Army wants Full Auto for Accuracy, not spray and pray
224 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;34152799]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]
The issue is that we also engage at ranges far farther than we had designed our infantry equipment to effectively operate at.
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;34151884]why dont we just give all the troops deagles and awps?[/QUOTE]
Genius
and tell them to turn their mouse sensitivity way up while they're at it
[QUOTE=GunFox;34152799]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]
You would be correct if the currently-used assault rifles weren't already more than capable of room clearing and CQB. Most submachine guns are not much easier to control and have a number of disadvantages. You've yet to explain why a submachine gun is a better choice than an automatic rifle. Literally the only benefits are slightly decreased length and slightly decreased recoil, at the cost of being near-useless for anything beyond a hundred meters.
As for the M203, a full infantry squad in the Army or Marines only has a couple of grenadiers armed with M203s. Because of their weight and the weight of ammunition, they're not given to all members of the squad, and are only tolerated because they provide a unique functionality that can be extremely effective when used properly. An SMG has the same drawback and a far, far less significant advantage.
As for carrying less than a full ammunition load of both- you're suggesting compromising the effectiveness of the basic rifle in favor of a gimmicky short-ranged room-clearing weapon, when more engagements are performed at ranges necessitating an assault rifle than ones necessitating an SMG. That wouldn't fly.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34152799]Tell that to anyone hit by a UMP or a Thompson. They have ridiculous amounts of stopping power. [/QUOTE]
Compared to a 5.56, absolutely not. In fact, a standard M16 has over three times the muzzle energy of a Thompson- the round is lighter, but traveling at almost four times the velocity, and with much better armor and materiel penetration capabilities.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34152799]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. [/QUOTE]
Except building clearing isn't the primary combat environment. In fact, some analysts are suggesting a return to 7.62mm battle rifles, because combat experience in Afghanistan shows that almost all engagements are performed at very long range where even the M16 doesn't cut it. Carrying a submachine gun around as a supplement to an M4 or M16 would be another 15+lbs of dead weight most of the time, requiring additional training and logistical concerns, all for the ability to have a weapon only very slightly better than what we already have in a specific application.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34152799]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]
That's not true at all. We still issue handguns and their ammunition, and submachine guns are designed to use the same rounds. They were phased out because they have no place on the modern battlefield, being useful only in absolute point-blank room clearing which is rarely where combat takes place. For non-frontline troops, we also have alternative weapons other than M4s, for example the P90. The M249 only uses 5.56mm and accepts STANAGs because it was designed to replace the full-auto M16s used by designated Automatic Riflemen, providing a weapon that can lay down automatic fire and support the squad unlike M60s or M240 GPMGs which are deployed in their own units.
It's not that submachine guns themselves are logistically difficult to manage, or that the military is overly concerned with giving every man the same ammunition caliber, it's that issuing submachine guns en masse and then trying to provide ammunition to frontline units is difficult and pointless. That is why the M249 uses 5.56- so all that is needed to resupply an infantry squad is a big crate full of 5.56. Giving a rear-echelon unit that will not need ammunition often a specialized weapon with a unique caliber (like the various unique calibers of PDWs) isn't a problem, it's constantly resupplying front-line units in combat and far ahead of the supply infrastructure that's a problem.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34152799]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]
This is incorrect. Read combat reports from Afghanistan, it's largely ill-trained militia taking potshots from long range. As well, note that engagements are at longer range than in Vietnam, which featured a significant number of point-blank attacks by Viet Cong and NVA units against US forces in the dense jungle. Despite this, there was no move to issue infantry units with SMGs. An M16 does the job just as well as a Thompson.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34152799]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.[/QUOTE]
Please look up exactly who is carrying an M1014 within the Marines- it's not basic infantrymen. Furthermore, may I direct you to the various underslung shotguns available (such as the so-called 'masterkey'), and point out that they are used exclusively for door breaching. That is, standard doctrine is to use the shotgun to blow the door, then switch to the rifle to actually sweep the building. You'd think that if assault rifles were so terrible at CQB and shotguns were so useful, they'd just use the breaching shotgun for all indoors engagements. That's not to say shotguns aren't used in CQB, but they're not a tier above standard rifles.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34149828]You serious?[/QUOTE]
You're not going to get accuracy with a full auto assault rifle. If they want accuracy they need to get weapons that are accurate, and the M1 Garand is an example of such a weapon. All they will do going full auto is spam even more bullets everywhere and hope that one of them finds the target.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daewoo_K11]Just give them all Daewoo K11's.[/url] [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-unsmigghh.gif[/img]
[sp]Kidding,Kidding[/sp]
[QUOTE=oakman26;34153239]Kills aren't all militarys can do. And think about how many can be used in training.[/QUOTE]
And they shoot to miss most of the time.
[quote]In 1947, U.S Armed Forces historian, Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall, published the controversial book, Men Against Fire, releasing his startling discoveries into the world for the first time. Using data obtained via interviews with thousands of soldiers in World War Two, Marshall came to realise that only a minority of soldiers would fire their weapon at an enemy combatant. Only 15-20% of the soldiers interviewed claimed to have consciously fired at the enemy. Many soldiers simply wouldn’t discharge their rifles. Others would purposefully aim above their opponents heads. It didn’t seem to matter where they were stationed, nor whether they were battling against German or Japanese troops, the 15-20% figure remained consistent.[/quote]
If you can make a soildler that can shoot to kill another man without pause, you no longer have a human.
[QUOTE=Sumap;34153436][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daewoo_K11]Just give them all Daewoo K11's.[/url] [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-unsmigghh.gif[/img]
[sp]Kidding,Kidding[/sp]
And they shoot to miss most of the time.
If you can make a soildler that can shoot to kill another man without pause, you no longer have a human.[/QUOTE]
I see the moral here:
[I]robot soldiers.[/I]
ITT weapon knowledge derived PURELY from video games. Fucking 12 year olds think they know anything about weapon design and ballistics. But hey, I'll hop on the bandwagon.
dont use full auto if you have an acog scope the recoil is 2 bad you cant get any kills, ak is way better, m16 is for noobs, they should keep it burst like teh famas that gun was the tits, it takes 14 million bullets to kill one guy, aa12 is full auto and that is awesome (especially with frag rounds), at this distance you will have to take the coriolis effect into account
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;34154208]ITT weapon knowledge derived PURELY from video games. Fucking 12 year olds think they know anything about weapon design and ballistics. But hey, I'll hop on the bandwagon.[/QUOTE]
Some people don't know guns beyond games, some people do. Making assumptions like that doesn't exactly help the situation, though.
[QUOTE=catbarf;34154273]Some people don't know guns beyond games, some people do. Making assumptions like that doesn't exactly help the situation, though.[/QUOTE]
The assumptions based on video games are far less helpful, I was only taking a jab at them.
By the way, you are wrong when you said a 5.56 round has more stopping power than a Thompson or UMP. Yes, the 5.56 travels at a higher velocity, but it penetrates the target, where as the slower .45 will literally stop a person in their tracks.
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;34154415]By the way, you are wrong when you said a 5.56 round has more stopping power than a Thompson or UMP. Yes, the 5.56 travels at a higher velocity, but it penetrates the target, where as the slower .45 will literally stop a person in their tracks.[/QUOTE]
Combat experience has shown that even .45s can fail to stop a target unless a vital area is struck, especially in conflicts against drug-crazed combatants such as in Somalia, so 'literally stop a person in their tracks' is demonstrably false. While the 5.56 is much more likely to overpenetrate, the higher velocity does cause yawing damage that can destroy organs in a greater radius than pistol rounds.
Muzzle energy, however, is quite clear- the 5.56 has much more. The question is whether it's transferred fully, or overpenetrates. Even if the 5.56 overpenetrates and only expends half its kinetic energy on the target (meaning, enters, loses only 30% of its speed, and exits), it will still be inflicting a 50% higher energy transfer than a .45ACP that hits and is fully stopped. Another consideration is that the 5.56 round is more likely to shatter and destroy bone it hits, while pistol rounds can be stopped by bone, and an entrance and exit wound on a major artery causes the target to bleed out more rapidly and makes it harder to stop the bleeding.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;34150854]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]
Reducing ammunition usage will simplify logistics. It's not fun to carry a shitton of bullets, and resupplying soldiers in the field can be very difficult. If they shoot less ammo, they (probably) won't need to carry as many magazines, or they won't need supplies as frequently.
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;34151884]why dont we just give all the troops deagles and awps?[/QUOTE]
cuz barrett 50 cal is better :downs:
[QUOTE=DarkZero135;34152229]Aren't all the variants of the Galil 5.56?[/QUOTE]
A lot of European militaries tend to use guns which can be swapped around with pretty accessible conversion kits.
Though that's mostly the case for smaller ones. It's pretty handy for them.
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;34154415]The assumptions based on video games are far less helpful, I was only taking a jab at them.
By the way, you are wrong when you said a 5.56 round has more stopping power than a Thompson or UMP. Yes, the 5.56 travels at a higher velocity, but it penetrates the target, where as the slower .45 will literally stop a person in their tracks.[/QUOTE]
5.56 with the right ammo is pretty damn deadly within CQC. Oh, and neither of those are really considered "one hit kills" in CQC. You're still going to be spraying down the target. The only real caliber that is considered to be something that will pretty much ensure a target goes down in CQC is 12 gauge to center of mass. If it does hit all pellets center of mass, the entire area affected turns into basically a big smoothie of organs.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;34155027]The only real caliber that is considered to be something that will pretty much ensure a target goes down in CQC is 12 gauge to center of mass. If it does hit all pellets center of mass, the entire area affected turns into basically a big smoothie of organs.[/QUOTE]
Ten 5.56 rounds will give you a similar effect though, and it's easier to hit the target with an automatic weapon than with a pump-action/semiautomatic shotgun.
[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]
I have wondered this as well, cost perhaps?
[editline]11th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sumap;34153436][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daewoo_K11"]Just give them all Daewoo K11's.[/URL] [IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-unsmigghh.gif[/IMG]
[sp]Kidding,Kidding[/sp]
[/QUOTE]
Don't Daewoo make microwaves?
(I'm semi serious here, is it the same Daewoo?)
as someone who actually can control a fully automatic weapon I gotta say I still prefer semi. I'm more into making each shot count than loading anything with $40 worth of bullets. I'm 100% certain I'm not the only one who feels that way, and I'm sure people in the military aren't going to like this.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;34156123]as someone who actually can control a fully automatic weapon I gotta say I still prefer semi. I'm more into making each shot count than loading anything with $40 worth of bullets. I'm 100% certain I'm not the only one who feels that way, and I'm sure people in the military aren't going to like this.[/QUOTE]
Semi auto weapons let you be precise when you need it, but having the ability to go full auto for suppression can be invaluable.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;34156190]Semi auto weapons let you be precise when you need it, but having the ability to go full auto for suppression can be invaluable.[/QUOTE]that's not what assault rifles are for though.
[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]
If you want to reissue a historical weapon then there's no reason not to go with the K31.
[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]
AR-style rifles
AR Rifles
Assault Rifle rifles.
Rifle rifle
For fucks sake, it's not about semi-auto vs full-auto, it's about burst-fire vs full-auto.
3 round burst was introduced to prevent soldiers just holding down the trigger and wasting rounds, allowing them to not worry about discipline in this as much. Unfortunately the burst internals interfere with the trigger when firing semi-auto leading to it being unpredictable and messing with them a lot. Now they're thinking of going back to full-auto internals so that the trigger is better, but they have to worry about firing discipline some more, not really a big deal when most people do run semi-auto.
[QUOTE=BigOwl;34156262]AR-style rifles
AR Rifles
Assault Rifle rifles.
Rifle rifle[/QUOTE]
"AR style" refers to derivatives of the AR-15 platform not assault rifle.
[QUOTE=BigOwl;34156262]AR-style rifles
AR Rifles
Assault Rifle rifles.
Rifle rifle[/QUOTE]
Except AR stands for ArmaLite, not Assault Rifle.
[QUOTE=Jsm;34155999]
Don't Daewoo make microwaves?
(I'm semi serious here, is it the same Daewoo?)[/QUOTE]
I saw an old CRT monitor that was Daewoo today
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;34156219]that's not what assault rifles are for though.
[editline]10th January 2012[/editline]
If you want to reissue a historical weapon then there's no reason not to go with the K31.[/QUOTE]
The military isn't looking for something to just be an assault rifle. They're trying to find something that can fill multiple roles. Logistically it's a good idea because there's not multiple ammo calibers being shipped to the front lines that has to find it's way to the proper person, but designing a weapon that can fill all the roles is somewhat more difficult.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;34156266]For fucks sake, it's not about semi-auto vs full-auto, it's about burst-fire vs full-auto.
3 round burst was introduced to prevent soldiers just holding down the trigger and wasting rounds, allowing them to not worry about discipline in this as much. Unfortunately the burst internals interfere with the trigger when firing semi-auto leading to it being unpredictable and messing with them a lot. Now they're thinking of going back to full-auto internals so that the trigger is better, but they have to worry about firing discipline some more, not really a big deal when most people do run semi-auto.[/QUOTE]
I think the question here is why doesn't the military just trial some soldiers with FA trigger groups from the M16A3, and then after about a year see the difference.
[QUOTE=Jsm;34155999]
Don't Daewoo make microwaves?
(I'm semi serious here, is it the same Daewoo?)[/QUOTE]
Daewoo has a firearms division called S&T Daewoo along with their other divisions.
[QUOTE=Jsm;34155999]I have wondered this as well, cost perhaps?
[editline]11th January 2012[/editline]
Don't Daewoo make microwaves?
(I'm semi serious here, is it the same Daewoo?)[/QUOTE]
daewoo was a south korean conglomerate. you could get cars, guns, and appliances all in one place.
[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]
RARARAR THEM GODDAMN SUITS WITH THER FANCY IDEAS BACK IN THE DAY ON THE OL' AK-FORTYSEVEN...
^That, and also the point you're trying to make is incorrect, and in explaining it you kind of prove yourself wrong. On AKs, when you disengage the safety you are going from safe directly into full-auto, You have to push it down another notch to put it in semi. So unless you're slamming your selector with a hammer the natural progression would be from safe to auto.
I'm pretty sure that when the STG-44 (no arguing about the first assault rifle allowed) was designed, they knew well that full-auto on it would serve only one purpose, and serve it well: suppression. Now I'm not sure how suppression via single shots or bursts compares but a recoil-less full auto rifle would kick ass.
[QUOTE=Jsm;34155999]I have wondered this as well, cost perhaps?[/QUOTE]
How about the fact that it looks like a damn fish?
Shape has a lot to do with how comfortable a person is with something. I would think it's real hard to get soldiers excited about the move from dildo-looking AR derivations to german polymer tuna.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.