full auto v.s. semi auto

[KRM45]

I'll bite. If full auto is a waste of ammo, then a 500lb bomb is a wast of 499 pounds of explosives. We should just aim better with 1lb bombs...

[atxgun]

Well for me I wouldn't want to fire full auto in terms of defense. Unlike others here, I haven't been in the service and I have no experience so it would just be fun to try at the range.

[Liberty]

Different time and different place different wars. I was taught 3 round burst with M16 and M16A1 3 round burst would make 3 holes in target .. The M16 isn't was not that hard to hold on target. You don't take much time aiming when they are shooting at you. I doubt that anyone who has ever depended on an an M60 or other type machine gun has ever wished they could select semi. No soldier I ever met asked for a semi only AR15. Now I never trained for urban or desert warfare, but in jungle warfare one often couldn't see the enemy that was shooting at them. Spray and pray was the best option. Now if I see them before they see me then semi is the way to go. I think burst mode is silly also, it wasn't difficult to learn a little trigger control and keeping the rounds to to or 3. Making the rifle more complex and reducing a combat soldiers options is usually not a good idea.

[AFJailor]

I dont personally see a use for the full auto setting on something like the m16/m4, I mean, I have shot a full auto UZI in 9mm and that was hard enough to control. The M249 is easy enough to carry and with a few 200 round assault paks you have plenty of rounds to cover your team.

[srothstein]

I think you all missed one very important point. It is not a question of need, but want. I want full auto.

On a much more serious note, full auto is one of those things that are a lot like pistols in general. Most of the time, you don't have a need for it, but when you do, you really need it. How often does it happen that you, especially as a citizen with a CHL, would need full auto? I can't think of a situation. How often do the police need it? A lot less than some of them would admit to, but there are occasional situations where it might be the right tool (and I am only talking firearms and deadly force - not the full auto pepper ball guns). How often does the military need it? More often than anyone else, but not as much as the media would have us believe either.

I do not see any reason for the Army to have dropped the M16 from a selective fire weapon with full auto capability to a burst fire only weapon. It was done for political reasons and to save on training costs. I would prefer they train the soldiers properly.

BTW, I can think of two common cases for military full auto. One is suppressive fire, especially when returning fire from being ambushed. The other is to combat the human wave attacks that came in the Korean War. I expect to see them again in the next war, if I am right about the Chinese.

[DoubleJ]

(and I am only talking firearms and deadly force - not the full auto pepper ball guns)

you know, to deviate just a scoach, I have a Tippman 98 Custom with a Responsive Trigger. basically when you pull the trigger, it fires, and when you release it fires again. you can set that dude so that if you hold the trigger down halfway, it goes full auto!
I would use it at the beginning of a match (with my longrange Flatline Barrel system) to shoot a constant stream of paintballs off to the side of the starting point. the idea being that people would take off laterally from the start, and run into the stream o' PB's. I could usually get a hit now and again, and if nothing else, it would disrupt the other team a bit.

I could see some crossover use for this in military, or "tactical" applications. course, I ain't no SEAL or SWAT, so I dunno.