Semi-Auto Combat Rifle?

Renegade 13

New Member
A visiting friend of mine who served in the U.S. Army says that he supposedly got by in Afghanistan using only the semi-automatic setting on his rifle. Afterward, we got into a debate regarding whether using nothing but semi-auto in a combat zone is a practical choice against enemies armed with and using fully automatic weapons. Any thoughts or opinions on this? I still stand with full auto.
 
I think the best compromise is the three round burst selector.

Full auto wastes a lot of ammo and its not laying about the place like a vid game.

You choose to ignore actual experience-fine-back to the basement.

In the current conflict there appears to be some distance shooting.
This requires aimed controlled fire, not dumping mags in a general direction.
 
I think the best compromise is the three round burst selector.

Full auto wastes a lot of ammo and its not laying about the place like a vid game.

You choose to ignore actual experience-fine-back to the basement.

In the current conflict there appears to be some distance shooting.
This requires aimed controlled fire, not dumping mags in a general direction.

+1 on you, took the words out of my mouth.
 
Full auto is great for sustained, suppressive fire or for putting a lot of pistol rounds into someone at close range in order to stop them from doing the same back. AR's don't do sustained, are often powerful enough at short ranges (conversational distance) to not need to put multiple rounds into someone to stop them, and generally are accurate enough that you can hit what you aim at rather than the dirt on the far side of the target.

According to the news, excessive use of automatic fire is one reason the kill ratio is so vastly one sided in conventional fights in the Middle East: the other side hoses bullets in the US force's general direction 30-rounds at a time and US (and Commonwealth) troops return aimed fire, often further away than other people can generally hit from.
 
A visiting friend of mine who served in the U.S. Army says that he supposedly got by in Afghanistan using only the semi-automatic setting on his rifle. Afterward, we got into a debate regarding whether using nothing but semi-auto in a combat zone is a practical choice against enemies armed with and using fully automatic weapons. Any thoughts or opinions on this? I still stand with full auto.

Full auto does nothing but waste ammo, most of your shots don't hit anything. As far as I care, full auto is only for suppressive LMG fire or extreme close quarters (Talking about less than 10 meters).

Semi auto means that your every shot goes exactly where you're aiming. Full auto on RK-62 for example means using maybe 2-3 bullets and only one of them hits. It's not efficient.
 
It always depends on the situation.

Being engaged at long range example. 300 meters, semi-auto definately.

Engaged in a CQB, in order to gain the initiative thus winning the battle, get as much lead out in the enemies general direction as possible, make him take cover, and regain the initiative.
 
I’ve learned that there’s in principle only two situations where full-auto is justified (in principle as it can’t be set as a rule). One is when combat takes place at a short range and you want to drop the target fast. The second is when you have a target that is fast moving. For all others you should only use semi-automatic. Double tap the target if you have to but always aim.

Three-round burst on the shooting range does not work particularly well on a long distance unless you are using a bipod because the muzzle is moving too much. I have no experience with this in combat but perhaps one of the veterans here have?

We learn that we should only use full-auto at distances under 50 meters depending on target size. If automatic fire is to be effective then the majority of the rounds must pass through a vertical square with sides of one meter or less with is the sort of front a fire team would present.

One of our SOF people told us about how they used three-round burst in Afghanistan.

Aim at the knees of the target at anything inside 300-400 meters. When you've got people attacking you in a staggered formation like a checkerboard aim at their right knee and the first round will hit them in the chest and the second will hit them in their left shoulder and the third round will go over their left shoulder possibly striking the enemy behind.
 
You are leaving out the "team" element of the equation. A m249(SAW) is your fire teams supression tool, not a rifle. The SAW is your fire teams sword and the M4's are your precision scaples. If he was a Infantryman he had a SAW within spitting distance at pretty much any given moment. His burst fire was a drop in the bucket.....And if your Mounted then that SAW turns into a drop in the bucket compaired to 240s, mk19s, and 50 cals.
 
On fully automatic you hose down an area but not always the target. on a three round burst then they should go towards the target if you have taken time to aim it in that direction
 
I'm going to have to go old school here and say I think the SALVO study still stands. Most fire at the enemy is not carefully aims, and takes place at relatively close range (300 meters or less with most kills at 150 or less), so the increase in firepower that, at least, 3 round burst gives, seems like the logical choice. Secondly, from what I've heard, full auto generally was used inefficiently in Vietnam, causing the switch to 3 Round burst, but the increase in firepower from something more than semi auto seems quite reasonable, especially with the relatively light recoil of the 5.56 round in a direct impingement gun like the AR-15 Platform.
 
A visiting friend of mine who served in the U.S. Army says that he supposedly got by in Afghanistan using only the semi-automatic setting on his rifle. Afterward, we got into a debate regarding whether using nothing but semi-auto in a combat zone is a practical choice against enemies armed with and using fully automatic weapons. Any thoughts or opinions on this? I still stand with full auto.

I disagree with your conclusion. Full-auto makes a lot of noise and produces piles of brass, but it doesn't do what counts.... puts rounds on the target. (It a simple matter of physics). The US did alright with semi-autos in WW2, Korea, and the early stages of Vietnam. We Aussies did just fine with the semi-auto SLR L1A1 (FN FAL) in Vietnam. Look at any footage of Aussies in Afghanistan on Youtube and you'll see mostly aimed semi-auto fire, even though the full auto option is there.

Full auto rifle fire is ineffective in open terrain warfare where engagement ranges are greater than 30 meters. Leave it to the SAWs, MGs and LSWs... it's what they're for.
 
Full auto in combat is a sure way to run out of ammo before the other side does!
The only time I have used FA in combat was when - kicking in doors, clearing out a trench, conducting an ambush, reacting to an ambush. Basically up close, multiple targets, no friendlies in your field of fire. But this does not mean hold the trigger til the mag is empty.

Three round burst on nearly all the time. Tap off single rounds when actually picking out specific targets and "aiming" more carefully and actually having the time to move the stupid switch.

I definitely would not be using burst on something 50+ meters away. Its kind of amazing just how fast you can empty a 30rd when firing a single round at a time against multiple targets.

But full auto looks good in a war movie. :wink:
 
Now I may seem real out of place here, but I must say, I have fired semi auto before. And if you laid the latest and greatest bullet hose in front of me I would prefer the same.


I do not ever want to fire an automatic weapon on a serious course. Even if given the opprutinity.

I like the control you have with an semi automatic, being able to choose how many rounds according to what you want to place on your target, squezing the trigger only when you need precisely one round, calling it an disadvatage is trivial.

Even with something as small as a .22 cal rifle, semi auto lets me place the rounds I need at the target I am forced to aim at, and the magazine does not run dry as fast. (lord forbid 500+rounds a minute)

Seems like it just feels better, more assuring, for me at least, knowing you literally call all the shots, and can place them wherever you need be.

Maybe it's pscological?

You folks with automatic weapons experiance, I would more than love to hear your experianced opinions, so please if you can enlight please do so,

thanks,

Yo,
 
Hollywood and insurgents apart. I understand that professional soldiers are trained to aim and use single shots. Full auto is more like the modern replacement to the bayonet in combat; to be used only in extreme circumstances when is getting personal, like one's position being overun by far more numerous enemies in a banzai charge.
 
Last edited:
Now I may seem real out of place here, but I must say, I have fired semi auto before. And if you laid the latest and greatest bullet hose in front of me I would prefer the same.


I do not ever want to fire an automatic weapon on a serious course. Even if given the opprutinity.

I like the control you have with an semi automatic, being able to choose how many rounds according to what you want to place on your target, squezing the trigger only when you need precisely one round, calling it an disadvatage is trivial.

Even with something as small as a .22 cal rifle, semi auto lets me place the rounds I need at the target I am forced to aim at, and the magazine does not run dry as fast. (lord forbid 500+rounds a minute)

Seems like it just feels better, more assuring, for me at least, knowing you literally call all the shots, and can place them wherever you need be.

Maybe it's pscological?

You folks with automatic weapons experiance, I would more than love to hear your experianced opinions, so please if you can enlight please do so,

thanks,

Yo,

Fully automatic aren’t’ that effective in combat. It´s a sure way to run out of ammo quickly. Accurate single shot fire on the enemy is the way to go. Why?

It keeps up overall unit sustained rate of fire upon the enemy, conserves overall unit and individual ammo, it enables more effective fire. It´s the best way to get out of, or win a firefight. (If you don´t have heavy or air support)

Another important point is to pay attention to unit lulls in fire and to pick up your fire during these lulls.


 
Back
Top