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

[delusional_reality]

Originally Posted by s25

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.


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.
.

A come on man, stretch your imagination, maybe some of your guys have been shot already in an ambush, or blown up, and the remaining squad used their grenades to try and fall back, then once you think you're clear your SAW guy gets hit and the above scenario plays out. Or maybe your SAW guy already got hit in the ambush and a rifleman gets wounded instead of your SAW in the above scenario. It's just you and another rifleman to lay down suppressing fire, and in the mean time, pick up your wounded soldier and evacuate him...Do you really think you'd be successful?



The psychological fear that is caused when an automatic gun is firing near your position, the shear noise and damage it will do, will most definitely make even the most battle hardened solider a little nervous.

Burst fire/full auto is essential for the very reasons and scenarios mentioned above that will occur in war.
and Frankly I think your ad hoc connection between, number of shots fired with number of vietcong killed in Vietnam, and why you don't need Full auto capabilities because you may not have the accuracy of semi auto is laudable.
Firstly the Vietcong employed guerrilla tactics and unless your unfamiliar with how that works it's got to do with shooting at defensive positions and running away, obviously defending forces will be startled by the incursion and use more ammo to defend their(usually mounted) positions.
Secondly,even the Vietcong valued full auto weapons as I've seen documentaries that mention Vietcong made full auto Stens...why would they go to the laborious task of making full auto Stens when a semi auto rifle would be more adequate and less wasteful of ammo?

[s25]

A come on man, stretch your imagination, maybe some of your guys have been shot already in an ambush, or blown up, and the remaining squad used their grenades to try and fall back, then once you think you're clear your SAW guy gets hit and the above scenario plays out. Or maybe your SAW guy already got hit in the ambush and a rifleman gets wounded instead of your SAW in the above scenario. It's just you and another rifleman to lay down suppressing fire, and in the mean time, pick up your wounded soldier and evacuate him...Do you really think you'd be successful?

I would prefer to know that neither of us will end up shooting at the sky. F

The psychological fear that is caused when an automatic gun is firing near your position, the shear noise and damage it will do, will most definitely make even the most battle hardened solider a little nervous.

Any gun firing at you will make you a little nervous, That is just about being a human,

Burst fire/full auto is essential for the very reasons and scenarios mentioned above that will occur in war.
and Frankly I think your ad hoc connection between, number of shots fired with number of vietcong killed in Vietnam, and why you don't need Full auto capabilities because you may not have the accuracy of semi auto is laudable.
Firstly the Vietcong employed guerrilla tactics and unless your unfamiliar with how that works it's got to do with shooting at defensive positions and running away, obviously defending forces will be startled by the incursion and use more ammo to defend their(usually mounted) positions.

The point with Vietnam is that the numbers were so great, And lots of men who came back after Vietnam would comment on there use or there friends use of fully auto and basically wasting magazines by shooting at the sky.

Secondly,even the Vietcong valued full auto weapons as I've seen documentaries that mention Vietcong made full auto Stens...why would they go to the laborious task of making full auto Stens when a semi auto rifle would be more adequate and less wasteful of ammo?

HAHAHAHHA! Stens are really simple to make, That is why the British and Jews and such made them in such numbers, A sten is a open bolt design and so it is very difficult to restrict a sten to semi auto, Bear in mind that a sten is also a 9mm which is a far lighter cartridge which means that controlling them on fully auto is allot easier. I actually shot a fully auto sten before, Not to bad control wise you have to shoot in bursts though or else all your ammo will just fly high into the sky.

[delusional_reality]

Originally Posted by s25

I would prefer to know that neither of us will end up shooting at the sky. F

You'd prefer to know you didn't shoot at the sky than to get shot in the face and have your squad killed?
At the end of the day, If your captain tells you to provide suppressing fire and you start plinking away on semi he will most likely put his foot up your ass for being a retard.

Originally Posted by s25

Any gun firing at you will make you a little nervous, That is just about being a human,

Granted, but you didn't understand my point, you may stick your head out and sneak a shot at the enemy if they are only throwing four or five bits of lead down range at your position every second... but you are not even going to look out, over your cover, if the enemy are using a Gatling gun and there is a massive wall of lead coming down range at you...why? because of the fear that you WILL get hit, not that you MIGHT get hit, which is the case with semi fire suppressing fire.

Originally Posted by s25

The point with Vietnam is that the numbers were so great, And lots of men who came back after Vietnam would comment on there use or there friends use of fully auto and basically wasting magazines by shooting at the sky.

Originally Posted by s25

A sten is a open bolt design and so it is very difficult to restrict a sten to semi auto, Bear in mind that a sten is also a 9mm which is a far lighter cartridge which means that controlling them on fully auto is allot easier. I actually shot a fully auto sten before, Not to bad control wise you have to shoot in bursts though or else all your ammo will just fly high into the sky.

It matters not what cartridge it uses, it is fully auto, open bolt guns can be restricted to fire only on semi auto with the addition of a simple enough sear catch. I think you realize that if semi auto fire were adequate for their operations than the addition of the sear catch would most likely have been added to cut down on wasted ammo, the return savings of ammo would have been definitely offset the extra manufacturing effort of the sear catch.

Lastly, If it were ease of manufacture that was the driving force behind the manufacture of the Sten than the Vietcong would have made the easier built M3 grease gun, but no, most of them opted to make the Sten because of it's better accuracy and higher AUTO rate of fire ...I wonder why they did that huh

[s25]

You'd prefer to know you didn't shoot at the sky than to get shot in the face and have your squad killed?
At the end of the day, If your captain tells you to provide suppressing fire and you start plinking away on semi he will most likely put his foot up your ass for being a retard.

I would prefer to no I hit my enemy, I would prefer under adrenal stress not to lose my whole magazine just because I am shitting myself.

Granted, but you didn't understand my point, you may stick your head out and sneak a shot at the enemy if they are only throwing four or five bits of lead down range at your position every second... but you are not even going to look out, over your cover, if the enemy are using a Gatling gun and there is a massive wall of lead coming down range at you...why? because of the fear that you WILL get hit, not that you MIGHT get hit, which is the case with semi fire suppressing fire.

If it is a matter of suppressing fire then you can put down more than 1 piece of lead a second on a semi. And Either way its 300 rounds a mount if we were to go at the diminutive figure you provide. I think that would keep anyones head down, What would work out better is that at the end of the day you would still have some ammo to actually engage the enemy.

It matters not what cartridge it uses, it is fully auto, open bolt guns can be restricted to fire only on semi auto with the addition of a simple enough sear catch. I think you realize that if semi auto fire were adequate for their operations than the addition of the sear catch would most likely have been added to cut down on wasted ammo, the return savings of ammo would have been definitely offset the extra manufacturing effort of the sear catch.

Yes it does matter! Have you ever shot a 9mm sten on fully auto? I had the privilege to do so, It does not kick bad at all! Though you still have to shoot in bursts of three or else all your shots go into the sky. The caliber counts for allot due to muzzle rise.

Lastly, If it were ease of manufacture that was the driving force behind the manufacture of the Sten than the Vietcong would have made the easier built M3 grease gun, but no, most of them opted to make the Sten because of it's better accuracy and higher AUTO rate of fire ...I wonder why they did that huh

During WW2 the troops did not like the grease gun, due to parts breaking, it going wrong during the heat of battle and such. The sten is a better weapon over all. Sten is as easy to build in it's simplest form.

I also think you are forgetting about the effect of combat on a soldier, Only the simplest movements will work for someone when this adrenal rush comes on. Squeeeze the trigger to long and you have no ammo.

I am not denying that fully auto weapons have a place just that in the grander scheme of things semi automatic is far more useful. I was arguing with your original point that there is no point in having a semi auto battle rifle as it was meant to be fully auto. If I could give you any advice it would be to shoot some rifles and speak for yourself, Once I would have agreed with you, Once I would have also disagreed with you but out of ignorance. Fully auto has a place but for the most part it is not in every day combat but for exceptional circumstances.

[delusional_reality]

Originally Posted by s25

If it is a matter of suppressing fire then you can put down more than 1 piece of lead a second on a semi.

I never said you could only fire one shot a second on semi auto?

If you've ever read anything about tactics and the use of suppressing fire then you would know that the more shots a second you send down range, the greater the suppression force on the enemy from peeping out and shooting back.

That is why there is at least one SAW man in each company in a reasonable modern fighting force because the suppressive force of the riflemen on the enemy, even on full auto, sometimes isn't enough and the enemy peeps out and shoots.

Originally Posted by s25

Yes it does matter! Have you ever shot a 9mm sten on fully auto? I had the privilege to do so, It does not kick bad at all! Though you still have to shoot in bursts of three or else all your shots go into the sky. The caliber counts for allot due to muzzle rise.

I know that it's recoil and muzzle climb isn't bad, My point was that it doesn't matter whether the gun is an automatic hand cannon or a .22 firing auto sub machine gun when discussing the usefulness/UTILITY of full auto capable weapons in modern battles, the caliber is merely a matter of semantics.
Secondly the caliber is only a fraction of the story and does not matter nearly as much as the velocity of which the bullet is shot at, as a Sub machine gun, like the Sten fires a bigger heavier 9mm round than the smaller NATO 5.56mm but the recoil from a M16(which fires the 5.56) is greater because of the higher velocity of the round.

Kinetic energy=1/2m(v^2)
mass=m
V=velocity

Modern ballistic technology is getting more and more advanced, if you haven't heard of the ''Kriss'' .45 calibre machine gun [which uses recoil force vectoring(directing) springs/''Super V''.] It helps to significantly cut down on the ''muzzle climb'' effect of shooting on full auto and also the recoil back into your shoulder by directing the recoil downwards. Another primitive example of this idea is behind the AK47 and AK74 design, which are muzzle heavy specifically to help cut down on muzzle climb.

Originally Posted by s25

During WW2 the troops did not like the grease gun, due to parts breaking, it going wrong during the heat of battle and such. The sten is a better weapon over all. Sten is as easy to build in it's simplest form.

Que? The grease gun M3A1 issued from 1944-1957 and is/was issued to US tank crews in operations in Iraq (not the earlier troublesome M3 issued from 1942-44) The M3A1 was said to be highly reliable, it is easier to manufacture than the Sten. Why do you think the Americans made the Grease gun at all if the Sten was easier to manufacture and ''is a better gun overall''?

Originally Posted by s25

I am not denying that fully auto weapons have a place just that in the grander scheme of things semi automatic is far more useful... Fully auto has a place but for the most part it is not in every day combat but for exceptional circumstances.

YOU are SO WRONG
Most full auto/burst fire battle rifles can fire as semi auto weapons by the flick of a switch, the same is not true for semi auto weapons, therefore the semi auto weapon has less functional and tactical ability than a full auto weapon.

I understand your point that Semi auto fire is probably going to be used more for range shooting at INDIVIDUAL targets, but with war analysts forecasting that modern battles will be fought more and more frequently in cities, and therefore at close range, the need for a full auto/burst fire capable weapon has never been more urgent.


I urge you to join in the fight in Iraq or Afghanistan as soon as possible and I have no doubt you will be coming home(if you're lucky) recounting experiences were you will say '' If only I could have opened up on full auto on that room, full of the enemy, I wouldn't have given away the element of surprise when I started shooting them''

Lastly I wonder why:
(1) No respectable military or tactical analysts hold your view that full auto/burst fire weapons, should not be issued to the majority of rifleman?

(2)Why the British Generals rearmed their army with fully auto capable SA80 (Enfields) after the Falklands rather then keep them limited to semi auto capable restricted FN-FAL's?

Why you ask? because you have a dangerously misguided and clinicly WRONG idea of what is needed in war.

I will leave you to ponder a quote from a Survivor of the Warsaw ghetto uprising which is on the first page of Gerard Metral's book on DIY weapons:

''There is One thing I regret very much, and that is, that I did not have a Submachine gun''

[s25]

If you've ever read anything about tactics and the use of suppressing fire then you would know that the more shots a second you send down range, the greater the suppression force on the enemy from peeping out and shooting back.

I never argued with that fact on suppressing fire, However I feel that a semi auto rifle and a SAW man will put down enough lead.

I know that it's recoil and muzzle climb isn't bad, My point was that it doesn't matter whether the gun is an automatic hand cannon or a .22 firing auto sub machine gun when discussing the usefulness/UTILITY of full auto capable weapons in modern battles, the caliber is merely a matter of semantics.
Secondly the caliber is only a fraction of the story and does not matter nearly as much as the velocity of which the bullet is shot at, as a Sub machine gun, like the Sten fires a bigger heavier 9mm round than the smaller NATO 5.56mm but the recoil from a M16(which fires the 5.56) is greater because of the higher velocity of the round.

The caliber does matter, Because of the velocity as you stated. No point talking about a fully auto 10/22 if you don't intend to use one as a battle rifle (Most don't.).

Que? The grease gun M3A1 issued from 1944-1957 and is/was issued to US tank crews in operations in Iraq (not the earlier troublesome M3 issued from 1942-44) The M3A1 was said to be highly reliable, it is easier to manufacture than the Sten. Why do you think the Americans made the Grease gun at all if the Sten was easier to manufacture and ''is a better gun overall''?

I only ever shot the sten, I liked it. I did a bit of research and found some reports that the M3 had issues with parts breaking.

I understand your point that Semi auto fire is probably going to be used more for range shooting at INDIVIDUAL targets, but with war analysts forecasting that modern battles will be fought more and more frequently in cities, and therefore at close range, the need for a full auto/burst fire capable weapon has never been more urgent.

Do you foresee yourself being in a war like that? Maybe we can put this down a difference in foresight. I would view any time that I would have to use such a weapon would be in a rural area as I would hate to live in a city. I agree lighter carbines in city environments are great, On those type of cartridges fully auto is a lot more manageable. But for me, I view a 7.62 rifle being my SHTF rifle.

(1) No respectable military or tactical analysts hold your view that full auto/burst fire weapons, should not be issued to the majority of rifleman?

A rifle man is someone who can hit a plate sized target at 600 yards, However I think you meant it in the sense of standard infantry.

(2)Why the British Generals rearmed their army with fully auto capable SA80 (Enfields) after the Falklands rather then keep them limited to semi auto capable restricted FN-FAL's?

The Fn was the superior rifle, I have never thought much of why they changed. No doubt you will put it down to one being fully auto and the other not, Why instead would they not convert or buy new Fn's? I imagine there was more reason that this simple issue.

Why you ask? because you have a dangerously misguided and clinicly WRONG idea of what is needed in war.

You have a dangerously misguided view of what is needed to survive in a war, Part of that is not to remain in a city environment. I think we are both looking at profoundly different theaters of war.

I will leave you to ponder a quote from a Survivor of the Warsaw ghetto uprising which is on the first page of Gerard Metral's book on DIY weapons:

''There is One thing I regret very much, and that is, that I did not have a Submachine gun''

A submachine gun is not a 7.62 battle rifle on fully auto! In a city environment he is right. Yet he would be better served with a MBR in a country environment.