Army wants Full Auto for Accuracy, not spray and pray
224 replies, posted
[QUOTE=wewt!;34148550]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]
Not to mention it's made by H&K, so it would have cost a fortune to adopt.
enjoy our famous youtube video Black kid gets knocked out!! and like the video
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVrqLjVa7ts&list=UUWVzz33NoEhk_pVCOwufAaQ&index=7&feature=plcp"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVrqLjVa7ts&list=UUWVzz33NoEhk_pVCOwufAaQ&index=7&feature=plcp[/URL]
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Joined just to advertise" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[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]
One of the problems with the XM8 is that it literally melts because the materials it's made of can't take the heat
[QUOTE=neutra;34147642]AA-12 has nearly no recoil and is full auto. Except you wouldn't use this in an expansive area. City/Urban only.[/QUOTE]
Yeah man I heard you can unlock a tactical flashlight for it with 12000 points.
[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]
The problem isn't the safety, it's the burst mechanism on the M16/M4.
The way it's designed, the burst mechanism is still cycled even on semi-automatic. So if you pop off one shot on semi, then click it up to burst mode, you'll only get two shots, because the burst limiter was still cycling on semi-automatic. That's also why it fucks up the trigger pull.
This has widely been called "retarded", as no other 3-round-burst rifle does that.
This is the same military that is spending a trillion dollars on the JSF program, and they're bitching about using too much ammo?
[QUOTE=Respwnfailure;34150537]enjoy our famous youtube video Black kid gets knocked out!! and like the video
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVrqLjVa7ts&list=UUWVzz33NoEhk_pVCOwufAaQ&index=7&feature=plcp"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVrqLjVa7ts&list=UUWVzz33NoEhk_pVCOwufAaQ&index=7&feature=plcp[/URL][/QUOTE]
What the shit does this even have to do with the article in question?
[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]
What? Issue a second weapon with a different ammunition type, so already overburdened soldiers have to carry yet another weapon with its own ammo load, further complicating logistics?
We DID replace SMGs with assault rifles because they can do the same thing. Submachine guns are rarely used by militaries nowadays, and are primarily issued as compact weapons for rear-echelon personnel. An SMG is slightly more controllable (despite the smaller cartridge, the shorter length and lighter weight adversely affect recoil) at the expense of significantly reduced stopping power and armor penetration.
SMGs are still around, they're just relegated to assault units like SWAT teams that need very short, controllable weapons for room clearing. For the kind of warfare a modern infantry unit engages in, assault rifles are a much better choice.
Edit: And shotguns are spectacularly useless for the most part in modern combat, that's why the AA-12 that Call of Duty fans and mall ninjas seem to go wild over was never adopted. The most you'll see is a soldier with a non-standard pump shotgun for CQB operations [i]as a backup weapon[/i], and even then there are better alternatives.
[editline]10th January 2012[/editline]
[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 AR-15 doesn't use a two stage trigger by default. The problem here is that the mechanism used to produce three-round burst functionality, a rotating cam arrangement, affects the trigger pull strength and 'break point', leading to inconsistent fire on semi auto where one trigger pull requires more force or has to be pulled farther than the one before it.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;34150526]Not to mention it's made by H&K, so it would have cost a fortune to adopt.[/QUOTE]
not really if we adopted it we would get a license to produce it in domestic armories most likely.
This is a good idea against a xenomorph or something, but against a human it is just a waste of ammo. (yes I am captain late and obvious)
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;34151388]This is a good idea against a xenomorph or something, but against a human it is just a waste of ammo. (yes I am captain late and obvious)[/QUOTE]
Automatic fire isn't exclusively for killing. It keeps the opponents head down.
I never thought Facepunch was a forum for gun experts.
Additionally, I think it would almost by like a military shooting itself in the foot if it ever listened to any "advice" coming from Facepunch.
[url]http://youtu.be/73im_VBjM24?t=1m24s[/url]
Swedish K almost no recoil
Just give them steady aim pro and sleight of hand pro already.. geez.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;34151505][URL]http://youtu.be/73im_VBjM24?t=1m24s[/URL]
Swedish K almost no recoil[/QUOTE]
Of course it has recoil, you can see the guy jerks forward when it stops firing, since he's pressing forward to oppose the recoil, and you can see the muzzle swaying all over the place. Yes, submachine guns have low recoil, but that doesn't mean every shot is accurate enough to score a hit and it doesn't make them practical for modern combat.
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;34147716]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)[/QUOTE]
Wait wait wait hold the fuck on. I've never heard of this before? Where did you learn this info? Does this mean they still used formation is previous wars (WWII, Korea)? I've never heard about this before. I've heard of aiming high, but nothing about formations.
you don't need to be a good shooter You just need to shoot more bullets
[QUOTE=archangel125;34148039]They've done that. There's still movement, still kick, even though it's much reduced.[/QUOTE]
DI or long-stroke piston guns both shoot extremely soft, and if you set up the recoil system that the bolt group is pushed back solely by spring force instead of hitting a hard stop in the gun and bouncing off.
It'll go a long way towards increasing accuracy.
why dont we just give all the troops deagles and awps?
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;34151884]why dont we just give all the troops deagles and awps?[/QUOTE]
I can imagine an Afghanistan child running at a soldier yelling,
"PUT DOWN DA AWP U NOOB"
Dumbs by anyone who's never seen CSS for kids.
Oh, and really, one of the main issues with assault rifles is that the carbine version is fucking useless at long range because 5.56x45 needs a certain velocity to be able to tumble properly, and 20" barrels are only viable for bullpup configurations if the rifle is going to be used for CQC.
A 7.62 NATO battle rifle with long-stroke piston config and a flash-hider/muzzle brake muzzle attachment could be a viable weapon for fighting in Afghanistan, and in theory an 11 inch barrel config of such a theoretical weapon would be a pretty dangerous weapon in CQC for the enemy, but another issue is that the ammo consumption would likely be too high.
7.62 NATO is possible to tame for full-auto, the M14 is a shitty rifle for showing that.
[QUOTE=neutra;34147642]AA-12 has nearly no recoil and is full auto. Except you wouldn't use this in an expansive area. City/Urban only.[/QUOTE]
this post made me want to strangle someone
mainly because i know for a fact that this particular poster only said that because of call of duty and is trying to sound smart even though he has no idea what he's talking about and now he's sitting at his computer feeling all smug and shit like 'yeah nigga i know guns what up???'
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34152149]KelTec RFB
FN FAL
H&K G3
H&K HK417
IMI Galil
So many rifles, so little understanding for 7,62.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, but no matter what a good muzzle brake is a must.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34152149]KelTec RFB
FN FAL
H&K G3
H&K HK417
[B]IMI Galil
[/B]
So many rifles, so little understanding for 7,62.[/QUOTE]
Aren't all the variants of the Galil 5.56?
[QUOTE=DarkZero135;34152229]Aren't all the variants of the Galil 5.56?[/QUOTE]
No, there's Galils in 7.62 NATO.
They say how it's gonna be difficult to get soldiers to conserve ammo but in the British army it's a simple system that's drilled in to soldiers until it's second nature
1 [i]aimed[/i] shot every 2 seconds when reacting to enemy fire, assaulting or otherwise attempting to pin down opfor
1 [i]aimed[/i] shot every 6 seconds when sustaining supression on a target (ie. you've 'won the firefight' and now they're not poking their heads or guns out)
Full auto for when you're on the last bound of an assault or in a CQB environ
in fact the old tactics for going in to a room where there is a strong possibility of enemy was to hose the place with full auto on the way in from wall to wall
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Galil#7.62mm_variants[/url]
[editline]10th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaveP;34152322]They say how it's gonna be difficult to get soldiers to conserve ammo but in the British army it's a simple system
1 [i]aimed[/i] shot every 2 seconds when reacting to enemy fire, assaulting or otherwise attempting to pin down opfor
1 [i]aimed[/i] shot every 6 seconds when maintaining supression on a target (ie. you've 'won the firefight' and now they're not poking their heads or guns out)
Full auto for when you're on the last bound of an assault or in a CQB environ
in fact the old tactics for going in to a room where there is a strong possibility of enemy was to hose the place with full auto on the way in from wall to wall[/QUOTE]
Room clearing is never pretty, I believe Soviet doctrine in WW2 was two frags and to go in with PPSh's guns blazing.
I can understand them doing this. Simple mechanisms are reliable, that's why Kalashnikov rifles are so successful. The mechanism for a 3-round burst is complicated, and that causes reliability issues. Adding on to the already overcomplicated mechanism of the M16 family wasn't the best move.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;34152352]I can understand them doing this. Simple mechanisms are reliable, that's why Kalashnikov rifles are so successful. The mechanism for a 3-round burst is complicated, and that causes reliability issues. Adding on to the already overcomplicated mechanism of the M16 family wasn't the best move.[/QUOTE]
Direct Impingement is one of the simplest systems in existence to make a rifle work on semi-auto or fully automatic.
[editline]10th January 2012[/editline]
DI is a great system, but the M16 is not a great design because the bolt carrier group is incredibly complicated and not really easy to take apart, especially if the BCG is caked with carbon.
DI also requires a lot of lube. A piston gun running dry but with adverse gas setting (full open gas tap) can still do alright, but DI will just choke and die from all the carbon.
[QUOTE=catbarf;34151153]What? Issue a second weapon with a different ammunition type, so already overburdened soldiers have to carry yet another weapon with its own ammo load, further complicating logistics?[/quote]
Better to have two weapons that do their job well than one that suffers at both. Also they obviously wouldn't carry a full load of ammunition for both. I imagine the overall weight addition would be relatively similar to adding an M203 to their rifle. 40mm grenades are heavy.
[quote]We DID replace SMGs with assault rifles because they can do the same thing. Submachine guns are rarely used by militaries nowadays, and are primarily issued as compact weapons for rear-echelon personnel. An SMG is slightly more controllable (despite the smaller cartridge, the shorter length and lighter weight adversely affect recoil) at the expense of significantly reduced stopping power and armor penetration.[/quote]
Tell that to anyone hit by a UMP or a Thompson. They have ridiculous amounts of stopping power.
And yes, I know they are rarely used by the military. That was the point of my post. They are ultimately extremely capable of tight quarters combat and do almost exactly what we need in terms of building clearing.
They were phased out because they are logistically difficult to manage. Notice how hard we tried to make all our weapons use the same ammo? The M4 replaced SMG's for non-frontline personnel almost entirely. The M249 even accepts STANAG magazines. We tried extremely hard to use only one type of ammunition, much to the detriment of our effectiveness overall.
[quote]SMGs are still around, they're just relegated to assault units like SWAT teams that need very short, controllable weapons for room clearing. For the kind of warfare a modern infantry unit engages in, assault rifles are a much better choice.[/quote]
The entire point of this is that modern infantry units are engaging at extremely close ranges. Far closer than we had designed our infantry equipment to effectively operate at.
[quote]Edit: And shotguns are spectacularly useless for the most part in modern combat, that's why the AA-12 that Call of Duty fans and mall ninjas seem to go wild over was never adopted. The most you'll see is a soldier with a non-standard pump shotgun for CQB operations [i]as a backup weapon[/i], and even then there are better alternatives.[/quote]
The M1014 (Benelli M4) has apparently been doing just fine with the Marines. Semiautomatic tube fed shotty. I can guarantee having to carry an M4+shells is a hell of a lot more unpleasant than an SMG.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.