[geeks] CCW for Ohio!

[Francisco Javier Mesa-Martinez]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Phil Stracchino wrote:

> Any more.
>
> (Personally, I consider the three-round-burst feature a good idea for
> untrained troops, but with proper fire discipline and trigger control,
> it shouldn't be necessary.

As far as my experience was with US troops is that they had a lower set of
expectations when it came to the markmanship skills of its basic units.
I.e. an American soldier or marine, is made quicker and in larger quantities.
Whereas for example in the old world, we have fewer Euro soldiers, so we need
to make sure we make them troops count. Also there was, at least during my time,
and incredible reliance on technological might and lack of certain basic -rough
cut- skills. That may have changed, but in that context the 3 shot limitation
sort of makes sense.

Does the carbine version of the M-16 (AR-21?) also have the 3 round burst
limit? I have used diemacos, and they had full auto. Some of my colleages
that are still in spec ops use them (they are not constrained to issue
requirements in some units/deployments), well the diemaco made model of
it. I have seen that almost all American troops use them vs. whatever was
the last revision of the 16 (A3?).


  I know from personal experience I can
> squeeze off consistent two and three round bursts with an automatic
> weapon.)

Exactly, most people develop that skill after a while.... but at least in
my case it took a while to have the discipline to know when a burst was
needed, and when I had to empty it all. I haven't shoot in ages, but the
whole basic finger motions may still be there.

> > Other machines, and of course the AK comes to mind as the natural counter
> > example, do not make much sense unless you spray with them.
>
> No, whether you're using an AK, a G3, or an M16, short controlled bursts
> are your friend.

That was not my experience with the AK though, the problem is that you
need a good machined AK to get any decent accuracy. We had a few machines
during my training, and literally every AK we had felt differently. I
liked the G3 A LOT because it behaved well in both machine gun-mode and
rifle-mode. The training I had with US M-16 did not quite "hit it" with me.

 "Spray and pray" makes a lot of noise, impresses your
> friends if they don't know better, and burns up ammo fast; it's
> occasionally of limited tactical value as suppressive fire when it all
> just dropped in the pot, but it's not much good for hitting anything.

We used the term "spray paint" :), sometimes you do not know where exactly
the bad dude(s) are, but you sort of know the general area. When the shit
hits the fan sometimes you have to play with probabilities :). This is of
course not the "official" issue training, as you should always be able to
identify the threat, but...


 > > To this point
> > the whole machine, including the muzzle anti-torque (I do not know the
> > correct term in English) is geared towards rapid fire. Heck even the
> > cartridge tells you about what is the intended approach for the machine.
>
> Really?  So how do you consider the 7.62x39 round different from the
> 5.56x45 round as far as "intended use" of the rifle firing it?

At least in my personal experience, the AK had much much much stopping
power. But it was hard to make sure that the bullet landed where you sort
of thought you wanted it to go, so I would not say that the instinct was
to spray with it, but at least in my personal case I was a bit more
trigger happy with the AK than my issue G3/CETME or SIIG. Of course it is
all personal perception, but for some reason the AK felt quite stable with
longer bursts, that is why I was referring to the muzzle design.

> Both were designed for the same purpose -- a light round (so that troops
> can carry a lot of it) of greater than pistol-caliber power (so that
> it's more effective than a submachinegun), with low recoil impulse (to
> that it's controllable in automatic fire), to be fired in a rifle not
> intended to be used to engage targets beyond about 400 meters.  The fact
> that the US opted for a lighter, smaller-caliber bullet at higher
> velocity is, practically speaking, neither here nor there, except to
> note that it took several generations of revision of both the M16 and
> its ammunition to make them actually work as originally intended, while
> the Kalashnikov worked just fine "out of the box", as it were.

Well, you are correct... but as perception is a big part of things. For
whatever reason the M-16 and our issue field rifle, felt more like... well
a rifle. Probably because of the training, The AK for whatever reason felt
different, and I am bad at describing it. It is like a sports car, two
different makes have the same goal, drive fast, but each make feels
different in its own sort of way.