Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 5/2/2001 9:10:04 PM EDT
Does anybody know the details regarding the decision by the army to install the 3 rd burst in the M16 in Vietam?
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 9:50:02 PM EDT
troops waste less ammo with it than full auto, and it can be just as fast.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 9:56:46 PM EDT
know anything more specific about who, when, where???
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 9:59:04 PM EDT
not really, but I remember a special about the AR15/M16 I saw a long time ago (think it was a video in fact) and the DOD got tired of the troops wasting too much ammo with uncontrolled fire, so the 3 round burst trigger group was born.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 9:10:41 PM EDT
I was involved in a joint Army/Marine pre issue testing project on the M16A2 in the 80s. The 3 shot burst recieved negative reviews from all the soldiers/marines involved. A well trained soldier will use his weapon in the semi auto mode most of the time. Further, 3 shot bursts are easily attained by a trained user with a full auto weapon. The few times you need automatic fire, you need alot of it. The ratchet system employed by the A2 does not allow this. If you short stroke the trigger in an attempt to attain a high rate of fire, you may end up with only a 1 or 2 shot burst. These concerns were simply dismissed after the trials. The powers that be forced the 3 shot burst on troops to compensate for shortened training time and less emphasis on basic marksmenship. Those of us in units that allowed flexibility in this area retained full auto weapons. Many countries that purchase the M16 have refused the 3 shot burst mechanism. Some of the M4s are now being issued with full auto sears to units that "have a need". With a little luck, we may see this come full circle.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 10:22:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ken: Does anybody know the details regarding the decision by the army to install the 3 rd burst in the M16 in Vietam?
View Quote
It was well AFTER Vietnam. The M16A2 was not adopted until well into the 80's. In Fact, In the Air Force at the time, we still had M-16's(not A1, no fwd assist)
Link Posted: 5/6/2001 1:54:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Callahan44m:
Originally Posted By Ken: Does anybody know the details regarding the decision by the army to install the 3 rd burst in the M16 in Vietam?
View Quote
It was well AFTER Vietnam. The M16A2 was not adopted until well into the 80's. In Fact, In the Air Force at the time, we still had M-16's(not A1, no fwd assist)
View Quote
Concur... In the early 80's we qual'd with 16's, and later saw A1's, no A2's made it our way until the mid 80's. I would agree that FA Trigger management is a basic skill anyone should be able to master, but they had to design for the "Lowest Common Denominator". That's why Infantry still gets Burst, and SpecOps gets FA. I would also agree that when you need FA to lay down some heavy fire, you REALLY need it, but you don't associate "heavy fire" with a 2-3 second "burst" from an M16 stuffed with a 20 or 30 round mag, that's what the "Belt-Fed Baby's" (SAW's) supposed to bring to the fight [;)]
Link Posted: 5/6/2001 1:59:57 PM EDT
When one of the SAW's would go down during a live-fire, we were expected to pick up the slack with our A2's. It would take all three remaining members in the team using burst to equal the firepower of that SAW. If we still had FA as an option on M16's, only one guy would have to switch. Burst is a waste of time and ammo.
Link Posted: 5/7/2001 5:13:25 PM EDT
I would also agree that when you need FA to lay down some heavy fire, you REALLY need it, but you don't associate "heavy fire" with a 2-3 second "burst" from an M16 stuffed with a 20 or 30 round mag, that's what the "Belt-Fed Baby's" (SAW's) supposed to bring to the fight [;)][/quote] Ahhhh, belt fed, I am starting to get warm and tingly! But none of this SAW stuff! For "heavy fire" I like 7.62 and above. Actually, with FA for the 16's I was talking on the lines of CQB. Although a cut down M60 is an excellent entry weapon in my book :)
Link Posted: 5/8/2001 10:08:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By unclestu: Although a cut down M60 is an excellent entry weapon in my book :)
View Quote
WTF? What color is the sky in your world? M60 as an entry weapon? Why not just cut down a Ma Deuce and go all out?
Link Posted: 5/10/2001 6:25:58 AM EDT
Why not just cut down a Ma Deuce and go all out?[/quote] I tried, but could never find a good way to attach a buttstock! But seriously.... I consider any weapon excellent if it accomplishes the mission and gets me and the team home in one piece. I have used a cut down M60 as an entry weapon. Of course these were military raids where there was little concern of overpenetration, civilian casualties, etc. Just happened to be the weapon I was carrying for a blocking position when we had a quick change of plans. Although a bit unwieldy in a CQB environment, the end result was favorable. Imagine a FA M4, with a Beta C mag, on steroids. Not meant to be a recommendation, just clarifying my point on the original thread about 3 round burst. No one should have to do a dynamic entry into a room full of unfriendlies, clear a trench or bunker, etc., etc., and be hampered with a burst device. More time and money spent on live fire training is what yields results. Not poorly thought out weapons "improvements", not to mention an extra 7 days spent on values training, AND nifty new hats for everyone!
Link Posted: 5/10/2001 7:42:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By unclestu: I tried, but could never find a good way to attach a buttstock!
View Quote
LOL!
Link Posted: 5/10/2001 10:31:01 PM EDT
When I got out in 87, we were switching to the 3 round burst weapon... A couple yrs ago, I was introduced to my baby sisters newest beau....Claiming Basic training in 93....He 'LOVED FA with the M16'....I called him a flat out liar.....sure hope I was right....
Link Posted: 5/11/2001 12:12:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/11/2001 12:18:12 AM EDT by TacCar]
I never was a fan of full auto, from a civilians point of view I thought it overrated. But yet again I defer to the vets of the real wars, (yes I fu*#ing love the History Channel. They preferred a high volume of fire. Put the enemies head down, make them pause in their attack, or better yet stop and take up a position of cover, then manuever and fire. Most of the time they couldn't see the enemy(no taget to shoot) so they wuold dump as much fire into the general direction/area enemy fire was coming from(to break up their momentum/advance) and bring up reinforcements and overhelm them. One guy said his sergent told him, we can always get more ammo, but we may not be able to get more riflemen. The 3 round burst was cooked up by Pentagon bean counters struggling with budget cutbacks. They totally forgot lessons learned from experience(new generation who fail to learn from the past).Ther's no substitute for full auto when you need it, because when you need it, it's because the enemy is on top of you and you need to make them put thier heads down. 3 round burst=bad,bad idea(especially when you don't want to be bothered with training your troops). If you got a target aimed semiauto will be the best way to go. If you don't have a target and somebody sure as hell is shooting at you, then full auto and put thier heads down(that way maybe you don't get your head blown off).Then manuever and kill the bastards.
Link Posted: 5/12/2001 6:31:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/12/2001 6:30:40 AM EDT by Ken]
I dunno...just seems to me anyone who could qualify to fire a M16 could master bursts in FA. Ya Know?[:)>] Hey what happened to my face?
Link Posted: 5/13/2001 5:35:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/13/2001 10:38:18 PM EDT
ArmaLite, I got to interview Bruce Wincentsen, Dave Lutz's boss during the M16A2 fielding and essentially got the same answer. They had actually tested different variations and settled on 3 rounds because that is what the test firing showed to give maximum hitability. I also got to sit down with your boss Mr. W on his trip out here and he quoted something called the Marshall report which was after action reports of battle. He said the findings indicated that the casualties were never found without ammo indicating that the round wastage of Full Auto was a fallacy. Please tell him I was paying full attention, and I'd like to repeat the experience "on tape" soon. Also would you know if I could reach Dave Lutz at Knight still?
Link Posted: 5/22/2001 3:27:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/22/2001 9:50:12 AM EDT
Another interesting point about the three round burst seer is that it interferes with the trigger pull during semi-auto firing, and the pull varies from approx. 6-9 pounds depending on the posisition of the seer. Not good for accurate fire.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 9:19:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/27/2001 3:16:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep: For some reason I remember our "Host DI" being extremely impressed, so maybe it was a fluke or out of the ordinary, but if 14-16 yr/o kids can pick it up in a day, I don't understand the reason for not having FA.
View Quote
I would say it has a lot to do with the level of motivation. JROTC types on a 'fun visit' are probably going to be a little more motivated to learn than your average grunt recruit who is probably sleep-deprived, exhausted and brain-numb by the time he reaches the rifle range. I qualified 'expert' with the M16 and M1911A1 - but I had been shooting rifles and pistols all my life. I remember being amazed by all the guys in basic training who had never even seen a firearm of any type before they enlisted.
Top Top