is full auto even worth using in a combat situation?
Unless you are shooting somebody in the same room as you (even then), full auto seems like a waste becuase of the decrease in accuracy.
Is it not better to shoot 7.62 NATO one by one, adjusting your aim for a second between shots and hitting a large portion of your targets, rather than going full auto with a 5.56, hitting the target a few times and running out of ammo? Why do militaries have the full auto setting on a rifle?
>what is suppressing fire
Try being on the receiving end for once in your life
ok how about in a hypothetical situation where I am shooting at conscription officers?
From a standard rifle 3 round burst is better for that.
Ahaha ha good one
What are you suppressing buddy the sky?
Mass reply for mass retardation
Full-auto does not cause you to shoot in a 90° arc. That's Hollywood shit. An M16 in the hands of someone who has only shot a few dozen mags in full-auto can land every single shot in the mag on a man-sized target from 20 yards and land most out to ~35 yards. This gives you much more reliable incapacitation at close range, where you're in the most danger of getting hit in a very short time. Reaction timing takes precedence in CQB, so "accurately aimed semi-auto" goes out the window when you may only have one second to hit the guy about to shoot you. You're going to want to shoot a lot in a very short amount of time to get as many shots on the guy as you can as fast as you can. Hitting moving targets also becomes significantly easier even out to 50 yards.
Full-auto is exceedingly useful in close range engagements and anybody telling you it's only good for suppression or sweeping around like Rambo is just being a sour grapes fox who's bitter they can't have a fun switch.
tell us more about how you took fire for a base model mustang spc
Belt-feds in semi auto? That's retarded, anon.
Full auto is misused a lot in media. It's not for hitting targets, it's for keeping them down and unable to return fire. It's called suppressing fire.
Alot of bullets in modern combat are fired not with the intention of hitting the target directly but forcing them to keep their head down while your mate gets into a better position.
So in a hypothetical people vs government situation, full auto is not really required?
Full auto is a buff for CQB which brings retards up to the skill cap. If you're not in CQB, or you're a professional, it doesn't provide much benefit; except for hitting laterally moving targets at short/medium range.
> is full auto even worth using in a combat situation?
Someone post the video of the ukie trying to tacti-clear the trench only to get mag dumped around a corner by a terrified vatnik.
Full auto feels good, but wastes ammo compared to accurate single shots. Even in the case of firing in suppression, firing single shots allows you to string your magazine out over more time rather than dumping it all in a few seconds.
Only if you have the need to suppress enemy troops. But outside of room clearing there is no practical reason to need it.
Full-auto is highly situational, but if you and somebody who‘s trying to kill you are in the same trench, or building, or ruined village, you‘ll learn to love your fun switch.
As an individual? No, not really. Maybe if you wanted to spray into a small, confined space where you knew there were multiple guys, but that'd be about it. That, or you were trying to hit something fast, like a guy on a motorcycle.
In units, though, suppressive fire is a very useful thing.
I don't understand the zoomer mentality of "it's not absolutely optimal in every situation, therefore it's absolutely worthless" in half of the statements-posed-as-questions posted here these days.
>I don't understand the zoomer mentality of "it's not absolutely optimal in every situation, therefore it's absolutely worthless" in half of the statements-posed-as-questions posted here these days.
I think it's just how modern gun culture is these days. There's an obsession with the "meta" that's pushed by companies trying to sell you all kinds of weird pieces of kit that aren't necessarily useful, and the younger generation are more likely to fall for it.
> auto seems like a waste becuase of the decrease in accuracy.
Maybe if you go above 5.56
Also if a bro is standing still enough?
That bro is running?
You gotta be a retard or a shill to ever advocate against the option for full auto.
Not called the Bill of Worth Using in Combat
>assuming only magazine fed rifles
If you're up close and know they're wearing armor there's a better chance you'll hit somewhere that's not armor. If that's an arm, gut, or anything else not necessarily immediately incapacitating then it might become so if you land enough hits in it. Or,if you're ambushing a moving vehicle you're fairly close to.
Area fire is pretty useful and the machine gun ends up making most of the kills because they have the range and more bullets toward the enemy often means more hits.
>is full auto even worth using in a combat situation?
>MG's on the flanks
Anyone got those old Army academy demonstration videos where the guy in woodland standing in front of either a green chalkboard or felt background demonstrates the effect of various hit probabilities? Don't remember if it was West Point, but seemed like it was ripped straight off a VHS tape and put on Youtube.
Just because something isnt useful in one niche situation doesnt mean its shit. Also full auto is great in cqb. Shoot like 100 rounds full auto and you can control it well. This isnt call of duty where every shot is off by 90°
It’s for burst or emergencies. Not every soldier is well disciplined enough to continue firing controlled burst with bullets whizzing overhead. That also applies to semi to some extent, burst is a way to bring you back to your head. So maybe they added a burst mode.
>is full auto even worth using in a combat situation?
Depends on the ammo. M-10 in .45 ACP is absolutely better in FA. M-14 in .308 is not.
It's not about if it's useful, it's about the mere limitation and control of a right. If they can do once, they'll do it again.