• Army wants Full Auto for Accuracy, not spray and pray
    224 replies, posted
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34147983]Nothing wrong with it. What's wrong with it is that they're too ignorant to understand FA is perfectly fine and they're acting like you need to wait another 10 years to implement something almost everyone else has been using since the 50-60-70s.[/QUOTE] the point of the trigger is for quick reactions to what is happening. say a soldier is in a room shooting targets downrange with his gun being semi-auto. and an enemy sneaks into the room and catches the drop on him. he turns around and panics and pulls the trigger and shoots once and misses. he doesn't fire another shot because he is still in semi-auto. with this new trigger, he can turn around and spray the enemy down without switching to a different mode.
Reading this reminded me of the XM8. Actually seems to fit what they want, I wonder if they'll have another go at adopting it. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWQeIUA1sNc[/media]
[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;34147888]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] Nope, it's used for ambushes and close quarter/room clearance. We use a deliberate rate of fire for fire fights a majority of the time even in rapid fire we tend not to use automatic. Also I dislike the L85, my gas parts welded together on me once :v:
[QUOTE=n0cturni;34148239]Reading this reminded me of the XM8. Actually seems to fit what they want, I wonder if they'll have another go at adopting it. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWQeIUA1sNc[/media][/QUOTE] I wish they would too, it seems like it'd be much better than the AR series but you know the military, it makes it a pain in the ass to get anything replaced
H & K G11 /thread
So they can now carry 10x more ammo?
You know guys. Military usually wastes like, 250,000 bullets. Before they kill [b]one[/b] man.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;34148413]I wish they would too, it seems like it'd be much better than the AR series but you know the military, it makes it a pain in the ass to get anything replaced[/QUOTE] yeah except for the fact that the sights became uncalibrated after a few mags due to the plastic construction oh, and it liked to melt
[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] You ever fire a rifle on full auto? It's very difficult to get a short burst of only three rounds, more likely is a spray of five or more. In that burst not a single round after the first and maybe the second is going to hit a target at range. That's why burst fire exists- to conserve ammunition, because all the other rounds do is aid suppression. And if you actually read up on combat doctrine of the various countries with full auto rifles, you'll find that they almost never use automatic fire. It's almost always semi-auto, because automatic fire is wasteful and inefficient. Burst control mechanisms are what make multiple round bursts actually practical in any situation besides point-blank room clearing.
these are issues that could be fixed
[QUOTE=GlebGuy;34148531]You know guys. Military usually wastes like, 250,000 bullets. Before they kill [b]one[/b] man.[/QUOTE] another one misses the point
another man misses his mark [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] lol im sorry
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;34148593]another man misses his mark [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] lol im sorry[/QUOTE] i guess you could say that there's a huge burst of people who can't read huehuahue
so much stupidity in this thread. I think this is a smart move. US has been behind doctrinally with it's burst firing rifles, as burst fire is a feature that is not very useful on the modern battlefield. if you watch actual combat of soldiers, the only ones blasting away in full-auto are the ones that should, the LMGs.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;34148580]another one misses the point[/QUOTE] :( I'm just gonna go now...
[QUOTE=Atlascore;34148708]Both of those problems could have easily been fixed.[/QUOTE] The melting issue was. It's still a piece of shit though, not nearly as versatile as the rifle it was meant to replace
Overall three-round-burst is one of the best ways to go, If you aim at the center mass, The muzzle rise will often result in the second and third shots hit the neck/head area That's presuming you can even get a shot off without having someone peg your head.
Seems like they are trying to force a single rifle into performing every role in the squad. The best you can likely hope for is it performing every job at a mediocre level. Seems like they just need to diversify the makeup of a squad better. More shotguns or high caliber compact SMG's. .45 ACP has proven itself to be a terrifying SMG caliber. Grab something in the size range of the TDI vector (maybe the vector itself, but I can't imagine it has excellent reliability) and issue it alongside an M4A1 for a soldier. That way they retain some fighting capability at range, but also can deal some serious hurt inside as well. That way you still have your long barreled M16's putting semi automatic fire down range, but you also have one or two guys that can storm a building with high mobility. It is like we forgot that we didn't replace SMG's in close quarters because they weren't good at their job, it was simply because it was logistically easier to only use assault rifles. Pistol rounds don't pack as much stopping power, no, but SMG's are designed to be used on full auto and while one round might not stop you, ten will sure as hell will. Another benefit is that pistol rounds are less disorienting for the user inside buildings than rifle rounds.
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;34147739]what do you mean super futuristic??? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-107[/url][/QUOTE] because 107 is a large number compared to 47 obviously! :downs:
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34148394]The XM8 had the least stoppages of the M4, HK416, SCAR-L and it compared, so I don't see why they're settling with either the 416 or SCAR instead.[/QUOTE] Don't know why this is receiving disagrees and dumbs. [URL="http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/"]In Fall of 2007 the army tested a wide range of buns and found the XM8 stopped the least.[/URL]
[QUOTE=GunFox;34149245]Seems like they are trying to force a single rifle into performing every role in the squad. The best you can likely hope for is it performing every job at a mediocre level. Seems like they just need to diversify the makeup of a squad better. More shotguns or high caliber compact SMG's. .45 ACP has proven itself to be a terrifying SMG caliber. Grab something in the size range of the TDI vector (maybe the vector itself, but I can't imagine it has excellent reliability) and issue it alongside an M4A1 for a soldier. That way they retain some fighting capability at range, but also can deal some serious hurt inside as well. That way you still have your long barreled M16's putting semi automatic fire down range, but you also have one or two guys that can storm a building with high mobility. It is like we forgot that we didn't replace SMG's in close quarters because they weren't good at their job, it was simply because it was logistically easier to only use assault rifles. Pistol rounds don't pack as much stopping power, no, but SMG's are designed to be used on full auto and while one round might not stop you, ten will sure as hell will. Another benefit is that pistol rounds are less disorienting for the user inside buildings than rifle rounds.[/QUOTE] To me it just seems like they noticed that the trigger pull on semi auto is better if the rifle has a full auto setting instead of a burst setting, and since they could simply use burst fire on auto it's a cheap way of improving the trigger performance
ITT people pretend they know stuff about guns
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34149299]Don't know why this is receiving disagrees and dumbs. [URL="http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/"]In Fall of 2007 the army tested a wide range of buns and found the XM8 stopped the least.[/URL][/QUOTE] Because if the posters first post in the thread was dumb, all the other ones, with completely no exception have to be dumb, for a reason which may or may not makes sense too.
If you want accuracy, dearest military, start reissuing M1 Garands. They're semi-auto, accurate to a thousand yards, hit like a truck, and they're just as reliable as the M4 and M16.
What a stupid suggestion. I'm in the army now and there's just no need for fully automatic. If you're well trained with your gun you'll not need more then a magazin to keep the heads low of your enemies.
[QUOTE=PyroCF;34148396]Nope, it's used for ambushes and close quarter/room clearance. We use a deliberate rate of fire for fire fights a majority of the time even in rapid fire we tend not to use automatic. Also I dislike the L85, my gas parts welded together on me once :v:[/QUOTE] Reminds me the first time when I was taught fire control orders, and how 'Rapid fire' basically meant a steady controlled amount of trigger pulls :v: The only real time they let us go mental was on the SAT ranges... tight bastards.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34149750]uhm I'm asking why the US military is so slow about adapting SAS mechanisms like everyone else instead of having to complicate the rifles with two-stage triggers not saying they need to use FA, just asking why the hell they can't do what everybody else have been doing.[/QUOTE] What the hell are you going on about. AR-15 platform rifles have a fire selector mode. Safe Single Auto/burst (depending on the rifle). It differs from the Kalashnikov not because of how the user reacts to dangerous situations, as the thumb fire selector takes a notable amount of force to swap fire modes on the AR-15, but simply because of how the rifle is intended to operate. The AR-15 is a rifle first and foremost with automatic capabilities, where as the Kalashnikov rifles tend to have more in common with a machinegun, than a rifle, and are intended to be used on full auto much of the time. [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;34149753]If you want accuracy, dearest military, start reissuing M1 Garands. They're semi-auto, accurate to a thousand yards, hit like a truck, and they're just as reliable as the M4 and M16.[/QUOTE] The M14 was designed for exactly that purpose. It is basically an M1 with a detachable magazine, full auto (yeah good luck with that), and chambered in 7.62x51.
this thread is basically just morons who get there gun info from video games
you know, if in CoD, it was semi auto, I wonder how CoD would have came out to this day...
[QUOTE=Ermac20;34150381]this thread is basically just morons who get there gun info from video games[/QUOTE] Or self-proclaimed gun nuts. Me? I'm not any of the two. I just read the goddamn article. :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.