Good riddance M-16

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

shek RE:Good riddance M-16 - boredman 10/29/2005 8:55:25 PM

I consider fully automatic fire to be the ability to pull the trigger and your weapon fires until there is a stoppage or you run out of ammo.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger Full Auto 12/17/2005 3:15:13 PM

"I consider fully automatic fire to be the ability to pull the trigger and your weapon fires until there is a stoppage or you run out of ammo." ...or you release the trigger. As for double-tap, I have always heard it used in the context described by Shrek. I've been away from this thread for a while because I felt it was getting a bit repetitive, but also because I felt like my arguments were being ignored or mischaracterized. Not that I haven't enjoyed this thread. The arguments here have been vigorous and well made. The participants have been polite and well-informed. Certainly Shrek seems to know more about the minutae of M-16's than I ever will. Yet I must insist that some of my arguments (which have been ignored) remain valid points of debate. Full-auto is an option, not a mandate. I grant that full auto in most situations is wasteful and inaccurate. However, there are cetainly times when it is useful to have. The whole point of auto fire (or artillery/bombs for that matter) is to attack concentrations of enemy forces. Pretty much anyone who carries a military weapon knows to disperse to counter this. This now standardized dispersal of forces makes aimed semi-auto fire a more suitable tactic. However, mass attacks are something that can be done at any time. They have been used in almost every major conflict that US has been involved in for the last century (WW I, WW II, Korea, & Vietnam). It was also used in Somalia and in the opening stage of the Iraq war. I might also add that it is a tactic effectively used by neighboring Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. I realize that when US forces face such a mass of enemy forces, we usually have better options available to us (artillery, air support, etc...). However, these alternatives are not always available, or may not be available in a timely manner. Again, it is better to have something and not need it, than need it and not have it. Imagine a Blackhawk Down/Battle of Mogadishu scenario without automatic weapons--it probably would have turned out something like Custer's Last Stand. Again, if you don't feel like automatic weapons have a place on the battlefield, then give up your M-249's. You sincerely can't argue you don't need auto-fire and then build a squad around one.

Quote Reply

shek RE:Full Auto 12/17/2005 4:49:49 PM

"I consider fully automatic fire to be the ability to pull the trigger and your weapon fires until there is a stoppage or you run out of ammo." ...or you release the trigger. Thanks - I missed that part ;) Also, thanks for the compliment; however, I don't claim to be a M16 expert - my competence lies in the training of unit marksmanship and CQC. I'll leave to guys like Horsesoldier and ChdNorm to talk specifics about particular weapon systems and ammo. Imagine a Blackhawk Down/Battle of Mogadishu scenario without automatic weapons--it probably would have turned out something like Custer's Last Stand. You are building a false dichotomy here. Every weapon on the battlefield has a purpose. There is a role for automatic weapons, but this particular argument is about the function of the weapon carried by the rifleman, not the automatic rifleman or the machine gun crew. In the scenario that you propose, if all the M16A2s carried by B/3/75 RGR had the capability of full automatic, then the Rangers very well could have run out of ammunition. This would have created your Custer's Land Stand scenario with fixed bayonets being the only weapon available outside of the Little Birds. It still comes down to rounds hitting the lethal zone of the target. A single shot through the spine, heart or brain is more effective than a dozen rounds that don't hit a vital organ or artery. Also, if you have a massed group of individuals attacking you, they make themselves a nice juicy target for mortar fire, artillery fire, attack aviation fire, and JDAMs.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Full Auto 12/17/2005 10:08:02 PM

>>Imagine a Blackhawk Down/Battle of Mogadishu scenario without automatic weapons--it probably would have turned out something like Custer's Last Stand. You are building a false dichotomy here. Every weapon on the battlefield has a purpose. There is a role for automatic weapons, but this particular argument is about the function of the weapon carried by the rifleman, not the automatic rifleman or the machine gun crew.<< Right and exactly. Saying full auto fire is not needed during CQB is not saying there is not a need for it, simply saying that there is not a need for a bullet hose inside the confines of a building. SAWs, 240s, etc, are very useful weapon systems in other contexts, and absolutely have their place on the battlefield. But this has nothing to do with the original discussion of room/building clearance, if memory serves me correctly.

Quote Reply

shek RE:Good riddance M-16 12/18/2005 1:31:52 PM

Returning back to the Mogadishu scenario. For MSG Gordon and SFC Shughart, it wasn't a lack of full auto that prevented them from holding off the waves of Somalias rushing Super Six Four, it was running out of ammunition. link

Quote Reply

Nichevo RE:Shrek & Full Auto - controlled pairs are different from double taps - war crime? 12/18/2005 2:58:13 PM

Huh? War crime?

Quote Reply

shek RE:Shrek & Full Auto - controlled pairs are different from double taps - war crime? 12/18/2005 3:47:42 PM

I wasn't very clear in my first post. However, double tap has often been used to describe the act of putting two rounds in an enemy as you assault across the objective. If the combatant is armed and/or poses a threat, then this is a perfectly acceptable practice. However, if the combatant is no longer armed and doesn't pose a threat, then you cannot shoot him. I don't want to get into all the legalities of this, but suffice to say, this judgement is the soldier's to make and is then subject to what a 'reasonable person' would have done in the same situation. Thus, the training of double tapping without placing it within the context of the law of land warfare is a dangerous practice. For CQM, by using terminology other than double tap, you don't reinforce old terminology that may have led to potential war crimes, and you keep the concepts clear and distinguished in the minds of your soldiers. Also, controlled pair is much more precise language, as it emphasizes "control."

Quote Reply

Nichevo RE:Shrek & Full Auto - controlled pairs are different from double taps - war crime? 12/20/2005 12:16:32 AM

So if I understand you, 'double tap' used to mean the firing of controlled pairs on an active target, but took a meaning analogous to 'coup de grace,' and is thus no longer used in this context. Still perhaps don't understand the war crime detail - but OK.

Quote Reply

SergeantSoldier RE:Full Auto 12/20/2005 6:28:21 AM

It was beaten into me that semi-auto was the ONLY choice for an infantryman. At the 4th RTB the NCO's of our unit were issued older M-16's with full auto. On a lark one day during an assault I let fly with a full 28 round magazine and immediately started getting an ass chewing for my action. They knew I was just jacking around but the doctrine was so important that it was compulsory to correct me on the spot. My experience with the Miles gear showed me the value of single fire as it made you AIM at your targets instead of spraying an area. However in my real world experience at close quarters I would have traded anything I owned for a simple pump shotgun to clear rooms with. Single fire didn't seem like enough at 5-10 feet, Auto-fire would have ricocheted around the room endangering me and it always seemed like it would have been a good option to have a scatter-gun instead. I always had nightmares of entering a room, shooting, and having the round bounce back at me off an overturned desk as I did indeed clear a room once and had a round bounce back over my left ear. I pooped in my pants a little.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Shrek & Full Auto - controlled pairs are different from double taps - war crime? 12/20/2005 9:17:12 AM

But doesn't using two rounds per target negate the whole idea of using lighter ammo? What benefit do you gain from carrying twice as many rounds that are equivalently only half as effective? I think that was the whole idea behind the Remington (6.8) and Grendel (6.5) ammunition: they each had sufficient take-down capability in one round. What edge do you have in combat when your 30 rounds of 5.56 only allows you 15 targets (assuming controlled pairs/double tapping each target) as opposed to a mag in 6.5/6.8 holding 26-28 rounds?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT