[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: AK74 complex MBC.jpg (77 KB, 1024x768)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
Hi /k/. Here I want to discuss the notable difference that struck me while reading multiple online discussions about usability of full auto fire in assault rifles.

As far as I understand, current western “enlightened” opinion on subject fashions semi-auto fire, shunning full auto as wasteful and calling for controlled shot placement even in CQB situations. Even more so, I read some statements by members of US Military that they were taught to almost never use even limited burst setting on their M16A2, only exceptions being “mad minute” during the ambushes or when under risk of being overrun by banzai charge. Full auto fire is thought of as the job for squad’s Automatic Rifleman. Well, at least it is recognized that suppression is not his only utility – I remember reading descriptions of the MG/Auto Rifle as the “squad’s most casualty producing weapon” as well. Quite an illustration of this mindset is “Black Hawk down” war film, where M16A2 is only seen fired once in burst mode.

Well, I’m Russian, and here’s my cup of tea.

All editions of Soviet Army manuals on AK rifles state right away (Chapter 1 Paragraph 2) that full auto mode is the main/principal/default infantryman’s mode of fire in combat.
Later when discussing particular methods of fire against various targets in combat, only manuals on older AK-47 do mention single shots at all – almost always in conjunction with bursts as acceptable alternative. Since the inception of AKM (I should add – with its slanted muzzle compensator) manuals instruct to only use burst fire to engage typical battlefield targets, dropping the mention of single shots (full auto rock’n’roll being recommended in certain specific situations both for AK-47 and AKM, but that’s not our current subject). And you may (quite logically) rest assured that this fixation on burst fire does not change with the introduction of AK-74 with its low recoil impulse round and complex muzzle device.
>>
File: AK burst.jpg (1.46 MB, 1660x1370)
1.46 MB
1.46 MB JPG
Some of you probably know about R&D of burst-fire capabilities of infantry rifles in 20th century’s second half. American ACR program had competitors (AAI ACR, Steyr ACR, HK G11) that used 3-round hyperburst of conventional bullets (though with caseless cartridge) or flechettes with cyclic rate between 1800-2400 rpm to increase first burst hit probability. Same approach (2-round 1800 rpm burst) was used in Russian AN-94 firing conventional round in use in AK-74.

For a given cartridge (obviously more factors were in play when ACR entries competed against M16A2 with their flechette rounds) hyperburst increases hit probability because dispersion of its rounds produces shotgun-like spread. It was acknowledged by US Army that most important detriment to infantryman’s accuracy is his own errors (even more pronounced in life-threatening combat). If his first shot misses because of operator’s error, subsequent rounds of the burst, forming a spread, have non-zero chance to “correct” this error and hit the target.

Though hyperburst guns fell into obscurity as costly failures, long before that the Soviets had established that burst fire increases hit probability per trigger pull for conventional assault rifles as well. It was their design goal from the start when developing 7,62x39 round after 7,62x54 full auto rifles AVS and AVT turned out to be uncontrollable, while full auto PPSh SMG firing powerful 7,62x25 pistol round proved to be quite an asset regarded both by Soviets and Germans and almost replaced infantry rifles in some units during WW2; study of German 7,92x33 Sturmgewehr probably contributed as well. All AK manuals contain reference tables showing average number of rounds expended by experienced shooters to hit different sized targets at different ranges from different firing postures using single shots or 3-round bursts. In most instances burst fire expenditure is less than 3 times that of semi-auto, meaning less trigger pulls per hit for burst fire.
>>
File: AEK AK107 balanced.gif (19 KB, 475x143)
19 KB
19 KB GIF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_didDgUjn0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-bxGo5wN2o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJxpncKswEg

Should we speak of existing hardware, I have already mentioned that in Soviet lineage of AK rifles burst spread size was being gradually optimized by first adding slanted compensator on AKM (only countering muzzle climb and drift) and then switching to low-impulse round and complex muzzle brake-compensator on AK-74 (countering both muzzle climb and drift and recoil). The next step in this direction was meant to be gas-driven counterweight-balanced system (AO-38, AL-7, AEK-971/972/973, AK107/108, A-545/762), offering softer recoil and better controlled dispersion during full auto fire (as opposed to fixed-length hyperbursts of ACR participants and AN-94). It was shelved after USSR defeat in Cold War and saw recent resurgence and partial success during 2013-2014 “Ratnik” program to replace AK-74M, but due to prevalence of conservatives in Russian Army its future looks uncertain for now (recently they have even rolled back most of common-sense ergonomic design changes of the less revolutionary AK-12).
>>
File: M16A1 AK74.jpg (137 KB, 835x550)
137 KB
137 KB JPG
Americans, on the other hand, were probably content with performance of their semi-auto Garand and then forced their 7,62x51 round upon NATO, which plagued their battle rifles with the same full-auto controllability issues already experienced by Soviets with AVS and AVT. They were first to introduce low-impulse small-caliber round with M16 rifle (7,62x39 is not regarded as “low impulse” even though is “intermediate”), and effective full auto/burst fire was initially one of their design goals along with weight saving. Two interesting studies about M16 rifle performance were concluded in 1986. One of them, conducted by Army, had M16A1 rifle fitted with AK-74 muzzle device and evaluated for burst fire performance (pic related).
“A Limited Evaluation of the Burst-Fire Performance of the M16A1 Rifle With AK-74 Muzzle Brake Compensator.”

Another, conducted by Naval Weapons Suppot Center, states that M16A2 “half-birdcage” flash hider/compensator (functionally analogous to AKM slanted compensator) offers performance equivalent or better than M16A1/AK74 hybrid mentioned above.
“Final Report for Joint Services Small Arms Program 6.2: M16A2 Rifle Signature Suppression Project.”

I was unable to find them, but both are referenced in available 1990 Army paper, Ref 8 and 10.
“System Error Budgets, Target Distributions and Hitting Performance Estimates for General-Purpose Rifles and Sniper Rifles of 7.62 x 51 mm and Larger Calibers.”
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a228398.pdf
>>
File: AKM-A2.jpg (424 KB, 1200x527)
424 KB
424 KB JPG
Ironically M16A1 was widely used for “spray and pray” in Vietnam while not being fully optimized for this (no muzzle compensator – see figure showing M16A1 plot of burst on target “as issued”). Then while M16A2 became technically optimized for burst fire (heavier barrel, addition of “half-birdcage” compensator, limited three-round burst setting), negative Vietnam experience led to use of burst being doctrinally abandoned. US Army FM 3-22.9 “Rifle Marksmanship”, 2003 year edition, states in its Paragraph 7-9 about Burst and Full Auto (manual applies to both M16A2 and M16A1 rifles and M4 series carbines) that:
The M16-series rifles and the M4-series should normally be employed in the semiautomatic mode. Depending on the tactical situation, the following conditions would be factors against the use of automatic or burst fire:
• Ammunition is in short supply or resupply may be difficult.
• Single targets are being engaged.
• Widely spaced multiple targets are being engaged.
• The distance to the target is beyond 50 meters.
• The effect of bullets on the target cannot be observed.
• Artificial support is not available.
• Targets may be effectively engaged using semiautomatic fire.
Knowing all of the above I’m quite interested in any US researches on M16A2 / M4 first burst hit probability. As US Military pursued hyperburst capability in ACR program, had it ever occurred to them that they probably already can increase first trigger pull hit probability, and all they need is to click the selector switch on the existing rifle and edit the manuals?
>>
File: m27_1-630x320.jpg (64 KB, 630x320)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
It is also interesting to note that USMC is currently aiming at replacing their whole M4 carbine fleet with M27 IAR (it should become general issue, not for Automatic Riflemen only), which is actually HK416 optimized for full-auto fire. Does it mean that they’ve got the same idea?

On the other hand, US Army is rumored to be looking for “interim” 7,62x51 battle rifle to provide each infantryman with outreach capability against enemy 7,62x54 DMRs and GPMGs (not even willing to wait for the results of LSAT/CTSAS program). Funny thing is than when USMC pioneered general issue of 4x ACOG Rifle Combat Optics, Army objected (you can read some of this anti-optics rant in 1990 paper “System Error Budgets…” mentioned above. It is funny how author only discusses better target acquisition and increased engagement ranges with optical sight while forgetting about the beneficial effect it has on operator’s aiming error at equal ranges in comparison with iron sights). Now as USMC seeks better full auto performance (while not forgetting about single shot accuracy, as their M27 IAR has accurized free-floating heavy barrel and is issued with optical sight), US Army is seemingly obsessed with “outreach” concept, even sacrificing weight saving and CQB performance and forgetting about their own finds that the most important factor influencing infantryman’s accuracy is his own errors.

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/02/10/usmc-begins-process-to-issue-m27-iar-to-every-rifleman-issues-rfi-to-industry/

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05/us-army-considers-7-62-interim-battle-rifle/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DY7EPEka_I
>>
>doing this much reading and doing that little shooting
the thread
>>
someone post a tldr and screencap it for me. night/
>>
>>33714914
Some guy read all the wikipedia and pages on a couple rifles and now has honestly irrelevant questions, and explaining why they're moot would take too long compared to a couple range sessions.
>>
Much of this increased hit probability from bursts is due to WWII, where at the time and shortly after you had the option of massive gpmg, smg, service rifle, or the new assault rifle. The problem is that back then you can't clear rooms with an MG 34. Now that we have the saw however, and other various LMGs, you can bring automatic fire anywhere the squad goes, and automatic lmg fire is much more consistent and effective than a rifle or carbine. So long as the intermediate cartridge let's you carry a lot more ammo, the automatic fire of the rifle doesn't matter in the eyes of US doctrine. This doctrine of course breeds retards that think automatic fire is 100 percent useless on a rifle such as human tapout shirt Larry vickers
>>
>>33714899
>>33714914
>>33714929

Why don't you fucking leave if you don't want to talk about weapons on a weapons board, underaged faggot.
>>
Huh. So have the Russians given up on the hyper-burst two-round idea in serial production or do you suppose that will come out to the battlefield eventually?
>>
The reason that riflemen fron western militaries dont use full auto in general open combat is that the light machine gunners make up most of the volume of fire. So you take a platoon of 4 sections, each section has 2 light machinegunners that make up 60% of the volume of fire. Then youve got two+ general purpose machinegunners making up another 20+% volume of fire for the platoon. So you let your riflemen take slow controlled shots and carry a fuckton of extra ammo each gor the machinegunners. Thatway you have precise slower conservative aimed shots from riflemen to support the massive volume of the machinegunners. All to keep the enemies head down while you hit them from the sky or something. The russian way of having each rifleman use full auto fire is essentially just a different way of achieving the same result, volume of fire. They look at it as volume of fire is easier to maintain vecause the machineguns arent as vital to the entire volume of fire.
>>
>>33715029
Hyperburst is off the table for now.

Looks like AN-94 is dead because of its complexity. There are no news about it.

Izhmash CEO mentioned in 2012 interview that some versions of AK-12 should have variable rate of fire (normal circa 600 rmp and another higher setting), though it obviously couldn't be anything too complex - perhaps a toggle-able recoil buffer in the aft receiver. But what they called AK-12 back then until 2015 and what they call AK 12 now since 2016 are two different rifles. You can compare them here:
http://modernfirearms.net/assault/rus/kalashnikov-ak-12-e.html

Sand-colored 2016 version obviously deviates much less from AK-74. I doubt that there are any fancy gadgets inside.

A-545 (modern version of AEK-971) with its balanced recoil system still underwent army trials together with AK-12, these trials dragging for a long time since 2014 at least with no decision being made. It doesn't have hyperburst though ,just higher cyclic rate of 800-900 rpm, closer to M16/M4 series than to AK series.

I heard recent rumour that they want to resurrect the old Soviet project of 6 mm unified cartridge... can't find reference now. For now both AK-12 and A-545 have 7.62x39 variants on trials too (AK-15 and A-762). Then there are even more conventional AK-74M3 (recently spotted in Syria) and AK-103-3 - in case if even simplified AK-12 would be deemed failure/too complex?.. it all looks pretty chaotic now.
>>
>>33714914
Shit people already know
Firing more rounds means more rounds could hit the target but more rounds means more recoil so you need to control the recoil in some way like russian military does. Or you just shoot less bullets like western militaries do.
>>
That's a lot of reading, good on you for writing it but...

If you go to a range and try shooting s target in real life, you'll notice that it's hard. Now add in the fact that it's usually not easy to find visually and it's shooting at you, and trying not to get shot, it becomes increasingly difficult to hit with a bullet. The only rounds that truly win a gunfight are the rounds that kill your target. A rifleman wasting ammo knowing he isn't going to hit anything is dead weight. Americans are taught not to use these features because during the sixteen years of the gwot we've accrued combat veterans who have seen innumerable gunfights and have been able to teach their younger marines and soldiers how to better survive and kill during a gunfight- and that is by aiming, and killing, the enemy.
>>
>using auto on AKs
>hitting anything
>>
File: 8326022.jpg (211 KB, 1118x782)
211 KB
211 KB JPG
>>33714993
>>33715065
Well yeah. It looks like eternal circle jerk.

During WW2 US had the least "specialized" infantry with semi-auto M1 Garand for general issue and BAR with 20-round mag for autoriflemen, while Nazis relied on their belt-fed squad MGs with ordinary grunts only having 5-round bolt-action rifles. Brits were in between with their Lee Enfields optimized for rapid fire and having 10-round mag and their Bren with 30-round top-mounted mag which could be replaced by gunner's mate.

In the end of 20th centuries Yankees relied on M249 SAW to lay down volume of fire, but as you see now, USMC wants to reconsider it, switching to mag-fed IAR. On the other hand, long before that Brits initially thought that they don't need belt-fed SAW, and that mag-fed L86A1 will do, but they were wrong and adopted M249 as well, relegating L86 to DMR role.

Soviets were first to invent belt-fed SAW in form of RPD, but then it was dropped and mag-fed AK derivative RPK was adopted instead for commonality reasons (Brits went the same way with L85 and L86). There were later attempts to introduce 5,45 mm belt-fed SAW by Soviets but they all failed. 7.62-mm PKM GPMG was often used squad level instead.

Pictured on the right is 1970s PU-21 experimental SAW with dual feed (belt and mags, like M249). Pictured on the left is AK-74-compatible belt feed unit that inserts into the mag well and is driven by reciprocating charging handle, delinking belted ammo and feeding it into the rifle.

As of now Russian interior troops try to reinvent the Minimi again, they're developing the new 5,45-mm belt-fed "Assault machine gun" named "Tokar".
>>
>>33714770
>>
>>33714770
Your entire post boils down to "more rounds fired = higher chance to hit" which while in some ways is true, it's also extremely wasteful, a clear burden to logistics and the staying power of a unit on the field. Not to mention that rounds expended per casualty has gone up an obscene amount ever since ww2.

You're too focused on the minutiae in your essay here and draw blatantly wrong conclusions about such things as the IAR. It's entire reason for being is logistical in nature. Even your very first mention of a suicide charge defense has clear flaws that you don't acknowledge.

If this is for a report for some class, it's fine, but won't hold up to scrutiny.
>>
>>33714770
evne these guys make small arms fire casualties on americans once in a while
>>
File: lativan mg3 rambo.jpg (138 KB, 525x700)
138 KB
138 KB JPG
>>33714815
Germans have concluded that the MG3 blasts out so much ammo and kills so fucking hard that it accounts for 70% of the killing power of an entire squad.

So you have the MG3 and like eight people lugging ammo for it, because it chews up so fucking much. All those ammo luggers are so irrelevant in the big picture, they might as well be armed with PDWs if you're going urban or with old Kar98s if you're going into the countryside, because it will make about the same difference.
>>
>>33715274
>You draw blatantly wrong conclusions about such things as the IAR. It's entire reason for being is logistical in nature.
Please elaborate?
>>
File: allah snackkbarrr.webm (1.15 MB, 640x360)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB WEBM
>>33715272
>>33715277
>>
File: allah snackkkbarrr2.webm (1.7 MB, 640x360)
1.7 MB
1.7 MB WEBM
>>33715303
>>
File: STG44-Sturmgewehr.jpg (22 KB, 758x421)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>>33715286
...and then Germans made and mass-produced and issued this.
>>
>>33715302
The point of the IAR is that it doesn't require anything more than what the rest of the squad is carrying (STANAG mags with 5.56), because of the commonality with the rest of the squads main firearm, requires fewer unique parts, less training and not to mention that it's lighter than the SAW they were using, it also adds to the flexibility of the squad in that now the gunner and assistant gunner can now act as riflemen as the need requires and aren't stuck in their role.
>>
File: latv.png (1.1 MB, 1024x683)
1.1 MB
1.1 MB PNG
>>33715286
That guy clearly is estonian.
Here is latvian
>>
>>33715342
If he's indeed talking about the MG3, the rest of the squad would be using G3 or G36.
>>
File: Automarines.png (658 KB, 812x1005)
658 KB
658 KB PNG
>>33715367
You're missing the point.

IAR replacing the M249 SAW is an old story now. News are that USMC wants IAR to replace their M4 carbines too. There will be no more "rest of the squad".
>>
File: MG4.jpg (1.17 MB, 2576x1932)
1.17 MB
1.17 MB JPG
>>33715380
Yeah, my mistake. But then they did this!
>>
File: 1369027607338.jpg (26 KB, 424x550)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>33714770
Your uninformed we literally went through a whole burst fire phase project Salvo(OICW SPIW), plus early Car15's had 2 round burst modes. Your not even trying to do research.
>>
File: 3B_3.jpg (43 KB, 864x583)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
>>33715425
I did not mention the SALVO because I already have posted a great wall of text and SALVO included concepts beyond burst fire (multi-projectile rounds, multi-barreled guns etc). I know about it but I decided to limit the scope deliberately, as that project is older and IMO less relevant.

Here's Soviet salvo-firing gun.
>>
File: 1365041686207.jpg (1.25 MB, 2250x1500)
1.25 MB
1.25 MB JPG
>>33715425
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-bxGo5wN2o

Muh elite Russians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIC2lI2Exys
>>
>>33715395
It's the same fucking gun... AGAIN.

>B-but we tweaked the-
Shut the fuck up you know it's the same you just had to fix some shit because it sucks.
>>
>>33715464
>Kadyrovtsy tribal militia
>somehow "Russians".
They even speak Chechen, FFS!
>>
>>33715395
>not even trying to rebut the post you're replying to
>only source is something that says it was 'considered'

What a worthless thread.

Next time do some actual research before posting your English 101 essay here?
>>
>>33715464
I really want a PP2000
>>
>>33715507
But I wasn't trying to rebut your post (about IAR mags and parts commonality with grunts' carbines). I've posted above that Soviet and Brits made the same mistake with RPK and L86 much earlier, and I understand the reasons, so there's nothing to rebut.

And yes, I know that they are only "considering" to make M27 general issue. And so I wanted to discuss their "consideration", what's fucking wrong with it? As for sources, are you fucking banned by Google? How many links do you need? It's discussed on various military sites since Nov 2016. There's a link in the pictured article about Marine battalion testing it in November.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/18/marine-corps-experimenting-new-service-rifle.html
>>
>>33715205
The real question is which can be done faster; eventually reaching your target with successive aimed shots or relying on the luck of the dice for at least one hit in automatic.

If the guy firing in auto is, on average, able to hit his target first with at least one shot, fat load of good the remaining ammo is going to do for the casualty. Even if he doesn't go down his aim is disrupted and further accuracy will plummet.

Time to hit is the key to the debate, not efficiency.
>>
File: IMG_8919.jpg (204 KB, 900x900)
204 KB
204 KB JPG
>>33715507
>makes one mistake
>ALL OF YOUR POSTS ARE SHIT
Dumb nigger.
>>
>>33715416
Which nobody uses and everyone who does get it issued considers a limp dick in comparison to MG3.

If you're gonna shrink down the fucking caliber, at least keep the firing rate on the same level as before.
>>
>>33715610
>one mistake

easy to spot the noguns now a days
>>
>>33715468
Same gun but with longer heavier barrel and automatic instead of burst. Muhreens are all about being low cost so they aren't using the A1.

Also it may be partially due to simply wanting new rifles and not beat up hand-me-downs but were held back by bureaucracy and red tape, hence the initial move to adopting it as a SAW replacement. Then it became a supplement to the SAW, now they're considering it as a new service rifle. If we see them procure a proper 249 replacement then the theory is proven.
>>
This was an awesome read. Thanks man
>>
>>33715623
>tfw have a Colt M4, two glocks, a cc revolver, and an AK-74
Try harder.
>>
>>33715610
Frogposting retard.
>>
>>33715395
>5 years ago
>Lol, they just want the HK-416 and this is just a way to get funding for it without admitting it
>now
>they're replacing everything with the """"IAR""""
>>
>>33715649
Pepe will always be 4chan's, newfag.
>>
>>33715642
>having proper sidearms but using a revolver for CC anyway.
>>
You have to remember that the development of Soviet assault rifles was little bit weird in comparison to the rest of the world.

For Americans(and basically everybody else), AR15 was above all a rifle. For Soviets, lots of assault rifle doctrine was passed on from SMG's as AK was initially the next-gen PPSh, while SKS was supposed to be a rifle.

With SMG's what you really care about isn't accurate single-shot fire but volume of fire. For Americans, assault rifle was something that replaced M14, a failed select-fire full-sized rifle where the full auto capability was only something you should've been doing in the worst case scenarios. And that's where the difference in approach came from.
>>
File: IMG_8921.jpg (204 KB, 776x748)
204 KB
204 KB JPG
>>33715663
>grasping for straws
It was given to me by my father, and to him his father.
>>
>>33715706
...and so on, and that's why you CC percussion-cap black powder six-shooter today.
>>
I was thinking...

you seem to talk a lot about burstvssemi in comparaison to accuracy and the historical reasons one was chosen over the other and how it might develop into the future.

But what about damage?

Not in the sense of hitting a target 100 meters away two times in the same point, but rather the effects of having burst fired delivered by the whole squad to have a bigger amount of bullets in the air that are hitting the cover the enemy has and at distances inferior to 200 meters or 50 for urban targets.

Aren't there any studies about such things? I'm curious if one MG42 shooting in constant bursts against a wall is more efficient than 6 AK74 shooting constantly on focused fire against the same wall.

Once the enemy cover has holes, bullets might ricochet or even fragment after hitting the cover, so the very thing that protected the enemy a second ago became something more dangerous and forces the enemy into changing his position.

Not that I expect this to be normal procedure(it would be a logistical nightmare), except when you know precisely were the enemy is and can't get a grenade in there, but I'm just curious since the 5,56 is not know for its ability to damage things that aren't made of flesh.
>>
>>33715658
>will always be retarded containment board dwellers'
FTFY

If you had actually been here before the election you'd have known that shitty frog belongs in /r9k/ and nowhere else. The only people who post it are utter cancer and you will be rightfully told to fuck off when you do.
>>
>>33715642
>owns an m4 and an ak
>can't spot all the shit that's wrong in ops posts

you're not fooling anyone.
>>
>>33715132
>Izhmash CEO mentioned in 2012 interview that some versions of AK-12 should have variable rate of fire (normal circa 600 rmp and another higher setting), though it obviously couldn't be anything too complex - perhaps a toggle-able recoil buffer in the aft receiver
http://www.freepatent.ru/images/patents/433/2478177/patent-2478177.pdf
Bolt accelerator in pistol grip, it stores energy of the bolt and give it addition kick on the way forward. Toggles ON if selector in teh burst mode. But AFAIK it was dropped together with its designer (Zlobin V.V.) who was fired.
>>
>>33715736
Thanks!
>>
>>33715715
Kek, if only.
>>
>>33714770
ex US Army here
>inb4 service

The M16A2's burst fire was carried over into the M4 which are both standard issue in the Army depending on what unit you're assigned to. This was basically a holdover from the M16A2 upgrade from unsubstantiated Marine logic and insistence on accuracy over everything.

While a great deal of scientific research into weaponry has been conducted as part of the wonderful government institutions like Operational Research Office and the Ballistic Research Laboratory their findings have essentially been largely ignored much like the SALVO findings.

The US Army just very recently caught onto the fact that the burst sear is not only un-optimal but it is also a liability when trying to shoot as fast as possible it will not cycle correctly and it also worsens the trigger pull even on semi. They very recently have begun to start the standard issue of M4A1's. Even then the US Army like you have said has always insisted that you should not use the full auto setting.

>Knowing all of the above I’m quite interested in any US researches on M16A2 / M4 first burst hit probability. As US Military pursued hyperburst capability in ACR program, had it ever occurred to them that they probably already can increase first trigger pull hit probability, and all they need is to click the selector switch on the existing rifle and edit the manuals?

To the people who were able to think critically, and able to apply the scientific method, yes it did. However the military at the macro level is filled with a fudd-like cult of the marksman. I'll expand on this in my second post.

>>33715199
>Firing more rounds means more rounds could hit the target but more rounds means more recoil so you need to control the recoil in some way like russian military does. Or you just shoot less bullets like western militaries do.

Except if you read all of the research on this, that is false. Soldiers are going to have something like a 20% chance or less of hitting.
>>
>>33715853

From what I can tell the point of the burst-fire setting was to increase the chances of hits in aimed fire (three rounds are better than one after all) but the practical effect was to simply duplicate what a soldier could do by quickly pulling the trigger three times... yet removing the full-auto feature which is hands down superior in CQB situations.

Hence the M4A1, with single-shot for most situations, and rock-and-roll for CQB.
>>
>>33715853
cont.

The best publication I've found to date on this that was able to systematically cite this unfounded "cult of the marksman" bias was in

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA460822

The military had a consistent history of being very hesitant to adopt any kind of smaller caliber. From going to the Krag–Jorgensen from the .45 caliber rifle rounds the military protested. When adopting the Garand the military protested it's .276 caliber rounds and wanted to stay with it's .30 caliber rounds. When presented with the prospect of British .280, again the military moved to keep their .30 cal rounds as 7.62NATO. Again with the M16 trials they protested again with smaller calibers.

Essentially the senior military leadership took the exact same position as the NRA did during the M16 trials. They had all the empirical data in front of them to suggest that an intermediate cartridge is objectively better for over 95% of use cases and yet the only protest either could muster was essentially
>muh bigger bore
>muh stoppan powah

Another example of this was the Army's review of the M16A2. They essentially made all of the correct arguments about the M16A2 being an overall worse direction to take the gun from the A1. It specifically makes a case to keep full auto for ambushes, repelling assaults, as well as final assaults on an objective.

www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a168577.pdf

Yes there were elements in the military that did recognize it. However, overall organizational culture (at least for the old timers in charge) did not permit any further straying from concept of making the soldier a marksman first above all other factors.

The Soviets being godless commies without the same kind of bias for marksmanship were able to just simply take the scientific method's results and come up with a more optimal combat rifle in regards to the realities of battlefield demands.
>>
>>33714835
accurized free-floating barrel doesn't mean shit when using a piston system
>>
>>33715887
No, it was primarily done as an unfounded effort by the Marines to save ammunition, despite the fact that the were never able to cite a single instance in Vietnam where a unit ran out of ammunition because of full auto to their detriment.

It clashed with the Marines understanding of marksmanship, They felt full auto is wasteful and that you should only be bursting anyways. From the report you cited (ADA228398) it states that the third shot is the most inaccurate of full auto anyways, and that it would make sense to either have a 2 round burst or to have 4-5 round burst/full auto. Again, if the Marines had done any actual testing for this, they would have picked up on this, but they didn't.

Even as recently just 5 years before the Marines adopted the M4 as standard issue (and only issuing them in limited numbers) the Marines official statement about choosing not to issue the M4 was almost some kind of hilarious satire

>Marines like that M4 carbine because it looks cool. And I've had some Marines complain to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying 'you know, the officers are getting these things, but we're still having to carry this rifle.' Well, the Marine Corps will always be a rifle Marine Corps. The carbine is an extension of the pistol, not a reduction of a rifle. And in the Afghanistan scenario where you're shooting long distances you gotta be able to reach out and touch 'em. And a carbine is just not designed to do that.

https://kitup.military.com/2010/03/top-marine-glad-to-have-m16a4-standard.html

Just as my anecdote I can say this is prevalent in American gun culture as well, especially in the older people. I hope this gives you a better picture of why parts of American culture are holding back a more scientifically founded approach to military small arms and doctrine.
>>
>>33715976
We're seeing the same thing come up in the CTSAS threads, with the consideration of a single "long 6.5" round for the MMG, and then a carbine built for the same round.

The one difference this time around might be in the development of smart scopes, IF they can be made reliable and useful on the battlefield.
>>
>>33715853
Thank you. Yes, I saw this graph too. Is there any data available on positive influence of M68 CCO and (especially) ACOG RCO on it? I'm going to search myself, but perhaps you already know.
>>
>>33716068
It doesn't help that the Marines for the longest time trained solely to fight black dots, rather than silhouettes.
>>
>>33715976
With all of the AARs from the last 20 years, plus tons of supporting HD video evidence, have there been any official studies into ranges experienced in combat and weapon accuracy at those ranges? Is the "90% of all combat is <100m" number still accurate, or has Afghanistan skewed it?

I have a suspicion that most combat is still within a quarter mile, and that the exceptions are rare and prominent enough that we should be using other weapons systems (particularly guided and/or area effect) to prosecute those engagements. But, I'd like to see some serious number-crunching on the issue.
>>
>>33716085
Sadly, I do not have any data immediately available at hand. I've read pretty much every report you and I have cited a long time ago but only very recently re-read them and began to store, catalog, and take a few snapshots of some of the more juicy charts/parts.

A slightly off topic question I have to you is about the Russian stuff. I don't speak Russian, I can only transliterate cyrillic. Are you able to translate the pic in >>33714805

Also another interesting thing from one of the reports (ADA228398) is about battlesight settings.Pic related. What seems interesting is that they found the ~450 meter battlesight setting on the AK-74 to be one of the worst ranges to choose. They never stated if they were using the "belt-buckle" sighting method or not (I doubt they were). Is there anything you know from Russian sources about this, as english based sources are very quiet about this subject.

>>33716070
Do you have any links? I'm interested but uninformed about these new developments.

>>33716100
kek

>>33716142
The Operational Research Office (ORO) did the studies from WW2 and Korea on that and are the primary ones cited. While I have not found the original publications, a study that cites it is here.

www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA228398

pic related (1/2)
>>
>>33716068
Heh, this >>33715887 wasn my (OP's) answer.

Burst pattern on target probably depends on multiple weapon characteristics (recoil impulse, rate of fire, muzzle device, stock construction). One Russian picture shows that by third round shooter already starts to compensate for recoil kick, and 3rd round hits are closer towards original aiming point than second. Bad thing is I don't know "the story behind the picture" - which rifle it is, distance and scale.

There's a video of Czech Vz58 rifle firing tracers downrange, it can be clearly seen that three-round bursts form a "triangle" of hits - by third round shooter already compensates for upward kick, though lateral drift still continues. Different gun, different pattern.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghOutSeJ3sE
>>
>>33716186
cont. (2/2)

Note here that the ORO 1.0 value is the original findings of the studies from WW2/Korea and that the author of this publication used variables of it to demonstrate, even at the extremes, what an appropriate service rifle effective range envelope should be.

>>33716199
Interesting. Do you have the source for that data?

One thing to note is that the AK-74 enjoys essentially half the recoil of the M16A2 (i'll post a pic in a second and a slower rate of fire. I'm assuming that picture is of AK-74 shot patterns. I'm also guessing now that there may be an amount of time required to compensate for cyclic rate that varies with cyclic rates and overall recoil. I'd love to test it but don't have any full auto guns. This is why I'm interested in Russian sources of info, because I think there might be some hidden gems where the data can be compared/contrasted with American findings for an overall bigger picture.
>>
>>33716068
>Just as my anecdote I can say this is prevalent in American gun culture as well, especially in the older people

Heh, I can believe it. Just look at the shitshow that went into the choosing of the Krag 30-40 and other rifles of that era, all based on "can't let those damn infantry waste ammo."

Utterly bugfuck when you think on it, becuase eliminating FA for burst-fire just encourages burst fire over single-shot, which is argubly more wasteful of ammunition. Having FA only guarantees that troops are only going to switch off of full auto when they're in close contact.
>>
The XCOM school of marksmanship figured this all out a long time ago and people are still bickering about it.
>>
>>33716186
>. Are you able to translate the pic
Yes, I basically described the text in my post.

Left to right, first pics are front covers. Second pics are the beginning of general description of the AK rifle. Text reads:
----------------------------
Assault rifle (or light machine gun) is fired in auto or single shots. Automatic fire is the main firing mode, can be executed in short bursts (up to 5 rnds), long bursts (up to 10 rounds from AR or 15 rnds from LMG) or continuously.
---------------------------
(RPK LMG is only mentioned in second manual).

Third page describes combat methods of fire against stationary and appearing/disappearing battlefield targets.

Upper manual states that:
-------------------
Single clearly visible target should be engaged by bursts of single shots depending on target importance, size and range. Closer and less dangerous targets should be engaged by single shots. The father the target and the more dangerous it is, the longer should be burst. Target should be engaged until destroyed or disappears.
---------------------------
Lower manual drops the mention of single shots and says that target is to be engaged by short or long bursts.

Next paragraph describes fire against appearing/disappearing target. Long text emphasises reaction and encourages to wait for next appearance of the target if it disappeared before fire was opened. Upper manual instructs to engage with rapid bursts or rapid single shots, lower only recommends rapid bursts.

Following pages (not shown) about engaging groups of infantry, masked tagets, moving targets, vehicles and airplanes and low visibility targets only recommend burst or continuous fire in both manuals.

4th pages are translated by red text.
>>
File: Capture.png (21 KB, 902x149)
21 KB
21 KB PNG
>>33716252
cont.
Well it appears I saved the source for wikipedia's charts on another computer. However if you want to take my word for it, these are good numbers. It also tested the AK-74 without a muzzle device and found it still had something like 30% less recoil without the brake.

>>33716142
There's a report about afghanistan where a reported 50% of engagements occur past 300 meters.

www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA512331

Even still, the average distribution would put more closer to 300 than farther. Secondly, the author doesn't take into account that soldiers can only barely shoot at 300 meters in ideal qualification conditions and not at all under any sort of stress. He recommends a larger caliber, but that's still not ideal for Afghanistan because the majority of fights are still within the effective envelope of M4's and 5.56.

They also specifically the threats of far range targets often include mortars and specialist weapons like snipers, PKM. etc. These by their nature will simply outclass a standard issue rifle at range, and an emphasis on organic specialist weapons like your own GPMG/DMR/Mortars should be used as a counter.

>>33716292
I honestly believe that the future is in a round somewhat like the 4.6x33. It has just the effective range of what is required for standard ranges, has stupid low recoil, super lightweight, and you can just have GPMG/DMRs for anything past 300 yards.
>>
File: Osnovy strelby.jpg (61 KB, 466x736)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>33716252
>Do you have the source for that data?
Yes, just found it in my collection.

"Infantry firearms marksmanship basics." There's already this picture in 1970 edition, so it can't be AK-74, but it is some type of AK fired while standing. There aren't any numerical data because it's theoretical part.
>>
File: 1452380228210.png (219 KB, 463x480)
219 KB
219 KB PNG
>>33716379
Thanks, I appreciate it. If you have any other Russian sources on this subject it would be nice of you to share those as well.
>>
File: bismarck shiggy.jpg (61 KB, 326x316)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>33715853
>tfw Bundeswehr
On every rifle we had (G3 and G36), you have three settings.
S for "Shit, jammed!"
E for Erschrecken (Scaring them)
F for Frieden (Peace, because when you switch to this, everything will be quiet over there)

Except on the MG3, which only has S and F. In this case the F stands for "FLEISCH!" (GORE!) though.
>>
>>33715286
yet you have no idea how much more effective they found the StG44 to be to just having bolt action rifles and GPMGs and how much it let them maneuver faster
fucking retard
>>
File: Battle sight.jpg (53 KB, 541x299)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
>>33716186
>battlesight setting
I guess COT POA means "center of target/torso point of aim". So they were doin it wrong, as belt buckle is only recommended against running/standing targets in AK manuals, otherwise point of aim should be at lower part of the trget.

But some people in Russian military circles agree with ADA228398 and object that this battle zero is indeed inadequate. There is year 2013 article in Russian Military Review titled "Our rifleman can and should hit head targets", where 300 m battle zero is recommended, as "there are no chest/torso sized targets on modern battlefield, and increased hit probability up to 300 m is more important than stretching out to 440". I'm now translating the figures.
>>
>>33716573
What? I'm talking about right the fuck now. This is current info as trained in the Bundeswehr. Everyone has assault rifles and they're STILL only seen as an accessory to the MMG.
>>
>>33714821
>Knowing all of the above I’m quite interested in any US researches on M16A2 / M4 first burst hit probability.
Here is a little on M16A1
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/722394.pdf
>>
>>33716443
>I honestly believe that the future is in a round somewhat like the 4.6x33.
>sweden space magic
https://mega.nz/#!3VsFUDwJ!2mZFeAVZ9egJPn84jCeXDSlwVTuFyxLXJgbGoc07qL8
>>
File: point of aim.jpg (41 KB, 618x515)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>33716576
>otherwise point of aim should be at lower part of the trget.
Well that was what I was getting at. Generally Soviet POA (from my understanding) is not at the center of the chest but at the belt buckle on a completely exposed target or bottom of chest on only a chest.

see pic for example

American aim is always center of the chest (. Army silhouettes only show the chest. They would likely have aimed at the center of the chest and not at the lower abdomen which is more in line with how I understand the Soviet soldier would have been trained to aim.

>>33716585
>Everyone has assault rifles and they're STILL only seen as an accessory to the MMG.

Muh DICK
>>
i was in the US army and deployed twice to Iraq with 3rd ID.

>outside the city. well paced and aimed semi auto fire from rifles, to suppress and kill. machine guns were always used to provide a huge volume of fire to a certain spot to kill something or someone.
>inside the city. fast pace semi auto fire from rifles unless ambush, then mag dump. machine guns still used to beat up a target to kill.
>inside buildings. burst/fa fire from everyone.
>>
File: 42341.jpg (611 KB, 1433x1327)
611 KB
611 KB JPG
>>33716704
>Generally Soviet POA (from my understanding) is not at the center of the chest but at the belt buckle on a completely exposed target or bottom of chest on only a chest.
Soviet POA (AK-74).
1. Within 400 meters. Battle-sight setting (400 meters or П), aim at lower edge of the target.
2. Within 400 meters. If target is big (aka full height man not chest target or smaller ), then aim at center mass.
3. At ranges more than 400 meters. Sight is set at the exact range. Aim at center mass.
Default mode is sight at 400 meters, aim at the lower edge of target.
>>
File: 440m zero.jpg (203 KB, 840x830)
203 KB
203 KB JPG
>>33716576
...and here they are.
>>
>>33716186
>LSAT/CTSAS developments
Here are the latest news:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/tag/ctsas/
>>
>>33716903
Comparing it against pic related it's very interesting. I also have a quickly shopped graph comparison that is even more interesting, I'll post it in my next post.
>>
File: Untitled.png (180 KB, 1580x583)
180 KB
180 KB PNG
>>33717142
While the Russian one is comparing burst fire, I'm going to say that for both the first shot will have no difference.

What it looks like here is that on full auto the muzzle climb is not allowing a high elevation zero like the battle setting to make additional hits since it is going over the target.

>Why do I think this?

The Russian burst fire test and the American single fire test have the exact same hit probability with full auto and single shot respectively with 440m battle zero. So it looks like either the ADA228398 report either aimed correctly or it didn't matter anyways.

I think the Russian doctrine of intentionally aiming lower is a really sophisticated idea that can allow for a slightly longer range zero to be more effective. For instance for US doctrine we currently use a 25/300m zero which is worse for our shooting than the 50/200m zero. The M16A1 originally had a 43m/250m zero on its battlesight and a different but identical with an "L" marked aperture for 25/350m zero which was used for zeroing the rifle and for long range shooting and it was more suited than the current sighting system is. I think the M16A1 probably had the best zerosystem between it and the AK-74, M16A2, AK, etc.

Some more anecdotes, I was using the Army's 25/300m zero on the M16A2 and M4. I was informally taught that I should shoot low on the 150m/200m targets since it is at the apex of the trajectory. There wasn't a manual I saw that stated this, just a commonly taught experience from NCO's on the qualification range.


>>33716466
I just found it. Apparently they're all in DJVU format wtf? Oh well guess I just need a separate reader instead of pdf.

I'm in the process of sorting and organizing my files. If you want to send me an email I can give you all my research data documents at my burner email jmartin082@live.com although you seem well enough able to access English data. I'm particularly interested in your files, though.

>>33717051
Thanks.
>>
>>33717372
ADA report uses "crouching man"-sized target 0.87 m high, while Russian article discusses fire against "prone" target 0.3 m high (pictured in my post), both targets 0.5 m wide.
>>
>>33717448
>ADA report uses "crouching man"-sized target 0.87 m high, while Russian article discusses fire against "prone" target 0.3 m high (pictured in my post), both targets 0.5 m wide
Forgot to check that.

What's interesting is that despite burst against a smaller target vs semi against a target nearly 3 times the size, that the burst method achieves the same hit probability. Does that report mention the number of rounds per burst?
>>
>>33716699
I just read it. Thanks for sharing. That's pretty much the exact kind of caliber I'm talking about. If full auto is hard to control off hand past 100 yards still, we need to go smaller recoil impulse. The fact that Kellgren or whatever his name is has a round that weighs 7 times less than a 308, has almost the range of a 5.56, and recoils like a ,22 LR makes a strong case for line infantry to have even smaller rounds, not bigger.
>>
Back then it was thought that given the choice, soldiers would always magdump. But they still wanted the capability for full auto, so the burst was created as a compromise.
>>
>>33717629
Yes, 3-round bursts. This is theoretical work though, but it's based on experimental data and scientific methods (developed specifically by military science too) referenced in text.

I saved this thread in case in sinks, so I won't lose the email, and probably I'll make another thread for people who asked about Soviet manuals - I'll have to look for links, and not right now.
>>
Thanks to all the anons posting interesting research and discussions. I've had to google more than a few things while reading your posts, but this has been pretty enlightening and fun to read. This thread is definitely a step above the ramp threads and other bullshit people post.
>>
>>33717786
The irony is that in Korea most soldiers didn't use their sights at all even on rifles, and that soldiers are less likely to even use their weapon at all if it isn't full auto.
>>
File: Capture.png (127 KB, 706x583)
127 KB
127 KB PNG
>>33717786
Some more info I was looking for but recently found
>>
File: Capture2.png (41 KB, 722x215)
41 KB
41 KB PNG
>>33718182
It's almost so obvious that either an extreme training deficit occurred (unlikely) or that a fundamental misunderstanding in the emphasis on single shot long range marksmanship was founded in some crayon eater's wet dreams. It almost boils my blood to hear of the complete disconnect and rampant disregard senior leadership of the military has for the realities of combat.
>>
>>33718182
Source?
>>
>>33718218
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a061355.pdf
>>
>>33718212
It was actually a extreme training deficit. At first, the US army in Korea were pure undiluted absoute trash.
>>
File: Capture3.png (96 KB, 670x472)
96 KB
96 KB PNG
>>33718259
Would you say the same about Vietnam?
>>
File: Capture4.png (151 KB, 685x835)
151 KB
151 KB PNG
>>33718285
>>
>>33714821
>technically optimized for burst fire (heavier barrel
No, and actually detrimental in its case.
>>
>>33718290
Well, against concealed targets they did what AK manuals recommend - full auto fire against the mask (which conceals the target) with lateral dispersion - spraying the brush.
>>
>>33718392
I think the soldiers in Vietnam as referenced in those screen captures were doing exactly what they needed to be.

The point I'm making is that all the senior leadership and people in firearms culture that are still pushing the whole bigger bullet, long range, semi automatic fire memes are disconnected from the reality actual troops face. They're of the understanding that targets past 300 meters are hard to hit because of our small bullets and present some benchrest shooting data to illustrate their points. They don't understand troops are often stressed out short of panicking and mostly just sending rounds out in reflexive point fire rather than steady aimed fire.

The solution isn't to try and give them bigger and "better" bullets like one of the recent efforts to equip soldiers with 7.62 battle rifles
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/04/05/breaking-us-army-considering-going-back-1954-interim-7-62mm-infantry-rifle/

It should be to give them a gun they can shoot better in full auto bursts in reflexive fire. Simply having 7 rounds of 4.6x22R like in >>33716699 to every 7.62 round will allow troops do more with a small caliber rifle than a battle rifle.

What I'd really like to see is performance of a squad with all battle rifles vs all assault rifles vs small caliber+DMR. I think a transition to small caliber rifles would necessitate a DMR even more so than than currently and would be optimal.
>>
>>33717742
There are a few considerations beyond just reducing recoil impulse when developing a cartridge like this. A higer hit probability won't be useful if the actual efdect on target is diminished, and tge momentum of a projectile is extremely important to that end. The most common issues found with 5.56 was its poor barrier penetration and energy retention at range. The remedies for those problems were a longer and heavier projectile at a reduced velocity which has the added benefit of working better out of shorter barrels. Switching to an even smaller projectile would make it much harder to remedy those issues.

There are mechanical solutions to the issue of controlability in rapid fire with the M16, some of which are very easy to deal with, one of them simply being reducing the rate of fire in full auto to something more sensible than 750-900 rounds per minute. .
>>
>>33716699
>compressed powder charge in a tiny case with an oversized cylinder so that the case expands like a fire-formed case to reduce pressure back to normal levels
holy shit, give me some of what Kellgren is smoking
>>
>>33719245
>poor barrier penetration and energy retention at range.
I think barrier penetration should be delegated to MGs. Secondly the rifleman are already incapable of any decent long range performance to begin with see >>33715853 where they have a 10% chance or less of hits past 300m. So for a US soldier to make 19 hits at 300 meters they would have to expend their entire standard combat load of 210 rounds assuming they could perform as well as they normally do on their worst field exercise. For every shot taken compared to the 5.56 you would get 3.5 of the 4.6x22R. Basically you could have a 3 round burst fire mode entirely replace semi automatic and still have more efficiency of depleting your standard combat load with burst fire compared to a semi automatic 5.56 rifleman.

Third long range considerations should be left to MGs and DMRs as they are more consistently able to deal with long range threats than a rifleman is.
>>
OP - Keep up the good work. Your time did not fall on deaf ears/blind eyes.

>>33714899
>>33714914
>>33714929
KYS faggot. This thread is /k/ Go'uld. Could you imagine if every thread on /k/ was this good? Brains would literally explode, ears would be bleeding, and it'd probably be better cause retards such as yourself couldn't comprehend - and thereby be unable to react and impose their boneheaded shitpinion such as you're doing right now.

>>33715029
have you seen the innards of the AN-94? Its literal slav spess majic. I'd guess that recoil-negated (balanced) systems are the next step in assault rifuls.
>>
>>33715132
>though it obviously couldn't be anything too complex - perhaps a toggle-able recoil buffer in the aft receiver.
more than likely just moving the dogbone/(OoB)retarder out the way.

>>33715205
>and that is by aiming, and killing, the enemy.
Aiming at your enemy allows his friends to aim at you.

>>33715270
>Side-loading an RPK with bakelites
YESSS! THIS PLEASES MIKHAIL!!
lol

>>33715274
>Not to mention that rounds expended per casualty has gone up an obscene amount ever since ww2.
yet friendly deaths have decreased to unheard-of levels. whats worth more? a bullet or a friendly's life?

>>33715303
was that third dude roomclearing with a fuckin PSL?

>>33715618
prolly too high-pressure and gave off too much heat, leading to OoB's & smoothbore barrels
>>
>>33716186
>ORO
Yes, but I was asking about metrics from our modern engagements, with the all-volunteer force, our current standards of training, better optics, etc.
>>
>>33719848
50% are reported over 300 meters.

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA512331
>>
>>33719450
Note that CTSAS uses compressed powder in its telescoped case, to improve the burn.
>>
>>33715657
It's pretty much an "MP-44" all over again.
>>
>>33716704
>>33716870
>belt buckle zero
this has to do with how they zero their rifles and generally cope with vertical POI shift at different range.
beltbuckle at 400m is zero, at 200 poi is center mass, at 100 its head. or something like that
>aim big miss small
>>
>>33714770
Let's look at the AK-74 a different way. I was reading a interview of a Chechen commander in the first battle of Grozny. When asked about fearsome Chechen "snipers" he laughed and said the Russians only thought they were snipers when in reality most only had 20 odd rounds of ammunition on them and non modified AK-74s. They made each shot count though.
>>
File: 1492794120819.jpg (72 KB, 640x765)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>33722431
>believing terrorists
>>
>>33722808
He was in the presidential palace HQ command basement as a leader even during the time a bomb crashed in and didn't explode. He is self deprecating of himself and fellow Chechens. Most Chechens in the city never fought and hide in basements only to later claim they were in the battle. He knew of only 1,000 at most were actively fighting. The Russians would have beat them sooner had they cut off the city but much to his confusion they never did and could have easily since they only had one large route in and out. They finally did toward the end but it was too late to prevent them from escaping. They never had much ammo which made the Russians think they were roving bands of snipers instead of desperately low on ammo being forced to take single shots.

You don't have believe anything he said. Official accounts make the Russian army look worse than he did which was was a disaster for the Russian army. It's worth taking a look at what went wrong.
>>
>>33718720
Alternatively they could try adopting a strong recoil compensation system like Russian balanced recoil mechanisms to keep it all in control. Then they can go as big or as small of a caliber as they want.
>>
File: к3432.gif (2.19 MB, 320x240)
2.19 MB
2.19 MB GIF
>>33721710
>this has to do with how they zero their rifles
AK-74 zeroing is done from 100 meters with sight set at 300 meters.
>>
>>33719569
>Basically you could have a 3 round burst fire mode entirely replace semi automatic and still have more efficiency of depleting your standard combat load with burst fire compared to a semi automatic 5.56 rifleman.
I am most impressed not by rifle but by "squad automatic weapon". 3.6 kg rifle size with 200 round magazine and recoil of 22lr? Yes pls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOta2isADdE
Ultimate grunt weapon. Why do ever use rifles?

>>33719245
>The most common issues found with 5.56 was its poor barrier penetration and energy retention at range.
Funny thing that competitor of 4.6x26R cartridge was 5.56x45 and among other things (aka US supremacy) that allowed 5.56x45 to prevail was development of SS109/M855 round. It pushed range of soviet steel helmet penetration from 500 meters for M193 to astonishing 1300 meters. As steel helmet penetration range = effective range no wonder military jumped on the SS109 train so happily and forgot everything esle. But penetration don't tells whole story.
>>
>>33721710

There may also be a psychological component to this practice. Napoleon, recognizing that humans are by nature averse to killing one another, would always instruct unbloodied formations to "aim for the legs" as the natural disinclination to murder would cause a green soldier to raise his musket unconsciously in the last millisecond of firing.
>>
>>33724625
>recognizing that humans are by nature averse to killing one another, would always instruct unbloodied formations to "aim for the legs"
I guess canadians are not human then considering experience from world war 2 tell that they start shooting the moment they see a german regardless of the range.
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no2/doc/16-engen-eng.pdf
>>
interesting read, thanks OP
>>
>>33724625
Your post reminded me of this article below.

>>33716870
Here's an article I had to dig for. It's a pretty neat hidden gem of a spetsnaz soldier in Afghanistan from an interview in 2003.

https://www.smallarmsreview.com/articles.list.issue.cfm?volnum=V6N11

>SAR: Did you fire just predominantly full-auto with the AK74? Andrei: Yes, predominantly yes, although towards the end of the fire contact you would switch to single rounds, because depending upon how much return fire you were getting you would try and save rounds because you don’t know what may come next. But in the initial fire contact you need to unleash everything you’ve got full automatic with long bursts to suppress their will to fight. That was the usual exercise. SAR: How long were your bursts at initial contact?

>Andrei: You would put five or six rounds through, but as you know only one or two rounds will hit where you’re aiming and the rest will go elsewhere. They teach you that the best possible rate of fire is two to three rounds at the count of “twenty-two” and they teach you that at basic training. Depress the trigger when you say “twenty” and release it when you say “two.” “Twenty-two” and two rounds will go off, rarely three rounds will go off. So this way you save your ammo and deliver effective fire. Plus they teach you to aim at the knees of the target at anything inside 300-400 meters. When you’ve got people attacking you in a staggered formation like a checkerboard they tell you to aim at their right knee and the first round will hit them in the chest and the second will hit them in their left shoulder and the third round will go over their left shoulder, possibly striking the enemy soldier behind.

>>33724317
The problem is that you will go through your combat load faster and the guns will weigh more. Smaller caliber makes it cheaper to make the guns, keeps the guns more simple, and keeps soldiers in the fight longer for the same or less weight, too.
>>
>>33727215
Whoops, here's a better link to the article.

https://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2161
>>
>>33727215
Smaller caliber does have problems when dealing with armor at range. Against militia it will continue to be fine for a very long time, but against other developed nations that are undoubtedly looking into both powered and unpowered exos it is a possible future liability.

Technically exos solve multiple problems; more armor (and thus turning into powered armor) makes it harder to justify a switch to an even smaller, lighter recoiling and most importantly weaker caliber, while countries that can afford to deploy them may worry less about weight of heavier ammo and weapons.

I'm looking at what other developments could do to the decision on what is the optimal military round. Bullet spam is okay but they have to reach a minimum effective level of power too. With the ridiculous inertia of procurement we could go through another M14 vs M16 conundrum all over again, except this time reversed.

Maybe it might be my personal bias towards godless commie things but I find the AK recoil compensation system such an ingenious and simple solution you couldn't expect it from anybody else. It's just a piston that goes in the opposite direction; it should almost have zero effect on the reliability of a weapon and would last just as long as the real piston or oprod. Regardless of whether you chamber this new rifle in a smaller caliber or a bigger one it would have the same beneficial effects and the basic platform would remain versatile.
>>
>>33727324
Kellgren's 4.5x26R can pass the NATO helmet test at 300+ yards. Actual rifle rated body armor already stops all the current rounds anyways. Penetrating light body armor just within the limits of most rifle+rifleman's actual effective range seems to a reasonable standard.

More importantly you could maybe even have a balanced recoil system on a small caliber gun and possibly opt out of using a brake entirely, instead opting for a flash hider.
>>
>>33727405
Well, the flash hider or suppressor option is quite attractive. I just think that it should be one of several options moving forward instead of locking down onto small calibers only.

Thing with ceramics is that they do get weakened by repeated hits a lot faster than steel plates, so going big can help not because it will penetrate in one hit but for successive hits to introduce cracks in the ceramic until it fails. This is regarding the use of full auto anyway so its bound to happen a lot in common scenarios like room clearing.
>>
>>33715228
Jesus Christ, that is like the oldest fucking myth. I repeatedly hit steel at 500yds with my AK's irons yesterday. The recoil imparted by 7.62x39 (5.45 and 5.56 aren't even worth mentioning in the context of recoil) is so minimal when the fundamentals of marksmanship are applied that provided the round can reach out that far it makes no difference. But you would know that if you ever actually shot.
>>
>>33727921
He's saying that you won't hit anything while firing automatic on AKs, are you new to greentext?
>>
>>33716626
That is very interesting indeed. So they found out that full auto with M16A1 is inferior to semi-auto when it comes to "time to first hit", as chance of extra hits is too low to make up for longer re-laying time due to burst recoil. It sounds logical given the pattern of M16A1 burst on target, >>33714815
where most of the third rounds hit high as shooter still doesn't compensate for recoil.

I'm now looking for data about the R&D of various AK rifles - not just the numbers they put in the manuals.
>>
File: ak104fullretard.webm (2.92 MB, 640x360)
2.92 MB
2.92 MB WEBM
>>33715228
>>
>>33714770
This thread has helped to convince me that LSAT was right to focus on the LMG; there's simply too much disagreement--in both military and civilian circles--as to whether the "common" rifleman should have a <300m PDW/carbine or a 1200m battle rifle.

Let CTSAS finish the LMG in the new "long" 6.5mm C-T round, which I think we can generally agree is an excellent replacement for the SAW/LMG and MMG. By that time, *something* should have come out of the DInGO program (and if not, TrackingPoint may be close-enough-for-government-work) to make the SAW into a "burst sniper/suppressor".

Once that weapon has been deployed and observed in the field, the final determination can be made as to whether the rest of the squad should have battle rifles with super-scopes intended for semi-auto use out to 1km+, or short-range burst-fire for close-in, with long-range combat handled by a combination of the new LMG, 40mm or manpack missiles, or calls for prompt, guided fires.
>>
>>33715205
Stop being a mouth breather and leave the thread.
>>
>>33715274
Your entire post smells like reddit bullshit where you make claims and state nothing to support those claims.

kys
>>
>>33715507
You did not even rebut the first post you responded too you stupid nigger.

Get a tripcode so we can filter you.
>>
>>33715724
Pepe was almost around since the beginning. Do you remember "feels good man?" Oh wait, you don't because you're some cunt from reddit.
>>
>>33716033
It removes the interference to the barrel that occurs when the rifle is rested on the handguard.
>>
>>33727944
But that's wrong, retard
>>
>>33731221
I think he is referring to a shortstroke piston, in which the piston action itself will create (albeit minimal) barrel whip, such as on the MCX or M14.

But that is easily fixed by reducing the rate of fire to a 'harmonious state' (different RPM in relation to total barrel length and flex)

OP still did 99.99% more than /k/ would ever do, and that's something.
>>
>>33715270
Small arms are important but development is slow so by the time some hot new idea is ready for the modern battle field that battle field is 20-30 years behind everyone.

The only take away in the past maybe 50 years is replacing everything if an assault rifle doesn't work and maybe new move and fire doctrines.

Even if telescoping ammo becomes a thing it'll be the same arguments for and against beltfed or magazine rifles and it'll just endlessly circle again but with another 500 rounds for the same weight platoons carry around and maybe rate of fire/ application of fire changes a little bit to account for the ammo.
>>
>>33732487
What did Op do? Rediscover project SALVO. It's well discussed in any historical look at assault rifle development.
>>
>>33714835
>this shit again
And lik clockwork everyone will be talking about reaching out with the new 7.62 and grunts will bitch the guns don't work right because they aren't aiming right and the increased recoil is interrupting their shots and then they will bitch about all the weight they have to carry and then they'll go back of a small, fast round and then they'll talk about a bigger bullet becasue it doesn't reach out far enough.

everyday until mars is reached and we move to energy weapons or everything collapses and everyone are dirt farmers again and ammo becomes ammo regardless of what it is. Forever until the death of this sun and even then transmissions will reach our FTL colonies or some aliens and they'll still talk about it until the heat death of the universe itself.
>>
>>33732630
OP rediscovered Project SALVO and is asking why everybody seems to have completely forgotten about the lessons learned and are (un)wittingly doing exactly all the wrong things, questioning if it has to do with old American biases.
>>
>>33732840
Taken to the extreme anyway is bad. Nobody wants to go back to WW1 bolt action fire but than again not every combat situation warrants full auto fire.
>>
>>33732693
Marines will complain about anything
>>
>>33715286
powered exoskeletons for GPMGunners and heavy weapons teams would allow for a lot more ammo and barrels.
>>
>>33734126
May as well go back to watercooled if you are going to go full retard and pretend weight doesn't matter.
>>
>>33734126
Even unpowered ones are fine. The problem is holding the weight up for extended periods of time, not the speed at which the gunner and ammo carriers can move. They would be slower than a powered one in a sprint but much cheaper for the job of just standing around at the ready.
>>
>>33734126
Powered exoskeletons would do a lot more than just that.

The killer app in Power Armor is the Power, not the armor--the electricity and encumbrance to support a sensor fusion package using CCDs, thermals, various low-power lasers, passive sonar (e.g., Boomerang), and encrypted LPI radios, all tied to glorified (and hardened) tablet hardware and purpose-written software to produce video and audio feeds that provide useful and timely information to individual soldiers (including aimbot-hack-level accuracy, guided-weapon support, and rapid calls for fire).

Now tie in 6.5 CTSAS in a LSAT LMG... and it just starts to get unfair. Especially when you realize that not only is your Ph/round higher, but you can also carry a lot more rounds with an exoskeleton, or more guided munitions for when you need to deal with cover the LMG can't defeat (or ranges beyond 1200m).
>>
>>33732840
SALVO never went away and always was in use. It is called machinegun and it works. Problem is how to obtain same sort of automatic fire accuracy off hand not from bi-pod. This is a big challenge.
>>
>>33734643
>exoskeleton posting
>again
hello summer
>>
>>33735630
Maybe it can be a critique of American / German doctrine then? The hail of fire comes from the designated machinegunner whereas Russia in particular teaches everyone to be the machinegunner, with the guy carrying the actual big gun using a GPMG for more reach. The former setup might be more eggs in one basket. Its not like GIs are dumb and can't turn to auto / burst when they think really need it but the training done is less suitable.
>>
File: CyberdyneT800-580x358.jpg (217 KB, 580x358)
217 KB
217 KB JPG
>>33733148
>but than again not every combat situation warrants full auto fire.
citation needed

This post has not met the minimum criterion of this thread. In order to post a critique or suggestion of combat doctrine you need at least (1) source of information to support your conclusion(s).

===This was an auto-generated response from counter-shitpost bot 9001===
>>
File: 10988670.jpg (24 KB, 525x359)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
Bump
>>
>>33714770
Burst fire is a meme so soldiers don't have to be trained to conserve ammunition on a 900rd/m rifle. Even the M240 and M249 have a lower rate of fire.
>>
>>33737397
>citation needed
do you really need a citation to tell you what happens when you run out ammo? No more burst fire. No auto fire. No semi auto fire. All you have is a metal pipe in your hands and angry people you were just shooting at.
>>
File: file.png (114 KB, 278x413)
114 KB
114 KB PNG
>>33714805
>All AK manuals contain reference tables showing average number of rounds expended by experienced shooters to hit different sized targets at different ranges from different firing postures using single shots or 3-round bursts. In most instances burst fire expenditure is less than 3 times that of semi-auto, meaning less trigger pulls per hit for burst fire.
What you're claiming here and what your picture actually say seems to conflict.
>>
>>33739554
But it doesn't?

Numbers are rounds fired. Bursts require less attempts at aiming and then pulling the trigger, but consume more ammunition in the process. Less efficient but potentially faster to first results.
>>
>>33739604
> In most instances burst fire expenditure is less than 3 times that of semi-auto
So by "expenditure" you mean "times the trigger was pulled", not "rounds expended"?
>>
>>33739604
Nevermind, I get it now.
>>
>>33734126
Forget exoskeletons, robots will carry ammo for the MG. Every man will have their own MG with robots carrying all the ammo around.
>>
File: 1490609479486.png (9 KB, 160x160)
9 KB
9 KB PNG
>>33738274
>do you really need a citation to tell you what happens when you run out ammo?

>Shoot semi automatic 1 round every 2 seconds for 60 seconds
>Shoot full automatic averaging 2 rounds per burst on average every 4 seconds for 60 seconds

Which one runs out of ammo faster? Secondly, can you cite a single time when a unit ran out of ammo to their detriment from the use of full auto?
>>
>>33741221
You reek of no guns. Two round bursts are hard to pull off on a full auto weapon.
Your rifle or machine gun would need a two round burst mode for this to be doable for a whole minute.
>>
>>33741366
>Two round bursts are hard to pull off on a full auto weapon.

Maybe if you've only shot full auto AR's at 700+ rounds per minute. AK's and other slower shooting MGs are fairly easy to get 2 round bursts on factory triggers. You can even do single shots if you do a little work on an AK trigger. Even the MG42 is capable of 3 round bursts at 1000+ RPM.

>Your rifle or machine gun would need a two round burst mode for this to be doable for a whole minute.

Notice how I said on average. Secondly you can just shoot on average 5 round bursts on average every 10 seconds for 60 seconds and still achieve the same result.
>>
>>33741366
Just to add another note about AR's it's very easy to shoot less than 3 rounds off on an M4 or M16A2 and jam the burst mechanism by only shooting 1 to 2 rounds.
>>
>>33714770

capped for future reading.
>>
>>33730599
>15 yards at most
>>
>>33741792
>moving the goalposts




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.