Just read earlier about this http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-07/what-really-happened-wanat on GD and got to thinking. If the M4 is better used in Semi Auto(as stated by many Mil. guys here ) why dont we go back to .308? It seems there is less and less support to having the 556 then I originally thought. One reason we got away from .30 was recoil on full auto. Seems like that defense is going out the window also. Your thoughts ?

Depends on which system. M14 Has 20,25, AR10 I believe is also 20,25,

I think the problem is the wrong appication of full auto......not that it not useful.

I read the article nad it stated that the M4 is not really made to be run on burst or auto for any length of time. I didnt know it was that easy to exceeed the 150 rounds per min as stated. The article alo stated that many troops rarely used auto

Which happens to be 10 less than 30. That adds up. Combat load of 7 magazines = 140 rounds of 7.62 or 210 rounds of 5.56.



Not to mention both of those platforms weigh a significant amount more than the M16/M4 platforms or the fact that most combat engagements are below 300m with the vast majority under 75m, or the fact that both of those platforms suck ass when doing vehicle mounted operations.

I know that we were told that there was no acceptable reason for using a three round burst.  Anyone caught firing their weapon in that mode would receive, at minimum, an Article 15.  This included ranges, blanks, and any deployment.

Again the problem comes from trying to use a assault rifle like a LMG or SAW.

I agree with the mag advantage . But if you get rid of full auto and leave that to the SAW gunner do you really need 70 extra rounds ? Im not pushing the well aimed shot angle but just simply that 08 was phased out for full auto which we dont use anymore. If its all about Mag capacity then why not 40 round AR mags?

And what was the reason for this?

I've never fired full-auto.  How tough is it to keep on target at say 50 yards?  I know in semi-auto, my group size goes up the faster I shoot (obviously).

 

A good effective 3-4 rd burst should look like a shotgun pattern at 25 yrds.

All shots on an orange, ymmv depending on caliber and platform.

eta: was ref 25yd groupings. not fiddy

on semi or full ?

Man size about a 10 inch spead with M16 On ful auto

MP5 platform, 25yards, full to be specific. M4 is going to be 2 or 3 times that in my hands.

I don't know the particulars of the M4, but fully automatic fire in general is a huge advantage if you're properly trained in how to use it.  Most people aren't.

That said, the FAL on automatic is nearly uncontrollable.

It depends on the weapon.

My grouping tends to be the opposite with 9mm weapons vs 223/5.56mm. Also what type of fore grip comes into play as well, vert pistol grip like the Knight model on a M4 type weapon and I get tighter then a hozinal grip

M4 and M16 on full auto rock n roll (no 3 round burst) is pretty controllable, IMHO.

I shot both offhand at a ARFcom shoot.

My take on it this. .308 is better in that role as long as you can keep the weight of the weapon down. Loads of reports are stating that it is taking 3 or more shots to score a kill on the bad guys, this at least partially negates the extra ammo advantage of the .556.
I subscribe to the well aimed shot theory. However for urban (MOUT) ops and vehicle born ops the M4 is better because it is easier to use.

Jim

In my limited experience, totally depending on each gun, from a small 12" pie plate group at 100 yards, to a pattern of several feet at the same distance. Some guns are very controllable because of their design features and over all weight. I felt the SAW was very controllable and grouped nice at 100, while the G36 was all over the place.

Many people get the wrong idea about full auto from the movies. To my mind, it is for squad level fighting with some training. Fix 'em and flank 'em. Not one guy taking on several full auto and killing them all

The problem, as the US discovered in Vietnam, is that you very seldom get a nice shot at your enemy.  For some reason those shifty little bastards like to be concealed and they run fast and they hide behind stuff and you may engage them and never really see much of them.   Combat is not exactly like being at the range where you are sitting at a bench and the enemy is standing still on the 100 yd line.

Full auto makes your more effective at dealing with the enemy because you can spray and pray whenever you get a glimpse of them.  

The full auto M-16 A-1 greatly increased the firepower and the effectiveness of the soldiers in Vietnam.  When I first got there I was issued an M-14 in 1967 and I was very glad to get the M-16 as a replacement.

I can’t speak for the war nowadays.  My Cav Scout son tells me that while they had lots of weapons training they very seldom trained with shooting the three shot burst and they were discouraged from using it in his deployment.  Maybe the reason for it is that the squad full auto squad weapons are better and more numerous than the M-60s we used in Vietnam so there the doctrine is to concentrate the fire power on them.

I am no expert but I think that at the end of the day it really doesn’t make too much of a difference anyway because my understanding is that very few of the enemy is ever really killed by individual marksmanship.  My understanding is that typically 80% of the enemy is killed by indirect artillery, air, mortar etc firepower and of the remainder mostly are killed by crew served weapons such as the machine guns.  Only a very small percentage actually are killed by individual marksmanship.

too many reasons to list that this is not needed

I've only shot a MP5SD2 in full auto.

It was actually pretty easy to keep on target considering the ROF. I just held down the trigger and drove the gun towards the target since the recoil constant and predictable.

Pulling the trigger as fast as possible in semi would've jerked the gun all over the place.

Granted it's only 9mm sub machine gun. Not a actual rifle cartridge.

and trying to use the full auto feature on an individual weapon like its on semi is rediculous

full auto is for gaining fire superiority, and very close CQB. its not just the sum of the rounds it has a psych impact as well.

I've had it explained to me that semi is for when you want to kill someone and full-auto is for when you get the shit scared out of you or you want to do the same to them

This was my experience with my AR last weekend.  I'm embarrassed to admit it but I've never really fired it fast.  I tried 20 rounds at 50 yards on a 12" target.  I counted 11 hits on the target (all over it), 2 more on the board it was mounted to and 7 unaccounted for.  I was actually surprised that got that many on the target because I felt like I had no real control over where they were going.  I have a scope on my rifle, but I was firing too fast and the rifle was moving too much to really see the target through the scope.

It sounds like it might actually be easier to paint a better group on full auto than just pulling the trigger fast on semi.

This goes with what I have read. But the guys at this FOB didnt have the high ground . I have read that enagements(not counting this one) were taking place at longer ranges .