Would American troops be better off with semi autos?

[Comanche180]

Madcap
I didn't say I was shooting a magazine fed rifle or carbine. I'd have a belt fed machine gun and buckets of ammo. Do you think your opponent is going to "play fair"? Get real, the troops need what they need.

 

[kentucky bucky]

It would be like the Civil War era leaders that thought those new fangled lever actions would just cause soldiers to waste too much ammo. We all know now how wrong they were. Give them any option available and let them do the choosing.

 

[NMGonzo]

Full auto, but not for everybody.

I was never any good with it.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Anyone seen the OP in this thread in a while?

 

[danprkr]

Options are good things.

Having said that there are some military/battle situations in which full auto makes good tactical sense, and it like every tool that might save American military lives should be available.

 

[mljdeckard]

No.

It's like this. I train my soldiers to make sure they hit the first time as often as possible. Our qualification table is in aimed semi-auto fire. IF this was the only situation they would need a rifle for, I would say, sure, semi-auto only.

BUT, this is war. They might well need to use their rifles for other situations like suppressing fire, supporting the squad weapon, or defense from overwhelming numbers. In THESE situations, I would tell them to keep their weapons on burst.

Yes, MOST of the time, they only need semi-auto. but if they ONLY have semi-auto, they don't have the OPTION for burst. I would rather they have the option and not need it, than to NEED the option, and not HAVE it.

 

[Gungnir]

This is an apples-and-oranges comparison. The full automatic fire of WWI was mostly delivered from tripod-mounted machineguns, not hand-held rifles.

Suppressive fire, to be effective, must be killing fire. If it isn't killing anyone, it's just noise.

When I was a company commander in Viet Nam, I trained my troops to use semi-automatic fire effectively. Firing full auto (except for leaders marking targets for machineguns' attention) was an automatic Article 15 and a $50 fine.

I respectfully disagree Vern.

WWI is a perfect example of automatic fire being used against those who were not armed with automatic fire. The tactics were body counts (we had more men than they did), both the German and Allied armies followed the same tactics and the only real difference at the start was the fielding of machineguns by the Imperial German army. Just because they were field guns doesn't lessen their effectiveness, nor does it explain why when the allies began fielding them it turned the tide. Currently rifles have automatic fire, both our side and the enemies side, while burst and full auto is minimized, I would not like to experiment to find out whether eliminating it entirely made a positive result, since the negative results would be the number of body bags.

Suppressive fire is supposed to be aimed, nor have I ever claimed otherwise. However it's primary intent is not to kill but suppress, if it kills it's a bonus. Perhaps US and UK military doctrines differ on this front. However not so much that the UK army would use suppression fire at a random target one click away from the point of attack just to make some noise while other forces assaulted the primary troop concentration. Similarly when a new enemy position is identified, I'd expect my people to open up on it first, then go about eliminating the threat, if there is LMG or fire support and on the ball, then they too can suppress/destroy. However not always can your LMG's or support be brought to bear on that target for a number of reasons (line of fire, already engaging a different target, or neutralized). So having one specific doctrine on an ever changing battlefield is short sighted.

Also you assume that I'm claiming not to recommend semi auto fire, which is not the case, I too was an officer, in 1 Para, although you were likely a Captain (Company Commander) and so outranked me a Lieutenant (Platoon Commander). My men were trained primarily with Semi-Auto, however depending on many different factors burst or full auto was still an option.

The question wasn't should we always use full auto or burst, but eliminating those modes entirely from the weapon they already have.

 

[danez71]

I believe the answer is yes. The whole POINT of having a firearm is to AIM. Full auto pulls the brain AWAY from good aiming habits no matter how skilled you are (in addition to wasting ammo like crazy). Suppressive fire can be achieved with semi automatic fire. Yes, a given area can be "covered" faster with full automatic fire, but I submit that this "benefit" (which is actually rarely a benefit outside a jungle, PLUS it assumes you have unlimited ammo) is very temporary, and comes at the cost of your training and practice aiming (the brain always cozys up to the easiest tactic, and then has to be motivated BACK to the more difficult but larger benefit of aiming).

(my emphsis added-bold/red)

Do you have any data to back up the basis of your claim? Or is this just your flawed thinking?

What does the action of the gun have to do with "good aiming habits"? Is aiming ability 100% break action single shot and 95% with a bolt action, 90% with SA, 80% DA,... etc etc?

Maybe I'm missing something but I can "aim" equally well with any and all action types.

I might not have as high ratio of hits to miss with semi vs FA but I can "aim" all types equally.

Please post some data to support your claim.

With out data, what you really did was to question the ability of our troops to control their weapons and be able to hit what they "aim" at.

The later wouldnt be popular BTW.

Anyone seen the OP in this thread in a while?

Not for a while.

 

[billybobjoe]

Gotta love the MP5.

 

[Mags]

Anyone seen the OP in this thread in a while?

I think the OP has seen the error in his thinking and is long gone.

 

[KAK]

I would rather have S/A on Call of Duty.

I dont like running out of ammo.

 

[boatmanschneider]

Burst is a useful option for room clearing and firing on the move. As far as a solider losing track of rounds fired because of burst, I find it easier to count to ten than 30 when in combat.

When entering and clearing a building, time is measured in heartbeats. It' fast, you may get three breaths per room. One three round burst per target in faster and more likely to incapacitate. At 10-15' it's not spraying rounds, they all hit. We need that guy dead now, not bleeding out 10 minutes from now. Some of these guys have body armor. We're not stopping to take and clear his weapon, we're in the next room and he is behind us now.

Suppressive fire is intended to keep their heads down while other units move into assault position. From a rifle I believe steady aimed fire from enough soldiers works, and steady aimed bursts from 2 full auto weapons (SAW, 240B) works better. Full auto can be very accurate. After watching some kids who had never fired before basic fire the 240B, and easily hit targets out to 500m I realized I better keep my head down When the bad guys turn theirs on us. One burst from a machine gun can take out 3-5 guys in a blink of an eye. Rake the bushes and tall grass with searching fire, plunging fire into low areas, fire through fog from a (prepared position) at known avenues of approach.

Anyway. Soldiers need full auto available. When training issues arise, we train more.

 

[CountGlockula]

Interesting topic. I say stick with full auto because I don't want Haji to get up.

 

[Grizfire]

For a Sniper, yes the OP's argument may be a good one, but for bunkered troops defending our beaches from an invasion of thousands of enemies, I say open up on 'em.

 

[fragout]

Well put there Boatmanshcneider. After serving in multiple deployments since DesertStorm to present day, and on the brink of another one soon, I agree that a select fire rifle has it's place in the current arsenal. I would rather do away with the 3 shot burst, and have the ability for my Infantry platoon rifleman to have the option of fully automatic fire, but since I'm just a simple grunt.....all I can do is to "recomend" this.
Room clearing seems to be the current topic for the need to have full automatic capability for rifles, but there are other reasons for this as well. Boatmanshcneider has covered a few for link fed/crew served weapons of a typical rifle squad, but an example of times when a full automatic capable rifle would serve a good purpose is for the M20B assistant gunner if the M240 has a stoppage (It can and has happened at the worst times in life)....or when the M240 is in need of some more ammo, or a bbl change. The AG can pick up the fires temporaily whilst the gunner gets his hog back in buisness.
Just one example, and part of this specific issue can be addressed by using the "talking guns" techniuqe, if multiple M240's, and M249's can be utiliezed on or along the same axis of fires.
One other thing that I didnt notice mentioned was ROE (rules of engagement)
This comes down from "higher", and is to be followed...period. The more strict the ROE is, the more limits are put on the "end users" for the .."what can we use", and "how we are gonna use it", so to speak. ( Example: The use of handgrenades, in paticular...concussion/flash bangs... to "prep" a room prior to clearing it is in most cases...safer for the assaulting elemnet, but...the ROE might prevent it's use.
In short..... thier is a difference between dynamic, and precision room clearing. IMO..... the ability for that young E5 (team leader) to have rifles with fully automatic capability will give him more flexibility when he needs it, and as an organic asset that he can control. Like I mentioned before...... I can only recomend as I'm a senior NCO. Either way, we will execute any given mission with whatever congress wants us to use. I cant speak for every branch, nor every Infantry unit in the Army, but you can rest easy...as your tax dollars are being well spent in mine.

11B

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I don't think they should be limited to semi auto only. I also don't think it would be wise to use it very often because only hits count and it wouldn't be fun to run out of ammo before a resupply, but it's nice to have the option.
I don't think civilians should be restricted either. If I want to blow off a 30rd. mag in a couple seconds once in a while I shouldn't have to pay $13k for the privelage versus $900.

 

[P95loser]

I chose no because they have a selector switch for semi fire on the rifles... why take away options?

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

um, no

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It would be like the Civil War era leaders that thought those new fangled lever actions would just cause soldiers to waste too much ammo. We all know now how wrong they were. Give them any option available and let them do the choosing.

Actually, they were not wrong.

Those "new fangled lever actions" were only glorified pistols -- the .56-.56 Spencer case was 0.56 inches long. The .44 Henry only held about 28 grains of powder. Troops armed with these weapons were highly vulnerable to stand-off attacks by troops with longer-range weapons.

As Edward Coddington, in The Gettysburn Campaign points out, Bank's men armed with .44 Henries did very little at Milroy, while the Wisconsin Brigade, armed with "3rd Class" muzzle loaders fought like wildcats.

 

[rocky branch]

An awful lot of uneducated hot air blowing around by folks who never bothered to "walk the walk."
Salute to those of us who have.

Fret not, training and situational awareness plus occaisional sheer panic will prevail in actual combat.

The "spray and pray" stuff is more for movies than real life.
Been there.

Calling a combat trooper a racist for using a generic term right from the battlefield is enough to eliminate any credibility you might have had.