/k/ - Weapons

>>651548

You could at least add what kind of trigger group and lower your particular bottle opener is for.

My official opinion is that machine guns should be select fire (heavy machine guns, light machine guns, submachine guns, automatic rifles) absolutely, they are built for the very purpose and can handle full automatic and gain something from it. I posted elsewhere I would like, and may one day acquire, a semi auto no NFA stamp MG3/MG42, even without full auto. But damned if it doesn't really doesn't take a lot of potential out of the gun. Such guns are of the weight, build, caliber to be controlled on full auto, are used for suppression (save for SMG) that enjoys controlled bursts full auto offers, can maintain high rates of fire (save for SMG), are at their best at full automatic. The SMG handles full auto well and is best with it, skilled shooters who choose single shot aren't hurt with the option.

As far as battle rifles and assault rifles, that's a tougher one. Assault rifles can gain something out of it CQB as mentioned in this thread, sometimes close range controlled automatic has its place. As much as I don't like the AR so much, I do agree with the three round burst idea for the assault rifle, even at range it offers a controlled, single trigger pull burst to help improve hits and not a full on, burn through a magazine to accomplish nothing but burn the barrel idea. Civilian binary triggers can do something similar (if they aren't/don't get banned), the three round burst is good for close range as well. So, assault rifles do have something to be gained in certain situations, but then again full auto is a barrel burning ammo waster in ranged combat, taking it off may "idiot proof" the gun in some sense.

Battle rifles are interesting in the fact that Britain ACTUALLY fucking did it to their rifles. They took away full auto on their battle rifles out of choice to their troops. Wither this should be left as an option, wither this should be a matter of training and not taking away the option, is an interesting bit. But the fact a major world power did it shows you the nature of the rifle, standard battle rifles simply do not have the moxy to control the weapon in a meaningful way. To control the weapon, even in CQB, might just be better off with trained rapid fire single shot instead of a full auto string. Their firepower means they can do well without full auto, in theory, and especially in civilian cases, and have the least to be gained from full automatic because of control, even at closer ranges under combat conditions. I don't think the Argentinians gained an unstoppable advantage with full auto FAL's vs. the British rifles.

I classify purpose built heavy barrel rifles like the HB FAL and M14 variants to fit closer to the automatic rifle category than a battle rifle. Its intended for auto fire and as a support weapon, so more like the BAR. They are best off with full auto, of course.

And another point, as mentioned in battle rifle paragraph, in civilian and police situations where the Hague is off the table, the battle rifle will do very well without full automatic. If allowed to use soft points, the cartridges in battle rifles are almost guaranteed one stop shots, even minor hits can be crippling. The sheer advantage of firepower gained from increased terminal effect can offset the lack of full automatic fire. I have my battle rifles selected for home defense, even though the possibility is extremely low someone will attack, and I am not bothered by the lack of full automatic on my FAL, PTR, or M1a. Some of this is my capability, but also the fact that hunting rounds will render any crackhead useless with one or two shots with ease.

tl;dr I don't mourn the lack of full auto on my battle rifles, I would think heavily about getting a binary trigger for my assault rifles, and I am fucking sore about not having full auto capabilities on my subguns. I'm actually very upset about the possiblity of getting a MG3 like I want and not having it full auto. Reasons why are explained above.

>>651544

It honestly depends on what kind of group we are talking about and the logistical requirements each group has. But assuming both are equal, it comes down to range.

A semi auto AK/AR will be equal to a full auto gun at ranges beyond 75m. A semi auto AK/AR with an echo trigger is essentially a burst weapon, and as such can have a rate of fire matching that of their full auto cousins. The beltfeds, especially the non heavy weapons such as GPMGs and SAWs are going to be heavily in favor of full auto. And I say this a someone who owns a semi auto x54r belt fed. HMGs and semi-auto belt fed .50s are about equal if a crank is used on the semis.

A lot of the disadvantages semi autos have can be mitigated through proper tactics.

>>651587

>But damned if it doesn't really doesn't take a lot of potential out of the gun.

As the owner of a semi auto UK-59, it actually doesn't. Most GPMGs are uncontrollable in full auto unless they are mounted or tripoded. I've been to Big Sandy and I've shot some beltfeds at other venues, and I can assure you that any tactical advantage you have will be negated by the cost and weight of ammo, especially in a patrol/freehand setup. The average MG belt is 100 rounds. The average MG has a cyclic rate of 600+ rounds per minute. The cheapest x54r I can find is $120 per 440rnd tin. That means I would need to spend a shit load of money to feed the gun since the US taxpayer isn't subsidizing my training. This means you or I won't be doing mag dumps if you are freehanding the gun. You'll be bursting, something that can be closely approximated in semi auto with a very light trigger. The don't make echo triggers for any of the semi-auto full power beltfeds on the market, but with the cost of ammo, I wouldn't install it if they did.

>>651553

Just looking at it, I would assume that specific opener is for M16 type soda bottle caps, not the AR15 twist type. Trigger group looks like standard typical milspec food group.

Depends on so many factors it renders the question a pointless argument starter with no real hope of resolution.

There are weapons and tactics where having the capability for automatic fire is an advantage. The side with machine guns is naturally going to favor those factors, and favor scenarios where their strengths can be utilized. Conversely, there are weapons and tactics where having the capacity for automatic fire is NOT an advantage. The side without access to machine guns is going to favor scenarios where they can play to the strengths they do have, mitigate any disadvantages, and deny the enemy the full utility of their own strengths.

Attempting to use a self loading rifle like a SAW, using fire-and-movement tactics against an enemy with real machine guns is just giving yourself a handicap and asking to get killed. But if you take that same self loading rifle and use it to perform a sniper ambush, that's thinking smart.

How useful is hyperburst for regular infantry?

>>651603

Good points, and I lost track of the OP's scenario. One could point out hypotheticals like a Red Dawn where unorganized or loose groups of people would be fighting on the side of the government against foreign invasion, in which case Uncle Sam might actually be paying for/giving you ammo, or any type of situation where a GPMG owner owns a tripod or would mount the gun on a truck, but yes that is irrelevant in the context of the thread.

>>651673

>hip firing

not accurate shooting, bad method.

>take the AK-107

>now even the average sub 90 IQ grunt is capable of accurate full-auto fire at 100+ meters

Why don't we do this? You can't convince me that these rifles are so much more expensive that the government will start losing precious shekels

Dunno about CQC but full auto definitely gives advantage for fire & advance tactics, nothing keep the enemy down than a hall of bullet.

inb4 muh accurate semi-auto suppression

It's an american meme. You can do accurate full auto suppression as well.

>>651681

>prone

>crouch

>rest against object

Congratulation you just do what the 107 was made to do.

>>651680

At the ranges >>651548 is talking about it doesn't matter.

>>651682

Accuracy isn't the difference that concerns suppressability, even if shooting to kill is far better suppression than retarded 'shoot to scare' tactics. The real difference is that a lower rate of fire can actually be better for suppressive fire because it allows you to suppress for longer periods and makes it easier for your supporting gunner to cover for you while you reload. Longer sustained fire + shorter pauses = superior suppression. What people don't realise is that rates of fire above 600 RPM are great for trailing vehicles and aircraft, but no human is ever going to move fast enough that it's possible for him to get a break in a 500 RPM stream, or even 200, and you only begin to have a fire coverage benefit at extreme ranges where your MG is probably shooting 6 MOA anyway. Wasting bullets in the dirt offers no tactical advantage at all, and personally, I'd rather have the slower, more controllable gun in a skirmish scenario, because anyone who's stupid or ballsy enough to pop his head out of cover is still getting shot regardless.

With this in mind, the rate of fire of MGs does make them retardedly good at just eating through cover like concrete and trees where single shots won't penetrate, so a semi-auto team would have to plan accordingly and keep their positions either mobile enough to confuse the enemy gunners, or spread out and hidden enough that they don't receive focused fire. However, I'm going to assume that OP was referring to a fight between only riflemen, and in that case the semi-auto guys definitely have a suppression and marksmanship advantage as long as they're able to pick their fights. Stay out of close range, set up crossfires, and use shoot and scoot tactics when appropriate.

Honestly, this question is just asking how Taliban guys on bicycles with Dragunovs and Mosins were able to defeat NATO battalions with superior firepower. They kept their distance, ambushed, pinned the enemy down, and then ran as soon as shit got too hot.

>>651695

Shooting prone actually increases felt recoil because your body can't move to cushion the shot, being pinned to the ground. Prone shooting is only an improvement to stabilising your aim, and doesn't help with follow-up shots. Exceptions are limited to guns that are so heavy that their own mass absorbs and resists the recoil energy, at which point we're talking about GPMGs, HMGs, and antimateriel rifles. You won't be shooting those things off the shoulder anyway, except for GPMGs in rare cases.

Sage for double post.

>>651548

this, I wish these semi-auto shilling mouth breathing retard boomers would drop dead already. Name one fucking time a group of people with semi's defeated a group with full auto, you neevry heard any stories of it because they're all dead.

>>651842

>Honestly, this question is just asking how Taliban guys on bicycles with Dragunovs and Mosins were able to defeat NATO battalions with superior firepower. They kept their distance, ambushed, pinned the enemy down, and then ran as soon as shit got too hot.

But this is not true, these "dragunov and mosin" are backed by AKM/AK74 and PKM, which outrange the NATO squad firing power (assuming the squad doesn't have a DM or a guy with a M240).

This is the real example of american ignorance.

>>651587

>>651603

So, the bigger the round, the more fire power you have for a given firing rate, as compared to a less powerful cartridge which requires a higher rate of fire to match the power of the larger rounds.

How many French children did Lloyd eat?

>>651909

>backed by AKM/AK74

If he's talking about 600+ meter engagements, those don't mean much, even if they are scoped.

>PKM

True, but the hit and run tactic is still valid. PKM/SVD/Mosin fire the same round, just different rates of fire. Want PKM/M240 level of saturation without full auto? 3-4 guys with 7.62 NATO semi auto battle rifles concentrating fire on a point.

>>651915

Not quite. Its just that you realistically don't need more than 400-600 rounds per minute to suppress infantry targets (honestly you could probably get by with less with proper planning). Browning M1919 had a ROF of ~400 rounds per minute and did a fine good job of suppressing through out WWI and WWII. High ROF on a GPMG or heavier is better if you have:

1) Tripod/Mounted MG

2) Targeting aircraft/vehicles

3) Destroying cover via concentrated fire

>>651923

Which explains why every taliban are renowned snipers with muh dragnoff and AKM/PKM are shunned.

Nope, they carry more AK than PKM, lack of markmanship is one, volume of fire is another.

The germans have perfected this kind of machine gun and rifle relationship in WW2 already, albeit the MG34/42 fired too fucking fast and was prone to breakage due to that. Still, it doesn't matter. Your main arm is still the machine gun, it fires, you move, it moves, you fire, repeat.

>>651937

>Nope, they carry more AK & PKM than dragunov*

>>651917

spandau

>>651953

I still find it hilarious that so many NEETsocs got so triggered by him using a slang word that they were butthurt for months and had to autistically strawman the entire video and even go to the extent of just inventing things the video supposedly said, while being ignorant of the fact that even a nogunz like him made correct conclusions about each gun's advantages. It's like saying an entire fiction book about the Battle of Stalingrad is shit because the American author used the word 'Schmeisser' for flavour.

>>651937

>AKM/PKM are shunned.

Never said that. If you gave the average Taliban fighter a choice between an SVD/G3/FAL or an AK and they were going to shoot long (400+ meter) range, would they still choose the AK? And PKM/GPMG saturation fire can be replicated using several men armed with full power rifles firing in tandem at a specific target.

>>651548

>Go to any paintball match.

>Go to any laser tag match.

>Go to any airsoft match.

>Go to any sim-ammo war games

Those are one hit and you're out games though. I agree select fire has advantages and shouldn't be regulated, but semi only isn't half bad at all.

>>651957

It was the funniest thing that happened in years, that's my simple opinion about it.

>>651548

>go to any [no recoil control required] match

>>651842

The other potential advantage of the machine gun is the fact that with tracers and good support like the tripod it can quickly zero in on long range targets and hit them. Its faster and better for a well controlled machine gun to blast rounds off and see where they land and correct the holdover to pummel a target, far easier than the rifleman can. This is especially advantageous when you have standoff, its what makes the machine gun so powerful in defense and offense. Here full automatic, wither low or high rate of fire, pays dividends.

>>651926

And with this post, I agree that suppression is best when there is conservative, intelligent bursts used. Suppression can be done with far fewer rounds than what are used, watching real battle footage from the front you realize how much is simply wasted. I understand they are under combat conditions and under stress, it doesn't change the objective fact that when a machine gunner is blowing through belts as fast as he can and jamming the gun up fucking good he is wasting ammunition to no gain and putting his squad or platoon, company, at risk. When he fucking runs of ammunition when they need it, when they have to pull out or lose advantage because you are out of rounds. How well was he covering his boys when the gun was locked up tight because he ran it to hot? The best soliders with good discipline can use 9 magazines or several hundred rounds on belts for a very long time indeed in many situations. It comes down to not simply pure waste, but bad acts by soldiers under stress. Indeed, the semi auto rifle or the 3 round burst rifle do indeed help out with this problem.

As for RoF I think there are great advantages to the American guns like the BAR and M-60 which ran slow, kept barrels cooler, kept guns running longer on jams and ammunition. This is why many countries who accepted the MG3 into service often reduced their fire rates, which I agree with in some ways and understand. Then again the ultra high rate machine guns, in the right hands with discipline, can offer some advantage when aimed short bursts are used. Probability of more hits on target, more chance of a hit period with a short fast burst like the theory of the HK G11. The ultra high RoF can be beneficial in the right hands. Its a bad thing under retard controls.

>>651915

Bit more complicated than that. At some point, in terms of range, a K98 or G98 or Mosin et al bolt action combat rifle with iron sights will be a better choice for hitting a target at 600+ yards than any scoped MP5 or other 9mm carbine/SMG. There are things a 300 WinMag or 338 Lapua can do that a 308 cannot or other calibers cannot. At 1,000 yards a 5.56 NATO needs a light machine gun on a tripod with tracers to see where to hit to be effective; a 7.62 NATO high end rifle can do this single shot. On a windy day a 308 battle rifle is a better gun single shot at 500 yards than an automatic 5.56 NATO assault rifle using burst.

In terms of terminal performance you are closer on track, even with hollow points a 9mm SMG typically is shot in 3 round controlled single shots or controlled automatic burst, multiple hits to ensure incapacitation because if poorer terminal performance. Same thing as the modern handgun strategy of multiple hits to center mass to make sure a bullet will hit something of value/multiple wounds will incapacitate. As you move towards more capable rounds and loads this whole idea changes. Assault rifles and battle rifles using ball sit in the middle, capable of high damage and high potential for single shot stops, yet multiple hits and bursts may be a standard strategy to ensure incapacitation. By the time you reach battle rifles using hunting bullets and big boi shotgun at close range against no armor the tactic switches to single shot with secondary shots as possible follow ups; not multiple shots and bursts as standard protocol.

FACT: my 10 bore shotgun loaded with buckshot is more dangerous with one center mass hit than an MP5 burst. As for concepts of general 'firepower" which is a real but vague concept, trying to define RoF and round potential is a long winded but worthy subject with no final answer.

>>651926

>Browning M1919 had a ROF of ~400 rounds per minute and did a fine good job of suppressing through out WWI and WWII.

Or to go even lower, the Chauchat was just fine with a RoF of 240. That's so low a good shooter can shoot faster, so it's really not that demaning on the gun. Yet I doubt that most people would run through an open field while someone is firing at them with such a slowly firing weapon.

>>651548

how old are you little fella?

>>651548

>comparing games in which everyone is a suicidal rambo, cover and concealment are identical, there are thousands of rounds at your disposal, everything happens within 10 yards and there are no consequences for poor decisions to actual combat.

>>651548

None of that shit really has the recoil, and most of it has incredibly close ranges.

>>651548

Given the number of replies this has gotten, I beginning to think this was actually a very well disguised troll post. Good job anon.

>>651548

>comparing a 200 round hopper on a paintball marker to a 30 round mag

Are you underage, retarded, or both?