Re: Rail guns (was: US SOCOM desires...)

[Shawn Mulock <gurkha@xxxxxxxx>]

Erik Sandelin wrote:

> A quick side question semi-related to this thread...

> How can having only semi-auto and three-round burst available on your weapon
> be a good thing?

It is neither a good thing or a bad thing. From what I have been told, the US
wanted a way to control the incredible amounts of ammunition being expended by
their troops. Three round groupings was the answer they liked.

> It would seem to me that when a soldier needs full-auto
> fire, he (she) REALLY NEEDS full-auto fire! Examples of really needing
> full-auto I would imagine would be situations such as countering an ambush
> or laying down suppressive fire at a numerically superior force. Wouldn't it
> make more sense the give the soldier in question a weapon that is capable of
> semi-auto and full-auto fire, and then train the soldier to shoot
> three-round bursts unless "rock-n-roll" is absolutely neccesary?

That is one of the many reasons the US picked up a belt fed Squad Automatic
Weapon in the form of the M-249. SOCOM has access to M-16A2s & M-4s with a full
auto rate as they tend to have better fire discipline.

S.




__________________________________________________________
Get Premium UNLIMITED Internet Access across CANADA for 
JUST $9.95/MONTH at http://www.get3web.com/?mkid=emt123