Is full auto necessary?

I don't know about oatmeal but I could probably subsist on a diet of beans for a long time. That's what I grew up eating.
Click to expand...

And here I thought gas warfare was outlawed by the Geneva Convention.:D
 
YES

Yes, full auto is necessary.

Does the line grunt get the necessary training for a full auto rifle? Heck No. Any full auto rifle handled properly is more or less a burst fire weapon. From experience (USMC Infantry 0341/ Iraq 2007) the military does not have the grunts shoot enough in training. Don’t get me wrong, form a marksmanship standpoint, they’re on the ball, but in a combative shooting situation, we're lacking. Think of it this way; It takes 1000 perfect movements before an action becomes muscle memory. It takes far more than that for muscle memory to preform perfictly under severe stress (Like having Akmed aiming a PKM at you and then seeing that insidious grin that says "I GOT A BIGGER GUN!"). Can you imagine the amount of ammunition you'd have to purchase to get that kind of training down? Spec ops guys are known for burning out barrels of their rifles in TRAINING! I have never, nor have I ever met another Marine (Bar Force Recon and Seals) who has ever burnt out a barrel. This says a lot considering it only takes about 5000-10000 rounds to burn out a barrel. Proper training can cause you to go through 50,000 rounds easily.

This leads to burst fire weapons. The M16/M4 series weapon is burst fire for two simple reasons: 1. Not enough training hence the military is going to control the grunts trigger finger for him. 2. Better ballistic wounds. All three of those bullets in a burst are going to land in a palm sized area on the target, even at moderate distances. This leads to better ballistic wounds. While if you shoot me in the leg with a single 5.56, I may be able to walk away, a burst of them in a relatively close area is going to destroy my leg. the same thing goes with internal organs.
 
The people should have the same rights to full auto as the military that defends them. The government shall fear the people.....strange....where have I heard that before..... Hmmm
 
Simple answer. No real practical need for a full auto rifle.

They are a lot of fun if you can afford the ammo.
 
Full auto on the old M16A1 was not needed. On a belt fed machine gun like the M60, full auto gives great capabilities. I could take out groups of guys 1,100 meters away with ease. If you ever used a machine gun, it will impress you a lot. I did not pay for ammo.
 
Initally (and actually for sometime aferwards), there was resistance to the repeating rifle. Because it would encourage troops to "waste" ammunition. And ammunition was expensive. Look how long the US Army held on to the Trapdoor Springfield, even though there were better (more combat effective - greater firepower) arms available. Also, the Springfield was cheap (the design came from an Army officer, so the Army essentially got the gun for free).

There was a lot of resistance to the M1 Garand prior to, and well after its adoption, primarily for the same reasons.

It took the cataclysm of WWII to thaw the attitude of ordnance officers making them more receptive to the new. The pendulum has swung the other way, currently, and the system is much more willing to at least test out new designs and concepts.

Is full auto necessary? clearly not. Just look at all the history of war prior to full auto weapons, The victors won without full auto, and the losers didn't lose for lack of full auto fire.

Necessary? No. But it is effective, and a great force multiplier, which overall means the cost to our side in blood to accomplish the mission if lessened with the availabilty of full auto fire. Therefore, it is a desirable thing. Very desirable, in many circumstances, and since it helps us, and we can, why not have it?
 
It was said that the British thought little of the first submachine guns because, as you say, we didn't need them in the last war and we don't need them in this one. It sounds like a typical conservative military attitude. But it seems to have been common in all armies. In American service, it was supposedly the Marines who took to the Thompson first.

In the case of the Springfield, I understood the reason it was adopted instead of a repeating rifle was because it was a solution to utilize all of the muzzle loading muskets that were on hand, not so much because of the cost of ammunition. But no one else was adopting a repeating rifle at the time either, though there were some that became available within the next ten or twenty years (depending on when you start counting). However, at the time, repeating rifle that were around did not take powerful ammunition but that also changed.

Usually change is forced on someone when they are on the receiving end of some weapon innovation, some of which seem trivial today, and even then, with some resistance. For instance, after the Boer War, you just had to have charger or clip loading for your infantry rifle or you where just behind the times. But some felt there was still a place for something like a magazine cut-off. Jeff Cooper even thought it was a good idea for a scout rifle.

Something that makes it more difficult to judge someone's new weapon is when you remember that there is a sort of leap frogging taking place with new weapons. The US had the M1 rifle. No one else managed to get into service a rifle of their own that was a good during the war. Both the Germans and the Soviets had semi-automatic rifles during the war but they were either not as good or not produced in large numbers. So both of them sort of skipped that form of rifle in their service. It is true that the Soviets did field the SKS but it seems to have been quickly replaced by the AK. Same cartridge, different concept of a weapon.

Given what you can do with a semi-automatic rifle, I suspect that the AK, as well as the AR-15 and even the old Stg44, would have been just as effective if they were only semi-auto.
 
The argument can go both ways in wars and battles won or lost If you looked at it that way you have to also look into accounts of where they did save the day or lost it because they did not have it, and even though it was not considered a machine gun gatling guns not being a far step from them did either save the day or loose it. Take Custers last stand for instance had he brought his he may have been able to psychologically defeat the Indians by mowing down shear numbers with the 6 or so Gatlings he left behind. Teddy's charge up Kettle hill the suppressive fire he gained from him gatlings kept the Spanish troops down will he advanced up the hill and eventually won the day. Marines in the Pacific took to old dauntless avengers that were no longer air worthy and robbed the .30 cals from the rear gunner position's (due to the guns having a very high rate of fire)and made AKA "stingers" that they used to repulse the Japanese banzai attacks. Anytime you have a determined enemy and you need to deter them automatics prevail. It ends a message to the enemy that one of these bullets (or more) will have you name as well as others. Limiting your options is like limiting your resources. Is it for every application of course not that is why most have selective fire. It is a option that I would want to have in my tool box because I can promise you the enemy will have it in theirs.

and AMP you nailed it with this right here
Therefore, it is a desirable thing. Very desirable, in many circumstances, and since it helps us, and we can, why not have it?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I agree with Blackthunder. Burst fire is the proper way to use full automatic. Being a machine gun owner, I can say from experience that burst fire is very accurate at short ranges, is useful for laying covering fire so you or your friends can move, and devastating if your opponent blunders into it. The disciplined use of full auto in the right circumstances is worth the ammo used. Spray & pray is not.
 
I haven't shot a full auto rifle, but i've shot the M16A4 on burst. Even at 25yds, the shots open up quite a bit. its definetly tight enough to keep it in a torso but its not very precise. I can see the need for them in close quarters, but other than that i wouldn't ever put it on burst.

Its fun as hell to shoot though. The most fun I've ever had shooting was on the 240 and the SAW
 
Is full Auto necessary?

Yep,

There are perfectly acceptable reasons to have or not have that capability. To have it available and no desire (or need) for it is better than not having it and needing it.

Now, I am a civie, have been since my honorable discharge after fulfilling my 8 year obligation. I own 2 machine guns (a vector arms UZI and a HR M-16), all legal like, both are select fire. (Oddly enough, I don't own a single assault weapon.)

Do I have a need to send a lot of bullets to an enemies direction? Nope, not a bit. Am I waiting for the zombies to take over the world, Armageddon or for the fall of the USA? Nope, not a bit. I actually prey like heck something like that never happens.

Wanna know why I have the need for full auto? Well, quite frankly, because I can and it is fun. I like to have fun. If I didn't like to have fun, I wouldn't have two kids. Not trying to be rude, just honest.

When I go to a range, I am going not because my life requires it, but because I want to have fun. Many people go target practicing for fun, with accuracy being not that important. They shoot as fast as fast as can be. Sometimes using various tricks to accommodate the rapid fire. Why? For the fun of it. There is nothing wrong with that. Life is greater, so why not have fun. Is full auto needed, for fun? Sure, why not.
 
Full auto is great when the government is paying for the ammo. 3 round burst is a lot more useful. I think civilians should have access to new production in either as a matter of the second amendment. Its not about hunting or sport shooting at all but to be able to throw off the shackles of a tyrannical government which means as a civilian I should be able to use anything I used in the navy other then high explosives and obviously weapon of mass destruction or biological weapons.
Even if they were legal in iowa I would not own a full auto with no 3 round burst though. Its just not practical from a combat standpoint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top