Army wants Full Auto for Accuracy, not spray and pray
224 replies, posted
[release]
It might be years from now, but soldiers will one day go into battle armed with fully automatic carbines, a capability ground forces haven’t had in more than two decades.As the Army moves ahead with its carbine-improvement effort, it will replace today’s three-round-burst option with a full-auto setting.The shift will dramatically increase the rate of fire soldiers can send downrange, but it will also mean new challenges for small-unit leaders, who’ll be responsible for ensuring their soldiers maintain fire discipline even during the heaviest of gunfights.“We don’t expect, nor will we tolerate, our soldiers just firing their weapons on full-automatic because they can,” said Dave Libersat, director of the Soldier Requirements Division at the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga.“We have to maintain fire discipline for lots of reasons,” he said. “One is when you go out on patrol, you’ve only got X amount of ammo; if you shoot it all up, and you’ve still got a firefight going on, it’s not a good day for you.”The primary reason for the return to the full-auto setting, infantry officials say, is that it will give soldiers a more accurate weapon when firing on semiautomatic.The Army began using three-round burst setting in 1986, when it adopted the Marine Corps-developed M16A2 as a replacement for its fleet of M16A1s. The A2 fired the M249 squad automatic weapon’s M855 round and featured a number of modifications over the A1, such as improved sights, a rounded handguard and, of course, three-round burst instead of a full-auto capability.The Marines developed the burst setting to help riflemen conserve ammunition instead of wasting it during long bursts of full-auto fire. But the Marines and the Army later realized that the mechanics of the three-round burst setting caused an inconsistent trigger pull in the semi-auto mode. This means that the trigger doesn’t feel the same every time a shooter fires, making it harder to shoot with the same degree of accuracy from one shot to the next.“The trigger is the soldier’s primary interface with the weapon for delivering the round,” said Lt. Col. Tom Henthorn, chief of the Small Arms Branch at Benning’s Soldier Requirements Division.This is one of the reasons U.S. Special Operations Command equipped its M4A1 carbines with full-auto triggers in the mid-1990s.The Army’s senior leadership decided to start issuing M4A1s last year as an interim step as it moves ahead with the M4 Product Improvement Program and its improved carbine competition, which could ultimately replace the M4.“We had some M4A1s on the range … and even the guys from the Army Marksmanship Unit had thought we had [improved] the trigger somehow,” Henthorn said. “The AMU guys were fairly impressed with the trigger.”The Marine Corps has no plans to replace its M4s and M16A4s, but will also return to a full-auto setting, said Charlie Clark III, Infantry Weapons Capabilities Integration Officer for the Marine Corps Fires and Maneuver Integration Division.“We want the improved trigger,” Clark said, but was unsure when such a change will occur.So if semi-automatic fire is more effective, then why not just get rid of full auto altogether? Army officials say that full automatic could be a useful battlefield tool in some cases.“There are times when you’ll see several soldiers with a requirement to fire on full automatic, but it’s not going to be a free-for-all out there. It has got to be squad leaders and team leaders giving fire-direction commands,” Libersat said.As the Army transitions to a full-auto trigger, training will have to change, but not in a dramatic fashion, Libersat said. Initial Entry Training will still focus on qualification using semiautomatic fire, and will likely include instruction to familiarize soldiers with full-auto fire, he said.It will be up to leaders in the operational Army to decide how to train soldiers to employ full-automatic fire, Libersat said.Disciplined, well-aimed fire will always be a priority, but a small-unit leader has to have the flexibility to decide when his unit needs to ramp up its volume of fire, combat veterans say.Henthorn summed it up this way:“When you need the capability, full auto is the right capability to have,” he said. “When you do a break-contract drill … you want to pull the trigger, dump a mag and move.”[/release]
[URL]http://www.military.com/news/article/army-wants-full-auto-for-accuracy-not-rock-n-roll.html[/URL]
AKA no recoil
It might be years from now, but soldiers will one day be issued the pretty much recoilless rifles that already exist today.
The whole point isn't to make fully automatic capability the new norm, it's to ensure proper trigger discipline to make semiautomatic fire more controlled and regular.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34147485]This has to be the dumbest shit the US Military did since they started using AR-type rifles.
You guys know that Kalashnikov did? He designed the safety of the AK47 in a way that ensured if you disengaged the safety, the lever would go to semi, not full, thus the soldier wouldn't just blast away all his ammo if something happened.
The AK safety is like this:
Safe
Auto
Semi
a.ka SAS.
You'd have to pull it up a notch to enable full-auto. Why won't the US military just toss a three-way SAS safety on their rifles instead of going "hurr durr we need ten years to stop using burst and let soldiers use FA"?[/QUOTE]
what are you going on about? I don't see the problem with what they want to do.
Just as Proto said, the reason they haven't made it FA for all these years is for the purpose of ammo conservation and trigger discipline.
Already takes 250,000 bullets for the Americans to kill one insurgent, imagine it now.
Straight from the article:
[QUOTE] But the Marines and the Army later realized that the mechanics of the three-round burst setting caused an inconsistent trigger pull in the semi-auto mode. This means that the trigger doesn’t feel the same every time a shooter fires, making it harder to shoot with the same degree of accuracy from one shot to the next.[/QUOTE]
They're not about to just give marines the go-ahead to blindfire, fully automatic, from cover.
the A3 is fully automatic iirc
AA-12 has nearly no recoil and is full auto. Except you wouldn't use this in an expansive area. City/Urban only.
Back in Vietnam the bullet to kill ratio was like 3,000 or 4,000 rounds to kill one enemy soldier when we were using full auto M16s, and its way worse when we're using burst fire now, and we're wanting to bring back full auto?
AK-107
/thread
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34147654]And why can't they make FA capability the new norm?
Other military forces have used rifles capable of FA for centuries without any problems. E.g. the ones using Steyr AUGs, H&K G3s, FN FALs, FA-supporting AR platforms, Sig Sauers,Kalashnikovs..
The fact that the US Military still doesn't realise this and still use AR-type rifles just shows how backwards it is.[/QUOTE]
Because fully automatic is a waste of ammo and even with modern firearm technology is inaccurate.
It's not backwards, it's just not up to date, and it's not like people are keen on reporting trigger discipline problems from European militaries as they are on reporting problems from the US military.
Besides, the point is not to make fully automatic the norm, it's to get rid of the burst capability so semi-automatic firing will feel more natural to the soldier and they can shoot more accurately.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;34147672]Back in Vietnam the bullet to kill ratio was like 3,000 or 4,000 rounds to kill one enemy soldier when we were using full auto M16s, and its way worse when we're using burst fire now, and we're wanting to bring back full auto?[/QUOTE]
It takes one to two bullets to kill someone. The others are to preserve the life of the soldier and provide suppression fire on the enemy. 3,500 rounds is nothing compared to the worth of the soldier's life.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;34147672]Back in Vietnam the bullet to kill ratio was like 3,000 or 4,000 rounds to kill one enemy soldier when we were using full auto M16s, and its way worse when we're using burst fire now, and we're wanting to bring back full auto?[/QUOTE]
did you know back then a lot of the time we still used formations (like lines and columns and follow-the-leader snake columns) and fired in volleys
yeah it's true actually and whodathunkit. quite a high percentage of soldiers aimed high or aimed low because they couldn't bear actually killing someone, even if they were being shot at (most of the time they weren't since we literally lined up to attack just a few people who would run away)
waste more money on developing super futuristic weapons
when everyone our militaries go up against have sticks and a few old ass rpgs
rate dumb for gun autism
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34147697]My problem here is that the US Military is stuck in 1955. Other armies have done this since the 50s,60s,70s. Yet the US think their soldiers are too dumb to conserve ammunition and not "spray and pray"?[/QUOTE]
So the US didn't outfit them with new weapons because what they had worked fine and it would be expensive to roll out a new weapons platform. If anything, that's smart, it's just the burst fire trigger discipline is now biting them in the ass.
what do you mean super futuristic???
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-107[/url]
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34147654]And why can't they make FA capability the new norm?
Other military forces have used rifles capable of FA for centuries without any problems. E.g. the ones using Steyr AUGs, H&K G3s, FN FALs, FA-supporting AR platforms, Sig Sauers,Kalashnikovs..
The fact that the US Military still doesn't realise this and still use AR-type rifles just shows how backwards it is.[/QUOTE]
Well, the FN FAL variant we used in the UK was semi-auto only. The SA80 has FA though.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34147654]Other military forces have used rifles capable of FA for [B]centuries[/B] without any problems.[/QUOTE]Uhh, what?
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;34147739]what do you mean super futuristic???
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-107[/url][/QUOTE]
super futuristic waste of money
[QUOTE=Bobie;34147766]super futuristic waste of money[/QUOTE]
your input has been noted.........ill just forward that to my secretary i guess
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34147485]This has to be the dumbest shit the US Military did since they started using AR-type rifles.
You guys know that Kalashnikov did? He designed the safety of the AK47 in a way that ensured if you disengaged the safety, the lever would go to semi, not full, thus the soldier wouldn't just blast away all his ammo if something happened.
The AK safety is like this:
Safe
Auto
Semi
a.ka SAS.
You'd have to pull it up a notch to enable full-auto. Why won't the US military just toss a three-way SAS safety on their rifles instead of going "hurr durr we need ten years to stop using burst and let soldiers use FA"?[/QUOTE]
If you had read the article, you would see that they want to go to full auto, but the trigger on the rifles were very inconsistent. so it was hard to burst or semi auto. by making the trigger better, the gun can be fired in all modes without having to flip a switch. that 2-3 second switch change could mean life or death in any firefight. here they can do all of them easily without switching it due to the enhance trigger that is very consistent. Like the guy said, they want them to still keep trigger discipline even if they have the full auto selection.
British L85A2s have a Semi/FullAuto switch, what's wrong with the US adopting this? FA is needed when reacting to effective enemy fire; it's about getting rounds downrange and winning the firefight and then killing your attackers.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34147870]The Steyr AUG has a trigger that functions that way - halfway in is semi, all way in is full. It's overcomplicated and silly. The AUG also is infamous for its horrid trigger, so..[/QUOTE]
but they tested it with marksmen and they said they trigger is much better compared to the older rifles. If anything, it would be an overall upgrade from our current rifles.
Seriously, though. If they want fully accurate weapons with no recoil, they need to discover Element Zero or something. Not gonna work with newtonian physics in any other way.
[editline]10th January 2012[/editline]
And no matter how low the recoil of a weapon is, if you're engaging targets at any range at all, accuracy goes to hell on full auto. The slightest movement can be the difference between hitting a target 300m away and missing him by ten meters.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34147811]Only futuristic thing about the AK107 is the unneccessary "balancing" function.[/QUOTE]
and in 5 years it would be the norm once they perfect it
[QUOTE=archangel125;34147921]Seriously, though. If they want fully accurate weapons with no recoil, they need to discover Element Zero or something. Not gonna work with newtonian physics in any other way.
[editline]10th January 2012[/editline]
And no matter how low the recoil of a weapon is, if you're engaging targets at any range at all, accuracy goes to hell on full auto. The slightest movement can be the difference between hitting a target 300m away and missing him by ten meters.[/QUOTE]
Again, missing the point of the article. They want to make semiautomatic fire more natural feeling by getting rid of burst.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;34147962]Again, missing the point of the article. They want to make semiautomatic fire more natural feeling by getting rid of burst.[/QUOTE]
Oh. I'm down with that. Rate me a box :(
[QUOTE=archangel125;34147921]Seriously, though. If they want fully accurate weapons with no recoil, they need to discover Element Zero or something. Not gonna work with newtonian physics in any other way.
[/QUOTE]
Low caliber bullets with a weighted barrel. High capacity magazine toward the center, ergonomic grip ahead of the magazine. Not exactly recoil-less, but it'd go a long way to help.
[QUOTE=Saber15;34148024]Low caliber bullets with a weighted barrel. High capacity magazine toward the center, ergonomic grip ahead of the magazine.[/QUOTE]
They've done that. There's still movement, still kick, even though it's much reduced.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.