Project Reality Forums

Well said CopyCat!
Although I sometimes wish I had a bigger screen when using ironsights

The debate about "Burst vs Auto" is not new, and it will most likely never go away. The fact is that weapon systems will perform differently based on many factors, not just the rate of cycle. And because different nations follow their own individual tactics/techniques and training methods, everyone is going to have their own opinion of what works and what doesn't. It's the same reason why no single caliber has been selected as "the best" for a particular purpose, or why some nations use bullpups and others don't.


Because a lot of this discussion lately appears to be based on the M16/M4 family and it's 3-round burst ability as compared to the M16A1/M4A1's Full-Auto capability, I'll try to explain more clearly why that change was taken.

For quite a long time, since automatic weapons were introduced to the battlefield, the ability to fire more rounds at the enemy meant a greater chance of killing the target. Compared to a bolt-action, the introduction of the semi-automatic was groundbreaking. And once they began introducing fully-automatic weapons such as the BAR, they found that massive volumes of fire from a non-CSW was fairly effective. That's why during WWII on most weapons that the infantryman had available came in an automatic variant. The BAR, M2 Carbine, M14, etc were all specialized weapons issued to certain soldiers, not every man on a squad.

When the M16 was introduced during the Vietnam War, it was a fairly new concept to have every soldier packing a weapon capable of emptying a magazine in the blink of an eye. Add to that the fact that many soldiers, if not most, were not experienced soldiers or combat veterans. Many of them were just a bunch of young scared kids that got drafted in. Minimal training before deployment only made the situation worse.

It was seen that grunts in firefights would just spray the area with fire, due to either lack of proper marksmanship skills or out of fear or the inability to actually see their enemy. Guys were blowing through bandoleers of ammo faster than ever before, often resulting in a very low kill:round ratio. And to make matters worse, a design flaw of the M16 series would cause one of the trigger pins to "walk" during automatic fire and disable the weapon.


The burst option on the M16 series was intended to solve a few of those problems with one single solution. Soldiers wouldn't mindlessly hold down the trigger and empty their magazines, they'd have to hold/release/hold/release to get a stream of bullets downrange. Combined with better firearms training, this meant better ammunition conservation. And a slight modification of the fire control components meant less chance of pin walking during rapid firing.

Another consideration was that although the M16 series has relatively low recoil compared to other rifles, letting loose a long burst of automatic fire still required a lot of practice to control accurately. It was determined that in situations where more than one round was deemed important, such as MOUT, that one or two bursts would be just as effective (if not more so) than an automatic burst. At 50m, a 3-round burst will generally keep all 3 rounds within the torso region, more than suitable enough for its purpose.

Since all squads will have a designated Auto Rifleman armed with a SAW or an MG team armed with an M60/M240/etc, they no longer deemed it necessary that each individual soldier be dumping magazines downrange. With that SAW or '60 thumping copper, other squad members can still effectively provide supporting fires using semi or burst, while conserving ammunition and avoiding issues with premature overheating or mechanical malfunction of their weapons.


I am all too familiar with the use of both burst- and automatic-capable weapon systems from my time in the military and in law enforcement, so I'm well aware of the pros and cons of each during various situations/applications. And in a military application, when using a weapon such as the M16/M4 series, the burst option is much more effective in nearly every scenario for soldiers not extensively trained in use of automatic fire. And in the US military, those not serving in Special Operations units will likely never receive such training, nor need it. That's one of the main reasons why the M4A1 is only issued to such units, while the base M4 is used to everyone else.

I much prefer burst to be quite honest. I find it much easy to remember 10 bursts than 30 seperate bullets, and count from there, plus in close range, one click and 3 bullets > 3 clicks and 3 bullets. Of course, over 70~ a semi is going to be infinitely better, but.. in close range (I keep using that phrase) quite frankly the key factor is how many holes you make in your opponent, not how big they are.

I might just as well mention that the fact between US(ARMY)/USMC in PR is M4 Carbine and M16(double barrel). In terms of CQB and fire rate M4 has faster fire rate then the M16 (at first sight it's unnoticeable).

(Hence why I rule on Qwai and Karbala as US but can't do the same on Op.Barracuda and Mestia ).

/CC

That's incorrect, in PR the differences between M4 and M16 are the sights and model; they both have exactly the same stats including accuracy and deviation.

Well that said, now I'm sad...

Came back from a round of Korengal Skirmish where burst fire easily kept me a decent death dealer. Though I'm also a big fan of the double tap. I'm split.

So we got a lesson the reasoning behind 3 round burst as per US Military history and Theory. I have however noticed that many other Western Nations use full auto variants of AR-15 weapons. Do they have higher marksmanship training standards since they tend to have smaller armies, or is it more likely that the 3 round burst was never issued because most of these nations either never saw action in a vietnam jungle situation (referring to the panic over not seeing the enemy) or only converted to an AR-15 type weapon later in its life once all the weapon system issues had been shaken out?

In fact, I don't even know off hand which NATO nations DO use the 3 round burst other than the US.

As I mentioned above, each nation has their own combat tactics and opinions of what equipment works or doesn't work. And the weapons that each country uses are often based on those tactics and what is available to them. It's the same reason why come countries feel that the 5.56mm is the best option for ground forces, while others insist on 7.62mm as their caliber of choice.

The US was not the first to use a burst option. One of the first production firearms to include a 3-round burst mode was the HK VP70, going into production in 1970, while quite a few others started coming out in the mid- and late-70's. The majority of burst-capable weapons were machine pistols and submachine guns intended primarily for law enforcement/government agencies and "elite" military units. In the 80's a few military forces picked up interest in burst-capable weapons for general ground forces, such as the HK21 series when they introduced the 3RD burst option with it. The USMC adopted the M16A2 around the same time, with the US Army actually being second.


As to why some nations use burst modes and others use automatic, again it's just a matter of opinion. In theory, you should use automatic mode in 3-5 round bursts instead of just mashing the trigger back. The use of a burst mode is more of a "suppressive fire for dummies" switch, to prevent (or at least limit) improper fire control and poor weapons handling. The use of automatic mode on a regular battle rifle, regardless if it's burst or FA, should still only be used in limited conditions. But because everyone has their own opinions/tactics, I'll stop there to prevent turning this into a debate over combat tactics.

Within the US Army for example, the use of automatic fire is not part of a soldier's normal training. In BCT/AIT, anyone attempting to use 3RB at the range is likely to get a Drill Sergeant's boot up their ***. Even in your regular units, most of them are strongly against using that firing mode on the M16A2/A4 with the exception of MOUT. While some units might provide very limited training/familiarization in burst fire, it's more of a local/unofficial thing.

When we need automatic weapons fire, we have the Automatic Rifleman (M249), Machine Gunner (M60/M240), Crew-served Weapons (CSW) such as the M249/M240/M2/etc on ground or vehicle mounts, or other support platforms such as vehicle coax systems.


Other nations that use full-automatic fire on their weapons (G3/G36/AK/FAL/etc) do not necessarily have "better marksmanship training" than the US, they just spend more time training their forces to use that mode of fire as part of their own TTP. US military Special Operations personnel that do train heavily in full-automatic weapons use will have excellent marksmanship skill while using that fire mode because they train for it.

Also note that not all firearms manufacturers produce weapons with a burst-fire capability, and some nations select their weapon systems based on funding/availability over features. Lower-funded nations are also less likely to request such a capability from a manufacturer if it's not already available.

After a couple nights of Korengal Skirmish on US I've found the value of the double tap over the burst fire. In fact, in almost every situation, I'll use singlefire with all weapons from now on. Obviously not when desperately trying to room clear against overwhelming odds.

The fact is in PR you can control the recoil of full auto so it will not only suppress the **** out of the enemy but it is very likely to kill your target. I cannot count the number of times I ran into a guy using semi and just because I can get more lead down range faster I win. In a group situation sure you can allow your AR to rape, but in a 1 v 1 more bullets will mean more success. The only downside is that if your enemy is alive after your weapon is dry you are liable to get caught on the reload, also true of his friends coming to help.

So basically we need to wait for a year or so for U.S. Army to equip M4A1 as main rifle?

ComradeHX wrote:So basically we need to wait for a year or so for U.S. Army to equip M4A1 as main rifle?

Not going to happen. The US Army has no intentions on letting the average grunt fresh out of high school run around the battlefield with a fully-automatic weapon without training them on its use. Remember those notes above on Vietnam?

Soldiers that are assigned as Auto Riflemen or Machine Gunners do go through additional training for those roles, just like Grenadiers go through extra training for the use of their M203/M320. I am aware of no plans to start training up the average Rifleman, Cook, or Motor Pool officer to use full-auto weaponry as their normal weapon of issue.

The M4A1 is issued to Special Operations units, not regular Infantrymen. Until the Army decides to phase out the Colt series completely in turn for something like the SCAR, marksmanship training will focus on semi-automatic fire with some units offering limited "in-house" training on the use of burst.

If you don't get the results you want with TRB; you are just doing it wrong. Adapt your shootingstyle.
Simple as that.

It should be obvious to anyone who has followed/read this thread that many players are getting equal/or even better results using TRB. This is a clear indication that if you are not...see opening sentences.

And not to forget, the obvious advantage of ammoconservation. Gettcha on the reload friend shortterm. Longterm - not needing to resupply as much = better momentum in advancing.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:Not going to happen. The US Army has no intentions on letting the average grunt fresh out of high school run around the battlefield with a fully-automatic weapon without training them on its use. Remember those notes above on Vietnam?

Soldiers that are assigned as Auto Riflemen or Machine Gunners do go through additional training for those roles, just like Grenadiers go through extra training for the use of their M203/M320. I am aware of no plans to start training up the average Rifleman, Cook, or Motor Pool officer to use full-auto weaponry as their normal weapon of issue.

The M4A1 is issued to Special Operations units, not regular Infantrymen. Until the Army decides to phase out the Colt series completely in turn for something like the SCAR, marksmanship training will focus on semi-automatic fire with some units offering limited "in-house" training on the use of burst.

Would you tell me what this one means, then?
The Firearm Blog ? Remington M4A1 Carbine Contact & Press Release

I thought that means they are just going to keep using more M4 and possibly give out more M4A1(training may not be happening right now because it was not planned to happen by end of this year).

A mostly similar but somewhat different article: http://defense-update.com/20120427_remi ... -army.html

September 2010 the M4A1 was authorized as the standard carbine for the U.S. Army

Unless...that website is full of ****?

Comrade@ As Ninja said, standard Us army infantrymen (riflemans in PR) will not get to use fully automatic rifles, as that's the standard army and the average age for the army is about 18 and over (I'm not sure). Which means as Ninja said, basically young men out of schools, even I know that... and I live... "in north pole"... For the moment and probably in the next not so far future all M4A1's and M16's (except M16A3 I believe or A4) will be designed with burst fire especially for standard US-Army.

/CC

P.S. Sorry All Yankees if I took the liberty to answer his post

CopyCat wrote:Comrade@ As Ninja said, standard Us army infantrymen (riflemans in PR) will not get to use fully automatic rifles, as that's the standard army and the average age for the army is about 18 and over (I'm not sure). Which means as Ninja said, basically young men out of schools, even I know that... and I live... "in north pole"... For the moment and probably in the next not so far future all M4A1's and M16's (except M16A3 I believe or A4) will be designed with burst fire especially for standard US-Army.

/CC

P.S. Sorry All Yankees if I took the liberty to answer his post

Russia has mandatory Military service beginning at age of 18; and AK74M, last time I checked, has full-auto.

Not sure how age has anything to do with it. It was probably due to rate of fire.

ComradeHX wrote:Would you tell me what this one means, then?
The Firearm Blog ? Remington M4A1 Carbine Contact & Press Release

I thought that means they are just going to keep using more M4 and possibly give out more M4A1(training may not be happening right now because it was not planned to happen by end of this year).

A mostly similar but somewhat different article: Remington Defense to Supply M4A1 Carbines to the US Army | Defense Update

Unless...that website is full of ****?

Both of the links above are regarding the exact same thing, that the US Army has selected Remington to begin providing M4/M4A1's under contract. They are not replacing Colt, instead they are just being added to the list of suppliers.

But you might notice that there are zero references, sources, or links to original stories. The first link is for a public blog, hardly something you can use for factual information without reservation. The second link is for a public web site located in Israel, meaning it's no more "accurate" or factual than a blog or Wiki page.

I'm not going to say those sites are totally full of shit, but without providing references/sources of their information, it's just not trustworthy. Hell, even Wikipedia provides some form of reference links, even if some of those references are bogus.


I am not aware of any move by the US Army to designate the M4A1 as their primary individual weapon, and none of the currently-serving soldiers that I have spoken with today are aware of such fact either. So if this is true, then they must be keeping that information from their own soldiers. And I highly doubt that something would be made public knowledge before the rumors swirled through the soldier ranks first.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote: I'm not going to say those sites are totally full of shit, but without providing references/sources of their information, it's just not trustworthy. Hell, even Wikipedia provides some form of reference links, even if some of those references are bogus.

I found the possible source of those articles:
Improved carbines headed your way - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times
Is Lance M. Bacon credible? I have seen lots of citations of his article but never anything about who he is and what makes him credible(other than that he wrote many things).

ComradeHX wrote:I found the possible source of those articles:
Improved carbines headed your way - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times
Is Lance M. Bacon credible? I have seen lots of citations of his article but never anything about who he is and what makes him credible(other than that he wrote many things).

That article appears to be talking about the "Individual Carbine Competition", which has already been under a lot of stress. Several of the original manufacturers dropped out, and I have a feeling that others might follow. The selection will probably not even be made for another year or two, at which time they might even decide (once again) to retain the current weapon.

You might have also noticed that Bacon wrote two previous articles on the same subject, Here and Here.

The big question is whether the M4A1 or an entirely new weapon will be picked to replace the 600,000 M16s. Tamilio thinks a new carbine will emerge.

?I?m very positive in my outlook that the Army is going to see a new carbine,? he told Army Times. ?I really think they?re going to.?

You'll also note that Col Tamilio stated they have not decided if the M4A1 will be used, or if a new carbine will be selected instead. But his personal opinion is that a new carbine would be selected instead of the M4A1. In other words, none of this is "official" yet, it's all been speculation. As we all know, new programs and equipment announcements can be cancelled at any time, often within just months of their supposed integration date.

The statement that the M16A2 and M16A4 variants will be "replaced" with the M4 series by 2014 is already underway. The US Army is not completely getting rid of the rifles, but due to current areas of conflict they have decided that the carbine is a better weapon for primary issue. The rifles will remain in service, but in a declined roll. Basically, the M16 and M4 will be switching places.

You'll also note that an estimated timeline for total replacement with the M4A1 (or other) is about 10 years. If the Army does actually decide to go with the M4A1 or other weapon system that is capable of full-auto fire instead of burst, I'm sure that it's going to remain very similar to current standards. Meaning soldiers will be trained within their home units on how and when to use it, and only during limited circumstances. Regardless if they do or don't move on to auto-capable carbines, you will not be seeing the average infantryman running around dumping magazines like it's a video game.


As for Lance Bacon being "credible"? Gannett is the the company who publishes the Military Times newspapers (USA/USMC/USAF/USN), which have military staff to assist with articles and help ensure things remain accurate. If you read something in the ArmyTimes, chances are nearly certain that it's factual. But also remember that a lot of the information released to the public will lack details/updates, and can change at any time.


For those too lazy to read all of the above, I'll break it down to simple terms: The US Army has once again issued another "competition" for the purpose of selecting a new carbine in hopes to replace the existing M4/M4A1, which will in turn be stepping in as the primary issue weapon instead of the M16A2/A4.

The selection process is still under way, and like many times before, it's possible that nothing will be selected. I'm sure everyone has heard of the XM8, OICW, CAWS, HK G11, Crusader, RAH-66, etc?