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

[Joni Virolainen <joni.virolainen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Erik Sandelin wrote:
> 
> How can having only semi-auto and three-round burst available on your weapon
> be a good thing? 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?
>
As some people have already said the main reason for removing full auto
fire is to conserve ammo. Even with Valmet RK-62 (which is a Finnish
clone of AK-47) you can empy a full 30 rnd mag amazingly fast using full
auto even when you try to make short bursts. RK-62 has a cyclic rate of
about 400 - 500 rpm, IIRC so you can count how long it takes to empy a
full magazine then lower the time somewhat as M-16 have even greater
cyclic rate (to my knowledge). Now you can think how effective
suppressive fire that full auto fire can give when you have to stop
shooting and replace the mag quite often. Hmm... I hope I didn't sound
too aggresive or anything, but that's how I see it.

It is true that full auto have it's uses like in so called mad minute
when everyone empties their weapons towards enemy to buy some time to
withdraw. Assault rifle mags just are too small to really effiecient
suppressive fire, I think...

// J