LRRPF52 Wrote:A big problem is that hardly anyone in the civilian world has even a rudimentary understanding of what considerations there are, and are influenced by gun rag opinions based on anecdotes from disgruntled wood and steel fans from long ago who might have held some rank that was enough to give them more clout for their article in American Rifleman. Then those opinions get carried into the service by new volunteers, who think they have it all figured out because they read an article, or heard it from Cleatus at the local gun shop.:confused: You are the only person in this thread who has discussed full-auto for the ICSR.
An example relevant to this thread is this continuous discussion of a select-fire 7.62 NATO rifle...
LRRPF52 Wrote:Why is that in 2017, we don't have people that can easily look at previous select-fire 7.62 NATO service rifles and realize that professional armies like the UK and US deactivated or never used the select-fire feature on the SLR L1A1 (FAL) or the M14?The M14 had a "drop comb" stock, so naturally it had extremely poor controllability.
When I drew my first issued M14 from the arms room, it was capped where the selector should have been because the Army learned back from the start that it's just not feasible to equip a 7.62 NATO service rifle with automatic select fire.
LRRPF52 Wrote:Now they've made it a requirement for the ISCR.That's hardly surprising. Select-fire has been a requirement of most armies that adopted 7.62 battle rifles, even in the 21st century.
Select-fire capability was a requirement of Turkey's new MPT76 battle rifle, as well as on New Zealand's designated marksman rifle.
Note that even SOCOM, which you said "has zero plans to go that direction," required full-auto capability on the SCAR-H battle rifle.
[video=youtube;EtgI9XepZQ8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtgI9XepZQ8[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtgI9XepZQ8