So why arent civilian assault rifles allowed to have 3-round burst mode?

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: jersiq
The entire time I spent with an M-16A2 in four years of the Marines, I never once fired in Semi-Auto. This includes some "live fire" exercises (to the tune of 2 per year, not including the practice ranges) Honestly, if you can't hit your target with one round, an extra two really aren't going to help.

Rifle Marksmanship FTW

Wait, so if you didn't have semi, doesn't that mean you used burst?

D'oh, been a while since I've flicked a selector switch. Yes I used semi-auto, and not burst.

@alkemyst- Never was in combat, but I am going to go ahead and say that a lot of my instructors had been in combat, it was after all the Marines. Never once did I have any instructor inform me that we should use a 3 round burst, as it is highly ineffective when you know what you are doing. You could of course "double tap", but again you probably aren't going to achieve what you want to achieve.

 

[alkemyst]

I wouldn't take a lack of information as they were discounting it. I find it odd your statement about semi-auto though from a marksman...but that's not a huge goal esp if you had pre-military practice.

as a soldier, what do you think the reasons for a 3 round burst and fully auto is?

 

[BabaBooey]

Originally posted by: ironwing
<Raises hand>
It's my fault. I'm the one who is preventing civilians from having 3-round burst mode. Sorry. It's just the way I see things need to be.

Can I have your address to send a christmas card ...:evil:












I want a AK Legend for xmas santa ......

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
This debate is ridiculous! An MP5 is clearly the best weapon to hold off the zombie hordes.

The real answer is not a firearm at all.

Chainsaw FTW!

dunno, i think i'd still want like a shotgun with a big ass drum on it.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: jersiq


D'oh, been a while since I've flicked a selector switch. Yes I used semi-auto, and not burst.

@alkemyst- Never was in combat, but I am going to go ahead and say that a lot of my instructors had been in combat, it was after all the Marines. Never once did I have any instructor inform me that we should use a 3 round burst, as it is highly ineffective when you know what you are doing. You could of course "double tap", but again you probably aren't going to achieve what you want to achieve.

Is the recoil that bad for the AR-15 series? I mean you think with the small round the recoil would be rather slight.

 

[preslove]

The correct answer is that effective zombie fighting requires a combination of different types of weapons. Ideally, a group of Zombie Survivalists (ZS's) would all have both a ranged and a melee weapon. Crowbars, baseball & cricket bats, fire axes etc should be used when in cramped corners or outnumbered, to conserve ammo. Some ZS's should use assault rifles to pick off zombies at a farther distance, while shotguns should be used when they are closer.

3 burst or fully automatic is a waste of ammo, which is very bad when trying to escape the zombie hordes. Chainsaws are too heavy and require fuel to be the weapon of choice. Maybe having one big guy specialize with it might be good idea, but the fuel is a big consideration. I guess one could just keep siphoning off fuel from the abandoned cars that will line the streets during the zombie Apocalypse, but the Chainsaw dude should definitely have a backup crow bar & maybe a handgun so that when he runs low of fuel he can still defend himself.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: jersiq


D'oh, been a while since I've flicked a selector switch. Yes I used semi-auto, and not burst.

@alkemyst- Never was in combat, but I am going to go ahead and say that a lot of my instructors had been in combat, it was after all the Marines. Never once did I have any instructor inform me that we should use a 3 round burst, as it is highly ineffective when you know what you are doing. You could of course "double tap", but again you probably aren't going to achieve what you want to achieve.

Is the recoil that bad for the AR-15 series? I mean you think with the small round the recoil would be rather slight.

It's actually very mild recoil, I could shoot mine all day, and the barrel is in line with the stock giving the recoil nothing to pivot around and cause the barrel to climb.

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
the awful truth?
the government doesn't want us to survive a zombie invasion.

To survive a zombie invasion you need well placed single shots to the head. The government does you a service here by preventing you from burning through your ammo three times faster than you need to.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: vanvock

Originally posted by: jersiq
The entire time I spent with an M-16A2 in four years of the Marines, I never once fired in Semi-Auto. This includes some "live fire" exercises (to the tune of 2 per year, not including the practice ranges) Honestly, if you can't hit your target with one round, and extra two really aren't going to help.

Rifle Marksmanship FTW

This,ladies & gentlemen, is what gun control is. Hitting what you aim at.

Have you seen combat? Do you know why there is a 3 round burst vs just 1 and fully auto?

Most cops can do really really well on a range. They do very very poorly when on the street. This is why the Columbine killings were so intriguing to professionals. The 'kids' had an insanely high accuracy rate.

Its not hard to be accurate when you're only walking up to someone under a desk and shooting them point blank in the head.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: vanvock

Originally posted by: jersiq
The entire time I spent with an M-16A2 in four years of the Marines, I never once fired in Semi-Auto. This includes some "live fire" exercises (to the tune of 2 per year, not including the practice ranges) Honestly, if you can't hit your target with one round, and extra two really aren't going to help.

Rifle Marksmanship FTW

This,ladies & gentlemen, is what gun control is. Hitting what you aim at.

Have you seen combat? Do you know why there is a 3 round burst vs just 1 and fully auto?

Most cops can do really really well on a range. They do very very poorly when on the street. This is why the Columbine killings were so intriguing to professionals. The 'kids' had an insanely high accuracy rate.

Its not hard to be accurate when you're only walking up to someone under a desk and shooting them point blank in the head.

Yeah. If someone was shooting back, I think you'd see their accuracy rate drop just a bit.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I don't agree with licensing for guns...it's a big debate, but IMHO anything in our bill of rights should be a given.

People like to think all warm and fuzzy thoughts about the world around them, but should the shit ever hit the fan you can bet they'd target the areas with concentrations of firepower.

I would like to think anything in the bill of rights should be a given, but I've already seen way too many people who don't know what they're doing at the local ranges.

I'd like to think everyone's "dad" explained to them guns aren't toys and put the fear of god into them from childhood, but its not like that . Here in kalifornia, the HSC test is a joke. I personally think any and everything the military has should be available to the public, but the public should go through the same training the soldier gets (gun safety/maintenance wise) for that weapon.

EDIT: To clarify, of course not everyone weapon will have its own course. But something tiered, kinda like motorcycle licensing in europe.

I agree there would be some gun accidents, but you can't make laws out of fear it only cripples our freedoms. Licensing is bad it really does nothing, but label you. There is no test they can really give that people wouldn't be able to practice to pass and then forget all they learned...our driving system is a great example. They have tested people randomly and many fail when they have not prepared for it.

Make the penalties for gun abuse more harsher if anything, but even that has room for abuse on the people.

Most people's "dad's" today are fucking jokes. My dad would beat my ass raw if I so much as looked cross-eyed at an adult. Today's dad's are encouraging it as 'we are better than everyone else'. At the same time it's these people thinking the laws they push for don't apply to them.

I wouldn't go as far as ordinance and everything in the military catalogue being available though....that wasn't the intention of the amendment.

I see your point. I'll be happy with a good safety and general gun information course.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: vanvock

Originally posted by: jersiq
The entire time I spent with an M-16A2 in four years of the Marines, I never once fired in Semi-Auto. This includes some "live fire" exercises (to the tune of 2 per year, not including the practice ranges) Honestly, if you can't hit your target with one round, and extra two really aren't going to help.

Rifle Marksmanship FTW

This,ladies & gentlemen, is what gun control is. Hitting what you aim at.

Have you seen combat? Do you know why there is a 3 round burst vs just 1 and fully auto?

Most cops can do really really well on a range. They do very very poorly when on the street. This is why the Columbine killings were so intriguing to professionals. The 'kids' had an insanely high accuracy rate.

Its not hard to be accurate when you're only walking up to someone under a desk and shooting them point blank in the head.

Yeah. If someone was shooting back, I think you'd see their accuracy rate drop just a bit.

Columbine involved moving shooters and moving targets...unfortunately the 'experts' don't feel the same as you.

 

[adairusmc]

I would like one with burst, but I already overspent my NFA budget on the full-auto lower I got a little over a year ago.

I use the happy switch less and less now that ammo is going up in price, but the Dillion XL650 I have in the re-loading room helps with that a little bit.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: jersiq


D'oh, been a while since I've flicked a selector switch. Yes I used semi-auto, and not burst.

@alkemyst- Never was in combat, but I am going to go ahead and say that a lot of my instructors had been in combat, it was after all the Marines. Never once did I have any instructor inform me that we should use a 3 round burst, as it is highly ineffective when you know what you are doing. You could of course "double tap", but again you probably aren't going to achieve what you want to achieve.

Is the recoil that bad for the AR-15 series? I mean you think with the small round the recoil would be rather slight.

It's actually very mild recoil, I could shoot mine all day, and the barrel is in line with the stock giving the recoil nothing to pivot around and cause the barrel to climb.

exactly. The M16 / AR15 variants are a 5.56mm round...that's a .223 'caliber'. It's got a nice powder charge behind it though. Many people think it's a bigger round that it is when they see it.

It's also a tactical weapon...the US military is looking more for incapacitation than kills (oddly).

It's a very well balanced gun and most people when they start shooting are surprised how many guns feel almost like toys.

My wife can shoot a .38 revolver all day, but a 1911 sort of scares the crap out of her esp with the shell ejection. She didn't like my brother's g/f's hammerless Taurus .45 purse cannon either

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: vanvock

Originally posted by: jersiq
The entire time I spent with an M-16A2 in four years of the Marines, I never once fired in Semi-Auto. This includes some "live fire" exercises (to the tune of 2 per year, not including the practice ranges) Honestly, if you can't hit your target with one round, and extra two really aren't going to help.

Rifle Marksmanship FTW

This,ladies & gentlemen, is what gun control is. Hitting what you aim at.

Have you seen combat? Do you know why there is a 3 round burst vs just 1 and fully auto?

Most cops can do really really well on a range. They do very very poorly when on the street. This is why the Columbine killings were so intriguing to professionals. The 'kids' had an insanely high accuracy rate.

Its not hard to be accurate when you're only walking up to someone under a desk and shooting them point blank in the head.

Yeah. If someone was shooting back, I think you'd see their accuracy rate drop just a bit.

Columbine involved moving shooters and moving targets...unfortunately the 'experts' don't feel the same as you.

Go re-read about what they did in the library... how they just shot kids hiding under desks. Plus if you run into a cafeteria with a gun, its a target rich enviornment... it'd be almost impossible to miss with that many kids around.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: vanvock

Originally posted by: jersiq
The entire time I spent with an M-16A2 in four years of the Marines, I never once fired in Semi-Auto. This includes some "live fire" exercises (to the tune of 2 per year, not including the practice ranges) Honestly, if you can't hit your target with one round, and extra two really aren't going to help.

Rifle Marksmanship FTW

This,ladies & gentlemen, is what gun control is. Hitting what you aim at.

Have you seen combat? Do you know why there is a 3 round burst vs just 1 and fully auto?

Most cops can do really really well on a range. They do very very poorly when on the street. This is why the Columbine killings were so intriguing to professionals. The 'kids' had an insanely high accuracy rate.

Its not hard to be accurate when you're only walking up to someone under a desk and shooting them point blank in the head.

Yeah. If someone was shooting back, I think you'd see their accuracy rate drop just a bit.

Columbine involved moving shooters and moving targets...unfortunately the 'experts' don't feel the same as you.

As I said, if someone was shooting back, I think you'd see their accuracy drop just a bit.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Go re-read about what they did in the library... how they just shot kids hiding under desks. Plus if you run into a cafeteria with a gun, its a target rich enviornment... it'd be almost impossible to miss with that many kids around.

Right. Not all the victims were moving. These were not part of their accuracy.

CadetLee...shooting back or not, professionals have stated a moving shooter and target is a difficult situation. Most are not trained for this.


I am not sure what you are trying to prove by disproving this.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Go re-read about what they did in the library... how they just shot kids hiding under desks. Plus if you run into a cafeteria with a gun, its a target rich enviornment... it'd be almost impossible to miss with that many kids around.

Right. Not all the victims were moving. These were not part of their accuracy.

CadetLee...shooting back or not, professionals have stated a moving shooter and target is a difficult situation. Most are not trained for this.

I am not sure what you are trying to prove by disproving this.

I was referring to this:

Most cops can do really really well on a range. They do very very poorly when on the street.

Moving shooter/moving target is one thing-- moving shooter/moving target when the target is a threat (as in most LE shootings) is something completely different. Invalid comparison, IMO.

 

[alkemyst]

Except those same officers stated the difficulty and those same officers were impressed by these kids accuracy. I still don't get what you are trying to prove.

It's not much harder for a law enforcement officer to shoot a moving and firing target than a moving one when he is also moving. If an officer is out in the open chasing a suspect that is firing at him he is going to want to be as accurate as possible to end it. He is not going to be second guessing himself.

If he could drop/use cover he would do that and increase his accuracy.

A civilian may have a very large difference in shooting while moving vs a shooting/non shooting target...but a pro should not.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
the awful truth?
the government doesn't want us to survive a zombie invasion.

Please, shotguns are much better for use on zombies.

yes, but when you're up in a bell tower you need the accuracy and high rof of a rifle so you can pick off as many as possible from a distance with head shots