I mean from the Korean War back this feature was non-existant and from Vietnam on it has been almost standard.  What caused it's creation and is the reason for it's creation then still relevant today?

Research in the 1950s showed that fully automatic fire in small arms was a waste of ammo because soldiers were using it more than they needed. It also showed that three-, four-, and five-round bursts were the most effective, which is why the three-round burst was then implemented into the design. Off the top of my head, I think the project was called SALVO and followed another study that also showed most combat takes place at relatively short ranges.

Quoted: Research in the 1950s showed that fully automatic fire in small arms was a waste of ammo because soldiers were using it more than they needed. It also showed that three-, four-, and five-round bursts were the most effective, which is why the three-round burst was then implemented into the design. Off the top of my head, I think the project was called SALVO and followed another study that also showed most combat takes place at relatively short ranges.

Thanks for answering my first question; what about my second question though?

Aren't all our LMG, and HMG gunners taught how to shoot in bursts effectivly?  Wouldn't it be just as easy to teach our riflemen just the same or do you think there would still be a tendancy to waste more ammo then necessary?

Quoted: Quoted: Research in the 1950s showed that fully automatic fire in small arms was a waste of ammo because soldiers were using it more than they needed. It also showed that three-, four-, and five-round bursts were the most effective, which is why the three-round burst was then implemented into the design. Off the top of my head, I think the project was called SALVO and followed another study that also showed most combat takes place at relatively short ranges. Thanks for answering my first question; what about my second question though? Aren't all our LMG, and HMG gunners taught how to shoot in bursts effectivly?  Wouldn't it be just as easy to teach our riflemen just the same or do you think there would still be a tendancy to waste more ammo then necessary?

It's called fear, if you have an enemy engage you, you won't control your finger, you will hold the trigger until he falls down.  Burst saves ammo and gets the job done.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Research in the 1950s showed that fully automatic fire in small arms was a waste of ammo because soldiers were using it more than they needed. It also showed that three-, four-, and five-round bursts were the most effective, which is why the three-round burst was then implemented into the design. Off the top of my head, I think the project was called SALVO and followed another study that also showed most combat takes place at relatively short ranges. Thanks for answering my first question; what about my second question though? Aren't all our LMG, and HMG gunners taught how to shoot in bursts effectivly?  Wouldn't it be just as easy to teach our riflemen just the same or do you think there would still be a tendancy to waste more ammo then necessary? It's called fear, if you have an enemy engage you, you won't control your finger, you will hold the trigger until he falls down.  Burst saves ammo and gets the job done.

Training can overcome fear.  Remember when all else fails you'll always fall back on your training, IIRC it takes 2400 times of doing the same thing to get it into your muscle memory.

FYI, crew served weapon operators are instructed to fire 6 to 9 round burts. Just cutting loose on a 50 round burst will get you yelled at on the range...I've seen it.

The biggest advantage of the 3 round burst ist that it allows a less skilled soldier to provide effective and accurate automatic fire. The cyclic rate is quite high which can allow for 3 rapid hits at increased ranges. Accomplishing this feat with a fully automatic rifle requires much more skill and training. I feel that 3 round burst can be used at greater ranges, more effectively than fully automatic. The 3 round burst could likely be done better in the M4/A2/A4*Remember, the M4A1 is full auto and early M4's are still used in 3 round burst form*. Depending on how long the previous burst was, the next burst may only fire 1 or 2 rounds instead of 3. The 3 round burst probably doesnt save as much as ammo as originally anticipated as an A2 can be emptied almost instantly with proper "timing". At first glance, 3 round burst seems like a handicap. However, its much more effective for the average soldier than full auto. The M16A3 is availible for those who don't require a fire-control "babysitter".

Our three round burst is the most poorly executed form of full auto in any assault weapon ever.  The third round will never hit your target.  It suffers from partial reset and has poor trigger feel.  The Russian Akban 2 round burst is the best "burst" concept.  IMO our 3 round burst was a huge mistake.

Does anyone make a 2rd burst cam for the M16 FCG

Quoted: Aren't all our LMG, and HMG gunners taught how to shoot in bursts effectivly?  Wouldn't it be just as easy to teach our riflemen just the same or do you think there would still be a tendancy to waste more ammo then necessary?

I don't know the definite answer on that, but my guess is that the military simply finds it easier to stick with the burst configuration than to make all standard rifles full auto and then to train everyone on using bursts with that.

and from Vietnam on it has been almost standard.

The 3 rnd burst was an A2 feature, after Vietnam.

My .02 cents.

I trained with both the M16A1 and M16A2 in the Army (ie Full auto mode and Burst mode).

You can easily do controlled 3-4 round effective bursts with the M16A1 or any other full-auto  M16 with a little experience and training.

The 3 round burst mode of the M16A2 amounts nothing more than "Dumbing Down" the rifle for poorly trained or undisciplined soldiers.

The other issue is, you don't always get exactly 3 rounds in burst mode.

I wish they would just ditch the burst mode and spend more time training soldiers on effective fire control, a much better result in the end.

I think that they did it to make the "spray and pray" tactic impossible to do.  

Quoted: My .02 cents. I trained with both the M16A1 and M16A2 in the Army (ie Full auto mode and Burst mode). You can easily do controlled 3-4 round effective bursts with the M16A1 or any other full-auto  M16 with a little experience and training. The 3 round burst mode of the M16A2 amounts nothing more than "Dumbing Down" the rifle for poorly trained or undisciplined soldiers. The other issue is, you don't always get exactly 3 rounds in burst mode. I wish they would just ditch the burst mode and spend more time training soldiers on effective fire control, a much better result in the end.

+1

Trained alot with 16's and never had a problem doing accurate 2-3 bursts.

Shooting the A2 on burst, you are essentially forced to use a bad trigger pull " yank and hold"  to be sure all 3 shots get off so the cam resets.

I don't think it saves any ammo and it only makes poorly trained troops pull the trigger 10 times in rapid succession to empty a mag instead of once.

Don't remember the story on who's " Idea " it was but I would guess some Gen officer sitting in the Pentagon thought it would save $ .

I have shot over 100,000 rounds through a multitude of M16 variations, and you really need to do your full auto shooting on a target to see exactly where the thing is hitting.  Usually, the first two shots will hit fairly close, but shots 3,4, and 5, move away from the group, and then 6-30 are back buried into the target.  

You need to either shoot 2 shots, or a whole bunch.  Stay away from bursts in the 3-5 range.

Tony Rumore
Tromix Corp

I pretty sure that the study in the 50’s, and various battle studies done prior to that, showed that automatic were the most used weapons, responsible for most of the shooting and hitting done by small arms.  Additionally they found 4 rounds with a 20” spread as the optimal to yield the highest potential to hit a target.  

I don’t think the burst is so much there because of a “dumb-ing down” but more a recognition that under the extreme adrenaline dump that occur in life threatening circumstances fine muscle control is lost and that what is trained, short bursts, tend to grow in length under the stressors of combat.  The burst may only grow by a couple of rounds each burst, but those add up after a while.  

Trust me I have seen it time and time again, to include seeing a few members of units that had the “unlimited ammo budgets” in peace time, men under fire will dump allot more rounds into targets than they were trained too in peace time.  

I believe the current incarnation of a burst regulator needs fixing, not so much for a “bad” trigger pull but it does not always firing a 3 round burst because of the cam in it.    

There is allot of training to shoot burst in close fighting these days, just a lesson learned from the GWOT.  Many of the Jihadists are on narcotics and standard failure drills are allot harder to do in real life than on the range.   As one LCpl put it, “it’s damn hard to shoot someone in the head, even inside a room.”  

My .02,

Training is what is needed not some stupid "wastes ammo" mentality.....we are the richest country in the world, lets act like it and more imporantly lets use the money to enforce better training programs instead of cutting corners.

The military does not like to train people, it takes time and takes soldiers away from important tasks like, police call, PMCS, formations to tell you when the next formation is and other important nit-noid stuff.

I think the sooner we can get away from this SWAT type mentality in the mainstay of armed forces the better off we'll be (SWAT tactics work ok for  S.F. and  other cool guys-but they do it alot and it works for SWAT when there aren't alot of bad guys that have AKs on the other side of a door and like to shoot back). I trained with the M16A1 and they beat into our heads short bursts...to the point that any more than a 3-round burst seemed unnatural until the call for "suppressive fire was given". I once told an S.F. guy in responce to my saying "Whenever I was clearing houses down range and levelled my rifle at something, I had my weapon selector switch set to Group Therapy"; In responce he asked "why?"-I told him "I ain't S.F. and if I am going in to this house and have to shoot someone I want them to die fast" and "multiple hits from controlled short bursts are more devastating than any controlled pair will ever be" 5-6 rounds to his 2 and if there is a bunch of bad dudes I can lay down a bit of heat so the next men in the "stack" can get in and achieve dominance in the room. Also the M4A1s that S.F. use have Full auto settings just in case they are needed.

In Iraq ditched the A2 trigger mech. for a M4A1 full auto trigger and In Afganistan I carried an AMD-65 and usually had it on "Group Therapy" setting. Most of the problem of accuracy is that people try to shoot an assault rifle like a rifle, not like a assault rifle. So they got inflicted with a stupid Marine Corps idea the "M16A2" (burst, and the A2 rifle as a whole for that matter IMHO) and instead use SAWs a lot in room clearing because of its high volume of fire and great suppressive effect. My "squad" (more like a 3/4 strength fire team) did not have a SAW and the guys I saw that used them had a tougher time moving about in tough places.

Remember all the news footage of combat in Vietnam  where the GIs were shown holding the M16s over their heads (Out of a trench or over a wall) & dumping full mags.
Trying to end all the "Spray & Pray"

I have shot over 100,000 rounds through a multitude of M16 variations, and you really need to do your full auto shooting on a target to see exactly where the thing is hitting. Usually, the first two shots will hit fairly close, but shots 3,4, and 5, move away from the group, and then 6-30 are back buried into the target.

You need to either shoot 2 shots, or a whole bunch. Stay away from bursts in the 3-5 range.

Tony Rumore
Tromix Corp


Exactly.  H&K went to 3 rnd burst, then to 2 rnd burst.

and you know what that was Viet Nam, with a new weapon system and an army not trained in its usage either. It wasn't until after Viet-Nam that training programs were hashed out from what I have been told.

Yeah, look at a HK now it is straight up full auto-go figure on that.........Also the burst was preffered to single shots in close combat because you need to incapacitate quickly before they can shoot you back. A matter of training

Also, I bet if you looked back into history you'd see quite a few guys with M1 rifles, carbines shotguns etc. holding a gun up over a trench or wall and shooting willy-nilly.

Full Auto good for getting out of an ambush, 3rnd burst not as good. What else besides suppression fire are you going full auto.
3rnd was created for simpler riflemen.

it all falls back on your training!!!

Quoted: Studies show the 3rd burst system saved ammo, increased hit probability and leathality at close range and enhanced barrel life. IMHO it is a substitute for proper training.  In many instances, especially with SPEC OPS and Marines you will very often see semi-auto aimed fire.  These guys get MUCH more training time and trigger time than the average soldier. Denny

Wow, some of these gun plumbers really do know what they are talking about ;)

I can count on my hands the number of times I fired my service weapon on burst during my time in the Corps. Semi automatic, well aimed fire is what we were taught.

In the Marine Corps, the definition of Firepower = Bullets hitting people. Not blowing your whole load down range in 2 seconds. Even in training, a "DUMP-EX" is highly frowned upon.

I was a machine gunner 0331, and even then, if you started "getting a little too much" and let the pigs rip you got a slap upside your fuckin head. Marksmanship is taken to a zen level in the Marine Corps, irregardless of what weapon system you happen to be on. So much in fact that I've seen boots get snatched up and thrashed because they made the ill-fated mistake of stating that they chose to be machine gunners because they were NSF's (non shooting fucks) with a long gun. Any Machine Gun section leader in the Marine Corps worth a shit should train his Marines to strive for a body falling to the earth with every round sent down range. Machine Guns are a suppresive fire weapon by definition, however the Marines look at them more as automatic rifles that allow you to drop a lot of mother fuckers at once. We don't suppress, we Kill...period.

The Burst Cam replacing FA was part of the A2 Upgrade program instituted by the Marine Corps weapons development group at Qeertico in conjunction with our beloved Colt Firearms. Many of the A2 upgrades had been R&D'd by Colt and left on the shelf for years until the Corps came knockin. Many civillians and Marines alike may not realize it, however the Marine Corps considers the M16A2 a rifle for Marines by Marines.

On a side note: When I went through the Colt Armorers course Bob Gawe had one of the M4E (Enhanced) rifles that were produced for the SEAL's. The selector switch rotated 360 degrees left or right and allowed you to choose SAFE, FIRE, BURST and AUTO. I fell in love with that bad boy.

Semper-Fi Do or Die,  DD out!!  

Quoted: I can count on my hands the number of times I fired my service weapon on burst during my time in the Corps. Semi automatic, well aimed fire is what we were taught. In the Marine Corps, the definition of Firepower = Bullets hitting people. Not blowing your whole load down range in 2 seconds. Even in training, a "DUMP-EX" is highly frowned upon. I was a machine gunner 0331, and even then, if you started "getting a little too much" and let the pigs rip you got a slap upside your fuckin head. Marksmanship is taken to a zen level in the Marine Corps, irregardless of what weapon system you happen to be on. So much in fact that I've seen boots get snatched up and thrashed because they made the ill-fated mistake of stating that they chose to be machine gunners because they were NSF's (non shooting fucks) with a long gun. Any Machine Gun section leader in the Marine Corps worth a shit should train his Marines to strive for a body falling to the earth with every round sent down range. Machine Guns are a suppresive fire weapon by definition, however the Marines look at them more as automatic rifles that allow you to drop a lot of mother fuckers at once. We don't suppress, we Kill...period.

And than we went to war and had to put away allot of what we use to train and switch to training things that actually work.

Quoted: Quoted: I can count on my hands the number of times I fired my service weapon on burst during my time in the Corps. Semi automatic, well aimed fire is what we were taught. In the Marine Corps, the definition of Firepower = Bullets hitting people. Not blowing your whole load down range in 2 seconds. Even in training, a "DUMP-EX" is highly frowned upon. I was a machine gunner 0331, and even then, if you started "getting a little too much" and let the pigs rip you got a slap upside your fuckin head. Marksmanship is taken to a zen level in the Marine Corps, irregardless of what weapon system you happen to be on. So much in fact that I've seen boots get snatched up and thrashed because they made the ill-fated mistake of stating that they chose to be machine gunners because they were NSF's (non shooting fucks) with a long gun. Any Machine Gun section leader in the Marine Corps worth a shit should train his Marines to strive for a body falling to the earth with every round sent down range. Machine Guns are a suppresive fire weapon by definition, however the Marines look at them more as automatic rifles that allow you to drop a lot of mother fuckers at once. We don't suppress, we Kill...period. And than we went to war and had to put away allot of what we use to train and switch to training things that actually work.

I guess Marines weren't involved in any campaigns, conflicts, police actions or war before "We went to war" and all of our training was useless and not based off any combat experience. Nothing is perfect and things certainly aren't perfect in the Marine Corps. Not now, in 1776 or in 2026. I don't know, maybe I got a little sentimental and pumped things up too much.

Yes, I am one who thinks burst limiters have their uses.  I have seen too many Marines both green and veteran get buck fever on a SAW or M240 and blow off a 20-25 round burst.  Even in the best cases burst tend to be larger  than they were trained to do.

The typical mantra "it's a training issue" ignores human physiological responses to combat.  Back in the old days no one talked about it or told troops what to expect.  I am glad we have changed allot of our training and are now teaching the young troops some of the following in their predeployment package

Physical Effects When Shooting Starts: Chemical Cocktail: – Adrenaline – Cortisol – Dopamine Blood diverts from extremities to large muscles. Loss of Dexterity and fine Motor Skills Tachypsychia: – Eyes Dilate – Tunnel Vision – Auditory Exclusion Blood Vessels in Ears dilate - Nausea - Time/Space Distortion – Things Slow Down Heart Rate: – 60/80 BPM is Normal – 300 BPM has been recorded – 200 BPM has been recorded sustained – 115-145 BPM is Optimum Combat Performance – At 145 BPM Complex Motor Skills Go Down – At 175 BPM Gross Motor Skills Go Down           Heart Rate of 175 BPM – Fore Brain Shuts Down and Mid Brain Takes Over – Mid Brain does only four things:  Fight/Flight/Eat/Sex – Mid Brain sends signal for perseverance shooting…shoot until it works (NSR) – All senses but vision shuts down (Touch, Taste, Smell, Hearing, 6th sense) Out of 10 Shooters expect: – 9 to have auditory exclusion – 2 to  hear intensified sounds – 8 to  move on auto pilot – 6 to have higher vision of clarity – 1 to experiences paralysis – 2 to have memory distortion – 2 to experience the world moving in fast motion – 4 to experience intrusive/distractive thoughts (family, loved ones) Effects on the Shooter Shoot Faster & Less Accurate Will Think & Perform Tasks with less Accuracy Experience Some or Complete Memory Loss Experience Loss of Feeling: – Pain may or may not be felt Denial Altered Decision Making Process Do things never done or been trained to do

Quoted: I guess Marines weren't involved in any campaigns, conflicts, police actions or war before "We went to war" and all of our training was useless and not based off any combat experience. Nothing is perfect and things certainly aren't perfect in the Marine Corps. Not now, in 1776 or in 2026. I don't know, maybe I got a little sentimental and pumped things up too much.

Yep we did go to war, and what did we find?  Well the 1st and 2nd World War saw crew served weapons and artillery as the major killers.  Korea found was pretty much a repeat, but with more reliance on machine guns because of micro terrain meaning the enemy got well within Danger Close prior to artillery being called in.  To correct this believed deficiency we began to issue troops automatic weapons which lead to the observation in Vietnam that troops fired way too much on auto (personally I don't that was a problem).  Why do you think troops fire on auto as a preference?  These after all were in many cases men, training in same way you I were.  They all had the KD course of PI and Edson Range beat into them, yet they tended to fire auto, so much so that the Marine Corps went about getting a burst limiter put on the weapon.  Well maybe because it worked?  

Yes we made allot of observations, but as is often the case we ignore what may disagree with our preconceived notions.   I am sure after the GWOT, we will go back to the old way of doing things.  

Quoted: Quoted: I guess Marines weren't involved in any campaigns, conflicts, police actions or war before "We went to war" and all of our training was useless and not based off any combat experience. Nothing is perfect and things certainly aren't perfect in the Marine Corps. Not now, in 1776 or in 2026. I don't know, maybe I got a little sentimental and pumped things up too much. Yep we did go to war, and what did we find?  Well the 1st and 2nd World War saw crew served weapons and artillery as the major killers.  Korea found was pretty much a repeat, but with more reliance on machine guns because of micro terrain meaning the enemy got well within Danger Close prior to artillery being called in.  To correct this believed deficiency we began to issue troops automatic weapons which lead to the observation in Vietnam that troops fired way too much on auto (personally I don't that was a problem).  Why do you think troops fire on auto as a preference?  These after all were in many cases men, training in same way you I were.  They all had the KD course of PI and Edson Range beat into them, yet they tended to fire auto, so much so that the Marine Corps went about getting a burst limiter put on the weapon.  Well maybe because it worked?   Yes we made allot of observations, but as is often the case we ignore what may disagree with our preconceived notions.   I am sure after the GWOT, we will go back to the old way of doing things.

It's interesting, because the SCHV (Small Caliber High Velocity) program was born based off the casualty and kill statistics gathered from WWII and Korea. The study showed that most of the kills and casualties were not the direct result of accurate battle rifle fire, but from Artillery frag and Machine Gun fire. So they attempt to correct that by ditching the main battle rifle for an Assualt rifle that would fire a small, high velocity projectile at a high rate of fire. In theory, allowing each man on the ground to mimic the frag effect of Artillery and in theory increase casualties and kills.

But, when you look at the stats from Vietnam we fired more rounds than ever with our new assault rifle and the body count didn't rise nearly as much as speculated. Artillery was still the king of the battlefield and we (at least the USMC) realized that giving all Marines the ability to fire their weapons on full auto was not the best thing (granted it took them 10 years to institute it). I'm a advocate of burst and I think it's a better option than having full auto for everyone. I guarantee that if you gave ground pounders the ability to fire a whole mag with one pull of the trigger it would be happening and then what? Hell, the full auto rate of fire for the M16 is 12-15 rds a second. It might as well be the whole mag because the shit hits the fan, you pull, blink twice and your out!!

Like everything else in the military, decisions are made for the greater whole. And from my experience, if you have above average intellect your usually the one ass out, looking around and muttering...WTF over??

The only thing I ever used burst for in the Marine Corps was wasting blanks in force-on-force training.

IMO, the M16A2/A4 should either be full-auto, or semiauto only. The burst mode as executed is 100% useless.

I have news for you the "stats" from Vietnam were guesstimates.  Neither we now the Vietnamese even know how many VC or NVA were killed or what killed them.  Combine that with us not know how many rounds were even fired.  People who claim X number of rounds per hit, are just pulling numbers out of their ass.  

Page 359 of "The Black Rifle" shows a Snodgrass/Tylers style 3 round self-resetting burst device.

however, i don't see any mention of why it was not used. Too complicated i'm guessing.H

Personally I think the burst "feature" was just one of several ways the M16 went astray. IMHO, the DIEMACO C7 was the rifle the M16A2 should've been.

tag.

Double Post.  My bad.

Quoted: I have news for you the "stats" from Vietnam were guesstimates.  Neither we now the Vietnamese even know how many VC or NVA were killed or what killed them.  Combine that with us not know how many rounds were even fired.  People who claim X number of rounds per hit, are just pulling numbers out of their ass.

It's been almost 40 years. I find it hard to believe that all the info collected from studies conducted simply amounts to people pulling it out of their ass. Where you in vietnam? No, so I guess we can only go by speaking to people who were there and participated as well as the books we read on the subject matter.

The draft picked up lots of guys who didn't want to go, gave them 8 weeks of getting slapped around in the humidity and threw them in the meat grinder. They all opened up when something went boo and wasted a lot of ammo. Hits or no hits, full auto given to undisciplined troops "is" a big waste of ammo. Hell, look at how many rounds the Class III wheenies blow a year just to put smiles on their faces. To me, its just a dump-ex and contributes nothing to the fundamental skills of marksmanship.

I think burst bridges that gap and gives you the option to increase your firepower while at the sametime limiting you from blowing your whole load under duress.

Now, if you want to talk about real problems with the weapon systems in the Marine Corps we have to start a new thread and burst isn't anywhere on my list.

How about this: To be a weapons drop on a Marine Corps KD course you had to have over 19 clicks of windage during battle sight zero. If you successfully BZO'd right at 19 left or right you were considered good to go. The best part is, that was the exact silver stallion you would carry to combat two weeks later. No PVT, they don't issue us new gear for combat.

My brother was hookin and jabbin with FOX 2/7 during OIF and ran around the desert with his rear sight apeture flapping around for two fucking weeks before they got some puke armorer to fix it. That is fuckin BULL-SHIT!!!!

Which one of you would have bitched about burst then? That is what these guys have to deal with.

Nope wasn't in Vietnam, too young for that was in ODS , OIF 1 and 3.

The Vietnamese government only admitted about 3-4 years ago that approximately 2-3 million Vietnamese died during the war.  They themselves have said, they don't know the causes of all the deaths.  So what other figures do we go on?  Body counts, well I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust those all too much.

On the side of ammo expenditures, I actually attempted to research the subject while doing a project for the field artillery school and the honest answer both the Marine Corps and the Army had was these numbers are just estimates, estimates of dubious quality at that.  I would also like to point out the same people who came up with these numbers claimed that the US would loose 50,000 in ODS and around the same amount in OIF, so does speak heavily to their credibility.  

I have to assume you meant your brother was in OIF 2, OIF 1 RCT 7 (TF Ripper) was 1/7. 3/7, 3/4, 1st Tanks, 3rd LAR, C, 1st Engineers and CSSB 117.  If I remember right, during OIF I, 2/7 was UDP and in Oki.

I have to assume you meant your brother was in OIF 2, OIF 1 RCT 7 (TF Ripper) was 1/7. 3/7, 3/4, 1st Tanks, 3rd LAR, C, 1st Engineers and CSSB 117.  If I remember right, during OIF I, 2/7 was UDP and in Oki.

Don't assume, just look up at my post. It simply says OIF, not OIF I or OIF II or OIF III. So whenever the fuck 2/7 deployed to that shit hole he was there and his rear sight aperture was flappin around in a combat environment and the genius leadership did nothing. Typical right?

Quoted: Don't assume, just look up at my post. It simply says OIF, not OIF I or OIF II or OIF III. So whenever the fuck 2/7 deployed to that shit hole he was there and his rear sight aperture was flappin around in a combat environment and the genius leadership did nothing. Typical right?

Well allot of the rear sight parts are not part of an Armorer's PEB because the failure of them is pretty rare, so if may take that long to get replacement parts.  Not to mention during 2 quite a few convoys carrying class 3, 6 and 9 were incepted prior to making to their intended recipients.

I know I am a bit of an iconoclast when it comes to this, but I think a loose rear sight is going to make all the big a difference in fight.  We are not shooting little groups we are trying to hit people, and has been shown time and time again with irons even the best shooters cannot reach the potential of the weapon.

Quoted: Quoted: Don't assume, just look up at my post. It simply says OIF, not OIF I or OIF II or OIF III. So whenever the fuck 2/7 deployed to that shit hole he was there and his rear sight aperture was flappin around in a combat environment and the genius leadership did nothing. Typical right? Well allot of the rear sight parts are not part of an Armorer's PEB because the failure of them is pretty rare, so if may take that long to get replacement parts.  Not to mention during 2 quite a few convoys carrying class 3, 6 and 9 were incepted prior to making to their intended recipients. I know I am a bit of an iconoclast when it comes to this, but I think a loose rear sight is going to make all the big a difference in fight.  We are not shooting little groups we are trying to hit people, and has been shown time and time again with irons even the best shooters cannot reach the potential of the weapon.

It's not going to make a big difference in a fight??  What about confidence in your gear?? If you don't have that, you have nothing. Confidence and motivation are everything behind the Warriors mindset and going into the fight with a fucked up weapon is as bad as it gets.

This isn't a cry for pity, my brother walked out physically unscathed unlike a lot of our brothers. What it is meant to show, is that when your in you have a lot bigger fish to fry than why we have burst instead of FA.

Anybody up for a post about why we need those stupid bayonet lugs?

Nope, it is too limiting.... maybe a 4 position selector but not just burst alone IMHO. I've fired 10s of thousands of rounds FA (short bursts, longer bursts, and full mags for break contact drills). After I learned how to shoot an assualt rifle properly dispersion went down dramamtically (shooting an assault rifle like an assault rifle and not like a rifle), I don't subscribe to  the NRA book 200-500yd shooting school of B.S. that is taught for service members that don't wear helmets, body armor, LBE, or for some reason who shoot at bulls eyes at 500yds-Iraqis and Afganis don't look like bulls eyes last time I saw one. And yes, I still manage to qualify expert on the range and hit quite often at 500 yds on a silhoutte target, not a bullseye either (If I remember to wear my glasses)-It is all in your training and how often you do it as a Soldier, Marine, Airman, Coastie, Swabbie or whatever-quit wasting training time doing silly stuff; and train, train, train. I think a mix of Marine Corps rifle training and Army pop up shooting would be ideal-learn the fundamental and learn how to apply them properly and that is what you normally will fall back on to a solid base when the chips are down.  

My father was trained (in the Army) in the use of the Thompson Submachinegun.  He was taught to aim low on the left, fire short bursts, walking across the target up and to the right.

Quoted: Nope, it is too limiting.... maybe a 4 position selector but not just burst alone IMHO. I've fired 10s of thousands of rounds FA (short bursts, longer bursts, and full mags for break contact drills).

That's the problem. With the exception of a Machine Gunner, the average Marine Rifleman/Soldier would be lucky to fire that much ammo in a career no less a 4 year term.

After I learned how to shoot an assualt rifle properly dispersion went down dramamtically (shooting an assault rifle like an assault rifle and not like a rifle)

So when Delta and the Marines train specifically utilizing controlled, well aimed, semi automatic fire they aren't shooting their "Assault rifles" properly? The Marines have automatic rifleman with SAW's for a reason.

I don't subscribe to  the NRA book 200-500yd shooting school of B.S. that is taught for service members that don't wear helmets, body armor, LBE, or for some reason who shoot at bulls eyes at 500yds-Iraqis and Afganis don't look like bulls eyes last time I saw one.

NRA book? Is that what they issue these days? You've missed the boat on this. The KD course is all about building confidence in your weapon and practicing the fundamentals of marksmanship. Here is a test you can conduct. Take the average Marine off the KD course and let him shoot the Army pop up course. Then flip flop and see who fairs better on the other services course. We all know the answer.

And yes, I still manage to qualify expert on the range and hit quite often at 500 yds on a silhoutte target, not a bullseye either (If I remember to wear my glasses)-It is all in your training and how often you do it as a Soldier, Marine, Airman, Coastie, Swabbie or whatever-quit wasting training time doing silly stuff; and train, train, train.

I hope for the ground services sake that you are some admin pogue. Because they don't need anybody forgetting their port holes trying to "Manage" anything.  

I think a mix of Marine Corps rifle training and Army pop up shooting would be ideal-learn the fundamental and learn how to apply them properly and that is what you normally will fall back on to a solid base when the chips are down.

We now know one thing, your definitley not a Marine, because if you were you wouldn't have made that ignorant statement above. Marine Corps training encompassas a much broader spectrum of ranges than the KD course. Such as, Army Ivan pop up ranges, Movement to contact ranges, Ambush ranges, Point man ranges, Trench clearing ranges, CQB ranges/Tire houses etc.

I am not a Marine and thank God for that....and I am not a pogue either.

Yes, S.F. and Delta M-4s also have a 3rd position on their selector switch and it is not "burst". Buy into what you will-that is fine with me, it's a free country and your welcome to your opinion. I like the option of full auto and I will continue to use it when I deem it necessary. As for using them (delta, marines etc). their rifles properly it depends what you are using it for, CQB, long distance firing it all depends on how you have been trained. If you had read earlier what I had said about these guys training a lot more of the time than the average Joe. I guess shooting a couple houndred rounds a week does'nt help them at all (delta and some S.F.), I guess that doesn't count as training either and perhaps they learned how to shoot better just by doing it-I never said they could'nt shoot.

As for having a SAW available that always ain't the case, as I said in an earlier post my "squad"  did not have a SAW  we had a M240B, my company did not have enough-imagine that in the military!! (were we going to stop a mission because we did not have all of our equipment that was supposed to be issued? would you? sometimes you have to make do, right?)-try and lug that on a raid at 2:00am clearing buildings or through a narrow front door into a small house. Yes, I understand that you all get some advanced shooting training: movers, pop-ups etc. But the last time I checked your qualifcation did'nt have these things did it? if it has changed then I apologize: it has been awhile since I visited a Marine base. Are you guys wearing body armor, helmets and everything else when you qualify? After basic training do you guys still use all the other ranges when you shoot, and is that so only for infantry then? I'd like to see the test you speak of..it would be interesting

 What is your experience firing an M16 full auto? Maybe you know something I don't-I am always willing to learn...what is the best stance you have found in firing FA while standing kneeling or sitting. Prone ain't hard to figure out. Hell, I might be incorrect, been wrong before-might be wrong again but I am a firm believer in lots of hits at close range in the shortest time possible with a small round like the 5.56mm. Ok, yes I am not going to put my weapon on full auto past about 20M-because of training. Yes and we recieved it in basic training how to fire in full auto. It just got reinforced over the years by training and going out with a Class III dealer friend of mine and learning how to better use the tool in my tool box (you know.....training). So I could pass it on to SAW gunners, and guys who fire in burst/FA and the guys I have talked to tried the technique and like it for controllability at CQB  distances especially the SAW gunners I have trained. But hell, I could be wrong, been so before will be so again.....can you admit you might be?

I guess all the guys that were fighting with those nasty uncontrollable full auto Thompsons, MP40s, Soumi's, Stens and PPSH's in WWII/Korea were incorrect for preferring to use them in CQB and should have resorted to single shot aimed fire-I have found the M4 easier to control than any of these in the full auto mode. Yes, they shoot handgun bullets but as far as I am concerned the M4 is about the same in effectiveness (and that is my own opinion and I am sure many will argue otherwise, and no I will not heed to these arguments or get sucked into one because it is a subjective opinion). Maybe I don't want you in my squad because you may not be open the the opinions of others or might believe too much in your own propaganda.

Yes, I can admit when I am wrong. I was probably wrong for getting involved in this post because im not sure any of it makes one goddamn difference anyhow. Weather you like FA or burst you get what the fuck your unit hands you and that's it. When it really gets down to brass tacks, the most important thing is that the weapon goes bang everytime we pull the trigger and bad guys go down - for good.

Burst was chosen by the Marine Corps as part of the A2 upgrade program for a reason. The Corps wasn't happy with the M16A1 burp gun, they wanted their Marines to have a battle rifle again.



                                         "My Rifle"


THIS IS MY RIFLE.   There are many like it, but this one is mine.   My rifle is my best friend.   It is my life.   I must master it as I must master my life.

My rifle, without me is useless.   Without my rifle, I am useless.   I must fire my rifle true.   I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me.   I must shoot him before he shoots me.   I will....

My rifle and myself know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our "burst", nor the smoke we make.   We know that it is the hits that count.   We will hit....

My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will....

Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until there is no enemy, but Peace!

I have a little experience firing M4 carbines, M4A1 carbines, and M16A1s. Without proper stance, any type of full auto fire at an individual target beyond 4-5m is essentially worthless. With proper stance, I can hold 28 rounds, fired in one burst, in a 4 inch circle at 5m, from a carbine. Add a suppressor, a full length buffer, a longer gas system or a combination thereof, and automatic fire becomes more controllable.

Yes, with proper stance, automatic fire is controllable at CQB distances (under 25m). I can, and have, fired a FA "Standard response" on a paper target at 5m. Two-two round bursts to the body, one two round burst to the head. On the square range. I'm no ninja, commando, or man killer, I'm just a shooter. This combination, BTW, was almost as fast as firing a semi standard response (2+1) but used twice as much ammunition, and the first rounds hit later, due to the extra movement of the selector.

With the three round burst feature, I was aggravated by the extremely poor trigger and the mechanism that does not reliably fire three rounds, particularly at the beginning and end of a 28 round magazine. I would much prefer to use an automatic weapon and lift my finger after 2-3 rounds have been fired. While I believe that FA fire is controllable using the proper stance at short range, I believe that the poorly designed three round burst option is essentially worthless, as it does not offer the main and essentially only attribute of fully automatic 5.56mm rifle fire: the ability to suppress the enemy in response to an ambush, or to pin him and allow others to move on his position.

I personally believe that when engaging point targets with the M16 or M4, semi-automatic is the proper mode of fire, while fully-automatic fire is an option when engaging area targets, unseen targets behind concealment, or attempting to break contact with or pin down the enemy. My conversations with veterans, trainers and my own experiences on the square range with semi, burst and automatic fire is the basis for this.

My thanks to Mojo, for the use of his M16, to two men of the New Mexico NG for the use of their M4 carbines, and to three Department of Energy shooters (bad motherfuckers!) for handing me a government issue M4A1 and magazine after magazine.

One more thought: I have found one use for burst fire. The MP5SD, when used with the two round burst, is very controllable. Probably much more so than attempting to pull 10 pounds of German trigger engineering fast enough to equal it. Were I to use an MP5SD in action, I would probably use the two round burst feature and fire four rounds at the targets head. (Thanks Mojo!)

I have trained and used both an M16A1 and A2.

What I have learned is from shooting thousands of rounds from an M16A1.

If your target is more than 50M out, you will be extremely lucky to hit anything past the second round on FA.

Close in targets are easy on FA. In fact, at 25M with a little training, you should have no problem emptying a mag into a target with 100% hits.

The M16 is simply too light for FA fire at distant targets.

Fire in semi, fire fast, tuck that buttstock close to your sternum, and aim. Its much more effective.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Research in the 1950s showed that fully automatic fire in small arms was a waste of ammo because soldiers were using it more than they needed. It also showed that three-, four-, and five-round bursts were the most effective, which is why the three-round burst was then implemented into the design. Off the top of my head, I think the project was called SALVO and followed another study that also showed most combat takes place at relatively short ranges. Thanks for answering my first question; what about my second question though? Aren't all our LMG, and HMG gunners taught how to shoot in bursts effectivly?  Wouldn't it be just as easy to teach our riflemen just the same or do you think there would still be a tendancy to waste more ammo then necessary? It's called fear, if you have an enemy engage you, you won't control your finger, you will hold the trigger until he falls down.  Burst saves ammo and gets the job done. Training can overcome fear.  .

no it can't

Perhaps training cannot overcome fear, but training can and often does allow frightened people to function under stress. The reaction of an untrained person may well be "oh no, why me, I can't believe this is happening", while a trained person performs his duties as he was trained to do.

Quoted: My .02, Training is what is needed not some stupid "wastes ammo" mentality.....we are the richest country in the world, lets act like it and more imporantly lets use the money to enforce better training programs instead of cutting corners.

Buying more ammo doesn't mean you can carry any more.