Would American troops be better off with semi autos?

[Kimber45acp]

Trust is the heart of the issue. You believe that by having weapons with burst or auto, troops will naturally use those more and burn up more ammo without aiming. You don't take their individual intelligence or sense of tactics into account at all. You in fact are asserting that by having burst or auto, they will misuse the option, to their own detriment. That is a trust issue on your part.

Wow, here we go again with the "you don't trust our troops as much as me" nonsense. PLEASE LISTEN. I understand that you are eager to try and tarnish me with the label of not trusting our troops, but I simply accept the reality that they are humans. Do you accept human nature, or do you imagine that our troops are above human nature?

Human nature (not me) is the reason that full auto results in less aiming. The mind just CAN'T assess and acquire a target as fast as the firearm mechanism can extract a spent casing and rechamber another cartridge. It just can't.

 

[Mags]

do you imagine that our troops are above human nature?

You ever do something 100 times a day 365 days a year? There was a story when we would go qualify with M9 about how we used to train 3 shots CM from holster then reholster your weapon during quals. There was a guy who was involved in a gunfight shot the BG 3 shot CM and the reholstered his weapon while the BG was still a threat. That is why we now train failure drills 2 shots CM 1 headshot. Repetitive muscle memory, that is how we should all train so we won't have to think just do. Also I see how you avoided my prior posts in your last kinda funny.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Our military people are assigned a variety of jobs and the controlled burst weapon has been found. It's my understanding that the semi/full auto question was researched quite thoroughly when the Garand rifle was replaced by the M14. Contrary to popular opinion the flag rank officers are fully aware of the impact of pictures of flag draped coffins and make issue considerations to avoid that circumstance. Considering the relatively low death rates in Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan the full auto seems to be a reasonably good tool towards that end.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Human nature (not me) is the reason that full auto results in less aiming.

And if training could not override human nature you wouldn't see troops advancing under fire.

 

[Kimber45acp]

You ever do something 100 times a day 365 days a year? There was a story when we would go qualify with M9 about how we used to train 3 shots CM from holster then reholster your weapon during quals. There was a guy who was involved in a gunfight shot the BG 3 shot CM and the reholstered his weapon while the BG was still a threat. That is why we now train failure drills 2 shots CM 1 headshot. Repetitive muscle memory, that is how we should all train so we won't have to think just do. Also I see how you avoided my prior posts in your last kinda funny.

Well you've avoided 90% of what I said so you could go on and on with a story about some extremely skilled individual.

 

[Kimber45acp]

And if training could not override human nature you wouldn't see troops advancing under fire.

Oh boy. The lack of logic in that statement is obvious. "Troops advancing under fire" is a generalized result that does not fit with the discussion of specifics here. You are ignoring the specifics by essentially saying "whatever they did, it musta worked."

Training can override SOME human nature. If you want to avoid all of the specifics I've laid out then fine. Have you ever fired a full auto? Did you aim every bullet that exited the muzzle? Did the recoil alter your aim at all under full auto? Go fire a f/a THEN come back and discuss.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

You do know that select fire means the soldier has the option of semi or full, right?

 

[Mags]

No Kimber I am not avoiding you I am stating a fact that answers your question but apparently not the answer you want especially because it is FACT. Soldiers do not have human nature and if they do they are removed from combat that is the beauty of military training, that is why it is the military and not wal-mart. The military provides all the training we need and if we pay attention and perform all of our monatonous drills it will be embedded in our subconscious so we will not have to think. I also pointed out in my first posts in this thread that we now do squad based combat and your fantasy of one guy picking hagies off with irons is pure fiction. Burst mode is the best for dealing with multiple threats. Did you even read my post on page 1? Just because you don't like the answer does not make it any less true. BTW I have fired several full auto rifles and subguns recoil is not a factor if you know what you are doing. Just because you had no idea of what you were doing does not mean the professionals are some drunks shooting at a car on full auto laughing as the muzzle climbs up.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

You know Kimber, as one of the troops you like to talk about, I'm saying that you're idea is simply wrong. I can't think of a single member of my MP unit that thinks of 3 round burst as a realistic option for more than a tiny handful of possible combat scenarios. I carry some M67 grenades. Do I use them all the time because they are there? My team leader has an M203. Does he fire 40mm rounds into every building simply because he has that option? My gunner has a SAW that is truly fully automatic. Does he burn through a 200rd drum in one burst just because he can?

We know what we're doing. We know how to fight. We know tactics, and we know our weapons. And you assuming that if given the option to fire lots of rounds we will automatically do so is insulting. I'd welcome you to head down to your recruiting station and volunteer to grab and M4 or SAW and come join the fight, since you seem to be so adept at the finer points of combat.

You are saying that by us having the option to use 3rd burst, we are too flawed too know when to use it properly and thus will use up our ammo or engage in bad tactics simple because our tools have an option you thinks is too hard for us to know how to use. Not only are you incorrect, but the combative and aggressive attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you is insulting.

I'll say this as best I can: America troops are better off doing following our training and doing what we already know how to do better than any other fighting force in history. Thank you for your idea, but we'll handle fighting the insurgents like we already know how, thanks.

 

[cjl8651]

Wouldn't full auto be somewhat handy for room-clearing?

 

[James T Thomas]

no change in vote

Officer's Wife stated that the auto capable weapons we have now have kept us in good stead. No argument; much -here.
However, our military forces have been expending an ever increasing amount of ammo for less and less kills of the enemy, as we enter each new war.

My anxiety is that should a massive, global, WW occur, we may run critically empty of ammo. Not withstanding total nuclear destruction. Even with a limited nuke warfare, our troops may be in some God forsaken remote part of the world ( like....) and run low on ammo. I've seen it happen!
Certainly, we have geat resupply forces, sea, air and land, but may I tell you that in war, even the best systems are cripple by the enemy and the soldier on the ground had better get twenty dead enemy troops out of each magazine he has.

Side line for you suppressive fire lovers. If, .. you are in a dug in position,
and the enemy is assaulting and getting close up. Are you going to let
suppressive fire, all that noise, keep your head down until you see the white's of his eyes?
Some of the enemys we face are rather "fatalistic" in their view of life and are not as impressed by suppressive fire as you might think.
Some may be, but you may face the others that are not.
Accurate placed (semi auto too) fire suppresses very effectively and with less ammo expenditure.

The other poster who implies no trust in the troops. Well, I know of men in whom I had great confidence. They were brave and well trained. And yet, fire discipline in hellish situations, will bring out the overwhelming desire to live and fight -like mad! With all the screaming and blasting on a battle field,
the toughest of men are sorely tempted to blast away.

I'm staying with my input in favor of the semi auto ; burst control -OK.

HSO: I think the burst control had mechanical difficulties didn't it?
Like when two round were fired, and the shooter released the trigger and had one round remaining in that ratchet. Or has that been fixed?

A little understanding is in order for the posters who use non PC terms for our nations enemies. Men who have seen friends killed by whom ever our enemy is, have grief to bear, and it is reflected in the terms they use. It fades away with time, like the grief, and calling them on the rug for a poorly used term, that can be categorized as racist -in the context of discussion, is , well taunting them.
Please give a little slack before slapping.

 

[gripper]

A better poll choice would be to train/fight 95percent on aimed semi,with controlled full auto WTSHTF.....or in certain situations where high volume supressive fire is needed.
Of house,a larger caliber(6.5,6.8,7 or7.62 ) and an 18 to 20 inch barrel is also my preference.

 

[waterhouse]

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

What is your proof for this?

Kimber, you seem to think that human nature leads to mag dumps.

This does not seem to be a common occurrence in actual combat.

Has it happened? Probably. It it the norm that the men and women in our armed forces forget their training, resort to spray and pay, and run out of ammo in actual combat? I'd say no.

I've done courses of fire (not combat) with a select fire weapon. We were instructed to keep our weapons on full auto the whole time, just for training. It isn't hard to aim, and keep your bursts to 2 or 3 rounds, and keep them on target, with training. This was for a federal law enforcement job, and I learned how to do it with a few hours of training, since long arm use in general isn't something we focused on. The military folks get tons more training than we did, and they seem to be doing a pretty good job with the training and equipment that they've been given.

 

[Tennesseean]

Not true, the national firearms act and the federal government consider 3 round burst to be full auto, and as I stated, for those three rounds, it most certainly IS fully automatic.

Wrong.

3 round burst = three rounds per function of the trigger
Full automatic = one function of the trigger starts continuous firing until the trigger is released or the ammunition supply is depleted

These are two types of fire control settings on machine guns, which US law defines as a firearm capable of discharging more than one round per single function of the trigger. Both are machine guns, but 3rnd is NOT "full auto."

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Has it happened? Probably. It it the norm that the men and women in our armed forces forget their training, resort to spray and pay, and run out of ammo in actual combat? I'd say no.

And you would be correct. Despite Kimber's claims to the contrary, we're actually pretty damned good at doing our jobs in an efficient and effective manner.

 

[Tim the student]

No point in it. I never saw anyone flip it all the way back, unless they were at a range and had ammo to burn.

For all intents and purposes, the M4 is used as semi only (in my experience at least.)

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

maybe kimber could share what experience he has led him to his position.

 

[AnArmyofRon]

I agree with Ragnar. We are never one man against the mob. Training(muscle memory) is the nature of the game. Not everyone needs to be fully auto, just as everyone is not provided the tools to place 1,000 meter head shots. Full autos are part of the team/squad tactic. It is tactics and equipment, rehearsel and battle drills and each individual playing his part that lead to success.

 

[DougW]

My soldier son can make that 3 round selection run like a full auto. But then, he can shoot his personal M4'gery almost as fast. He never used his M4 when in Iraq on anything but semi, but he always had either an M240B or M249. I think the troops today are well trained enough to have the full auto setting on their rifles.

 

[model of 1905]

Guys. the OPs screen name is Kimber 45 acp, why would you put creedence in anything he posts? It's obvious that from the infinite amount of better manufactured guns available (and that he chose Kimber) means that any recomendation by him should be considered dubious at best.

Nothing personal OP but...come on.

 

[MarineOne]

I don't think it's a semi/burst/full auto question anymore. I think what it boils down to is there are more servicemembers out there that today's leaders don't realize their folks can't shoot well.

I'm a contractor in Iraq, and helped a soldier here with some problems shooting. Poor kid was part of one of the units I work with and he struggled getting 22 out of 40. Keep in mind this was only after I helped him. We joked about "what if" we ever were really attacked, and he pulled me to the side and told me he would feign an injury just to give me his rifle to "protect him", as it's the only time contractors are allowed to shoot back and even then it's iffy, because he knows he can't shoot.

If you train them right, train them more often, and provide some kind of post-training assessment so that additional training tailored to their needs is done .... these kinds of questions won't be asked.

 

[Magic_Man]

Give our soldiers whatever they want.

 

[happygeek]

In my limited experience, most of the training (90% plus) is done on semi. Personally, I've only shot a M4 on auto twice. The 2nd time was from a foxhole with sandbags and it was then that I noticed it climbs up and to the right. As long as I aimed at the bottom left side of the torso at 25m I was easily able to put a 3 to 5 round burst on target. As I said, this was only the 2nd time I'd fired a M4 on auto. I certainly wouldn't try to hit a man size target past 50m on auto.

As previously stated, M16s/M4s have select fire. Also as previously stated, the OP's theory assumes that soldiers don't have the intelligence, discipline, and training to know when to use each. I'm pretty sure the Defense Department has done some studies on the use of auto in combat. Me, I'll defer to the professional military tacticians on this one.

This is one of those threads I see on here from time to time, that seems to be from someone who seems to think that because they know about firearms that they know something about military tactics. The couple other such threads I've seen were from a different user though.

On a sidenote, it still irks me when people refer to any automatic firearm as a machine gun. Assault rifles/machine pistols/submachine guns/etc. aren't machine guns! Guess I'm just a terms purist.

 

[TexasBill]

Everybody's been discussing the fine points. My reason for giving the troops the option for unrestricted full-auto fire is this: I would rather they had it and didn't need it than need it and not have it.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Everybody's been discussing the fine points. My reason for giving the troops the option for unrestricted full-auto fire is this: I would rather they had it and didn't need it than need it and not have it.

True. But the OP is postulating that if given the option to have full auto or burst, we would recklessly use it when it's not needed. Even though reality shows that to be false.