Was Big Boss right in saying that 3-round burst is bullshit? Boomerlore or Nipshit? I personally don't see the point in mechanically limited volume fire desu. Even in small teams humping it through jungle, you got a couple guys rocking some kind of LMG.
>Was Big Boss right in saying that 3-round burst is bullshit?I cant think of a use case for 3 round burst being better than full auto outside of machine pistols with retard high fire rates maybe.
>>650103383 round has been found to be a meme. The AN-94's concept of a fast-firing, 2 round burst that impact very close is practical but it's an expensive to manufacture a rifle with that system and it's a maintenance headache. If I'm not mistaken you can get a similar result with binary triggers on a properly tuned gun that can accept a binary trigger.
>>65010338Why not use 3 rd bursts with an infantry rifle? Full retard mode will ruin your barrel and empty your magazines posthaste. I’m not talking about a GPMG with quick change barrels. So the bursts are multiple projectile, higher dispersion, faster magazine depletion, shorter effective range - like a “shotgun mode” if you will.
>>65010338it was a failed attempt at replacing training with a piece of equipment. the issue was vietnam era soldiers would turn the guns full auto and mag dump at the enemies when they couldn't see them
>>65010338>big bossYou mean the "worlds greatest soldier", who was so great that he got replaced by a literal rando nwith plastic surgery and NOBODY NOTICED. Three round burst would unironically be the best if that was the ONLY way the weapon could operate, as project SALVO showed.
>>65010627having soldiers who can just aim properly is even betterits a damn shame the entire us military doesnt share marine shooting requirements
IIRC they figured out people only start controlling the recoil after 5-6 shots, so 3 round burst is just the worst of both worlds.
>>65010383burst mechanisms are a hard constraint imposed by a physical mechanisms. This means that if you need truly full auto fire, you can't achieve it. So it's better to have a full auto mechanism and train troops to be responsible with their bursts. "better to have and not need than to need and not have" desu.
>>65010338The M16 3 round burst is notoriously dogshit because the cam drags on the burst disconnecter even when you're NOT in burst. That means your trigger pull is noticeably dogshit at random internals. The HK burst is better (so I've been told).
>>65010338The logic was that your average untrained conscript would have it easier to hit a moving target while under stress.There was some study about how most kills happening when a target repositionsin the 70s. Which is bullshit, I think. But it makes sense that a controlled 3 round burst would give you a better spread and make it so that you have to think less about leading a moving target, when you don't have to worry about controlling full-auto.Then the russians, of course, raised their foot and made that AN wankery 10 years after people decided the idea is stupid. It supposedly shoots twice at the exact same spot, like you're some sort of robin hood. Completely missing the point and making it an unmaintainable mess as usual.
>>65010611>vietnam era soldiers would turn the guns full auto and mag dump at the enemies when they couldn't see themIsn't that unironically how you win a firefight during the vietnam war? Superior close range firepower to suppress the enemy or outright kill them combined with manouvering to get into a position to kill the pinned down enemy or the stragglers still alive. Sure a lot of grunts would forget the manouver part and just fire away but from what I have read then having full auto was very useful in vietnam despite the increased ammunition consumption.It is a little insulting to think that grunts cant be trained to be mindful of their fire rate but have to be mechanically limited in how fast they can fire. But then I remember "Project 100,000" was a thing during vietnam so that polluted the post vietnam data regarding fire rate in combat.
>>65010338Lets say for whatever reason you HAVE to have burst fire on your standard infantry rifle, would 2, 3, 4 or 5 round burst be best and why?
>>65011097The whole point of burst is to let boots feel like they're laying down fire without wasting everything in full auto, so, 3 was the correct answer.
>>65010338>Was Big Boss right in saying that 3-round burst is bullshit?He was kind of right. While 3-round burst is inferior to full-auto, I suppose if you have some barely trained conscripts that that don't know how to tap the trigger rather than hold it down until the mag is empty, then ordering them to use 3-round burst is beneficial.>>65011082>Isn't that unironically how you win a firefight during the vietnam war? Superior close range firepower to suppress the enemy or outright kill them combined with manouvering to get into a position to kill the pinned down enemy or the stragglers still alive.>Superior close range firepowerMissing your shots until your mag is empty doesn't give you superior firepower. You'd need to rely on belt feds to not run out of ammo (like the Germans did in both world wars) or rely on many soldiers engaging with accurate fire (like the British did in the first world war).>>65011097>would 2, 3, 4 or 5 round burst be best and why?I'm biased, but I like 2-round bursts. I've seen so many times where someone shoots a 3-round burst and the third round is a flyer and is wasted. The way to reduce the chances of the third round being wasted is to heavily increase the fire rate of 3-round bursts (look up the HK G11) or limit it to 2 rounds.
>>65010338It's to stop panicky rookies from mag dumping into a bush. >>65011082Yeah but you want to actually have a target to suppress. Burst fire forces a man to stop shooting long enough to check his target.
