This ought to make the flames burn bright and high but don't get me wrong! I'm not asking if people should be allowed to own something full auto. That was covered pretty thoroughly in another thread in which I made some comments, if not exactly made any contributions. So I guess this is more from a military point of view. I'm also limiting this to individual infantry weapons, not Maxims, M1917 Brownings or the like.
In the beginning, as it says in an old book, someone invented the submachine gun and the military man was gladdened. Some were not but later when the scales fell from their eyes (after liberal application of bore cleaner), they saw the light and were converted.
At just about the same time the light machine gun was also introduced, which also went under different variations as automatic rifle and machine rifle. And the military man was abundantly enriched. Then came another war to spoil what remained of real soldiering.
That war brought the intermediate cartridge and the assault rifle. It had a full auto capability as did all that followed in the form of the AR series, the AK series and such like. They were select fire, as even were some light machine guns, to better fool the enemy, I can only assume. Most of the new rifles built around the 7.62 NATO also had or were intended to have select fire capability but in more cases than not, that was a dead end switch.
So here's the question for the learned and literate among the readers here: is a full auto capability, including burst fire, a practical and useful thing for an infantry soldier to have on his basic rifle? I don't know but I'm sure the opinions are there. Either way, apparently most armies seem to think so, although none seem to believe in machine guns they way they did years ago. I just wonder what was gained and what was lost.
In the beginning, as it says in an old book, someone invented the submachine gun and the military man was gladdened. Some were not but later when the scales fell from their eyes (after liberal application of bore cleaner), they saw the light and were converted.
At just about the same time the light machine gun was also introduced, which also went under different variations as automatic rifle and machine rifle. And the military man was abundantly enriched. Then came another war to spoil what remained of real soldiering.
That war brought the intermediate cartridge and the assault rifle. It had a full auto capability as did all that followed in the form of the AR series, the AK series and such like. They were select fire, as even were some light machine guns, to better fool the enemy, I can only assume. Most of the new rifles built around the 7.62 NATO also had or were intended to have select fire capability but in more cases than not, that was a dead end switch.
So here's the question for the learned and literate among the readers here: is a full auto capability, including burst fire, a practical and useful thing for an infantry soldier to have on his basic rifle? I don't know but I'm sure the opinions are there. Either way, apparently most armies seem to think so, although none seem to believe in machine guns they way they did years ago. I just wonder what was gained and what was lost.