fine semiauto battle rifle becomes uncontrollable when in this mode. Still, it was fun. Best.
I was 5'7" 180# and the M-14 was difficult to control. If I stood and leaned in to it, and held on with a death grip by the end of the Mag. it was barely possible to walk some of the rounds on target, but who would want to stand up in combat? M-60 was a lot sweeter but of course it was much heavier also.
------------------
Carlyle Hebert
------------------
Carlyle Hebert
CITADELGRAD87
New member
M14, I, too was 25, 6', 220.
It was a bear, and anything over 2-3 rounds was obviously not going exactly where I wanted it to.
It's now easier for me to understand why they jumped on the M16.
It was a bear, and anything over 2-3 rounds was obviously not going exactly where I wanted it to.
It's now easier for me to understand why they jumped on the M16.
I first fired an M14 in 1957. I immediately concluded that it was a nice semi-auto rifle, and absolutely flicking worthless in full auto. Later, I was a member of the old Army Ordnance Assn. (now, I think it's called the American Defense Preparedness Assn.). At one of their meetings in Washington, they arranged for busses to take groups to Aberdeen for a weapons demo. At that time (1959), there was a lot of controversy about the M14. The Army told us they would demonstrate that the M14 could be controlled in auto fire. They trotted out a couple of master sergeants with hash marks to kingdom come. These guys were big and wide. Each one looked like the Redskins line - not a lineman, THE LINE. They picked up two M14s (which looked like Mattel toys in those hands), fired full auto, and guess what? No movement. What did you expect with what looked like 600 pounds of beef holding on? So, if you are built like that, the M14 is controllable. Otherwise...
Actually, that is the major reason the army went to the M16, to get controllable full auto fire. Savings in weight, material, and ammo cost were important but secondary to the need to counter the AK-47, both in combat and in propaganda and PR.
Jim
Actually, that is the major reason the army went to the M16, to get controllable full auto fire. Savings in weight, material, and ammo cost were important but secondary to the need to counter the AK-47, both in combat and in propaganda and PR.
Jim
Nightcrawler
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jim Keenan:
Actually, that is the major reason the army went to the M16, to get controllable full auto fire. Savings in weight, material, and ammo cost were important but secondary to the need to counter the AK-47, both in combat and in propaganda and PR.
Jim [/quote]
And let us not forget the MAJOR reason they went to the M16. Bobby Macnamara's WHIZ KIDS wanted it that way....
How ironic though, that after going through all this trouble to get a controllable full auto rifle, the Army turns around and says that full auto M16s are uncontrollable too (are we getting weaker?) and we get the A2, with 3-round burst, which is almost exactly like Semi, except you put three bullets into one badguy instead of one.
[This message has been edited by Nightcrawler (edited November 16, 2000).]
Actually, that is the major reason the army went to the M16, to get controllable full auto fire. Savings in weight, material, and ammo cost were important but secondary to the need to counter the AK-47, both in combat and in propaganda and PR.
Jim [/quote]
And let us not forget the MAJOR reason they went to the M16. Bobby Macnamara's WHIZ KIDS wanted it that way....
How ironic though, that after going through all this trouble to get a controllable full auto rifle, the Army turns around and says that full auto M16s are uncontrollable too (are we getting weaker?) and we get the A2, with 3-round burst, which is almost exactly like Semi, except you put three bullets into one badguy instead of one.
[This message has been edited by Nightcrawler (edited November 16, 2000).]
I've fired a G3 (actually, a converted HK-91 with a registered sear...). I'm 5' 9" and was about 145 lbs at the time (I'm a few pounds heavier now 
)
I found that I really had to lean into it to prevent muzzle climb. With about 80% of my weight on my front foot, I could keep the muzzle from climbing. But I would have had to be very close to a target to keep my shots on target.
Fun toy. Possibly useful if the enemy is at the lip of your foxhole. A good way to waste ammo if the enemy is 100 yards away, IMHO.
M1911
) I found that I really had to lean into it to prevent muzzle climb. With about 80% of my weight on my front foot, I could keep the muzzle from climbing. But I would have had to be very close to a target to keep my shots on target.
Fun toy. Possibly useful if the enemy is at the lip of your foxhole. A good way to waste ammo if the enemy is 100 yards away, IMHO.
M1911
I've fired a M-14 E2 and trained (life fire exercises) during my Advance Infantry Training at Fort Lewis in 1967.
From the shoulder 2-3 shot bursts were pretty accurate any thing over 3 shots you climbed into the air.
From hip and or bipod it was more controlable but still not the best.
I carried a M-60 in Vietnam in 1968 the 60 can be fired from the shoulder in short bursts but then all you have is a heavy M-14?? Its purpose is to put out a high rate of sustained accurate fire which it is very good in doing.
A few years a I shot a few mags. through (stamped) BAR that was a fine shooter from the shoulder, hip and bipod. But then again a 60 only weighs a few pounds more and is fed with a linked belt.
Turk
From the shoulder 2-3 shot bursts were pretty accurate any thing over 3 shots you climbed into the air.
From hip and or bipod it was more controlable but still not the best.
I carried a M-60 in Vietnam in 1968 the 60 can be fired from the shoulder in short bursts but then all you have is a heavy M-14?? Its purpose is to put out a high rate of sustained accurate fire which it is very good in doing.
A few years a I shot a few mags. through (stamped) BAR that was a fine shooter from the shoulder, hip and bipod. But then again a 60 only weighs a few pounds more and is fed with a linked belt.
Turk
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Props to FNFAL.com and Andy (the guy with the cigar)
Notice there is little muzzle rise. There is a strong steady push - but it IS controllable.
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
The FAL is the BEST battle rifle there is.
Period.
Period.
Nightcrawler
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M1911:
Fun toy. Possibly useful if the enemy is at the lip of your foxhole. A good way to waste ammo if the enemy is 100 yards away, IMHO.
M1911[/quote]
Well, the only time a rifle is really useful on full auto is at close ranges when you have multiple targets and don't have time to get a good bead. Spray and pray. It's better to just have a buddy to watch your six, of course. Full auto is also useful for hosing soft targets, like vehicles or small structures, too. Hell, even the A-Team almost always fired their M16s, and Mini-14s on Semi.
[This message has been edited by Nightcrawler (edited November 16, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Nightcrawler (edited November 16, 2000).]
Fun toy. Possibly useful if the enemy is at the lip of your foxhole. A good way to waste ammo if the enemy is 100 yards away, IMHO.
M1911[/quote]
Well, the only time a rifle is really useful on full auto is at close ranges when you have multiple targets and don't have time to get a good bead. Spray and pray. It's better to just have a buddy to watch your six, of course. Full auto is also useful for hosing soft targets, like vehicles or small structures, too. Hell, even the A-Team almost always fired their M16s, and Mini-14s on Semi.
[This message has been edited by Nightcrawler (edited November 16, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Nightcrawler (edited November 16, 2000).]
FA fire
Spraying FA fire is (to quote Peanuts' Charlie Brown) like wetting your pants while wearing a dark suit. It may make you feel good, but no one notices.
Controlled and effective FA fire is in 3-5 round aimed bursts, putting more bullets in the same target area to increase the chances of effective hits. Spraying the jungle from the ground is only slightly more effective than spraying the jungle from aircraft. I was not in VN, but I have been told the enemy simply walked toward the US/RVN troops and let them spray. The chances of being hit were almost nil. I have never been in combat, but FWIW, I would be far more afraid of aimed semi-auto fire than of "spray and pray" FA fire.
Jim
Spraying FA fire is (to quote Peanuts' Charlie Brown) like wetting your pants while wearing a dark suit. It may make you feel good, but no one notices.
Controlled and effective FA fire is in 3-5 round aimed bursts, putting more bullets in the same target area to increase the chances of effective hits. Spraying the jungle from the ground is only slightly more effective than spraying the jungle from aircraft. I was not in VN, but I have been told the enemy simply walked toward the US/RVN troops and let them spray. The chances of being hit were almost nil. I have never been in combat, but FWIW, I would be far more afraid of aimed semi-auto fire than of "spray and pray" FA fire.
Jim
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Sometimes you NEED to spray.
Its called SUPPRESSIVE FIRE... and a military tool.
Its called SUPPRESSIVE FIRE... and a military tool.
Nightcrawler
New member
I heard that the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (that big clunky double-gun that weighs 18 pounds and has no iron sights that the all-knowing chair force generals in the pentagon think should replace a basic service rifle) has a safe-semi-TWO shot burst trigger group. TWO shot burst? What the heck is that for? Double tapping is a waste of ammo. Odds are, the first chunk of hot lead that hits the badguy is going to prettymuch ruin his day, unless he's hopped up on drugs or something.
The FAL in the photo above is one of the Belgian "heavys".
(FALO)
It weighs in at 13.2 pounds with empty mag.
The bipod dangling from the front weighs another pound or so. I have one of these, and it is very stable, but the extra weight makes it a pain to fire from the shoulder like that.
The standard weight FALs are not as easy to "control' in full auto. better than an M14, but not enough better that i am dying to have one in FA.
I have noted that the bipod on the FALO reduces accuracy while shooting off of it, as it tweaks the barrel enough to open up groups quite a bit. Without the bipod, it will shoot nice (<three inch) groups off of a bag at three hundred yards, but with the bipod, it opens up to twelve+ inches. Phooey.
Mine is not FA, but it is still a lot of fun to shoot.
(FALO)
It weighs in at 13.2 pounds with empty mag.
The bipod dangling from the front weighs another pound or so. I have one of these, and it is very stable, but the extra weight makes it a pain to fire from the shoulder like that.
The standard weight FALs are not as easy to "control' in full auto. better than an M14, but not enough better that i am dying to have one in FA.
I have noted that the bipod on the FALO reduces accuracy while shooting off of it, as it tweaks the barrel enough to open up groups quite a bit. Without the bipod, it will shoot nice (<three inch) groups off of a bag at three hundred yards, but with the bipod, it opens up to twelve+ inches. Phooey.
Mine is not FA, but it is still a lot of fun to shoot.