Semi or Full auto

I hear two different views everywhere, and I have to ask: Is full auto really that useful or necissary? I personally think that there isn't any situation where a person using an AR would need full auto capability. Can anyone give me a clue? (i will be starting a different thread in survival of similar bent, I'm just wondering what makes it a valid tactic today)

There was a TV special on the Thompson sub machine gun and the tactics the gunners used in WW 2
to take advantage of the full auto to cover and move ...

but on your own and responsible for your own inventory?
is fullauto affordable?

Semi ofcourse whoever has been telling you full auto likes to waste rounds and just shoot # to hell.....

but if you are interested in protection and the possibility of the SHTF then go semi......one shot one kill and conserve the precious ammo...

The fact you have to ask this question tells me that you most likely have not had enough firearm experience and either a semi auto, or full auto rifle is not for you.

I would learn how to shoot a bolt gun first, when you get familiar with rifles, you will know the answer to the question, relative to your needs.

Support / suppression = auto

Anything else, semi.

Full auto only benefits for group covering, imo... If you are solo ... 1 shot 1 kill...

I think the Zombie Survival Guide was pretty on the spot when it comes to this subject - full auto is for presentation and little else, semi-auto allows you more control thus allowing you more conservation for your ammo/kills to shots fired.

I have no experience with ARs, but I do have a little experience with rifles and pistols, I was just wondering what people thought about full auto, because I know a bunch of people who think that it's the sh*t.

Put it this way.

The most feared person on a battlefield is not someone with a machine gun.

Its the sniper.

You mind will know where a machine gun is as soon as he starts to fire.

But your brain may be leaving your head before you even hear the shot from the sniper.

My information is from the post Vietnam era,
and is very dated so take it with a grain of salt.

Turns out that green recruits in combat are very panicky
and at the first sign of trouble tend to clamp down on the triger
and empty their entire clip into nothing in particular which is both
dangerous and a huge waste of ammo. The solution is pretty simple.

Autoburst.

Pull the trigger and the weapon fires three rounds, then it stops.
To fire another three rounds the trigger has to be pulled again.

so the choices are

simi auto
auto burst
full atuo


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Anybody remember several months ago a newspaper article about an over ran outpost if Afgan. where the M-16s were virtually melting and ammo was running low(!)?

In Korea, it was common for a sea of Chinese uniforms to advance on allied positions. "Human waves" it was called then. It was then that a full auto in the hands of every troop would have been a nice feature over the M1 Garand (and the puny carbine). No need to really aim, merely fire in that direction and reload after eight shots and that telling "cling" as the clip sprung out to tell one and all that your gun was empty.

So, one lesson learned. The army moved on to the M-14 for a short while and then to the M-16 style gun. So what do we see today? We see reports as I mentioned above. Watch any number of "fire fights" videos from any recent war with M-16-type weapons and you will see indiscriminate firing via the newer three-round bursts or full auto.

Does it frequently blow the other guy's head off? Doubtful. Does it keep the other guy's head down? Yes, we can suppose so if he is not terribly fanatical. Does it buy time waiting for air support (artillery is out of the question today)? Or does it simply tend to impress the other guy to melt away and fight another day? Full auto or three-round bursts are little more effective than noise-makers that discounts proper target acquisition. Neither is as effective as deterrant as hearing a "plop" bullet hit flesh and watching a comrade drop from a distant shoot. This is why we see more of an emphasis on snipers today. But you never know when you may have to face those human waves again.

Semi is always the first choice. Full auto is cool...when you are sitting in somewhere with your buddies, not in a real world situation. When it comes to ARs, leave it on semi, draw a bead on your target, and introduce yourself. Leave all that full auto mess to the gunners. Let them say there ditti in there head of, "Run Fuzzy Bunny, Run!".

I use full auto to do entries with
or a situation with multiple firearms possible other wise i go to 3 rd burst or semi.

I've found that full auto only finds maximum usefullness when clearing a trench complex or clearing rooms in a building during an offensive push, either way it is a meat grinder for both sides.

Typical clearing procedure during my time was:

1) pass up the grenades
2) front two men cook off 2 frags. make the pitch, then go around the corner guns blazing. one spraying high and one spraying low.

3) consolidate, get control of the area, rearm, and switch out........... rinse and repeat till ..........................

I joined just as the M16 A2 was being issued to the armed forces. It took a couple of years for the complete change over so I had a chance to experience the changeover while training with different units. The biggest problem we had was retraining our minds to stop pressing and just holding the trigger expecting an entire burst.
Instead we would only get a 3 round burst and it would totally mess up the timing and tempo.

We actually stopped rehearsing, grabbed a bunch of ammo, and starting just bursting shots till we got our minds "retrained." Now the M16 felt more like shooting a squirt pistol than what it use to feel like, but whatever. I would say full-auto has it's uses, and I perfer full auto over burst (but that's just me) but I am just fine shooting for "one shot, one kill" and just knowing I have a high mag capability and not have to switch out as much.

reply to post by JDBlack


On a limited budget get the weapon you plan to keep. Don't start with a "bolt-action" (dumb).

The Kalishnikov and the Stoner were developed with a change in tactics. As Tactics have continued to evolve the M14 had returned to the battlefield.

Look back on your research regarding 5.56 vs 7.62 and understand the weight issue really becomes vital with your decision on semi- vs auto...

Also the expensive tax stamps and meddling ATF bastards give the semi-auto some heavy bonuses...

It's legal for me to own full auto and suppressors here in my state as long as I: pay the gov't a ton of extra cash, register every class iii item and allow the ATF access to my inventory for inspection whenever they want to see it. I'm sticking with semi till this little carousel ride is over. If it gets really bad there will be plenty of full autos laying around.

reply to post by JDBlack


Full auto is just meant to keep heads down.

I prefer semi-auto because I prefer to hit what I'm shooting at.
Full auto is great in close combat though. Not that I'd know.

But if you need to clear a room....

Originally posted by JDBlack
I have no experience with ARs, but I do have a little experience with rifles and pistols, I was just wondering what people thought about full auto, because I know a bunch of people who think that it's the sh*t.

Well it's a hell of a lot of fun on the range that's for sure.

Nothing quite like putting 800 rounds down range in 2 minutes or so(taking time for reload of course).

I've read the thread thus far and it seems that most respondents share my frame of reference on full-auto.
Outside the killing fields of organized warfare, the full-auto weapon is particularly useful only for suppression fire.

Caliber isn't particularly relevant in my book if your objective is to keep the opponent's heads down while you or your group changes position. Perhaps I'm old school, but I'd rather "patrol" with a hi-capacity semi-auto battle rifle or shotgun and a machine pistol. Still, for long range sniping the high-powered bolt action is still king IMO - unless you can afford a .50 BMG!

ganjoa

full auto

reply to post by JDBlack


The answer to your question based on personal experience is, semi-automatic. No doubt about it. When engaging targets up to 600 metres well aimed, single shots are best.

When shooting at (suppressing) an enemy during a firefight, short 2 or 3 round bursts are best. Why? Because recoil causes the muzzle to climb off target and fully automatic fire is the best way of converting live rounds to empty cases without hitting anything.

Always remember that your ready rounds are all that you and your mates carry. If you engage targets with automatic fire each and every time you get into a contact, you will soon deplete your ammunition stock and need to be resupplied.

As for a weapon for home defence, I suggest a pump action shotgun and a good stock of 00 buckshot. Forget any notion of an automatic weapon for the reason stated above and the issue of through and throughs!