full auto is of limited utility for things like an assault rifle but it is useful if you have a LMG or GPMG.
30 rounds at 600rpm means you go dry in 5 seconds, so it's generally more useful to take aimed shots.
3 round burst is specifically useless, though.
doctrinally speaking full auto is most useful for suppressive fire and area targets.
Full auto in a rifle is of limited but very specific utility. The big "FULL AUTO IS USELESS" meme came out of a Vietnam double-whammy, between the M14 being particularly uncontrollable, combined with draftee troops with M16s tending to panic and mag dump at nothing when coming under fire. In more practical approaches, it allows the average rifleman to transition into a limited LMG role if the normal gun is unavailable, such as when reloading or if the gunner goes down and someone has to recover it, as well as in indoor combat, where it can be used both to spray the frick out of a room, or to rapidly place a whole lot of hate on one target, minimizing the possibility that he's going to pull some "Black person on crack" shit.
[...]
Nobody but you even mentioned Home Defense. Even then, ripping 13 rounds through your fricking drywall to get at a burglar is a stupid fricking idea.
And judging by your multi-tag, I can guess you're also the type of person to magdump onto a target and miss every single fricking shot.
Full-auto is perfectly capable of being accurate and useful. The reason select fire is a prerequisite to an assault rifle is because it gives infantry the range and power of a rifle with the close range killing power of an SMG.
Within 50 yards, you're hitting way more shots than "muh well aimed semi-auto". Within 20 yards, you're hitting the majority of your shots, and in your average indoor gunfight situation under 15 yards, you're more than able to hit every single shot in a mag on a target. Your average SMG or assault rifle is an incredibly potent and effective weapon within typical civilian self defense range.
Have you ever done an automatic qualification shoot in the military? You are dropping shots at 50yrds, and the spread is everywhere, you shouldn't be missing any in semi at that range and should have a good group. The target is also huge.
Now do it when the target is moving. Even when you're missing 20% of your shots on a stationary target, you're still hitting way more frequently than in semi.
So if your missing in semi why would you switch to auto thats even more inaccurate, and takes longer to get sights back on target. Our yearly rifle qualification doesn't even have any automatic shoots in it as standard, automatic quals are only done before deployments or live fire excerises.
If each aimed shot on semi takes, say, half a second and has a 20% chance of hitting and each shot on FA takes 0.086 seconds and has a 5% chance of hitting, which firing mode is statistically likely to score a hit first?
Back in the late 00s we still used the vz.58 on full auto for most standard fire drills at 100-500m, the directions were to use "short bursts".
Even at 100m only the first round out of a burst ever went into a man sized target. Switching to semi always resulted in more targets hit in the same time limit, with less ammo expended.
Yeah, auto on a rifle is not practical at 100+ yards. It's for things you could hit with a rock.
>Within 50 yards, you're hitting way more shots than "muh well aimed semi-auto" >has clearly never shot any fa gun
You could have said that its more controllable and useful than most people think but you went complete mongoloid.
The average person never having shot FA can hit all shots at 15 yards in their second mag (like I did). At 25, a well-practiced shooter can hit every shot on a man-sized stationary target. Again, if you're hitting 20% of your shots at 50 yards, that's about 3 hits per second. You would be hard pressed to do that on semi.
So if your missing in semi why would you switch to auto thats even more inaccurate, and takes longer to get sights back on target. Our yearly rifle qualification doesn't even have any automatic shoots in it as standard, automatic quals are only done before deployments or live fire excerises.
>if your missing in semi why would you switch to auto thats even more inaccurate
My former point is that Full-auto is better on moving targets, which is undeniable within 50 yards. My latter is that you're getting more hits on target in less time even if semi is getting perfect accuracy. 3 hits per second is an absolute feat on semi at 50 yards, but it's the minimal expected hit rate on FA. >Our yearly rifle qualification doesn't even have any automatic shoots in it as standard
Ammo is expensive. It's also not really in the US battle doctrine for a wide variety of reasons; mostly due to the last 20 years of combat not particularly benefitting from it.
>Within 50 yards, you're hitting way more shots than "muh well aimed semi-auto" >has clearly never shot any fa gun
You could have said that its more controllable and useful than most people think but you went complete mongoloid.
You are hitting more shots. It depends whether you measure more shots per shot fired or more shots per unit of time. The latter matters a lot more than the former in the conventional close fight. Line infantry adopting SWAT single fire drills by way of SF cross training for hostage rescue with police was a mistake.
What the frick are you on about. Your aren't hitting more shots, you're wasting more ammunition. Moving target shoots are usually done in semi.
Just say your a no guns or a civilian range shooter and have no idea what your on about.
K. You're talking to two different people and I only don't have cross rifles because I was in garbage units so I couldn't reshoot within the time frame after getting first class, but I'm sure you're an absolute jet with tonnes of trigger time.
If each aimed shot on semi takes, say, half a second and has a 20% chance of hitting and each shot on FA takes 0.086 seconds and has a 5% chance of hitting, which firing mode is statistically likely to score a hit first?
If there existed such an advantage from fa then all the militaries of the world would have kept it as standard operating procedure from when it was the norm (e.g. 20rnd bars used as pseudo-lmg in WW2).
If and only if said militaries were seeing regular high intensity conflict. If, instead, the only units that saw regular deployments with a lot of combat were SF units who also trained for hostage rescue then the cult of cool would decree that single shot was the way to go. You'd also see things like instinctive fire training go out the window. And hey, what do you know, that's what's happened.
full auto is of limited utility for things like an assault rifle but it is useful if you have a LMG or GPMG.
30 rounds at 600rpm means you go dry in 5 seconds, so it's generally more useful to take aimed shots.
3 round burst is specifically useless, though.
doctrinally speaking full auto is most useful for suppressive fire and area targets.
Full auto in a rifle is of limited but very specific utility. The big "FULL AUTO IS USELESS" meme came out of a Vietnam double-whammy, between the M14 being particularly uncontrollable, combined with draftee troops with M16s tending to panic and mag dump at nothing when coming under fire. In more practical approaches, it allows the average rifleman to transition into a limited LMG role if the normal gun is unavailable, such as when reloading or if the gunner goes down and someone has to recover it, as well as in indoor combat, where it can be used both to spray the frick out of a room, or to rapidly place a whole lot of hate on one target, minimizing the possibility that he's going to pull some "Black person on crack" shit.
I haven't killed people for a living but I'd imagine in assault rifles it's mostly useful when you don't have 5-10 seconds for the guy 3 feet away to bleed out before he takes you with him.
For civvies, practical uses are limited since we have time to autistically train for accuracy, and will rarely be in a frantic "oh shit oh frick" moment that truly requires full auto.
For the military, rate of fire can be a big game changer.
One bullet hole? A problem, but it's solvable.
Two? Bigger problem, seek medical attention.
Three? Seek IMMEDIATE medical attention.
Four? Hope you can make it to the medics before you pass out from bloodloss.
Five? Hope and pray that whoever has to deal with your unlucky ass is sent from god, if you can even make it far enough to be treated.
Six? You're fricking dead, and probably died somewhere around bullet Four.
Plus, being able to rattle off bullets solves the whole "give a dipshit farmer an assault rifle and make them fight for the country" situation where you can't train EVERYONE to have good accuracy, so you use the firerate as a crutch.
I mean I would probably never use it except for fun, but if you're kicking down doors and don't know what's on the other side its probably nice to have.
The idea of trying to breach a home where the homeowner has a mounted belt fed MG set up scares the shit out of feds and that's why they want to keep them banned.
volume matters when it is not the time to aim. Too many enemies, too little time, too little room. The task of suppression to force them duck down and get out of your eye sight or spraying down a packed group doesn't require accuracy either.
The weight and dimension needed to fire a shell is the same, higher rate of fire itself barely adds much weight. Going high rof can achieve very high fire power per second with the same weight.
It can be even better with smaller caliber, but speed loss, low penetration and magazine can only go so wide all limits the return. In the extream end its an unreliable sand blaster.
The extra weight to the barrel and the gun are needed to lengthen the time before overheating and reduce the kick. In the end weight catches up to sustained capacity and follow up time.
it's cope, despite the fact that I could only ever realistically see myself using full-auto outside the range if SHTF. would never use it for home defense. everyone and their mother would have a full-auto rifle if the government wasn't gay
Even If I had full auto, I would probably only fire in 2-5 round bursts in a real gun fight. Binary triggers seem pretty cool.
It's still infringement to keep full auto sears from us.
There's an element of cope, because everyone would have it if they could. But in a rifle, full auto is really barely ever useful.
100% deflection. See:
Full-auto is perfectly capable of being accurate and useful. The reason select fire is a prerequisite to an assault rifle is because it gives infantry the range and power of a rifle with the close range killing power of an SMG.
Within 50 yards, you're hitting way more shots than "muh well aimed semi-auto". Within 20 yards, you're hitting the majority of your shots, and in your average indoor gunfight situation under 15 yards, you're more than able to hit every single shot in a mag on a target. Your average SMG or assault rifle is an incredibly potent and effective weapon within typical civilian self defense range.
Have you ever done an automatic qualification shoot in the military? You are dropping shots at 50yrds, and the spread is everywhere, you shouldn't be missing any in semi at that range and should have a good group. The target is also huge.
Now do it when the target is moving. Even when you're missing 20% of your shots on a stationary target, you're still hitting way more frequently than in semi.
So if your missing in semi why would you switch to auto thats even more inaccurate, and takes longer to get sights back on target. Our yearly rifle qualification doesn't even have any automatic shoots in it as standard, automatic quals are only done before deployments or live fire excerises.
If each aimed shot on semi takes, say, half a second and has a 20% chance of hitting and each shot on FA takes 0.086 seconds and has a 5% chance of hitting, which firing mode is statistically likely to score a hit first?
FIGHT!
Back in the late 00s we still used the vz.58 on full auto for most standard fire drills at 100-500m, the directions were to use "short bursts".
Even at 100m only the first round out of a burst ever went into a man sized target. Switching to semi always resulted in more targets hit in the same time limit, with less ammo expended.
Yeah, auto on a rifle is not practical at 100+ yards. It's for things you could hit with a rock.
The average person never having shot FA can hit all shots at 15 yards in their second mag (like I did). At 25, a well-practiced shooter can hit every shot on a man-sized stationary target. Again, if you're hitting 20% of your shots at 50 yards, that's about 3 hits per second. You would be hard pressed to do that on semi.
>if your missing in semi why would you switch to auto thats even more inaccurate
My former point is that Full-auto is better on moving targets, which is undeniable within 50 yards. My latter is that you're getting more hits on target in less time even if semi is getting perfect accuracy. 3 hits per second is an absolute feat on semi at 50 yards, but it's the minimal expected hit rate on FA.
>Our yearly rifle qualification doesn't even have any automatic shoots in it as standard
Ammo is expensive. It's also not really in the US battle doctrine for a wide variety of reasons; mostly due to the last 20 years of combat not particularly benefitting from it.
>Within 50 yards, you're hitting way more shots than "muh well aimed semi-auto"
>has clearly never shot any fa gun
You could have said that its more controllable and useful than most people think but you went complete mongoloid.
You are hitting more shots. It depends whether you measure more shots per shot fired or more shots per unit of time. The latter matters a lot more than the former in the conventional close fight. Line infantry adopting SWAT single fire drills by way of SF cross training for hostage rescue with police was a mistake.
What the frick are you on about. Your aren't hitting more shots, you're wasting more ammunition. Moving target shoots are usually done in semi.
Just say your a no guns or a civilian range shooter and have no idea what your on about.
K. You're talking to two different people and I only don't have cross rifles because I was in garbage units so I couldn't reshoot within the time frame after getting first class, but I'm sure you're an absolute jet with tonnes of trigger time.
*Crossed
Phonegayging.
If there existed such an advantage from fa then all the militaries of the world would have kept it as standard operating procedure from when it was the norm (e.g. 20rnd bars used as pseudo-lmg in WW2).
If and only if said militaries were seeing regular high intensity conflict. If, instead, the only units that saw regular deployments with a lot of combat were SF units who also trained for hostage rescue then the cult of cool would decree that single shot was the way to go. You'd also see things like instinctive fire training go out the window. And hey, what do you know, that's what's happened.
full auto is of limited utility for things like an assault rifle but it is useful if you have a LMG or GPMG.
30 rounds at 600rpm means you go dry in 5 seconds, so it's generally more useful to take aimed shots.
3 round burst is specifically useless, though.
doctrinally speaking full auto is most useful for suppressive fire and area targets.
I can afford one
I own 14.
post them
I would buy full auto, but I'm pretty sure gun manufacturers are not allowed to make new ones for civilian use so I don't. I don't buy used guns.
I always thought full auto was good for trench clearing
Full auto in a rifle is of limited but very specific utility. The big "FULL AUTO IS USELESS" meme came out of a Vietnam double-whammy, between the M14 being particularly uncontrollable, combined with draftee troops with M16s tending to panic and mag dump at nothing when coming under fire. In more practical approaches, it allows the average rifleman to transition into a limited LMG role if the normal gun is unavailable, such as when reloading or if the gunner goes down and someone has to recover it, as well as in indoor combat, where it can be used both to spray the frick out of a room, or to rapidly place a whole lot of hate on one target, minimizing the possibility that he's going to pull some "Black person on crack" shit.
Full auto is for soldiers
Semi is for larpers
I haven't killed people for a living but I'd imagine in assault rifles it's mostly useful when you don't have 5-10 seconds for the guy 3 feet away to bleed out before he takes you with him.
For civvies, practical uses are limited since we have time to autistically train for accuracy, and will rarely be in a frantic "oh shit oh frick" moment that truly requires full auto.
For the military, rate of fire can be a big game changer.
One bullet hole? A problem, but it's solvable.
Two? Bigger problem, seek medical attention.
Three? Seek IMMEDIATE medical attention.
Four? Hope you can make it to the medics before you pass out from bloodloss.
Five? Hope and pray that whoever has to deal with your unlucky ass is sent from god, if you can even make it far enough to be treated.
Six? You're fricking dead, and probably died somewhere around bullet Four.
Plus, being able to rattle off bullets solves the whole "give a dipshit farmer an assault rifle and make them fight for the country" situation where you can't train EVERYONE to have good accuracy, so you use the firerate as a crutch.
I didn't say home defense, gay, I said trench clearing.
Jesus, Glowies are getting worse by the day
Nobody but you even mentioned Home Defense. Even then, ripping 13 rounds through your fricking drywall to get at a burglar is a stupid fricking idea.
And judging by your multi-tag, I can guess you're also the type of person to magdump onto a target and miss every single fricking shot.
It's pretty useless on something like a FAL or G3. Otherwise it has its uses
It's partly cope of course, but full auto is pretty useless for rifles in most settings.
Now MGs are a completely different can of worms.
It's good for close range and really fun
I mean I would probably never use it except for fun, but if you're kicking down doors and don't know what's on the other side its probably nice to have.
The idea of trying to breach a home where the homeowner has a mounted belt fed MG set up scares the shit out of feds and that's why they want to keep them banned.
Its both. Sports cars are useless, but people who shit on them are just coping and would still own one if they had the sufficient disposable income.
volume matters when it is not the time to aim. Too many enemies, too little time, too little room. The task of suppression to force them duck down and get out of your eye sight or spraying down a packed group doesn't require accuracy either.
The weight and dimension needed to fire a shell is the same, higher rate of fire itself barely adds much weight. Going high rof can achieve very high fire power per second with the same weight.
It can be even better with smaller caliber, but speed loss, low penetration and magazine can only go so wide all limits the return. In the extream end its an unreliable sand blaster.
The extra weight to the barrel and the gun are needed to lengthen the time before overheating and reduce the kick. In the end weight catches up to sustained capacity and follow up time.
it's cope, despite the fact that I could only ever realistically see myself using full-auto outside the range if SHTF. would never use it for home defense. everyone and their mother would have a full-auto rifle if the government wasn't gay
Even If I had full auto, I would probably only fire in 2-5 round bursts in a real gun fight. Binary triggers seem pretty cool.
It's still infringement to keep full auto sears from us.