Questions for combat veterans concerning selective fire rifles.

K

Kimio

New member
Not 100% sure if this is the right place to ask this but, here it goes.

The M16 and M4 as well as most if not all modern assault rifles are selective fire. Looking at the M16 rifle and its variants, the A2 model featured a three round burst and semi auto setting.

What would you say was the inherent advantages of a burst setting as opposed to an automatic setting? Is it still Practical on the modern day battlefield? What was the reasoning to incoperating this into the M16A2? Soldiers are normally trained to fire in controlled bursts in order to maintain accuracy and conserve ammo aren't they? I understand that in past doctrines soldiers were usually ordered to only fire in semi auto due to the aforementioned reasons of conserving ammo and to maintain accuracy.

I'm no fire arms expert nor am I an expert in tactics and I don't expect anyone else here to be one.

Thoughts?
 
Burst over full auto because in stress situations, its too easy to use an entire 30 rd mag way too quickly. Pop your head up and hold the trigger down... next thing you know you gotta change mags! When you've got only 210 rounds in a standard issue, they wouldn't last for any kind of sustained firefight.

Also, heat is a factor, having to take a second or two let off the trigger and then pull it again will help keep the gun in a useable temperature (still very hot though!) as opposed to full auto getting crazy hot.
 
There are several issues here:

- Automatic fire is generally difficult to control without spending a fair amount of time training and using bipods and such.

- Select fire was also used to reduce ammo expenditure. In the "mad minute" of first contact many military units might empty a magazine on full auto and then reload. This does not really serve any purpose. After three shots the barrel (if free gunning) is so far off target as to be unlikely to hit anything the shooter is aiming towards at range.

- Automatic fire and Select fire are not often needed. I used it for increasing fire volume to breach a barrier once (cinder block wall). Other than I never used it.

- Automatic fire is useful for trench clearing and you don't really get the same effect with select fire. That said, few fight in trenches anymore.

-The US military focuses mostly on aimed fire. There are few places and missions where volume fire is important. In those cases machine guns are used to provide that.
 
I'm a big fan of the 3-shot burst of the M16A2. I seldom fired my M16a1 on full auto, don't remember ever doing it in a firefight.

For a while I carried a M-60. I really noticed the problem with fire discipline with the full autos. Seems like they all fired at once and reloaded all at once and I had to take up the slack. I became an advocate going back to a couple automatic riflemen for the squad and the rest using semis only. The M16A2 was a compromise.

Years later when I was in the NG, to prove my point I bet some guys I could do better with a semi they they could on full auto. There were four guns each with a full mag (18 rounds) and I had one 18 round mag. We fired at E-silhouette targets set out at 100 yards. They had to fire full auto and I had to fire semi. I won a case of beer, between the four they had 12 hits, I had 18.

There is a time and place for full auto, for the most part anything beyond 25 yards can better be handled on semi. Even at close range you'll be off target with over 3 or so rounds. Yes you can slow down and concentrate and get the rounds on target, 2-3 round burst, but that's what you have in a 'A2 any way.

Just my opinion.
 
The only use we've had for putting our M4A1's into full auto is body position drills in the square bay. The idea is to keep all of the rounds in the 12" circle on an Echo silhouette from the 10 yard line. You'll find out really fast if you have a weak stance.
 
My agency went for 3 round burst on our rifles. Full Auto (I own several) takes a goodly amount of ammo to make your trigger finger selective. I used to say that full auto makes a 30 round mag into a 1 hit, 29 miss mag. Burst fire at least gives you 10 hits out of the same mag.

But I was in LE, where "suppressive fire" is strongly discouraged, due to unintended damage to people.
 
Full auto fire = spray and pray. In other words, you cut loose and hope that you hit your target. Deliberate, well placed shots always work to be effective and there is no hoping that you hit the target.
 
As a Vietnam era Marine, I also thought each shot should be carefully placed. Let the enemy either run dry or carry a ton of ammo. The way I learned is to acquire a target and shoot it. Spray & pray is a desperate waste of ammo. Cover? Stay low & crawl slow.
 
Last edited:
ex-army here, I would say the VAST majority of the time the soldier is firing semi-auto, engaging single targets in his assigned field of fire. If facing large numbers of in the open combatants (a true rarity) laying down area fire in 3 round bursts might be more effective. Full auto truly serves little purpose except to run out of ammo quickly, or possibly being overrun at your firing position.
 
I asked this same question to a 10 year Army vet that got out in 2006. He said the vast majority of shots were semiauto, rare occasions were the three round burst. He didn't like full auto as the muzzle would rise too high, and by the time it came back down the mag would be out.
 
In the Corps, I had both the full auto and then the 3 rd burst I favor the 3 rd burst over the other unless, EXTREME cover fire was required.
 
In the Corps, I had both the full auto and then the 3 rd burst I favor the 3 rd burst over the other unless, EXTREME cover fire was required.
Click to expand...

Yes, but even in that situation thats what your M-249 Saw gunner is for (or M-60/M-240B/etc) In full auto with 30 round mags you spend more time swapping mags then you do putting lead downrange, and that's a literal statement - you will honestly spend more time swapping out mags then putting rounds downrange in full auto. And since standard issue is 7 mags you may find yourself with your M9 in hand far too soon. "Never bring a pistol to a rifle fight"
 
When I was corpsman attached to the marines I was told the reason was to conserve ammo and control the muzzle. Was also told if I ever used the three round burst in a fire fight that the gun would get shoved where the sun doesn't shine on me. You just have to like those old gunnery sgts.
 
The main reason soldiers have so much trouble with full auto or 3-round bursts is a serious lack of training. Most units never train with burst, so when they do try it they are severely disapointed at their results. It takes practice (with lots of ammo) and a totally different firing technique. If NCOs are not taught the proper techniques they don't know how to train their troops and the cycle gets passed from generation to generation.

The enemy frequently uses full auto or "spray and pray" to great effect in MOUT situations. Slow aimed fire is always preferred for an enemy that presents himself as a target (how many have you ever seen standing like an E-type sillouette ?) Against an enemy adept at cover and concealment (firing full auto from behind a rock outcropping) reflexive full auto fire can be brutally effective suppression. It can give you the seconds you need to get off the "X" and find your own firing position to make those slow aimed shots.

IMHO it has a place on the battlefield, it just needs a place in training.
 
Last edited:
OP, Google search is your friend. You come to this forum for SPOONFEEDING.

Do some research on your own. 31 threads with the appearance of ignorance on the subject and then this.

Buy your own rifle and stop trying to live vicariously.
 
@mc223 While I understand what you are saying, this was an honest question, and on the topic of doing my own research, I was doing just that. I wanted to hear it from people who may have had experience with such firearms in the field. I am not a combat soldier nor am I a Law enforcement officer.

My appologies if I came off ignorant and I am trying to stop asking stupid questions that have been answered before millions of times. The topic regarding the CETME is evidence enough of that, and I am trying to give back what little I can to the FL community with what limited knowledge I learn from other sources.

So again, my apologies if I offended you in any way.
 
Kimio:

Your post is fine. It has encouraged much interaction and that is part of the purpose of forums. If we would just Google everything, there would be little interaction. And in fact if you Google the right terms, you are likely to be directed to this forum.

For anyone to suggest that you should have used Google as opposed to this or any forum, I will remind all of one of my personal ethics: I will not engage in a battle of wits with someone who is obviously unarmed.

Your post was fine and has provoked healthy interaction. Use Google, Bing, Secure Search and a score of others. But remember that figures lie and liers figure. This forum interaction has evoked many responses based on real life experiences. And of course some speculation has evolved. There has been no harm done and no question is a bad question. :)
 
This I do not know for certain (because it has been a while since I was in) but I understand that machine gunners are sometimes trained to fire single shots (on a gun that has no selector switch). Then ordinary rifles and carbines are issued with a burst feature. Is that logical? But on the other hand, both the MG34 and the Bren had selector switches to allow single shots. Was that logical?
 
Machineguns are completely different tools - they are area weapons, not point weapons. The are not intended to be used to neutralize a single enemy, but to keep heads down, hold/neutralize groups of enemy troops, and deny the use of an area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top