Is full auto necessary?

Of course its necessary! for when the zombies come. Lol

but on topic, in a soldier's hands a full auto option should be allowed. it has its purposes like suppressing fire and engaging multiple opponents. I'm not in the Military but even in the civilian world I still would love to have the option, instead of pulling the trigger 30 times individually...
 
If, by chance, I have to be the first man in when clearing a house, I want that ability to put my weapon on burst and have the ability to lay down comparable amounts of lead to the AK47s I'll be going up against. Anywhere else, I'll be leaving my M4 on semi. I don't have enough ammo to be using up a full magazine in ten squeezes of the trigger.

Overall though, there is a reason that the SAW (M249) is considered the deadliest weapon in a 4 man team consisting of 2 riflemen (M4s), a grenadier (M4/M16 with M203) and a automatic rifleman (M249): volume of fire. As I was taught in basic, the SAW is responsible for the most enemy casualties in a fire team. Ask anyone who has been ambushed serving in the Middle East if their vehicle mounted M240s were used firing single shots or in bursts (can easily be shot both ways). Normally, full auto isn't needed, but when it is, by god I want it.
 
If they were not they would have disappeared. There was a time when horseshoes were very important to army's, not as much these days.
 
Not a question of neccessary so much as somewhat overated IMHO. Like the shotgun, it encourages a "Point and Pull" mentality which careful analysis of usually reveals its ineffectiveness. In WWII the Soviets issued their PPSh M1941 (selective fire) and PPS M9143 (full auto only) in huge humbers, their tactical doctrine was that their short ranged encouraged aggresivness and it was easier to rush recruits through training. Some of us who served Across The Pond thought allowing the soldier to use his M-16 on full auto compensated for that round's relative ineffectiveness and it often seemed the main function of riflemen was to point out targets for M-60 gunners. WWI ended before John. T. Thompson's concept of a "trench broom" could really be tested, in the Wehrmacht initially the SMG was the NCO's weapon, rather like the officer's pistol, as much a badge of rank and more for defensive purposes to he could concentrate on leading his troops.
 
If they were not they would have disappeared. There was a time when horseshoes were very important to army's, not as much these days.
Click to expand...

Bingo, it has not been retained and refined because it is not useful or not necessary.
 
The question isn't whether or not full auto is necessary in belt fed guns as these are an essential part of military tactics. The question being asked is whether or not it is necessary in individual weapons like the M4 where full auto is rarely used in combat.
 
At this point, since this thread seems to have steady, if not frequent, contributions, I should restate the question: Is full auto or burst fire a practical and useful thing for an infantryman's rifle? Ths is not about machine guns (light, medium, heavy or sub) nor about civilian use.

Most seem to think it is a Good Thing while others think it is never used and probably some think it is even a bad thing, wasting ammunition and so on.

Let the opinions continue to come forth.
 
The question isn't whether or not full auto is necessary in belt fed guns as these are an essential part of military tactics. The question being asked is whether or not it is necessary in individual weapons like the M4 where full auto is rarely used in combat.
Click to expand...

I'm going to say yes as they developed and continuously modified the SAW for use as an individual weapon. As for not including belt fed, that's not exactly a determining factor as it simply allows for more rounds to be fired without reloading. The SAW can take magazines, it just jams horribly. The M4 as it started (I believe) was only burst capable, but they came out with the A1 varient after for the Special Forces community so they could have full-auto capabilities. If the Green Berets and others want full auto, there has to be some situations where it is called for.

You don't really have to worry about us normal folks wasting ammo, as we don't carry that much to begin with. The last thing I want to do in a firefight is have an 'oh ****' moment when I have to scrounge for ammo since I blew it all away. A full combat load of ammo goes quick enough in semiautomatic as it is.

Please correct me if I am wrong on my technical data, but I do believe I am correct.
 
My intent was to suggest that it should be obvious that a belt-fed weapon, individual or crew-serviced, would be there for full-auto fire. But that brings up an interesting question, quite the opposite of the original question.

Why should a machine gun (whatever you care to call it) have a semi-automatic or select fire capability? Supposedly the policy was for the Bren gun to be used as a semi-automatic weapon "to disguise from the enemy that a machine gun is being used against them." Are machine gunners really trained to try to achieve single shots on a full-auto only weapon?
 
Why should a machine gun (whatever you care to call it) have a semi-automatic or select fire capability? Supposedly the policy was for the Bren gun to be used as a semi-automatic weapon "to disguise from the enemy that a machine gun is being used against them." Are machine gunners really trained to try to achieve single shots on a full-auto only weapon?
Click to expand...

For the first question, if you mean 'machine gun' like a full auto M4, then the select fire is there for options, like mentioned above. I'm not going to be using burst fire at near the weapon's max effective range. Yes, I could quickly let off the trigger with full auto as to only shoot one round, but that makes for much more difficult precision shots. No idea why they would want to disguise a machine gun, as it's a great psychological weapon. Does make you a priority target though. Double edged sword; you're much more dangerous, but more important to be targeted earlier.

For belt fed weapons, single shots aren't too hard to achieve. The 240B is quite easy to fire in single shots, but it is basically used to determine where your shots hit in relation to your sights. I can see that being used for a vehicle gunner to get used to the weapon so they can compensate. The slower the rate of fire, the easier it is to control how many rounds you send down range, of course. For belt fed weapons, not really needed, in my opinion. It would be neat to see a selector switch for rate of fire beyond adjusting the gas feed though.
 
No. When I said machine gun, I meant an M240, an M249, a Bren, a BAR, any Browning machine gun and so on. An M4 carbine to the army is not a machine gun, it's a select fire carbine. A submachine gun to the army is not a machine gun, it's a submachine gun.
 
Eh, I figured I'd address my thoughts on both as 'machine gun' has been used pretty much interchangeably throughout the thread so far. I've never heard of them referred to as machine guns since joining the Army, it's always either the designation or 'crew served' weapons. May just be my unit. Either way, I stand by my opinion.

For belt fed weapons, single shots aren't too hard to achieve. The 240B is quite easy to fire in single shots, but it is basically used to determine where your shots hit in relation to your sights. I can see that being used for a vehicle gunner to get used to the weapon so they can compensate. The slower the rate of fire, the easier it is to control how many rounds you send down range, of course. For belt fed weapons, not really needed, in my opinion. It would be neat to see a selector switch for rate of fire beyond adjusting the gas feed though.
Click to expand...
 
Let me state what I have found to be obvious.

When you walk into that valley with your brothers, and there is a group of somebodies already there, you will find this question to be patently foolish.

Not always needed, true. But when you need it you need it now, and not theoretically.
 
Unless you're talking about the automatic rifle or 240B, no. That being said, even those are fired in pretty short controlled bursts to keep a nice even compromise between lethality and pyschologically effect and the effectiveness of your fire.

As far as individual rifles, carbines and MP5s go, I've never seen one shot on full auto at a military range. Ever. I don't pin my bars until December so I have not exactly been to as many ranges as a current infantry E-8, but I have been to my fair share and I'm here to tell you if it happens I've never seen it.
 
It depends. As with most things there are pros and cons. In addition, it takes additional training / skill to use effectively.

Machine gunnery is a whole 'nother subject.

It is fun though!
 
completely pointless IMO for a Carbine.

suppressive fire is not about firing a whole bunch of rounds at a target.

I guarantee you I can suppress a target better on semi than you could holding the trigger.

2-4 accurate shots in semi is all it takes to properly suppress a target.
 
OP answer

sometimes and the option needs to remain open for some situations even if it isn't used or necessary

less wordy answer: yes(in my opinion)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top