Why would you put this on a rifle over full auto? Is it just to keep your grunts from blowing their load when some gook or haji comes around a corner with a grenade in his hand? 3 rounds of 5.56 out of a 20 inch barrel at immediate range would fuckin hurt for sure, but i can't think of any other reason than ammunition conservation.
>>61973833Burst fire, like the government profile barrel and the forward assist, are hangovers from Vietnam. Badly trained conscripts were prone to magdumping and wasting ammo, yes, so the Army decided to install a burst mode that gives you a really shitty trigger pull, thereby substituting gadgets for training even thought we now have a full time professional military. Meanwhile the Canucks and a few other NATO countries issue full auto rifles and have zero problems.That's my understanding of it, anyway.
>>61973833>any other reasonBecause
>>61973833Same reason the marine corps issued SMGs with 20-round mags in WWII. A shitty attempt to reduce ammo expenditure and force higher "accuracy".It's a bad idea.
>>61973833Yes, that's the given reason but the true reason was pure unadulterated fuddery. Basically the exact same thinking that put magazine cut-off mechanisms in early automatic rifles. I'll go so far to say they aren't true assault rifles if your only "full-automatic" option is burst fire.
>>61973833Because the perceived reality of the cold war going hot was armies full of hastily trained conscripts who weren't disciplined enough to use full auto. Burst was an un-happy compromise.
>>61973940>Same reason the marine corps issued SMGs with 20-round mags in WWIIThe Reising had a 12 round magazine to start with.
>>61974361>full auto SMG>12round magGenuinely pants-on-head levels of mental retardation.Whoever was responsible for that decision should have been summarily shot for even suggesting it.
>>61974361That and the reising was such an abysmal piece of shit the marines dumped them into the sea
>>61973908>armyAll of the a2 features were from the marines desu
>>61973833The weapon tends to run off if you're not used to shooting full auto. Burst mitigates the muzzle running off but gives you a faster rate of fire it splits the difference. As fun as full auto is with a subgun, I think burst is a lot more useful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IBvemwTxW8
>>61973833It was to help soldiers preserve ammo by not dumping in auto. That being said it is pretty gay. No one used it except to dump ammo at the end of a training ex. It also gives you three different trigger breaks when you are slow firing.
>>61973908gov profile came way after Vietnam with the introduction of the attached 203 grenade launcher.
>>61975950You really see no application for burst or auto when shooting in tight quarters?
>>61976003Burst is good for armoured troops, as it forces them to slow down the rate of fire. If they are shooting their personal weapons, than the armours guns are down. So they SHOULD be conserving ammo.Full auto is useful in numerous applications, anyone who says otherwise hasn't spent time thinking about it.
>>61976003No I don't. When I say we never used it I mean we NEVER used it. After all of the CQB training I did we never used that. It didn't add anything to the situation. If we wanted to use more rounds we just pulled the trigger more.
>>61976055> Full auto is useful in numerous applications, anyone who says otherwise hasn't spent time thinking about it.I could see there would be situations for it so I wouldn't want to remove the functionality but those situations don't happen 99% of the time. Not to mention it sounds like a good way to overheat an m4/m16 as they don't have machine gun grade barrels nor can the barrels be swapped. The good news is the Army started converting them back to auto.
>>61973833Because the Army is obsessed with kneecapping its troops' ability to achieve Fire Superiority.
>>61976162I believe that was a Marine Corps invention with the A2
>>61973833SPIW retardation
