I keep hearing it's preferrable to usr them in semi only, then I hear 5.56x45mm is burst-fire oriented.
So how is it, really?
Semi auto for everything, full auto for emergencies only.
I was issued a semi / 3rd burst M4 with no full auto.
It's like they don't trust Army with full autos.
Then again everything is now women and PC and the PC crowd are dumb as shit.
I had just a little bit of hope left, but when I did basic we hardly trained on weapons and there was hours of SHARP bullshite.
Long story short most of us were seriously injured and discharged, and i'm the only one who wasn't shot.
>That feel when I didn't get to inna-desert
>>29783117
Semi-auto for EVERYTHING except charging enemy positions. Official Finnish Defence Force doctrine. So if you're expecting to fight an enemy at a hugging distance, you're better off with full-auto with bayonet attached.
Do note though that a charge is not the same thing as an assault or an attack. A charge is a continous movement into enemy positions from a distance less than 50 metres, during which you continue running until you reach your destination. Essentially a bayonet charge.
The issue is most service rifles worldwide have a fire rate that is far too high, you don't need any more than 500rds/min for a personal weapon.
>>29783368
>NEEEEEED
The main problem with burst in 223 rifles is that the burst doesn't last long enough; the third round is the furthest from target, then the shooter compensates and brings the rifle back on target
>>29783117
Bong Infantryman here. Semi auto for 99% of situations, full auto for emergencies and clearing enemy positions, i.e. trenches.
>>29783387
It's about stopping power, innit? A single 5.56 won't drop your foe fast enough, so you shoot multiple. Burst is good for this purpose, though a bit redundant, since full-auto works the same purpose, only it allows you to keep firing even if the enemy combatant is not defeated with that single 3-round-burst.
Didn't the US military abandon the burst fire for full auto? I don't understand how they thought that full-auto in very CQB would be a waste and burst would be an improvement on it.
>>29783117
As lead scout on patrol in Afghan I've had the privileged of using full auto on my steyr.
Panic mag straight into a goat on a fucking mountain. It came out of fucking no where and scared the shit outa me.
Other than that I've never used full auto on a rifle during a contact.
>>29783483
>full auto on my steyr
Where you from?
>>29783496
Probably a Kiwi
>>29783496
>>29783522
Australian duh
>>29783545
>Australian
Oh. Kiwi Lite.
>>29783117
Generally, a US rifleman (regardless of branch) will use semi in everything but the most dire of circumstances. For the most part they dont even have auto capability, that's reserved for SOF (m4a1, mk18), a select few navy security units (m16a3/m4a1), and Marine squad gunners with m27s *which are technically used as an LMG
>>29783461
Yes, recently. Doctrinally the M4A1 replaces all the other rifles as standard, but functionally it will take decades to convert or replace them all.
>>29783627
Is it because every MUHreen is a marksman?
>>29783461
Burst is a result of Pentagon politicos compromising with combat commanders following Vietnam. A long tradition of "hey all those tens of thousands of half trained draftees gonna waste ammo" butting against "hey we finally have rifles that are controllable on auto, they're actually useful". Keep in mind Panama was the first "war" in the entirety of US history fought with zero draftees. Both sides were justifiedd.
I can't imagine a real world use for using full auto on my M4A1, the only time I ever use it is when we are goofing off during training.
I can already shoot pretty fast on semi while better maintaining my accuracy.
