CORRECTION TO THE INFO OF THIS POST FOLLOWS IN SUBSEQURENT POSTS!
The M2 Carbine preceded the MP-44 as an assult rifle. It had selective fire, almost the same energy (just 65 fps slower round - 1900+ vrs 2000+), a much higher rate of fire, and it weighed almost HALF as much as the much too heavy MP44.
I agree with both of you. The MG-42 was, I think, the best MG of the war. It’s rate of fire, reliability, and light weight made it superior.
CORRECTION OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST FOLLOWS IN SUBSEQUENT POSTS!
I have a correction for you. The M2 Carbine was the world’s first assult rifle.
To be an assult rifle, a weapon must meet the following criteria:
The M1 Carbine met these requirements, and became available to serviemen in 1942, two years before the MP44, and was the world’s first assult rifle.
I have a correction for you. The M2 Carbine was the world’s first assult rifle.
To be an assult rifle, a weapon must meet the following criteria:
The M1 Carbine met these requirements, and became available to serviemen in 1942, two years before the MP44, and was the world’s first assult rifle.[/quote]
Good post but where do you get your criteria for what is and isnt an assault rifle. Just curious. ???
Correction:
The Russian Federov Avtomat (1916) was the world’s 1st assult rifle, and was used in WWI. However, the Avtomat was not extremely reliable, and for this reason, the idea of the assult rifle was abandoned by governments for some time.
The MP44 was the world’s 2nd assult rifle, and a few months later the M2 Carbine entered service as the 3rd.
My criteria for an assult rifle comes from what I have learned from military people that have told me that these are the things that make a weapon an assult rifle. One of them is my father who is a Korean War veteran.
http://www.biography.ms/Assault_rifle.html
You may read that the 1st in design was the Italian Cei-Rigotti, but it did not have selective fire (it was semi-automatic only) and this disqualifies it from being a true assult rifle. This weapon was never used by military personell because it was unreliable.
The term “assult rifle” has been replaced today with the term “assult weapon” in most countries because the functions of these weapons have increased, such as adding a folding stock, grenade lauincher, bayonet mount, etc, and a more clear definition has been needed for lawmakers to regulate highly dangerous weapons owned by pricate citizens. Some of these features did not exist in most early “assult rifles”.
Definition of an “assult weapon” at Wikipedia:
(keep in mind that not necessarily all of these criteria must be met for a weapon to be an “assult weapon”. These are simply the features that a weapon may have if it is an assult weapon.
"An assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol with a combination of the following characteristics:
Large capacity detachable magazine, usually defined as holding more than 10 rounds
Military-style appearance, including semi-automatic replicas of military fully-automatic assault rifles
Folding or telescoping stock
Ability to use a grenade launcher, either fixed or detachable
On rifles and shotguns, those with pistol-type grips
A bayonet mount
Threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor or sound suppressor (aka silencer)
Weapons that include a barrel shroud or other covering that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned
On pistols, those on which the magazine attaches outside of the pistol grip"
Just small corrections:
MP43/MP44/StG44 was officially adopted in Nazi’s Army in 1943. Name MP43 was with two adds (W) - MP43 designed by Walther and (H) - MP43 designed by Haenel (where Hugo Smaeisser worked).MP43 (W) and MP 43 (H) hawe a different bolt mechanism and different gas operating mechanism. Later both Walther and Haenel MP43 redisigned as simply MP 43. After few changes that gun named as MP44 and after as result of some secutity reson was renamed as StG 44.
About M1 Carbine (Not M2 !!!) - that outstanding, uncal gun was officially adopted in US Army in 1942 (designed more early, in 1941). That gun was desiged in Winchester Small Arms Co. Design based on M1 Garand.
Most important difference with M1Garand was in cartrige. M1 Garand used 30-06 but M1 Carbine used original .30 cartrige, specially designed for M1 Carabine.
Is it most important difference between “battle rifle” and “assault rifle” - cartriges, used in assault rifle more powerfull than pistol and weaker than rifle cartrige.
Version of M1 Carbine, an M2, got selective fire and 30 rouns mag. This version was adopted in army in 1944, but only about 300 000 was produced (M1 Carbine quantity was more large - more than 6 millions, both M1 and M1A1 (paratroopers version)).
I can agree- M1Carbine was first gun, used special “middle cartrige”.
I can agree - M1 Carbine was first assault rifle, if we don’t look at semy-auto fire only.
Also i should say - M1Carabine got great realability. In late 1990s i hawe seen and used M1 Carbine, produced in 1943 by IBM . That M1 was provided in USSR during WWII by Land-Lease, used in battle and after war used in forrest-guard service near Archangelsk. After about 60 years this gun still in service, still accurate and well operate. One problem - forrest-guard used with this gun self-reloaded cartriges, no more .30 new cartriges available in Russia.
Great, remarkable gun !
Correction for you:
The M1 Carbine was not an assult rifle because it did not have selective fire - it was semi-automatic only. The M2 Carbine did, and was an assult rifle. I corrected my post above. The MP44 began it’s service life a few months before the M2 Carbine. Hence, the MP44 (2nd assult rifle in the world) was in use before the M2 Carbine. But here is more information:
On April 6, 1944, Hitler issued the following decree:
a) The former MG42 is to retain the same designation
b) The former self-loading rifle, known as the Gewehr 43, shall receive the designation Karabiner 43 (K43).
c) The former new MP, known as the MP43, shall receive the designation MP44.
Prior to this, the weapon was only in testing and was not issued to German troops. It did not become in service untill 1944 when it had been renamed from MP43 to MP44.
Also, you are incorrect about the M1 Carbine being based on the Garand. The 2 weapons are totally different in design. The are no similarities whatsoever between the weapons mechanically. The action of the two weapons is totally different. The M1 Carbine had spring operated action. The M1 Garand had gas operated action. Later a gas operated verion of the M2 Carbine was produced.
M1 Garand - top loading
M1 Carbine - bottom loading
You are correct about the reliability of the M1 Carbine. It was an exceptionally reliable weapon, even in adverse conditions. It’s only drawback was that in damp, extreme cold weather the action would get tight and not want to function, and ice build-up would deter function. (When you fire it, heat from the breech causes moisture to condense and feeze on the action.) A small amount of light oil cured this. At Chosin Korea in -40 F temperatures, the US Marines put oil-based hair tonic (used to reduce lice infestation in the field) on the action of their M1 Carbines, and this got them functioning perfectly in the damp, extreme cold.
Correction for you:
The M1 Carbine was not an assult rifle because it did not have selective fire - it was semi-automatic only.[/quote]
Right.
When i tipe mine post - there were no corerections…
Not correct.
Hugo Smeisser start working with predecussor of MP 43 named MKb 42 (H). In september of 1943 was adopted as standard army weapon.
In april of 1944 Mp43 was renamed in MP44.
In december of 1944 MP44 was renamed in StG44, got a bit modified receiver and got fosfated coating (late oxidated).
For me it it not only text somewhere in Internet or in some book - i hawe seen all modification in reality and for me these facts seem clear and bright.
Disagree.
You can see it ?
Okay.
*Then take in hand M1 Garand. Look at bolt. Can you see ? Bolts looks very same, bolt lock - same in both M1 Garand and M1 Carbine, trigger mechanism - same… Differences ? Gas mechanism… M1 Carbine…yes, it was redisigned a bit, but parts and way of operation same…
Way to load ? Uh-huh. Is it really great change ? Sure ? Great difference between top-loaded M1 Garand non-detachable clip feeded magazine and M1 Carbine detachable top loaded magazine ? If for you it for sure difference - okay, is it difference…
Thanks for information. Never hawe heard about hair-tonic, but it sounds reasonable.
And, by the way - send to your father (i hawe read - he fight in Korea) my great respect. If he alive, i hope he are.
Thanks for your kind words about my father. Yes, he is alive, and I have lunch with him about once each week! He is 74 yrs old.
I was misinformed about the M1 Carbine being spring operated. I thought it was! Appearently it was in fact gas operated as you have shown us. Interesting that it was gas operated.
I do still think that there is enough difference between the weapons to say that the carbine is not based on the Garand. If you compared the action of many weapons, there would be considerable similarity between many of them even if they were designed independantly without inspiration from each other.
According to your information, the MP43 entered service just before the MP44. I suppose this would make the MP43 (name only?) the 2nd assult rifle in the world to go into production and see military service.
I have learned quite a bit reasearching thiese matters with you my friends. It looks as though we can now say that the Russiam weapon was the 1st Assult Rifle, the MP43/44 was the 2nd, and the M2 Carbine was the 3rd to see actual military service.
It’s okay. A lot of time i tought about one russian hangun (name don’t speak for all there nothing, but ok, ir was OZ-27) , i was sure that gun hawe same mechanical idea with COlt M1911A2 - short barrel recoil with half-free bolt (i maybe wrong with english-translated russian weaponary terms). A lot of books sayd- this gun same with Colt…
But i got this gun in my hands in one happy day… oh no, no barrel recoil - just free-bolt recoil, like in Walther PPK…
But this gun looks like Colt, massive, with spring under barrel… and a lot of books got mistake… it’s happend time after time.
In sure look we can say - yes, M1Garand and M1Carbine got a lot differences. Firstly - Garand’s gas mechanism got hard link with “operating slide”, when you move bolt - gas piston mowe inside rifle too. M1Carbine dont hawe this hard linkage - gas mechanism only push back bolt during fire, but if you mowe slide - gas mechanism don’t move with it.
Gas cylinder was moved from end of barrel (M1Garand) to receiver, in zone of more highest pressure, because 0.30 cartrige was about 3 tmes weaker than M1 Garand cartrige.
Bolt recol spring was mover from end of bolt to side - in make all mechaism more shorter and compact.
Trigger mechanism M1 Garand and M1 Carbine - same absolutelly.
But M1Carbine got more compact, elegance and better for accurate shoot mechanics parts, thanks to David “Carbine” Williams.
If we don’t like (i - don’t) start resonless discussion about it - i should agree - M1Garand and M1Carbine different enough.
Differences between MP43 and MP44 hawe only tecnological kind. No changes in construction - just some parts was simplefied and become able to produce with stamps.
First combat usage of MP43 was in Stalingrad’s battle (USSR) in 1943. SS troops got these guns as “wunderwaffe”, sended by airsupport, but it don’t help to nazis anyway…
In sure look Fedorov’s rifle wasn’t assault rifle, it’s looks as hevy battle rifle with serlective fire or LMG… but is it another story. I’ll show it later - should go for now…
Yes that’s nice but you wouldn’t last very long so why don’t you like British weapons?[/quote]
All german sub mg is the best for my. :lol:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2258#2258 I started topic about Fedorov’s auto-rifle.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2258#2258 I started topic about Fedorov’s auto-rifle.[/quote]
correction :oops: ,all russian and german weapons is the best 4 me 
It does appear that we agree that the Russian weapon was the 1st assult rifle to see adoption. The 2nd was the MP43/44, 3rd the M2 Carbine.
As for German weapons of WWII;
The SMG’s were not so good. Rifles and MG’s were very high quality. Contrary to what is seen in most WWII movies, the majority of Geman soldiers in WWII used bolt action rifles. This is because the Germans had a war philosophy of rifleman supported by machinegun from the rear (MG42 for example) and moving mechanized weapons to hold down the enemy as the rifleman advanced. It was a flawed philosophy, as was proven in Russia when they met the Sphagin SMG in the cities, and when they met with the Americans in France fighting the Thompson, M1 Garand, and M1 Carbine. The bolt action proved to be simply too slow and too long to provide adequate resistance to sem-auto and fully-automatic weapons.
For example, very fer German soldiers used SMG’s - mostly squad leaders and officers had SMG’s. The average German soldier used a Mauser or other bolt action rifle.
The MP40 was not a very good weapon, and was out of date by the start of WWII because:
MP44:
The reason for German successes on foot against superior weapons was tactics (Blitzkerieg and overwhelming numbers). When the Americans arrived in France, for example, the Germans no longer had overwhelming numbers, their weapons were not adequate, and bombing raids destroyed their supply lines.
There is a common misconception today that “because it was made in Germany, it must be the highest quality”. While German automobiles may be high in quality, not everything made in Germany is today or has always been the best of it’s kind. We hear so much about “German engineering” today. This is simply advertisment designed to promote German automobiles, and has become slang in our language! Germany does not make Volvo, Waterford, Yamaha, Cadillac, Mossburg, AMD, Erickson, Polk Audio, and others. Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti-German at all. However, the idea that because it was German it must have been the best is very incorrect.
This is especially true of semi and fully automatic weapons of the Germans. The Germans were no doubt innovators, but only after the stress of failure became a realization for them in WWII. It was the philosophy of warfare and assumption that the world would give in to German demands and the quick overtaking of enemies with blitzkerieg that caused Germany to not design better weapons prior to the start of WWII. They simply did not think they needed the best weapons to compete with the best armies in the world, and they were quite incorrect.
The Vikings (the 1st inventors of steel in Europe) could have overtaken much of the civilized world had they only organized. Not even steel swords vrs bronze swords was enough for them to control what they conquered. Audacity, ferocity, speed, and tactics are simply not enough to create control.
Glad to see ya there again, friend !
Just opinion, not rule:
High rate of fire allway was a SMG designer’s headache.
High rate of fire for SMG (and assault/battle rifle too) never was good side of weapon.
Why ? It’s easy - when you try fire series with SMG - specially based on free bolt recoil (all WWII SMG and most afterwar) - at distance about 50 meters 4th and all next bullets will be fired at air, is it rule for targets such a middle weight staying man. Expirienced SMG shooters use trick - they pointng in right legg of target (for right handed shooters only)- so first shoot will hit leg, second - somewhere in body, third - with luck - in shoulder or a bit lower. No matter how powerfull you are - recoil of firing SMG will move barrel up and left (right for most SMG and only for right-haded shooter) anyway. So, 4-5 shoot will be highly over head of target. Don’t matter a movies, actors use blank rounds and can fire series in whole magzine, just is it movie.
Why SMG does such effect ? Massive spinged bolt with fixed firing pin on it strike forvard after depressing of trigger, take round from magazine, put round in barrel then - fire. And you got recoil from round (for example, clear recoil like P-38 got, for 9 Para, pretty powerfull), then you got impulse of massive bolt, moving backward, then hit of bolt at back sile of bolt-rails… and after it all repeating, but difference between first and second shoot is bg - bolt movng цер hgh speed and you hawe a hit ща bolt in chamber. A lot of multy-vectors impulces during fire…
With these condtions weight of SMG does matter.
Then more weght hawe SMG - then better this gun will be managable.
Is it reason why Sumi, Thomson in early examples and PPSH or PPD got massive wooden butt and stock.
To make less rate of fire wepon designers use wide tricks. In MP38/40 Folmer designed some kind of pneumatic slower, Thomson in all before-war SMGs got mechanical slower as well as PPSH and PPD.
Bad side of high rate of fare also it… let me show you:
With rate of fire about 900rpm your weapon will be emty about after 3 seconds (with 70 rounds magazine, less for 30 rounds) ceaseless fire. All shoots will be fired in heven - you can’t anage your SMG no more than you can manage mad jackhamer. Is it usual story for non-experienced fighter in battle - shoot all rounds with all possible speed of he’s SMG or auto-rifle then wait for death.
I hope, i sayd about rate of fire enough.
Then we look at cartrige.
9 mm Para. Good pistol cartrige, during WWII usually got lead bullet with copper jacket. Good enough to be usable today in most autopistols and SMG. Got good (not outstanding, just good) stopping power. 1-2-3 shoots in body will be enough to stop enemy, i meand - stop’em do what he doing before your shoots. All seems good, but real distance of effective fire - around 100 - 200 meters for SMG. Can’t do nothing with armor.
11.47 mm Colt Auto. Great cartrige. Got great stopping power, usual one shoot in chest will be enough. During WWII was only with lead bullet . Effective range - 40-100 meters for SMG. Absolutelly useless against light armored things.
7.62 TT. In childhood - 7.63 Mauser Auto. Got great impulse. With poor stoppng power. I personaly know two men, who stayed alive after few headshoots from TT. To stop (i not meand kill - just stop) somebody you need shoot a lot of times. Durng WWII few inds of 7.62 TT cartriges was available. Lead bullet with steel core and copper jacket. Effective range of fire - about 250-300 meters, for SMG. Got not baв armor piercing effect.
But talkng like "MP38/40 (PPSH, Thomson) was good/bad SMG we can’t stay reasonable. Each gun can be used to kill somebody, and at war each SMG was usable. Yes, each SMG got own probles - MP38/40 was not very durable, PPSH was glumsy (just try walk with PPSH with drum magazine, cared with strap at shoulder - after time youк back will got a pian), with bad safer, Thomson was unmanagable during continues fire and with short range of effective fire…
I never seen SMG without problems, maybe only HK MP 5 family can be pointed as really good SMG. For own destination, offcourse. At short distance. Specific weapon.
Preatorian, you post earlier about the Russian assult rifle was very informative. I liked it very much. You had so many truthful things to say. Great post.
True. Even the makers of Quake put this effect into the SMG in that game. : ) I believe a semi-automatic light rifle (assult rifle) is a better choice - no wonder they are adopted so widley by military forces today. One or two rounds placed accurately are better than a spray from an SMG, in general.
True that the recoil will raise the barrel, but ofcourse SMG’s are typically not fired that way, but instead are fired mostly with short bursts, such as to hit a man who has exposed himself. In city fighting for example, imagine that you are a Russian ussing a Sphagin. There are German soldiers criss-crossing the street to advance through the city. As he runs across the street for cover at an adjacent building, you fire a bust of 7-8 rounds from your Sphagin. You chances of at least hitting him are not so bad when you fire so many rounds so quickly, and the first 2 rounds are not so unlikely to find their target. The closer the enemy, the better chances of hitting, and at less than 50 meters, you have a very good chance of hitting them with at least one round.
Another scenario: Soldiers are advancing and you are firing bursts from your SMG to keep them down. Every time they raise up to move, here comes 5-10 bullets. Quite effective for making a man want to stay put!
Another scenario: You come face to face with 3 enemies in the streets. Holding the trifgger of your high rate SMG will give you a good chance to kill some or all of them before they have a chance to aim at you.
In a pistol, the 9mm was good, but in 1940’s era SMG’s it wass not so good. The energy from the smaller round must be used to operate the hammer, and that can lead to jamming and weak hit power. Modern weapons are better, but then, we have had 60 years to perfect the 9mm automatic weapon.
I dissagree completely. There are quite a few very good SMG’s today. The new American carbine (XM8 - new HK weapon) for example. The M4 Colt has proven to be a fine weapon also. The UZI (although not good for anything but close combat) is compact and highly reliable. There are others.
You are correct though, all SMG’s have the problem of raising the muzzle, but that is just a symptom of having an automaic-capable weapon. Even so, the German SMG’s of WWII simply were not the equivelent of those of Russia and the US. It is good for all that the era of the SMG is over, and assult rifles have become the standard wepon of today’s military.
Sure. I can subscribe each word in your text. Same with “scenarios”. PPSH was really good for close battle, mostly in trenches, city street fight (most usable for all SMG, IMHO) and etc. In any situation with close short-time high-intensive battle. Using SMG as instrument for covering fire… in short distances - why not ? Even if you don’t hawe LMGs or something like that.
This point - discutable, but i guess - you don’t like MP38/40 or 9mm Para… 
MP38/40 got a lot of jams - hawe read about it and hawe heard about it from my both grandfathers (one was in cavalary (yes, with horses…) and other was a… i hawe no idea how it sounds in english, but he was a soldier, who become a soldier just from jail and was not usual solder, but something like slave… how my grandfather manage to survive - is it another story, someday i hope i’ll do something like writer-work about it).
And MP38/40 got a really glumsy magazine - was hard to feed it, practically impossible feed all 30 rounds, usually shooters feed only 28 or even 26 rounds - so hard was to press last rounds inside magazine. Is it because magazine holded rounds in two rows, like most magazines today.
But in noral magazine rounds come out by two rows one round from one row then one round from another row. In MP38/40 rounds re-fomationing in one row in magazine’s neck. Why Folmer decide use this construction - no one know…
All construction was pretty weack, you right - if you try to holt MP38/40 by magazine durindg fire - at least you’ll got miss-load jam.
But anyway - MP38/40 was good enought to kill somebody at short distance.
I dissagree completely. There are quite a few very good SMG’s today. The new American carbine (XM8 - new HK weapon) for example. The M4 Colt has proven to be a fine weapon also. The UZI (although not good for anything but close combat) is compact and highly reliable. There are others.
You are correct though, all SMG’s have the problem of raising the muzzle, but that is just a symptom of having an automaic-capable weapon. Even so, the German SMG’s of WWII simply were not the equivelent of those of Russia and the US. It is good for all that the era of the SMG is over, and assult rifles have become the standard wepon of today’s military.[/quote]
Uh-huh… IRONMAN, do you really meand XM-8 and M-4 as SMGs or i not catchin’-in something in your post !!! Is it matter of personal point of view, offcourse, but i sure XM-8 (as he’s father G-36) and my favorite M-4 are assault rifles. Probably in short version something like carbine/assault carbine (woa, new term i found). My idea about SMGs - they should use pistol cartrige anyway, not rifle cartrige like 223Win/SS109…
So i can agree with UZI - for these times good cheap SMG, i hawe shoot with UZI a lot and can say - is it not most reliable SMG for present time - i was tired about miss-load jams. And manage UZI during fire… oh, it was a hard task - very high rate of fire. I meand UZI in standard version, not mini- or micro- UZI. At my look - MP38/40 better than UZI, more comfortable and managable SMG… is it more mine emotional discision than some kind of technical thing. And if i need something really compact - i will ask for Ingram 0.45 CAP…
Best SMG from WWII that i hawe tested was PPS, Sudaev - really good army SMG for WWII time.
Thomson… oh, that was respectable machine. Sad, but i never fired with late during-war simplefied Thomson (M1944 ?), only shoot with M1924… hard to hold it, recoil and muzzle rize great… but so powerfull gun… no one will come back for extra-bullets, each will fall to ground perfectly stasfacted. At short distance, offcourse.
And i only once got in arms M3 Greasy Gun - never shoot… so, i hawe no idea how good SMG it was.
Man with PPSH (Shpagin) once was а mine suspect, we went in gunplay with’em and i survived. He not. Maybe 'cos i was with AKM, maybe 'cos i not like auto-fire - he fired in my direction 38 rounds and no one hit me. I fire 3 shoot in semi-auto, all in target. Distance was about 100 meters, in clear bright windless day, in wood.
I dreamed about SMG or shootgun when sometimes we got situations with hostages/terrorists - we were with AKM (7.62mm) and late with AK-74 (5.45mm) assault rifles - and it was nightmare. How to shoot and don’t hit somebody innocent behind a wall, and a lot of ricoshets… oh, i need SMG or shootgun in these day, but no way - only AKs we got or PM 9mm autopistols (copy of Walther PPk), no more choise.
MP-5 for my taste - most great SMG in police-actions.
By the way - how there bussines doing with XM-8 ? Looks pretty damn good toy, specially good as modified version of G-36. By HK advertizins - some great thing, such a LEGO in weapon’s world.
I like M16/CAR15 practically in all versions and modifications - my not big expirience with it was very good, accurate, handsome rifle, and no empty shells flew in face when i shoot from my left shoulder (AK for me uncomfortable - i shoot from left shoulder and each time got few empty shells in my forehead during shooting - it makes no pain, but make me nervous).
Yes Preatorian, I mentioned SMG’s and assult rifles as being the same. I did mean to seperate them, however, the newest generation of weapons seem to fall somewhere in between and are both at the same time. Thier rate of fire is pretty high, the ammo is small rifle calibre, and they are very short machines. Also, they have managed to reduce the recoil enough to make automatic use more effective and more usable than with older assult rifles. That is the perception I get from them. They are fired in fully automatic mode nowadays more than assult rifles have been in the past.
For example, the American troops in Iraq have been using thiers as fully automatic quite a bit. I have watched a lot of video of them fighting, and they seem to hold the trigger much longer than in years past. I guess the idea is, “To hell with how much ammo we use, hit the enemy!” I suppose US troops don’t worry about a lack of ammo in warfare anymore. They bring with them far more than they migh use. Maybe that is one reason fior thier using their weapons in auto so much.
I think this has been the American theory since the Vietnam war. Point, Spray and Hope. Actually dont remember ever hearing reports of Americans being low on ammo for very long. I could be wrong but I thought I did hear that the Americans fired 100,000 rounds of ammo per enemy kill in Vietnam. And I agree Ironman from what ive seen in Iraq its usually always fully auto. Either that or the 3 shot bursts. But if you look around the news here in the US im sure that you can see we do not have a ammo problem on any level. Doesnt matter what your gun is im sure we have some bullets for it laying around here some where. lol :roll:
Few reason to use M4 in auto mode i can see
By the way, my friend, who serve in Iraq, sayd, that sometimes some troops hawe own, taked from home, 7.62, mostly M1A Springfield rifles (mostly scoped too) (civilian version of M14) - with reason of bigger effective range, for open space combats.
I can’t be sure how possible it, but i don’t hawe reasons don’t trust to my friend.
Preatorian my friend, I dissagree with several things you have said.
That is precicely what I said in my previous post when I mentioned the use of the SMG in city fighting.
None of the carbine assult rifles used by any of the nations of the world have the range to fight at distances of 400+ meters. So why do you point at the M4? BTW, most of the fighting done in Iraq today is city fighting - ranges of up to 200+ meters. A carbine assult rifle is ideal for that environment. However, the US, like all armies, carries more than one weapon to war. Here are some of the weapons the US uses in Iraq:
M16A4M24 7.62mm Sniper Rifle
M40A3 Sniper Rifle
M16A2
M4
M4A1
M14
Mark II Mod 0
SMRLMR
M82A3 SASR
XM107
M249 Squad Automatic Weapon
In WWII there was the M1 Garande - good at long distances, and the M1 Carbine - good at medium & close distances. These things are the same today. According to what you are saying, every army in the world has trouble hitting the enemy in open spaces. All of the armies of the developed world use assult rifle type weapons as their standard issue and long-range rifles where needed. The US is no different, so what are you trying to point out?
Wait, I thought you just said, “…sometimes you need only to suppress enemy”. So what do you think covering fire is? Is it not to surpressing the enemy while troops move? Yes, I understand the difference between general surpressing fire and covering fire, but they are intended to do the same thing - keep the enemy down, imobile, and not shooting at you.
Covering fire is a concept that is been deployed by every army in the world (US, Britain, Russia… etc). It is used by your country’s army and mine. I don’t think that you or I have better knowledge of how to fight building-to-building combat better than those professional militaries do. Let’s see you run across an open area without it when facing numerous enemies. Send a letter to your parents first.
Huh? It’s a carbine assult rifle. All armies of the modern world use short carbine assult rifles where the breech is not too far from the shooter’s face. I hardly think after billions of rounds of testing, they would put the weapon into full production if it had a continuing problem of burning the shooter’s face. The weapon was not developed by Mickey Mouse you know. lol Nonesence. I doubt even the smallest governemnt in the world which develops it’s own weapons would issue such a flawed weapon to it’s army. Every weapon has imperfections, but none that would frequently or even rarely burn the shooter’s face are going to be issued by ANY country’s military.
Besides, the US has the most advanced and most expensive military weapons development complex in the world which develops the most advanced firearms in the world. The idea that they would issue weapons so flawed as you perport to the US armed services is perposterous.
It sounds like you have fallen prey to funny information designed to discredit a great weapon, simply because it is American. It happens all the time.
Free weapons? Cool. Who would not want to take one home if they could.
Surely you are not trying to say they hate their own issued weapon so much, or that they want to take a Springfield home to fight in the US with it? Because that surely is what you are trying to imply.