Army wants Full Auto for Accuracy, not spray and pray
224 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34157085]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.[/QUOTE]
Our army had no problem moving from the awesome Zastava
[t]http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k76011_Yugoslavian M70 Zastava 7.62x39mm assault rifle wi.jpg[/t]
to the [sp]actually still pretty awesome[/sp] F2000S fish gun
[t]http://shrani.si/f/43/uS/3DA0AzMQ/f2000.jpg[/t]
It has more to do with the XM8 being an overpriced piece of crap
[QUOTE=wewt!;34157263]Our army had no problem moving from the awesome Zastava
[t]http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k76011_Yugoslavian M70 Zastava 7.62x39mm assault rifle wi.jpg[/t]
to the [sp]actually still pretty awesome[/sp] F2000S fish gun
[t]http://shrani.si/f/43/uS/3DA0AzMQ/f2000.jpg[/t]
It has more to do with the XM8 being an overpriced piece of crap[/QUOTE]
they went from a $600 marvel of engineering to a $2000 chunk of belgian plastic.
why?
[QUOTE=wewt!;34157263]Our army had no problem moving from the awesome Zastava
[t]http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k76011_Yugoslavian M70 Zastava 7.62x39mm assault rifle wi.jpg[/t]
to the [sp]actually still pretty awesome[/sp] F2000S fish gun
[t]http://shrani.si/f/43/uS/3DA0AzMQ/f2000.jpg[/t]
It has more to do with the XM8 being an overpriced piece of crap[/QUOTE]
Well, sure, but that's because the slovene (? sorry, I got no idea) armed forces are full of hipsters, you should know that. It was an ~ironic~ decision.
In all seriousness though, the F2000 looks close enough to other stuff (when I say "fish" I mean the top, specifically, the F2000 looks like any other modern rifle on the top, the XM8 has that...bulbous growth) and you're talking about a smaller number of guns to be phased out, so I think that's not really comparable.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;34156219]that's not what assault rifles are for though.[/QUOTE]
Even if not for suppression fully automatic fire can still be invaluable to a soldier if the fight ever gets to close for comfort
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;34157365]they went from a $600 marvel of engineering to a $2000 chunk of belgian plastic.
why?[/QUOTE]
STANAG standard and nato rounds.
Part of me wishes we stayed with AK pattern rifles, but this turned out to not be such a bad choice.
[QUOTE=neutra;34147711]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]
Their K/D ratio must suck though.
[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]
Thats not a Riflemans role though, thats what Automatic Rifleman is for.
[QUOTE=rivershark;34157037]^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.[/QUOTE]
Actually it's a lot easier to go from safe to semi than from safe to auto. Switching to automatic requires just the right amount of force, otherwise the selector keeps on going. If you're suddenly reacting to a threat and click off the safety, you'll most likely take it all the way to semi.
[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]
Yeah but is 3 round burst considered semi?
Semi means each time you pull the trigger you shoot once without having to reload right?
So these automatic rifles are still used in semi most of the time, but with the option for "manual burst" which should have better accuracy than with a 3 round burst setting.
[QUOTE=sami-elite;34160326]Yeah but is 3 round burst considered semi?
Semi means each time you pull the trigger you shoot once without having to reload right?
So these automatic rifles are still used in semi most of the time, but with the option for "manual burst" which should have better accuracy than with a 3 round burst setting.[/QUOTE]
Semi auto = one trigger pull per round
[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.
[/QUOTE]
The XM8 no longer exists as standard issue. XM8 was the prototype model. That program has since been cancelled.
If everyone wants accuracy, then they should go back to using bolt action rifles
[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 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[/QUOTE]
this x1000
best post in this fucking thread.
We need full-auto capability for room clearing in a CQB environment.
Sure, the M16 isn't the best weapon for this due to length, bla bla bla. M4A1s and CQBRs are better for that for obvious reasons. Still, it's a good capability to have.
I would say the fears of troops unloading on full-auto because they are scared shitless is almost entirely unfounded in modern warfare.
#1: We're not fighting in a vietnam environment where the enemy could be very close.
#2: we spend more on training per soldier since we're not drafting.
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;34151884]why dont we just give all the troops deagles and awps?[/QUOTE]
British army does issue the AWSM
which is basically AWP with bigger bullet.
[editline]11th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=BCell;34160946]If everyone wants accuracy, then they should go back to using bolt action rifles[/QUOTE]
no, we should issue everyone sniper rifles
DERP
[QUOTE=TestECull;34153357]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.[/QUOTE]
errr.
why don't we just give everyone a M110 then? More accurate, larger mags, etc, etc. No PING when you run dry
[b]maybe because full auto ACTUALLY HAS PRACTICAL COMBAT APPLICATIONS
WHO THE FUCK KNEW[/b]
[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]
No because it melts after continued usage.
Needs to be done, I can't abide the fact people are worried about cost.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;34159555]Their K/D ratio must suck though.[/QUOTE]
Please keep CoD out of this.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34157085]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.[/QUOTE]
I suppose, I hadn't taken that into account. It does look pretty fucking weird.
[editline]11th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=wewt!;34159217]STANAG standard and nato rounds.
Part of me wishes we stayed with AK pattern rifles, but this turned out to not be such a bad choice.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if there's any AK based rifles that are chambered to NATO rounds and accept STANAG magazines, sounds like it would be the ideal weapon for certain countries.
[QUOTE=Remscar;34161065]No because it melts after continued usage.[/QUOTE]
I thought only the handguard melted, it's still a major flaw though.
[QUOTE=Jsm;34161762]I suppose, I hadn't taken that into account. It does look pretty fucking weird.
[editline]11th January 2012[/editline]
I wonder if there's any AK based rifles that are chambered to NATO rounds and accept STANAG magazines, sounds like it would be the ideal weapon for certain countries.[/QUOTE]
AK action doesn't like anything but AK magazines, since there's the insert and pull back method of insertion.
the "rock and lock"
however the AK101 is chambered in 5.56x45 NATO
[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;34161790]I thought only the handguard melted, it's still a major flaw though.[/QUOTE]
It's also basically a G36 with a new body shell
[QUOTE=Uncle Bourbon;34161983]It's also basically a G36 with a new body shell[/QUOTE]
This.
also the 416 from the tests is being "Field tested" in the guise of the M27 IAR.
They do recognize the need for these types of rifles, it's just the old Colt lobby issues again.
[QUOTE=Uncle Bourbon;34161983]It's also basically a G36 with a new body shell[/QUOTE]
Just to look good at an international Arms Markets display stand.
For countries with more budget than sense.
[QUOTE=TheHypnotoad;34162128]This.
also the 416 from the tests is being "Field tested" in the guise of the M27 IAR.
They do recognize the need for these types of rifles, it's just the old Colt lobby issues again.[/QUOTE]
The 416 didn't have closed/open bolt functionality last time I checked
you can't really say they're the same design
I'd like to see the army replace the standard mags they got first, because they're absolute shit and the springs wear out like a motherfucker in temperate weather conditions.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;34158489](The first assault rifle was also the Fedorov.)[/QUOTE]
I added in [QUOTE](no arguing about the first assault rifle allowed)[/QUOTE] for the sole reason that I knew someone would mention the Fedorov.
[QUOTE=Jsm;34161762]I suppose, I hadn't taken that into account. It does look pretty fucking weird.
[editline]11th January 2012[/editline]
I wonder if there's any AK based rifles that are chambered to NATO rounds and accept STANAG magazines, sounds like it would be the ideal weapon for certain countries.[/QUOTE]
The Galil accepts STANAG magazines and is based on the RK 62, which in turn is based on the AK-47.
mfw facepunchers thinking they know shit about guns
lol
[QUOTE=Moose;34166505]I'd like to see the army replace the standard mags they got first, because they're absolute shit and the springs wear out like a motherfucker in temperate weather conditions.[/QUOTE]
They should really replace them with Magpul EMags.
It is pretty hard to make a better magazine than those. Fucking unstoppable.
No you idiots, we have to use the AK47. It has no recoil and a super high rate of fire, it's badass, i've used one in CoD.
[QUOTE=Moose;34166505]I'd like to see the army replace the standard mags they got first, because they're absolute shit and the springs wear out like a motherfucker in temperate weather conditions.[/QUOTE]
I heard some time ago that the US army (or USMC I cant remember) had banned various magazines because of issues they had with them. I wonder how much truth there is to that, I mean things like the pmag can't be that bad right.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.