So I happen to be lucky I guess as a guy I used to work for and by chance later worked for me up until I retired from the Army also sat on some of the key Army boards for guns. We go back to '85 together and are still great friends to this day. So I gave him a call and knew he would prob know why the Army went back to FA.
This is what he told me: A lot of factors came into play and some of them are the field (as in the soldiers) asked for it and in todays do everything for the soldier or at least look like you are that became a key consideration. In todays social media world Pfc Ziggy Belcher posts on facebook and sends out a tweet the Army won't let him have a FA weapon and that is why soldiers are getting killed.
The justification came from an AAR from the battle of Wanat where approx 50 US were attacked by 200 bad guys. The soldiers said if they had only had FA all would have been good and if the Army does not respond then they post, next thing you know Congress is asking the question of why not FA to save a soldiers life and the snowball continues to grow and obliterates any real facts or data.
So we are back to FA and now I understand why, don't agree, but I also know well how this stuff happens...or as we say: "perception IS reality"
I think crappy old magazines and the m249saw being unreliable are a bigger issue than 3rd burst and auto.
But yes, why not. Auto is more fun. If it gives you more confidence then you should have it. And with the "defense" spending always rising, I'm sure we can "afford" more ammo to make up for it. But I wonder if they'll have to carry more ammo, and if that would make them better in combat.
All my instructors always told me, "Burst is for soldiers, don't use it, you're better than that marine. One shot one kill. These guy's don't rate more than one round."
So we are back to FA and now I understand why, don't agree, but I also know well how this stuff happens...or as we say: "perception IS reality"
As much as I don't like it, that's the way it happens though.
You are right on, we know better but in todays public view of what happens in the military, sometimes you go with the flow...so you are gonna LOVE this!
"Moving Toward a 'Gender-Neutral' Army
Mar 25, 2013
Daily Press, Newport News, Va.| by Hugh Lessig
NEWPORT NEWS -- -- It was 2004 in Iraq, and Cassandra Partee knew something didn't feel right.
She was driving back from a five-hour patrol that had turned into an 11-hour patrol. It was 1 a.m., and she scanned the road as a vehicle up ahead swept the area with floodlights.
Then came something that wasn't supposed to be there, something attached to a guardrail.
"At that point, there's really nothing you can do about it, just pray," she said. "So I stepped on the gas and prayed. The bomb went off on my truck."
Gender neutral: We have not had gender neutral since Adam and Eve and not likely to every have it either until the day that men and women become asexual...and on that note, while you were over there dueling with Hussein in the sandbox I was sitting at TRADOC HQ trying to answer your questions. Like this one (NOT kidding): Women cannot hang their underwear out to dry after being washed because it OFFENDS the Muslims, what can we do about it. I wrote back: Issue mens underwear to all the women, that way the Muslims won't know the difference. (and I added) "In the event that women soldiers do not know how to use mens underwear this officer will cheerfully come over to Iraq and teach women on an individual basis how to get into mens shorts"
All content of this site is copyright 2003 - 2017 AR-10(T)™, AR-10™, are trademarks of ArmaLite, Inc.® AR10T.com is NOT endorsed or affiliated with ArmaLite, Inc.®
About AR10T.com
AR-10(T) is a community focused on rifles, optics, scopes, gear, accessories, and components used by the professional operator and skilled marksman. Enthusiasts, shooters, and gunsmiths alike contribute to our gallery, articles, and reviews Thank you for visiting!