04-22-2014, 09:36 PM
Quote:Well, if the weapon is going to have full-auto capability, then I certainly agree that controllability in that mode needs to be considered and evaluated. My question is, if they train and fight using only semi-auto fire, why bother making the individual weapon select-fire? It just adds to the cost and complexity.
One of the things I mentioned earlier about controllability is lower pressures, and neither of the NATO cartridges have that going for them. I can honestly say that there are very few instances in my military career-all of which was spent in a light infantry duty position with an M16/M4, where Full Auto was used. The only ones really were in reconnaissance units, where maybe the 1 & 2 men would immediately go to AUTO upon enemy contact for the initial few seconds of that contact, then bound, and that was only possible with M16A1's, as well as M4A1's. The M16A2 and M4 prevented this with the Burst mechanism.
When you incorporate E-type targets in the terrain you are training in, and run break contact drills, you find out really fast how effective different modes of fire are. Understand that there are a large majority of people from different cultures who don't understand or adhere to the concept of taking cover, as many have superstitious beliefs about their destiny as warriors. If it's in the cards, they'll take a bullet. If not, they think they won't.
While infantrymen in the West will immediately drop, seek cover & concealment, while returning fire, a lot of dudes just don't care, especially in the Middle East and Africa. Totally different viewpoints on bullet exchange on the 2-way range. The more we train to hit, the better off we are.