The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 28, 2012, 05:22 AM   #51
fext
Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2012
Posts: 64
For a soldier, yes.
fext is offline  
Old June 1, 2012, 09:00 PM   #52
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,328
Initally (and actually for sometime aferwards), there was resistance to the repeating rifle. Because it would encourage troops to "waste" ammunition. And ammunition was expensive. Look how long the US Army held on to the Trapdoor Springfield, even though there were better (more combat effective - greater firepower) arms available. Also, the Springfield was cheap (the design came from an Army officer, so the Army essentially got the gun for free).

There was a lot of resistance to the M1 Garand prior to, and well after its adoption, primarily for the same reasons.

It took the cataclysm of WWII to thaw the attitude of ordnance officers making them more receptive to the new. The pendulum has swung the other way, currently, and the system is much more willing to at least test out new designs and concepts.

Is full auto necessary? clearly not. Just look at all the history of war prior to full auto weapons, The victors won without full auto, and the losers didn't lose for lack of full auto fire.

Necessary? No. But it is effective, and a great force multiplier, which overall means the cost to our side in blood to accomplish the mission if lessened with the availabilty of full auto fire. Therefore, it is a desirable thing. Very desirable, in many circumstances, and since it helps us, and we can, why not have it?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 2, 2012, 05:23 AM   #53
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
It was said that the British thought little of the first submachine guns because, as you say, we didn't need them in the last war and we don't need them in this one. It sounds like a typical conservative military attitude. But it seems to have been common in all armies. In American service, it was supposedly the Marines who took to the Thompson first.

In the case of the Springfield, I understood the reason it was adopted instead of a repeating rifle was because it was a solution to utilize all of the muzzle loading muskets that were on hand, not so much because of the cost of ammunition. But no one else was adopting a repeating rifle at the time either, though there were some that became available within the next ten or twenty years (depending on when you start counting). However, at the time, repeating rifle that were around did not take powerful ammunition but that also changed.

Usually change is forced on someone when they are on the receiving end of some weapon innovation, some of which seem trivial today, and even then, with some resistance. For instance, after the Boer War, you just had to have charger or clip loading for your infantry rifle or you where just behind the times. But some felt there was still a place for something like a magazine cut-off. Jeff Cooper even thought it was a good idea for a scout rifle.

Something that makes it more difficult to judge someone's new weapon is when you remember that there is a sort of leap frogging taking place with new weapons. The US had the M1 rifle. No one else managed to get into service a rifle of their own that was a good during the war. Both the Germans and the Soviets had semi-automatic rifles during the war but they were either not as good or not produced in large numbers. So both of them sort of skipped that form of rifle in their service. It is true that the Soviets did field the SKS but it seems to have been quickly replaced by the AK. Same cartridge, different concept of a weapon.

Given what you can do with a semi-automatic rifle, I suspect that the AK, as well as the AR-15 and even the old Stg44, would have been just as effective if they were only semi-auto.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old June 2, 2012, 10:23 AM   #54
Blackthunder
Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2007
Posts: 44
Burst fire is incredibly useful. Either as a separate setting on a gun or by learning to shoot short burst in full auto.
__________________
I am part of nature, therefore I hunt.
Blackthunder is offline  
Old June 2, 2012, 12:26 PM   #55
TNT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2006
Location: Back in glorious Nebraska
Posts: 606
The argument can go both ways in wars and battles won or lost If you looked at it that way you have to also look into accounts of where they did save the day or lost it because they did not have it, and even though it was not considered a machine gun gatling guns not being a far step from them did either save the day or loose it. Take Custers last stand for instance had he brought his he may have been able to psychologically defeat the Indians by mowing down shear numbers with the 6 or so Gatlings he left behind. Teddy's charge up Kettle hill the suppressive fire he gained from him gatlings kept the Spanish troops down will he advanced up the hill and eventually won the day. Marines in the Pacific took to old dauntless avengers that were no longer air worthy and robbed the .30 cals from the rear gunner position's (due to the guns having a very high rate of fire)and made AKA "stingers" that they used to repulse the Japanese banzai attacks. Anytime you have a determined enemy and you need to deter them automatics prevail. It ends a message to the enemy that one of these bullets (or more) will have you name as well as others. Limiting your options is like limiting your resources. Is it for every application of course not that is why most have selective fire. It is a option that I would want to have in my tool box because I can promise you the enemy will have it in theirs.

and AMP you nailed it with this right here
Quote:
Therefore, it is a desirable thing. Very desirable, in many circumstances, and since it helps us, and we can, why not have it?
__________________
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man and brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

Last edited by TNT; June 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM.
TNT is offline  
Old June 4, 2012, 06:10 PM   #56
DARIVS ARCHITECTVS
Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 43
I agree with Blackthunder. Burst fire is the proper way to use full automatic. Being a machine gun owner, I can say from experience that burst fire is very accurate at short ranges, is useful for laying covering fire so you or your friends can move, and devastating if your opponent blunders into it. The disciplined use of full auto in the right circumstances is worth the ammo used. Spray & pray is not.
DARIVS ARCHITECTVS is offline  
Old June 5, 2012, 07:21 PM   #57
nbrown
Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2010
Location: Mass
Posts: 22
I haven't shot a full auto rifle, but i've shot the M16A4 on burst. Even at 25yds, the shots open up quite a bit. its definetly tight enough to keep it in a torso but its not very precise. I can see the need for them in close quarters, but other than that i wouldn't ever put it on burst.

Its fun as hell to shoot though. The most fun I've ever had shooting was on the 240 and the SAW
nbrown is offline  
Old June 17, 2012, 09:25 PM   #58
Tuckered
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Posts: 3
Is full Auto necessary?

Yep,

There are perfectly acceptable reasons to have or not have that capability. To have it available and no desire (or need) for it is better than not having it and needing it.

Now, I am a civie, have been since my honorable discharge after fulfilling my 8 year obligation. I own 2 machine guns (a vector arms UZI and a HR M-16), all legal like, both are select fire. (Oddly enough, I don't own a single assault weapon.)

Do I have a need to send a lot of bullets to an enemies direction? Nope, not a bit. Am I waiting for the zombies to take over the world, Armageddon or for the fall of the USA? Nope, not a bit. I actually prey like heck something like that never happens.

Wanna know why I have the need for full auto? Well, quite frankly, because I can and it is fun. I like to have fun. If I didn't like to have fun, I wouldn't have two kids. Not trying to be rude, just honest.

When I go to a range, I am going not because my life requires it, but because I want to have fun. Many people go target practicing for fun, with accuracy being not that important. They shoot as fast as fast as can be. Sometimes using various tricks to accommodate the rapid fire. Why? For the fun of it. There is nothing wrong with that. Life is greater, so why not have fun. Is full auto needed, for fun? Sure, why not.
Tuckered is offline  
Old June 18, 2012, 07:32 PM   #59
jason_iowa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
Full auto is great when the government is paying for the ammo. 3 round burst is a lot more useful. I think civilians should have access to new production in either as a matter of the second amendment. Its not about hunting or sport shooting at all but to be able to throw off the shackles of a tyrannical government which means as a civilian I should be able to use anything I used in the navy other then high explosives and obviously weapon of mass destruction or biological weapons.
Even if they were legal in iowa I would not own a full auto with no 3 round burst though. Its just not practical from a combat standpoint.
jason_iowa is offline  
Old June 18, 2012, 10:34 PM   #60
David Hineline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 1999
Location: South Sioux City, Nebraska
Posts: 704
So Jason are you saying that this is not combat effective?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d84r8gMGxFQ
David Hineline is offline  
Old June 18, 2012, 11:22 PM   #61
Justice06RR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,262
Of course its necessary! for when the zombies come. Lol

but on topic, in a soldier's hands a full auto option should be allowed. it has its purposes like suppressing fire and engaging multiple opponents. I'm not in the Military but even in the civilian world I still would love to have the option, instead of pulling the trigger 30 times individually...
Justice06RR is offline  
Old June 19, 2012, 07:37 PM   #62
Peas
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Posts: 9
If, by chance, I have to be the first man in when clearing a house, I want that ability to put my weapon on burst and have the ability to lay down comparable amounts of lead to the AK47s I'll be going up against. Anywhere else, I'll be leaving my M4 on semi. I don't have enough ammo to be using up a full magazine in ten squeezes of the trigger.

Overall though, there is a reason that the SAW (M249) is considered the deadliest weapon in a 4 man team consisting of 2 riflemen (M4s), a grenadier (M4/M16 with M203) and a automatic rifleman (M249): volume of fire. As I was taught in basic, the SAW is responsible for the most enemy casualties in a fire team. Ask anyone who has been ambushed serving in the Middle East if their vehicle mounted M240s were used firing single shots or in bursts (can easily be shot both ways). Normally, full auto isn't needed, but when it is, by god I want it.
Peas is offline  
Old June 20, 2012, 12:14 PM   #63
jmorris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2006
Posts: 1,602
If they were not they would have disappeared. There was a time when horseshoes were very important to army's, not as much these days.
jmorris is offline  
Old June 20, 2012, 05:49 PM   #64
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,076
Not a question of neccessary so much as somewhat overated IMHO. Like the shotgun, it encourages a "Point and Pull" mentality which careful analysis of usually reveals its ineffectiveness. In WWII the Soviets issued their PPSh M1941 (selective fire) and PPS M9143 (full auto only) in huge humbers, their tactical doctrine was that their short ranged encouraged aggresivness and it was easier to rush recruits through training. Some of us who served Across The Pond thought allowing the soldier to use his M-16 on full auto compensated for that round's relative ineffectiveness and it often seemed the main function of riflemen was to point out targets for M-60 gunners. WWI ended before John. T. Thompson's concept of a "trench broom" could really be tested, in the Wehrmacht initially the SMG was the NCO's weapon, rather like the officer's pistol, as much a badge of rank and more for defensive purposes to he could concentrate on leading his troops.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old June 20, 2012, 09:34 PM   #65
jhenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,813
Quote:
If they were not they would have disappeared. There was a time when horseshoes were very important to army's, not as much these days.
Bingo, it has not been retained and refined because it is not useful or not necessary.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer
jhenry is offline  
Old June 21, 2012, 01:40 PM   #66
mboylan
Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2011
Posts: 89
The question isn't whether or not full auto is necessary in belt fed guns as these are an essential part of military tactics. The question being asked is whether or not it is necessary in individual weapons like the M4 where full auto is rarely used in combat.
mboylan is offline  
Old June 21, 2012, 02:42 PM   #67
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
At this point, since this thread seems to have steady, if not frequent, contributions, I should restate the question: Is full auto or burst fire a practical and useful thing for an infantryman's rifle? Ths is not about machine guns (light, medium, heavy or sub) nor about civilian use.

Most seem to think it is a Good Thing while others think it is never used and probably some think it is even a bad thing, wasting ammunition and so on.

Let the opinions continue to come forth.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old June 21, 2012, 02:53 PM   #68
Peas
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Posts: 9
Quote:
The question isn't whether or not full auto is necessary in belt fed guns as these are an essential part of military tactics. The question being asked is whether or not it is necessary in individual weapons like the M4 where full auto is rarely used in combat.
I'm going to say yes as they developed and continuously modified the SAW for use as an individual weapon. As for not including belt fed, that's not exactly a determining factor as it simply allows for more rounds to be fired without reloading. The SAW can take magazines, it just jams horribly. The M4 as it started (I believe) was only burst capable, but they came out with the A1 varient after for the Special Forces community so they could have full-auto capabilities. If the Green Berets and others want full auto, there has to be some situations where it is called for.

You don't really have to worry about us normal folks wasting ammo, as we don't carry that much to begin with. The last thing I want to do in a firefight is have an 'oh ****' moment when I have to scrounge for ammo since I blew it all away. A full combat load of ammo goes quick enough in semiautomatic as it is.

Please correct me if I am wrong on my technical data, but I do believe I am correct.
Peas is offline  
Old June 21, 2012, 03:02 PM   #69
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
My intent was to suggest that it should be obvious that a belt-fed weapon, individual or crew-serviced, would be there for full-auto fire. But that brings up an interesting question, quite the opposite of the original question.

Why should a machine gun (whatever you care to call it) have a semi-automatic or select fire capability? Supposedly the policy was for the Bren gun to be used as a semi-automatic weapon "to disguise from the enemy that a machine gun is being used against them." Are machine gunners really trained to try to achieve single shots on a full-auto only weapon?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old June 21, 2012, 03:32 PM   #70
Peas
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Posts: 9
Quote:
Why should a machine gun (whatever you care to call it) have a semi-automatic or select fire capability? Supposedly the policy was for the Bren gun to be used as a semi-automatic weapon "to disguise from the enemy that a machine gun is being used against them." Are machine gunners really trained to try to achieve single shots on a full-auto only weapon?
For the first question, if you mean 'machine gun' like a full auto M4, then the select fire is there for options, like mentioned above. I'm not going to be using burst fire at near the weapon's max effective range. Yes, I could quickly let off the trigger with full auto as to only shoot one round, but that makes for much more difficult precision shots. No idea why they would want to disguise a machine gun, as it's a great psychological weapon. Does make you a priority target though. Double edged sword; you're much more dangerous, but more important to be targeted earlier.

For belt fed weapons, single shots aren't too hard to achieve. The 240B is quite easy to fire in single shots, but it is basically used to determine where your shots hit in relation to your sights. I can see that being used for a vehicle gunner to get used to the weapon so they can compensate. The slower the rate of fire, the easier it is to control how many rounds you send down range, of course. For belt fed weapons, not really needed, in my opinion. It would be neat to see a selector switch for rate of fire beyond adjusting the gas feed though.
Peas is offline  
Old June 21, 2012, 11:25 PM   #71
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,076
Full auto for the regular infantryman-No, IMHO.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old June 22, 2012, 07:29 AM   #72
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
No. When I said machine gun, I meant an M240, an M249, a Bren, a BAR, any Browning machine gun and so on. An M4 carbine to the army is not a machine gun, it's a select fire carbine. A submachine gun to the army is not a machine gun, it's a submachine gun.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old June 22, 2012, 10:58 AM   #73
Peas
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Posts: 9
Eh, I figured I'd address my thoughts on both as 'machine gun' has been used pretty much interchangeably throughout the thread so far. I've never heard of them referred to as machine guns since joining the Army, it's always either the designation or 'crew served' weapons. May just be my unit. Either way, I stand by my opinion.

Quote:
For belt fed weapons, single shots aren't too hard to achieve. The 240B is quite easy to fire in single shots, but it is basically used to determine where your shots hit in relation to your sights. I can see that being used for a vehicle gunner to get used to the weapon so they can compensate. The slower the rate of fire, the easier it is to control how many rounds you send down range, of course. For belt fed weapons, not really needed, in my opinion. It would be neat to see a selector switch for rate of fire beyond adjusting the gas feed though.
__________________
MK19: "See that guy over there? **** him and everyone around him."
Peas is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 08:28 AM   #74
jhenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,813
Let me state what I have found to be obvious.

When you walk into that valley with your brothers, and there is a group of somebodies already there, you will find this question to be patently foolish.

Not always needed, true. But when you need it you need it now, and not theoretically.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer
jhenry is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 05:18 PM   #75
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,691
Having been in some tight spots myself, I say a resounding YES!
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12919 seconds with 7 queries