Fully Auto .v. Semi Auto in Modern Battle Rilfes.

[delusional_reality]

Split from http://www.a0tu.com/bbs/f20/m1a-vs-fal-t1904/
Qoute that started the argument:

Fully auto was often disabled by military anyways as .308 on full auto is way too unwieldy. Full auto in general is pretty useless. Well reliability and versatility for a start along with mag size and ability to get parts easily, Reasons to begin with.

-S25

You are mental S25!
Fully auto, or at least burst fire capability, is essential for every modern army in the world.
That is why every modern army in the world uses a weapon with a full auto selection switch.
The reason why you need full auto or burst fire is to lay down suppressing fire.

By the way someone deleted my extensive first reply to you.

[s25]

Never saw the first one, Yes but most army's use .223 now, Not .308 if you have a .308 in full auto its a big belt fed fella as anything else is impossible to wield. When .308 was the standard battle cartridge many armies disabled the ability to go fully auto.
Suppressing fire = keeping there heads down.
Aimed fire = killing the enemy.

[delusional_reality]

Originally Posted by s25

(1)Suppressing fire = keeping there heads down.
(2)Aimed fire = killing the enemy.

Most times you need to provide (1)[Suppressing fire] to help your friends, into for example, moving into enfilade position to preform (2)[killing] or provide (1)[Suppressing fire] to get your friends evacuated if they're hit.

FN FAL Discovery channel review (watch the whole lot as it gives an account of UK soldiers throwing down their semi FN FAL and picking up the Auto enabled FN FAL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrSWpWi5eEs

M14 Discovery channel review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ8pK...eature=related



You notice the original poster hasn't come back? ahaha

[s25]

Godlike powers tell me original poster simply did not reply but has been reading. I will watch that however boys like toys would be my answer to soldiers picking up fully auto and throwing down semi. I have shot fully auto weapons in the past and while the .223 is barely controllable the .308 has no hope in hell! Also a .308 fal is dodgy as the barrels are thin and prone to over heating.
The British beat Argentinians, Brits used aimed shots Argentinians use pray and spray. Most units these days have one man with a fully auto weapon to use as keeping the enemy's heads down while the rest of the squad aims and kills the enemy.
I will split this thread in the coming days.

[delusional_reality]

Originally Posted by s25

Godlike powers tell me original poster simply did not reply but has been reading. I will watch that however boys like toys would be my answer to soldiers picking up fully auto and throwing down semi. I have shot fully auto weapons in the past and while the .223 is barely controllable the .308 has no hope in hell! Also a .308 fal is dodgy as the barrels are thin and prone to over heating...

Can you provide an unbiased source of this barrel complaint? Of note is that even M16 barrels will heat up considerably after three mags worth go through it on burst fire.




I think the underlying problem here is that you are thinking of soldiers as having similar build and equally terrible stance and skill as this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeH8A...eature=related
(look at that he also modded the FN FAL to accept a scope)


Whereas in my mind soldiers are fit and therefore well built, and mostly aren't tiny people, who are skilled in the art and are likely to weigh probably upwards of 80 kg, like this guy doing (as can be read from the comments) a very good groucho step while simultaneously controlling the recoil of full auto fired 7.62 x51mm NATO rounds in a FN FAL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MTl8iyR1E&NR=1

Also of note is that it not just the mass/weight of the shooter, as can be seen from the next video, but also skill. The shooter, who is obviously large but as I was saying doesn't seem to be skilled/taught to control the climb and recoil of the gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSwbr...eature=related

Originally Posted by s25

British bet Argentinians,

It's beat not bet, unless you are talking about gambling

Originally Posted by s25

Brits used aimed shots Argentinians use pray and spray. Most units these days have one man with a fully auto weapon to use as keeping the enemy's heads down while the rest of the squad aims and kills the enemy.
I will split this thread in the coming days.

As for your comment about the reason why the British won in the Falklands I don't think you can simply say that it was because the British only had semi auto fire they won.


Saying that the Argentinian forces simply ''sprayed and prayed'' is quite prejudice.

I have no doubt that the Argentinians would have very quickly selected semi auto fire if and when they noticed they were unable to hit their targets because of muzzle rise on full auto.
I would image the extra versatility of the FN FAL with the ability to switch to and fro between firing modes was the main reason behind British soldier's reasoning to pick up Argentinian Full auto equipped FN FAL's.

As, if the need arose, and or if the soldier is skilled with the weapon, full auto fire which is desirable in enfilade position, and also providing suppressing fire, is only a click away.(like I've repeated before)

I recommend that you at least read about the respective means in which soldiers were ''recruited'' for the war(important when morale is taken into account) and also of note is both opponents naval and air prowess and how it was very biased towards the British before and during the war. As a side I believe the naval outcome was worse for the British.

Originally Posted by s25

Most units these days have one man with a fully auto weapon to use as keeping the enemy's heads down while the rest of the squad aims and kills the enemy.
.

Last but not least I will address your misguided belief that because most squads have a designated support/heavy weapons man then the rest of the squad does not need full auto capability.

Imagine your SAW guy gets hit but isn't dead, now you can't evacuate him to safety nor can you treat him or take his weapon because whomever shot him probably would shoot you or whomever else you send to the wounded soldier, you also have no smoke grenades.
What would you do?

You'd order for as much lead(limited on semi auto!) as possible to be sent down range towards the direction of the shot (if you're lucky and know where the shot came from, fire on the target) to hopefully promote the opponent/sniper to keep hidden and buy you enough time to Evac your guy.

If you've seen band of brothers( if not I've been nice enough to provide the link to what I'm talking about below) you can see how full auto suppressive fire would have put the Blithe rescuing team in less danger when retrieving the wounded private Blithe at the farmhouse.

The situation I'm talking about begins at 1:10
and be sure to read the one comment on the page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGQHgfY-lFs

Lastly, What I consider to be the future standard issue NATO round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_SPC

[s25]

Can you provide an unbiased source of this barrel complaint? Of note is that even M16 barrels will heat up considerably after three mags worth go through it on burst fire.

Such a thing as unbiased? It is pretty well biased. Although not an issue in all variants, If I got one I'd stick a heavy barrel on her.

Whereas in my mind soldiers are fit and therefore well built, and mostly aren't tiny people, who are skilled in the art and are likely to weigh probably upwards of 80 kg, like this guy doing (as can be read from the comments) a very good groucho step while simultaneously controlling the recoil of full auto fired 7.62 x51mm NATO rounds in a FN FAL.

Soldiers while probably well built are not amazingly trained, Look at accuracy allowances on any modern army or even training level. They are certainly better trained than the average person however the militarys perogative is to get guys trained and move them through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MTl8iyR1E&NR=1

Also of note is that it not just the mass/weight of the shooter, as can be seen from the next video, but also skill. The shooter, who is obviously large but as I was saying doesn't seem to be skilled/taught to control the climb and recoil of the gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSwbr...eature=related

Cannot watch any of these videos as I have no flash. However controlling a weapon fully auto is a very challenging thing to do. The cost of such a thing is also an issue, Look at Vietnam's shots fired per single kill. That is what happens when the troops are given fully auto weapons. Also do not disregard the Adrenal stress factor, What can be done at the range is not necessarily doable under combat stress.

It's beat not bet, unless you are talking about gambling

Thank you. I corrected it.

As for your comment about the reason why the British won in the Falklands I don't think you can simply say that it was because the British only had semi auto fire they won.

It is not the only factor but it did play a large part. They had very similar training, Identical weapons except the fully auto issue..

I have no doubt that the Argentinians would have very quickly selected semi auto fire if and when they noticed they were unable to hit their targets because of muzzle rise on full auto.

No they probably would not have, Due to combat stress. They would experience tunnel vision, auditory exclusion and loss of fine motor skills. What you are describing is higher brain thinking, They simply would not have been there in the stress of battle unless they were very battle hardened or very well trained.

Last but not least I will address your misguided belief that because most squads have a designated support/heavy weapons man then the rest of the squad does not need full auto capability.

This is a reality. New M16s have 3 round burst at a max to stop soldiers shooting at the sky, One man with a GPMG is what they have.

Imagine your SAW guy gets hit but isn't dead, now you can't evacuate him to safety nor can you treat him or take his weapon because whomever shot him probably would shoot you or whomever else you send to the wounded soldier, you also have no smoke grenades.
What would you do?

SAW man are specially placed to avoid this issue in the squad level, However having no smoke grenades or grenades of any sort is a far bigger issue than not having every man on the team with the ability to shoot fully auto.

You'd order for as much lead(limited on semi auto!) as possible to be sent down range towards the direction of the shot (if you're lucky and know where the shot came from, fire on the target) to hopefully promote the opponent/sniper to keep hidden and buy you enough time to Evac your guy.

Have you ever seen five guys shooting on semi auto? They can put down a substantial amount of lead, Remember that regardless of your gun you still have a 20 round magazine, How fast can you move your finger? I think you would find that you can do it fast enough especially in a squad environment that makes fully auto unnecessary.

If you've seen band of brothers( if not I've been nice enough to provide the link to what I'm talking about below) you can see how full auto suppressive fire would have put the Blithe rescuing team in less danger when retrieving the wounded private Blithe at the farmhouse.

Not watched it, Is that a full episode? I cannot watch it here but I am thinking of downloading a series or two as I hear it is good.

Lastly, What I consider to be the future standard issue NATO round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_SPC

Not relevant but I agree though not in the near future.