What would happen to combat capabilities of a modern army if its main infantry weapon became semi-automatic, with no other changes? Okay, not quite “no other changes”, since I do mean that everyone would know about it and be able to adjust their training accordingly. If they all broke simulataneously and couldn’t be fixed I expect the dismay might be a real factor on the battlefield…
What I’m really wondering is how important is burst-fire and full automatic fire in an individual weapon (I am assuming the squad automatics and machineguns would not be affected). I put this in GD because I don’t think there is a factual answer to this kind of speculative question.
I don’t think it would make too much difference at all. From my days in the army, squad maneuvers with the M-16 (C-7, actually) involved a steady rate of single, relatively controlled shots on a target. Burst and full-auto were viewed as ammo-wasters.
Remember, with a semi-automatic weapon, you can still get off 4-5 shots per second pretty smoothly.
As I understand it, assault rifles on full automatic are for the movies. Poorly trained guerrilas and rebels tend to use full auto (and miss) but Western training emphasises single, aimed shots or 3 round bursts.
Now that I think about it, the Canadian version of the M-16, the C-7, didn’t have a burst setting on it. Full and semi were the only two available, and we were told not to use full (that was what the drum-fed C-9 was for).
This is kind of off topic, but what’s the American squad light machine gun?
In the Canadian army, half the justification for telling us never to use full auto is that a ten man squad should have one or two C-9 light machine guns, which had a barrel mounted bipod and fired 5.56 from 220 round drums. The LMGunner would carry four of those drums, and everyone in the squad would carry one or two, so there was lots of firepower available. Thus, there was no need for someone with a C-7 to “rock 'n roll”.
Former (and still occasional) Israeli infantryman chiming in -
Same thing as the rest of you guys. I’ve never fired an M-16 in full auto, not even in a firing range. You can’t aim, you can’t control your recoil, and it’s a huge waste of ammo. We were taught always to fire fast single shots, eye between sights (except when charging).
BTW, the IDF squad level machine gun is the Negev 5.56. Cute weapon.
I have fired an M16 in full auto. Its only a waste of ammo if you’re firing into the field. If you’re in close urban terrain, it’s not a waste of ammo.
I’d say full auto would be good for fighting off “wave” attacks - large numbers of attackers charging toward your position. In that case, accuracy isn’t quite as important, as long as you can keep your rounds within the mass of attackers. In that case, I’d want everybody around me keeping them back, not just the SAW gunner.
M-16A1 has a fully auto setting. By '93 when I went through basic, The A2’s were in use (I never saw an A1 fielded) and they had a 3-shot burst setting.
Except in the rare incidents of truly massive light infantry charges against far outnumbered defenders, the burst/auto settings do little but waste ammo.
I could see burst or full auto being useful as suppressive fire if you didn’t have someone better equipped with you to provide it - not firing with the intention of actually hitting your enemy, but spraying bullets over the area they are taking cover in to prevent them from popping their heads up to take aimed shots at your guys.
It’s primarily intended for any situation where a high volume of fire is more important than accuracy or per-shot ammunition effectiveness. Very important for combat in urban areas and similar close-range fighting, where things are largely decided by being able to put a high weight of fire onto an area in as short a timespan as possible.
In her Majesty’s Royal Danish Army, the full-auto position on our H&K G-3s was marked “F”, universally known as “Fraads”; Danish for “sinful waste”. Which is as good a description as I’ve ever seen or heard. I have fired the G-3 on full-auto, and not only is it wildly inaccurate for most, it also wastes precious ammo - and it has a tendency to jam, to boot. Bad combination.
You use full-auto when you’re scared and want the enemy to get down, stay down and focus on survival instead of aiming his own weapons. Actual killing is done with single aimed rounds - and with the squad’s heavy weapons, of course.
For urban combat, the book has been rewritten a bit as to full-auto - apparently, most training manuals are based on WWII experience, where urban fighting was mainly done with submachine guns in brick houses. The lessons can’t be copied to full-auto assault rifles in concrete buildings, because this last combination makes for high-powered ricochets that will sometime bounce off corners and right out the openeing you’re firing into.
An old codger checking in. The full auto setting on the M16 was useful in two situations:
First, to fire the weapon when holding it up in the air over a wall or trench or berm while keeping your head under cover, i.e., blind fire.
Second, to shoot stray dogs at close range.
Otherwise the fully automatic was a waste of ammo and an excuse to pull off the line. “I’m out of ammo, Sarge.” The three round governor sounds like a good idea. If you can’t be sure of a hit with one round you sure ought to be able to hit something with a three round burst. If you need to hose down an area, the machine gun is the tool to use, or a grenade.