Army wants Full Auto for Accuracy, not spray and pray
224 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;34167678]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]
and use it with the silencer and acog to be really op
[QUOTE=Jsm;34167915]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.[/QUOTE]
those might have been STANAGs from different manufacturers.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34167563]The Galil accepts STANAG magazines and is based on the RK 62, which in turn is based on the AK-47.[/QUOTE]
The Galil takes a proprietary 35 round mag. It's a common misconception that it takes STANAGs.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;34168880]The Galil takes a proprietary 35 round mag. It's a common misconception that it takes STANAGs.[/QUOTE]
Bernardelli Mod.378 VB-SR... basically a Galil clone
gawd
[img]http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/foreign/bernardelli.jpg[/img]
[img]http://inlinethumb34.webshots.com/44833/2385555660058660536S600x600Q85.jpg[/img]
but yeah it's ugly as fuck
[QUOTE=Jsm;34167915]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.[/QUOTE]
PMag is a bit too tight for some guns, causes some issues with dropping free when you press the mag release.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;34172396]PMag is a bit too tight for some guns, causes some issues with dropping free when you press the mag release.[/QUOTE]
That's why Magpul made the Emag. The Pmag is designed around the magwell of the AR-15 while the Emag is designed to be able to fit well in the magwell of all STANAG guns.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;34168880]The Galil takes a proprietary 35 round mag. It's a common misconception that it takes STANAGs.[/QUOTE]
Oh shit sorry, I have only encountered one in reality, and it DID accept STANAGs, but it did so because it had a nifty little adapter that sits in the mag well. It is apparently pretty common due to the far cheaper nature of STANAGs.
So it can accept them, but you are right that it doesn't normally accept them. Sorry about that.
And I wish my dick shot money so I didn't have to pay my hookers.
[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]
Uhhhh no. The AK-47's first setting, was Automatic. The M15/M16 are the ways you just described it.
For christ's sake the inner workings of the AK are similar to the Browning Automatic Rifle which was supposed to be A LIGHT MACHINEGUN
[QUOTE=Swilly;34174914]Uhhhh no. The AK-47's first setting, was Automatic. The M15/M16 are the ways you just described it.
For christ's sake the inner workings of the AK are similar to the Browning Automatic Rifle which was supposed to be A LIGHT MACHINEGUN[/QUOTE]
for christ's sake that argument is retarded
in that case ever gun with a long-stroke piston gas system is supposed to be a LMG
durr hurr M1 garand should be a LMG
sure short-stroke pistons are better for ARs, but that doesn't mean a long-stroke system can't be used.
[editline]12th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;34172494]Oh shit sorry, I have only encountered one in reality, and it DID accept STANAGs, but it did so because it had a nifty little adapter that sits in the mag well. It is apparently pretty common due to the far cheaper nature of STANAGs.
So it can accept them, but you are right that it doesn't normally accept them. Sorry about that.[/QUOTE]
hence my photos of the Galils with the mag well adapter.
I totally did not know that the Army wasn't exactly trained to use full-auto. For that matter, I'd assumed that every soldier and their mom had an M4 from everything I've seen on TV. And even then, I didn't know the M4 was only capable of 3-round burst. I'd ended up assuming that soldiers were just trained to fire in bursts, if they had full auto. <.<
I'm so confused. I have to say, Sensationalist Headlines takes my conceptions about things and then murders them in front of me :V
[QUOTE=itak365;34176168]I totally did not know that the Army wasn't exactly trained to use full-auto. For that matter, I'd assumed that every soldier and their mom had an M4 from everything I've seen on TV. And even then, I didn't know the M4 was only capable of 3-round burst. I'd ended up assuming that soldiers were just trained to fire in bursts, if they had full auto. <.< [/QUOTE]
The M4 has semi and burst, the M4A1 has semi and auto. All soldiers are trained to use short bursts when firing on fully automatic, the problem is that with the stress of combat and the difficulty in controlling an automatic weapon it's very difficult to fire a burst of fewer than five rounds, all of which except the first one, maybe two are essentially wasted. Three round burst settings exist to force ammo conservation (so it's not as easy to go Rambo and empty the magazine, which isn't much of a problem today thanks to training but did happen in Vietnam), as well as restrict the number of rounds fired at a time to a number where they may all have effect.
It's a good idea, the problem is that automatic fire is preferred for close-quarters operations, and as the OP indicates the mechanical implementation of three round burst can have negative side effects.
[QUOTE=itak365;34176168]I totally did not know that the Army wasn't exactly trained to use full-auto. For that matter, I'd assumed that every soldier and their mom had an M4 from everything I've seen on TV. And even then, I didn't know the M4 was only capable of 3-round burst. I'd ended up assuming that soldiers were just trained to fire in bursts, if they had full auto. <.<
I'm so confused. I have to say, Sensationalist Headlines takes my conceptions about things and then murders them in front of me :V[/QUOTE]
we're talking about the standard service rifle here, the M16. However, most M4s that were issued were M4A1s, which are capable of fully-automatic fire. Soldiers who are issued full-auto weapons (Automatic Riflemen) are indeed trained to fire in bursts, though they usually are longer and less consistent than the 3 round bursts produced with a limiter mechanism.
I'm still wondering why it's a three round burst and not a two round burst.
[QUOTE=Moose;34179616]I'm still wondering why it's a three round burst and not a two round burst.[/QUOTE]
because it's a nice number for emptying 30 round magazines, you have 10 bursts
you can't really "triple tap", since the double tap is reliant on a semi-auto mechanism usually, where the soldier decides when to reacquire the front sight after firing the first round
:idk:
[QUOTE=Moose;34179616]I'm still wondering why it's a three round burst and not a two round burst.[/QUOTE]
The Russians have a rifle that's capable of two round bursts, and it is not something you want to even think about taking apart.
[url]http://www.majkasvihoruzja.com/files/slike/puska-an-94-cross-section.jpg[/url]
The pretty much sacrificed the weapon's reliability to get it to do that.
EDIT: linked because large image
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;34179780]The Russians have a rifle that's capable of two round bursts, and it is not something you want to even think about taking apart.
[url]http://www.majkasvihoruzja.com/files/slike/puska-an-94-cross-section.jpg[/url]
EDIT: linked because large image[/QUOTE]
lol @ spring mass in AN-94 stock
also, a 2 round burst mechanism isn't more complicated than a 3 round burst
seriously.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34179816]lol @ spring mass in AN-94 stock
also, a 2 round burst mechanism isn't more complicated than a 3 round burst
seriously.[/QUOTE]
But i think it has to do witht eh fact that the AN94 has some crazy system where you only feel the recoil of 1 shot but 2 rounds come out of the barrel landing in the exact same area or someshit
[QUOTE=DarkZero135;34184766]But i think it has to do witht eh fact that the AN94 has some crazy system where you only feel the recoil of 1 shot but 2 rounds come out of the barrel landing in the exact same area or someshit[/QUOTE]
It does. The system is designed to delay the recoil felt by the user by exactly long enough for two rounds to exit the barrel. This allows for two rounds to strike almost exactly the same point.
A neat idea, but good god there is like a pulley system inside the gun. Fucking weird.
In the US Army we were taught never to use burst. We were taught to provide suppressive fire in spaced out controlled pairs. Even in room clearing we were taught to use controlled pairs on semi. Everyone on deployment is issued an M4 nowadays, and if the mother Army wants to get better internals for our carbines then I say let them. We don't use m16's any more.
I'm pretty sure there is still some M16A2's and A4's in service.
[QUOTE=Moose;34187276]I'm pretty sure there is still some M16A2's and A4's in service.[/QUOTE]I am pretty sure that there are no A2's other than the ones at basic training which are getting phased out and A4's are for the Marine Corps. I am Army. Jarheads do their own thing.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34184935]It does. The system is designed to delay the recoil felt by the user by exactly long enough for two rounds to exit the barrel. This allows for two rounds to strike almost exactly the same point.
A neat idea, but good god there is like a pulley system inside the gun. Fucking weird.[/QUOTE]
The Pulley system in the AN-94 is nothing short of a marvel of engineering. Unfortunately it completely sacrifices the Kalashnikov's famous reliability for accuracy.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/81n2A.jpg[/t]
Also, the G11 project used a similar delayed recoil system to also achieve incredible accuracy, but that project suffered from many other issues.
[QUOTE=Frost 31;34188193]The Pulley system in the AN-94 is nothing short of a marvel of engineering. Unfortunately it completely sacrifices the Kalashnikov's famous reliability for accuracy.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/81n2A.jpg[/t]
Also, the G11 project used a similar delayed recoil system to also achieve incredible accuracy, but that project suffered from many other issues.[/QUOTE]
kalishnikov? accurate?
next thing you know you'll tell me that the hi-point C-9 is reliable.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16#Rifle_evaluation_study[/url]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;34188280]kalishnikov? accurate?
next thing you know you'll tell me that the hi-point C-9 is reliable.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16#Rifle_evaluation_study[/url][/QUOTE]
Where did I say the Kalashnikov (specifically the AKM and 74M) were accurate? I said they were reliable. The AN-94 is insanely accurate, at least on two-round burst.
then rate me bad reading
he probably read it as ' kalashnikov famous for being reliably accurate'
at first, i thought the same thing and went 'nope'
I'm probably late to the party, but it's possible to get a bog standard M4 or M16A4 to fire full auto if you tie a strong nylon string to the burst reset thing (I'm not an armorer and this is just something I saw on Youtube a long time ago) and then tie it to the rear receiver pin that connects the upper and lower receiver.
The recoil from 900 RPM is insanity.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;34203541]I'm probably late to the party, but it's possible to get a bog standard M4 or M16A4 to fire full auto if you tie a strong nylon string to the burst reset thing (I'm not an armorer and this is just something I saw on Youtube a long time ago) and then tie it to the rear receiver pin that connects the upper and lower receiver.
The recoil from 900 RPM is insanity.[/QUOTE]
cyclic rate on standard issue M4A1 can be up to 950 rpm
I'm not seeing MAD RECOIL.
[QUOTE=catbarf;34151153]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe subguns are still in use in some places, but even highspeed, doorkicking types like seals are switching to SBR ARs like the mk18. For our current conflict where engagement ranges will go out farther than room to room, assault rifles dominate. Even for close range hostage rescue type work, I'll bet that ARs get more use simply because that's what most training time goes to. The manual of arms between most subguns like the mp5 and an AR is too different for using both to be efficient.
The nonstandard pumps are usually breaching shotguns, if we're thinking about the same thing.
Also, how the fuck did this get so complicated? For those with no knowledge or reading comp skill, one of the primary reasons for the switch to a full auto FCG is for semi auto accuracy. 3rd burst mechanically is inferior and it causes an inconsistent trigger pull even in semi auto. Also, tactically 3rd burst is outdated. It was originally designed for use on point targets, but training in the last two decades has emphasized the use of semi instead, to the point that many soldiers only get to shoot on the 3 round burst once or twice in their entire careers. For area targets there is no comparison between 3rd burst and auto, it's obvious that auto works better.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.