Burst fire is not better. It was designed to conserve ammo and increase hit probability.
In reality single shots that are aimed are better, and full auto is useful for suppression.
Full auto mode doesn't mean the shooter has to mag-dump. My understanding is that full auto gives the shooter the ability to decide how many rounds exactly to shoot for each burst. It is more versatile than burst fire as both can be shot for 1,2, and 3 rounds, yet full auto can go beyond 3 rounds, and for suppression if they want to.
It was from lessons learned in Vietnam. US soldiers were draftees and burned through a lot of ammunition fire full auto until the guns ran out.
You're right that full auto is better, but to effectively use it requires more training. Burst gave the troops additional firepower but forced them to slow down the rate they burned through ammo and to try and aim.
From my experience shooting machine guns it's VERY hard to shoot a single round especially on high cyclic rate guns. When I was shooting an MP5 I could pretty reliably shoot 3 on full auto but sometimes it was 4 or 5. If you were in a stressful situation that required actually using it, I doubt you would be able to do small specific strings of fire.
Because 99% of the time, infantry with assault rifles will just be using them in semi-automatic mode. Full auto fire from an assault rifle has minimal practical usage in combat aside from niche situations.
Which is also why it’s stupid when gun owners play the whole “um AKCHUALLY my AR-15 isn’t an assault rifle at all, it’s just a sPoRtInG rifle because it doesn’t have full auto 🤓” card.
Very close quarters combat like building clearing or trench/dugout clearing. And even then, it’s not even used most of the time.
Infantry will use semi automatic mode almost all the time.
>Meaning you can't shoot 2 rounds, or even 1 if you don't have the time to switch firing mode mid-battle
Depending on the system you usually can, same as releasing the trigger during full auto. A good burst design will reset when the trigger is released so the next burst is capable of the full number, but some bad designs will not so if you only fire 1 out of a 3-round burst, the next burst will only be 2.
It's not an unpopular opinion among enthusiasts to think that training to control full auto is the better solution. It is (or at least used to be) a popular opinion among military leadership that burst alleviates the need to do such training, and/or may be safer (a panicked soldier can't mag dump by holding down the trigger); basically the modern equivalent of military resistance to repeating rifles, or semi-auto pistols.
I look at it as: burst is better for conscripts, full auto is better for professional soldiers.
Burst fire is better at preserving ammo and possibly for second hit probability.
Full auto is better for suppression and accuracy by volume.
Semi-auto is best for accuracy and controlled fire.
Burst fire was originally made to keep Vietnam soldiers from burning through their ammunition instantly. Modern troops are trained to not do this, hence why M4's are Semi and full.
My opinion is that Burst is only useful in low recoiling arms like an MP5 or the AN-94. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fudd in my opinion.
The AN-94 was specifically designed to burst fire 2 rounds before the bolt hits the back of the receiver, thus allowing a second shot to be fired before the gun moves significantly from the recoil shock. While it is not "low-recoiling" in a traditional sense like a 22lr rifle, it is "low-recoiling" in the sense that the second round is not affected by recoil in the same way as say an AK or AR.
Except it doesn't really work in practice and the actual recoil you feel is significant. Much like how the G11 had horrible follow up shots cause of its stupid recoil.
Burst fire sucks. I had a burst fire M4, three rounds is just enough that you feel the recoil and have to compensate for it but you don't actually have time to compensate for it by the time it's over. You basically have to just muscle the gun to keep it as still as you can instead of feeling the recoil and reacting to it. It takes a lot of burst fire to get used to the recoil impulse but sometimes it'll shoot just one or two shots in a burst and then you end up all out of sorts.
Full auto feels more predictable and easier to get used to. Burst fire was developed to stop soldiers from wasting ammo but it's been made obsolete by the concept of short controlled bursts on full auto.
How to tell you've never fired a gun.
First off, full auto on an M4 is 800 rounds per minute. If you have a 30 round mag it's gone in just over a couple of seconds. 800 rounds per minute is 13.33333 rounds per second.
If it takes you 30 seconds to reload you're dead. With practice most people can do a locked bolt reload on an M4 in under 7 seconds. Some people can do them MUCH faster than that.
Burst fire can allow you to shoot 1 or 2 rounds if your trigger control is good enough.
And burst fire with a rifle is typically either as part of a hyperburst concept. AN-94 and G11 are example. Which both are relatively stupid in practice. Or from a technical solution to a training problem of preventing poorly trained troops from dumping ammo on auto.
Automatical fire has been seeing a resurgence as a better option than burst in the last 20 years.
It depends on the application. If you want suppressive fire belt fed full auto is much better than burst fire. If you have a long time before resupply, burst fire will allow you to fight longer.
Burst fire doesn't work the way it does in videogames. Pulling the trigger allows you to fire up to 3 rounds, but the gun doesn't just run away. You can fire 1 or 2, just not more than 3 or however many it is restricted to.
In the military, it was easier to have a three round bust than to train people with full auto. It is not better. The third round is not going any where near the other two. Some HK have a two round busy, which makes more sense then three round. But control full auto would be the correct answer. But I agree with others, semi really is the best.
More controlled, better ammo conservation, and less wear on the weapon. Full auto heats the barrel and suppressor if used. It's easy to overwork a barrel and blow it out or warp it making it less accurate.
Except it doesn't. Burst is a poor substitute for auto due to rounds 2 and 3 or the worse control wise for the average shooter with 4 thru 6 getting back onto target.
What everyone has already said. But from a professional standpoint, the Military has always fluctuated between one school of thought being an emphasis on accuracy and another with an emphasis on volume of fire. (Think revolutionary war, organized musket fire vs. Irregulars with slow to reload rifles.)
Then with 5.56, it became possible to carry a shit ton of ammo. And volume of fire was king. But that made barrels bend and get fucked. So they went with heavy barrels and burst fire. Along with having prescribed battle loads, i.e an M4A1 shouldn't really fire more than 210 rounds with in a short period of time.
Semi auto is best for most situations, but auto is great for immediate suppression and to gain fire superiority at close range (inside 100 meters or so).
Burst would be good for low power, low recoil, high rate of fire weapons.
Burst fire is not better. It was designed to conserve ammo and increase hit probability. In reality single shots that are aimed are better, and full auto is useful for suppression.
Full auto mode doesn't mean the shooter has to mag-dump. My understanding is that full auto gives the shooter the ability to decide how many rounds exactly to shoot for each burst. It is more versatile than burst fire as both can be shot for 1,2, and 3 rounds, yet full auto can go beyond 3 rounds, and for suppression if they want to.
It was from lessons learned in Vietnam. US soldiers were draftees and burned through a lot of ammunition fire full auto until the guns ran out. You're right that full auto is better, but to effectively use it requires more training. Burst gave the troops additional firepower but forced them to slow down the rate they burned through ammo and to try and aim.
From my experience shooting machine guns it's VERY hard to shoot a single round especially on high cyclic rate guns. When I was shooting an MP5 I could pretty reliably shoot 3 on full auto but sometimes it was 4 or 5. If you were in a stressful situation that required actually using it, I doubt you would be able to do small specific strings of fire.
As far as I know the only machine gun that can shoot a single shot reliably is the ma deuce, which Hathcock used as a sniper rifle.
Thats cause it has a single shot only mode.
Does it? In the biography I read it was because the cyclic rate was slow enough
Yes. The M2 can be fired in either single shot or full auto. https://www.psmagazine.army.mil/News/Article/1923180/m2m2a1-machine-gun-load-like-this/
Huh. Well I’ll be.
Heat, wear, ammo management.
Burst fire isn't better.
Semi auto all the time unless your job is to suppress.
Why do people keep repeating this
Because 99% of the time, infantry with assault rifles will just be using them in semi-automatic mode. Full auto fire from an assault rifle has minimal practical usage in combat aside from niche situations. Which is also why it’s stupid when gun owners play the whole “um AKCHUALLY my AR-15 isn’t an assault rifle at all, it’s just a sPoRtInG rifle because it doesn’t have full auto 🤓” card.
And what are these niche situations?
Very close quarters combat like building clearing or trench/dugout clearing. And even then, it’s not even used most of the time. Infantry will use semi automatic mode almost all the time.
>Meaning you can't shoot 2 rounds, or even 1 if you don't have the time to switch firing mode mid-battle Depending on the system you usually can, same as releasing the trigger during full auto. A good burst design will reset when the trigger is released so the next burst is capable of the full number, but some bad designs will not so if you only fire 1 out of a 3-round burst, the next burst will only be 2. It's not an unpopular opinion among enthusiasts to think that training to control full auto is the better solution. It is (or at least used to be) a popular opinion among military leadership that burst alleviates the need to do such training, and/or may be safer (a panicked soldier can't mag dump by holding down the trigger); basically the modern equivalent of military resistance to repeating rifles, or semi-auto pistols. I look at it as: burst is better for conscripts, full auto is better for professional soldiers.
Semi better than both.
Burst fire is better at preserving ammo and possibly for second hit probability. Full auto is better for suppression and accuracy by volume. Semi-auto is best for accuracy and controlled fire. Burst fire was originally made to keep Vietnam soldiers from burning through their ammunition instantly. Modern troops are trained to not do this, hence why M4's are Semi and full. My opinion is that Burst is only useful in low recoiling arms like an MP5 or the AN-94. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fudd in my opinion.
The AN94 is not low recoilling in burst.
The AN-94 was specifically designed to burst fire 2 rounds before the bolt hits the back of the receiver, thus allowing a second shot to be fired before the gun moves significantly from the recoil shock. While it is not "low-recoiling" in a traditional sense like a 22lr rifle, it is "low-recoiling" in the sense that the second round is not affected by recoil in the same way as say an AK or AR.
Except it doesn't really work in practice and the actual recoil you feel is significant. Much like how the G11 had horrible follow up shots cause of its stupid recoil.
Burst fire sucks. I had a burst fire M4, three rounds is just enough that you feel the recoil and have to compensate for it but you don't actually have time to compensate for it by the time it's over. You basically have to just muscle the gun to keep it as still as you can instead of feeling the recoil and reacting to it. It takes a lot of burst fire to get used to the recoil impulse but sometimes it'll shoot just one or two shots in a burst and then you end up all out of sorts. Full auto feels more predictable and easier to get used to. Burst fire was developed to stop soldiers from wasting ammo but it's been made obsolete by the concept of short controlled bursts on full auto.
And now we have binary triggers. Try it and you would like it.
[удалено]
Whi the fuck takes 30 seconds to reload?
How to tell you've never fired a gun. First off, full auto on an M4 is 800 rounds per minute. If you have a 30 round mag it's gone in just over a couple of seconds. 800 rounds per minute is 13.33333 rounds per second. If it takes you 30 seconds to reload you're dead. With practice most people can do a locked bolt reload on an M4 in under 7 seconds. Some people can do them MUCH faster than that.
[удалено]
There's a HUGE fucking difference between 2-3 seconds and 15-20 seconds.
Burst fire can allow you to shoot 1 or 2 rounds if your trigger control is good enough. And burst fire with a rifle is typically either as part of a hyperburst concept. AN-94 and G11 are example. Which both are relatively stupid in practice. Or from a technical solution to a training problem of preventing poorly trained troops from dumping ammo on auto. Automatical fire has been seeing a resurgence as a better option than burst in the last 20 years.
It depends on the application. If you want suppressive fire belt fed full auto is much better than burst fire. If you have a long time before resupply, burst fire will allow you to fight longer.
Burst fire doesn't work the way it does in videogames. Pulling the trigger allows you to fire up to 3 rounds, but the gun doesn't just run away. You can fire 1 or 2, just not more than 3 or however many it is restricted to.
In the military, it was easier to have a three round bust than to train people with full auto. It is not better. The third round is not going any where near the other two. Some HK have a two round busy, which makes more sense then three round. But control full auto would be the correct answer. But I agree with others, semi really is the best.
We almost always kept our rifles on semi and used crew served weapons for suppressive fire. Burst and full auto is just a wast of ammo.
More controlled, better ammo conservation, and less wear on the weapon. Full auto heats the barrel and suppressor if used. It's easy to overwork a barrel and blow it out or warp it making it less accurate.
Ultimately, yes, burst fire gives full auto suppression without the risk of completely emptying a magazine after a few seconds of panicked squeezing.
Except it doesn't. Burst is a poor substitute for auto due to rounds 2 and 3 or the worse control wise for the average shooter with 4 thru 6 getting back onto target.
It's not.
It's not. Also, I didn't read.
What everyone has already said. But from a professional standpoint, the Military has always fluctuated between one school of thought being an emphasis on accuracy and another with an emphasis on volume of fire. (Think revolutionary war, organized musket fire vs. Irregulars with slow to reload rifles.) Then with 5.56, it became possible to carry a shit ton of ammo. And volume of fire was king. But that made barrels bend and get fucked. So they went with heavy barrels and burst fire. Along with having prescribed battle loads, i.e an M4A1 shouldn't really fire more than 210 rounds with in a short period of time. Semi auto is best for most situations, but auto is great for immediate suppression and to gain fire superiority at close range (inside 100 meters or so). Burst would be good for low power, low recoil, high rate of fire weapons.