liberal.

TS...the answer is NO. (for my agency)
My question to you TS is, generally speaking, how long/much training do think is necessary for experienced shooters to become profecient in fully automatic carbine fire? Including sustainment training.

My agency has M-4's with the fun button. These are issued to tactical teams who IMO do not get nearly enough training on full auto to be safe or effective. I suppose its good to have the capability of full auto (assuming adequate training) if you need it. The situation my agency purchased the M4's were for the Bank Of America type nightmare in which an officer/civilian gets hit and is in need of rescue. We also got a nice grant from Uncle Sam :D IMO full auto has very little space in urban LE.

LOL :munchin

TS,

To answer your question.

Assault rifles are NOT controlable in auto especially battle rifles (7.62mm). Even the 417 (and I love the 417 BTW).

I'm not sure that I totally agree with your assertions on sub-guns though.

I have driven tacks with an MP5 on Auto at CQB distances. I also don't like bringing a pistol caliber to a gun fight and when I have been forced to use the MP-5, I have taken the montra of "anything worth shooting, is worth shooting 8-12 times".

The selector on the MP-5 sucks so bad that several times I would end up getting auto even when I only wanted semi. I have seen MP-5 receivers with set screws tapped in them to prevent the selector from going to auto because of this problem.

At most distances that a SWAT team operates in, the MP-5 is very controlable. I still submit and agree with you that a semi auto carbine is a better choice in almost all cases.

I don't quite know where to begin. Its a waist of ammo when you don't have much capacity to begin with. You could be changing mags more than you are shooting. Consider a basic load for an automatic rifleman in the Army is five times that of a M4 or M16 rifleman. If your barrell gets too hot with one of these carbines, oh well. With a 6-9 round burst you have about 3-5 bursts, which will be gone in seconds, then your fidling with mags. It is best to have a real machine gun for the job. An M249 is considered light. What would that make a carbine. At double the weight of a carbine with bipod legs it is still preferrable to fire in the prone where you can really control the weapon almost surgically, and even that takes some skill. In a carbine semi-auto or 3round burst is fast enough. If you want auto you need a real machine gun that is belt fed. Just my 02.

I may be a little late on this one, and pardon me if this is out of line with me being a new user, but I'd contact James Yeager of Tactical Response in Camden, TN. He also has a forum where you could contact him or I could get you his personal contact information and pm it to you if you'd like.

Agreed!
 

Well said!:lifter

I do not think there is one.

The Army teaches machine gun crews to maximise the use of their gun. It teaches 11B's and others to use aimed fire. They learn to "spray fire" on their own when the time comes.

The Army Brass fought going from single shot arms to bolt actions and then from bolt actions to semi autos because of the fear that soldiers whould no longer aim their weapons.

Full auto is for clearing trenches and rooms, suppressing fire, terrain denial, and recon by fire where you do not have to worry with collaterial damage.

None of that fits into LE work. LE always has to worry about collaterial damage!

TS, I don't think I have written anything you didn't all ready know. So I am curious about why you asked the question.

Incommin, I have asked some current LEOs about this. There seem to be a view that the "bad guys" are using full autos more and more and also with the terrorist situation, they feel that LEO needs equal capabilities to respond those threats if they arised.

Full autos would be added to the LEO's bag of tools should he need arise. Some of the discussion is; 1) should the rifle be carried in the trunk or a special carrier like the shot gun? 2) should it replace the shotgun? 3) what is the agency's need, or who should have one.


As you brought out, a full auto generally does not fit into normal LEO operational goals.

I also think it is a boy thing, to have the bigest and badest toy even when there is little need or use for it.

for a LEO case, IMHO, go for the 'one shot one kill' -if it's turned into a full auto firefight, use your snipers to take out the heavy weapons, there are going to be too many collateral casualties if you return auto w/ auto.

I'll start by revealing that our team has 3 M4A1's with the auto-fire selector, the rest are just M4's with three round burst capability. Those weapons issued with the auto-fire selector are assigned to the numbers one-thru-three men on our entry team. As a note, these weapons were obtained via a grant and were not specifically sought out for their auto-fire capability.

The need for auto-fire is practically non-existant. Very little can be accomplished with auto-fire that can't be better accomplished with well-aimed, effeciently-applied doses of single fire. As a matter of fact, we have moved away from training "double taps" or "hammers" and have heavily trained towards "controlled pairs" or controlled multiples of any number combination. Each trigger press required a sight picture, in other words. One trigger press = one critical mass impact.


With that said, auto-fire is not necessarily spray and pray fire. Within very strict parameters, auto-fire can be accurately applied. For example, within 10 meters range, and from a stationary position, I can consistently place a 28 round magazine on an 8 1/2 x 12 inch piece of paper. I can visualize my aimpoint's red dot on the paper the entire time. But, before anyone is confused by that statement and feels the need to ask...I/we have no plan for employing auto-fire in ANY actual call-out. Refer to the above paragraph for my/our philosophy.

As for the "bag guys have auto weapons...police should have auto weapons" argument. I don't buy it for a second. I do believe that quite a few police departments need to acquire more effective/appropriate arms to combat that and other eventualities, but none of that has to do with the ability to deploy auto-fire.

Full auto weapons in the hands of LEOs are a fact of life. The horses are already out of the barn, it's too late to shut the door. The important question is: "What can be done to mitigate the risks inherent in the indiscriminate use of automatic weapons?" Fortunately most LEO agencies are cognizant of the liabilities and the smart ones have ROE and training requirements. Personally I don't care where/from whom they get training, so long as they get something from someone. Anything (caveat - certified and legally reviewed; lawyers and the threat of lawsuits can do a lot to control/reduce outright stupidity) is better than nothing. Motivated users will seek quality training, unmotivated ones won't learn/retain training no matter how good it is. My experience teaching US soldiers and LBGs was that the more training and experience they had (and the better the quality of the soldier/leadership), the less likely they were to use automatic fire inappropriately. YMMV. Peregrino

Auto
 

Auto fire from the enemy, Auto Spray Fire then run, like in Iraq is efective psychological as well as convinient for the enemy. It is also good for covering fire for quick short movement i.e........crossing a hallway. Someone help me but what was the name of the Assault Rifle the Germans built in the beginning of WWII with us involved, around 1941 believe it was the first Assault Rifle Built). It was the predecessor to the AK. German Generals ruled it out because of the 30 round clip and Soldiers would waste Ammo. They would have whooped some as on us with that up against the Garand. Imagine equipping our guys with M16" in those days. Any thoughts on this.

Five-O
My experience FWIW. Initially about a half hour and five or six magazines. About ten minutes and two magazines every time someone trains thereafter.

We did train on automatic fire with the M-16A1's. Aside from the prone with that cheapo bipod and pulling back on the sling (Automatic Rifleman), we trained on Quick Kill using both semi and fully automatic. Guys got pretty good at keeping most of a twenty round magazine in a man size target at about 25 yards with the A-1 after figuring out how to control the rise of the muzzle, and once they got over the fact they were shooting on full auto. It didn't require a bunch of training -- just some experience.

The coolness wore off after a couple of magazines and the guys tended to stick with the semi auto mode after that.

We train guys to shoot movers today using burst fire as well as semi automatic rapid fire. The burst mode increases the probability of a hit on a moving target over semi automatic firing to about 300 but semi auto appears to be a better choice past that range. That one has been proven to me enough times that I no longer argue over it.

Just like thirty years ago, after a couple of magazines fired in burst mode, the guys tend to lose interest and you rarely see them go to burst there after.

Being a LEA, no doubt you guys will use a twenty foot long pole to vault over the mouseturd of automatic firing. In the Army the pole is only about ten feet long.

Gene

kgoerz,
The German AR would be the Stg 44 IIRC.