For a military select fire rifle, is burst or full auto better?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - For a military select fire rifle, is burst or full auto better?

Posted: 1/23/2006 4:47:19 PM EDT

I got into it with a guy I know, and wanted a general consensus. Is a rifle thats dedicated to semiautomatic, a rifle with Semi/Burst, or a rifle with Semi/Auto more useful for combat and/or tactical application? I, personally, think that Semi/Auto would be best, because if you want to shoot bursts you still can, but you still have auto if you need it.

Posted: 1/23/2006 4:50:45 PM EDT

[#1]

I'd want the selector the have:

Safe
Semi
Burst
Auto

Why are we limited to burst or auto? Plenty of guns have three fire optionsin addition to safe.

Posted: 1/23/2006 4:52:04 PM EDT

[#2]

Burst is worthless

Posted: 1/23/2006 4:52:52 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Burst is worthless

+1

Posted: 1/23/2006 4:54:29 PM EDT

[#4]

For the most part, an assault rifle on full auto is a waste of ammo. Full auto is mostly used for suppressive fire. Usually after the second or third round, you are no where near your original point of aim. It does have application in house clearing, etc. It is however, very fun.

Semper Fi

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:02:24 PM EDT

[#5]

Burst was created because under-trained troops were dumping mags at one enemy because they got freaked out. They weren't controlling their strings when faced with multiple enemies. If you have ever shot a FA m16, at 25 meters, you will typically get 3 rounds on the target, and the rest will be off due to muzzle climb. Enter 3 round burst. It forced the troop to pull the trigger again, most likely forcing him/her to sight on the target once again. Personally, I'd like to see semi, burst, and auto. Auto has applications. Burst has applications (intermediate distance where speed is required, but a degree of accuracy is also). Semi works well for longer distances where accuracy is very necessary, and auto is great for CQB where you need to get as much lead at the enemy as possible. They all have their purposes.

However, I chose semi/auto because it's the most versatile. You can get your bursts to 3 rounds if you practice, and you can have semi's inherent accuracy, while still having the ability to go FA if you need.

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:06:53 PM EDT

[#6]

Burst is simply an effort to compensate for inadequate training. End of discussion.

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:08:36 PM EDT

[#7]

I've heard from a few places (magazines, books, online. nowhere in particular) that 3-round burst isn't as good as 2-round because the last shot doesn't go anywhere near the first two *shrugs*

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:09:15 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Burst is worthless

+1

This seems to be the case, not from my personal experience though. I asked a fomer Marine buddy of mine in college and he said that burst is just a pain in the ass, all you really need is good trigger discipline.

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:16:07 PM EDT

[#9]

Burst was created because under-trained troops were dumping mags at one enemy because they got freaked out. They weren't controlling their strings when faced with multiple enemies. If you have ever shot a FA m16, at 25 meters, you will typically get 3 rounds on the target, and the rest will be off due to muzzle climb. Enter 3 round burst. It forced the troop to pull the trigger again, most likely forcing him/her to sight on the target once again. Personally, I'd like to see semi, burst, and auto. Auto has applications. Burst has applications (intermediate distance where speed is required, but a degree of accuracy is also). Semi works well for longer distances where accuracy is very necessary, and auto is great for CQB where you need to get as much lead at the enemy as possible. They all have their purposes.

However, I chose semi/auto because it's the most versatile. You can get your bursts to 3 rounds if you practice, and you can have semi's inherent accuracy, while still having the ability to go FA if you need.

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:22:46 PM EDT

[#10]

I really didn't like burst. I always felt that soldiers should be given the option of auto if needed, and the soldier should be the one tomake that decision, not some bean pusher in Washington. I feel the same way about selector locks on M-14's.

Like CAR-10 said, all you really need is good trigger dicipline.

-K

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:27:35 PM EDT

[#11]

Get Both

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:28:55 PM EDT

[#12]

once again
+ 1 for another 2111
whats up brother

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:31:50 PM EDT

[#13]

full auto is better when used correctly. Burst is ok and you can dump a magazine really quick on burst as well.

Supposedly the AN-94 Abakan with it's 2 shot burst , both bullets will make one hole at 100 yards. , I think that's kinda neat. Something like that if it worked would be looking into.

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:36:50 PM EDT

[#14]

I chose semi/burst. I have no military background and my only combat experience is playing paintball and counter strike. So my vote is not exactly worth a lot.

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:45:03 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
full auto is better when used correctly. Burst is ok and you can dump a magazine really quick on burst as well.

Supposedly the AN-94 Abakan with it's 2 shot burst , both bullets will make one hole at 100 yards. , I think that's kinda neat. Something like that if it worked would be looking into.

wouldn't it be better if the second bullet ended up a couple MOA off from the first? that way, if the first shot slightly misses a vital area, the second one has a chance to hit something important.

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:49:00 PM EDT

[#16]

When I was issued my M-16A2 in 85 it had a really bad trigger due to the 3 RD Burst function
semi auto fire had 3 distinct pull/sear release pressures, I hope they fixed that in later upgrades

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:49:50 PM EDT

[#17]

Burst, at least on the M16A2 is a waste of time. Once on a 25 yd pop up range as an experiment I shot thru 2 mags using burst only. The verdict- just the first round was on target, the rest were high. Full auto has some use, when assaulting through an ambush perhaps, but rapid semi auto is the most effective.

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:51:55 PM EDT

[#18]

I do believe that AN-94 does not have a single fire. its 2rd burst and FA. I remember seeing something in guns and ammo a while ago. thx
Jeff

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:53:39 PM EDT

[#19]

Auto!!!

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:55:33 PM EDT

[#20]

Semi & FA is the only thing that makes sense.

Posted: 1/23/2006 5:56:53 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I'd want the selector the have:

Safe
Semi
Burst
Auto

Why are we limited to burst or auto? Plenty of guns have three fire optionsin addition to safe.

I was going to post that

Posted: 1/23/2006 6:03:09 PM EDT

[#22]

Auto, then you control the burst yourself

Posted: 1/23/2006 6:06:10 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
full auto is better when used correctly. Burst is ok and you can dump a magazine really quick on burst as well.

Supposedly the AN-94 Abakan with it's 2 shot burst , both bullets will make one hole at 100 yards. , I think that's kinda neat. Something like that if it worked would be looking into.

IIRC, the AN-94 had an unusual firing system in that the first 2 rounds, whether in the 2rd burst or auto selection, would fire at a rate of 1800rpm, and then slowing down to a normal-ish rate of 600rpm. It has a selector for SAFE, SEMI, BURST (2 rounds), and AUTO. The high rpm for the first two rounds would allow the 1 hole at 100 meters.

Posted: 1/23/2006 6:06:53 PM EDT

[#24]

Auto can do a variable of bursts

Posted: 1/23/2006 6:08:28 PM EDT

[#25]

A traditional burst such as that on the M-16a2 is pretty much worthless, however in new weapons with a hypothetical super high cyclic rate would be very slick though such as on the AN-94 or the never produced HK G-11. The burst fires all three rounds before the recoil affects the aim of the shooter and the three rounds impacting so close together would provide catostophic damage and allow for exceptional armor penetration.

Posted: 1/23/2006 6:08:47 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd want the selector the have:

Safe
Semi
Burst
Auto

Why are we limited to burst or auto? Plenty of guns have three fire optionsin addition to safe.

I was going to post that

Why in the world would you want that many options on a weapon?

Posted: 1/23/2006 6:10:05 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd want the selector the have:

Safe
Semi
Burst
Auto

Why are we limited to burst or auto? Plenty of guns have three fire optionsin addition to safe.

I was going to post that

Why in the world would you want that many options on a weapon?

Posted: 1/23/2006 6:45:40 PM EDT

[#28]

I would go with Safe/Semi/Auto

If you need to aim, use semi, or even auto with superb trigger control.

Get swamped, click it over to full and let the rest of the mag go.

Posted: 1/23/2006 6:50:25 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
A traditional burst such as that on the M-16a2 is pretty much worthless, however in new weapons with a hypothetical super high cyclic rate would be very slick though such as on the AN-94 or the never produced HK G-11. The burst fires all three rounds before the recoil affects the aim of the shooter and the three rounds impacting so close together would provide catostophic damage and allow for exceptional armor penetration.

Agreed.

Posted: 1/23/2006 7:12:22 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd want the selector the have:

Safe
Semi
Burst
Auto

Why are we limited to burst or auto? Plenty of guns have three fire optionsin addition to safe.

I was going to post that

Why in the world would you want that many options on a weapon?

Because I like options....

I was envisioning....
a burst feature at 1800rpm (say of three rounds) or something like that and an auto mode fired from an open bolt, the other semi/burst being fired from closed bolt....feed from a 60 round quad stacked magazine....in bullpup configuration

Posted: 1/23/2006 7:12:35 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd want the selector the have:

Safe
Semi
Burst
Auto

Why are we limited to burst or auto? Plenty of guns have three fire optionsin addition to safe.

I was going to post that

Why in the world would you want that many options on a weapon?

Ooohhh a hiccup!

I voted Semi / Auto.

I will not argue the benefits, or lack thereof of a burst fire over full auto. Like what 82Abn asked, why do you want / need so many options?

IMO, when you have handled an AR long enough, you will have learned to have trigger control. You will have learned to fire 3 shot bursts from a full auto fire without need of a specific selector designation for it.

Besides, I have tried a friends rifle with the semi, burst and full auto option ... it's darn confusing!

Posted: 1/23/2006 7:21:13 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd want the selector the have:

Safe
Semi
Burst
Auto

Why are we limited to burst or auto? Plenty of guns have three fire optionsin addition to safe.

I was going to post that

Why in the world would you want that many options on a weapon?

Ooohhh a hiccup!

I voted Semi / Auto.

I will not argue the benefits, or lack thereof of a burst fire over full auto. Like what 82Abn asked, why do you want / need so many options?

IMO, when you have handled an AR long enough, you will have learned to have trigger control. You will have learned to fire 3 shot bursts from a full auto fire without need of a specific selector designation for it.

Besides, I have tried a friends rifle with the semi, burst and full auto option ... it's darn confusing!

Think that confusion was not having used the feature for long enough?

I'm not saying one is useful over the other, I just like the option. See the post above, the burst I was thinking about would be a a higher cyclical rate than auto...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - For a military select fire rifle, is burst or full auto better?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us