What's more effective, a 2 round burst or a 3 round burst?

What's more effective, a 2 round burst or a 3 round burst?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1920x1080, 228K)

no burst mechanism to fuck up your trigger pull

depends but I don't know shit and I'm not a researcher but I would think neither is effective. on a basic level I would say 2 rounds for that give you a 15 pulls of the trigger over 3 rounds which would be 10 pulls of the trigger before a 30rd mag is empty.

Bursts generally throw off your aim so they're pretty ineffective over anything but very short distances. The only exception I know of is the AN-94.

Very few professional soldiers will ever need to use a burst fire mode over their careers, full auto for clearing buildings (but even then not strictly necessary or advisable) and single shot for everything else.

Read up on army practices or what soldiers have said. They essentially never use full-auto or burst modes.

Attached: 1411634374919.jpg (590x390, 71K)

2. The third goes off in the distance, never to be seen.

Get out and try a binary trigger. You can see that a really fucking fast burst of 2 gets you within 3-4” of the same spot.

People who randomly add fuck to things thinking it makes them funny are the absolute worst kind of people

2 rounds. First bullet misses, second hit the target, and the third go sky high.

Attached: 854bda352029.jpg (1140x388, 322K)

3 round. Even with stopping power on you can't kill anyone with two rounds except from a sniper rifle, Desert Eagle, FAL, or M60.

3 round M-16 or FAMAS burst kills in one shot, two at range behind cover.

I always preferred the AK for better hip fire thought and it's still effective at range if you fire in bursts.

7 round burst. makes the soldier really think about whether to pull that trigger and waste 7 rounds or to save them for a better moment

i see you're a fellow military guy. im guessing you fought in the cold war? lots of good men died there.

its not used in building clearing or short distances at all. Its there for suppressive fire if your MG goes down

Depends what you're doing, and what you're doing it with. Machinegunners generally use long bursts for area targets at medium and longer ranges, and short bursts at closer ranges. Submachinegunners may use shorter bursts at any range, because up close you need the control and farther away the weapon isn't going to be as accurate as something longer.

In general though, as others have pointed out, if you have time to be pumping out a bunch fo semi-aimed or unaimed bursts, you have time to be using aimed fire. The only reason you wouldn't be using aimed fire would be if you were suppressing a position.

(In this latter case you're still "aiming", just at an area target rather than a point target.)

I mean, if you hand someone an M-16 with a three-round burst and a G36 with a two-round burst... they're both assault rifles. They both have roughly the same combat profile. Very, very little in life is going to come down to dying, surviving, winning, or losing because your burst limiter cuts out at X number of rounds.

>neither is effective
Nigger what. You are correct, you don't know shit.

I was trained to select auto before assaulting a trench, along with fixing bayonet and swapping in a fresh mag. Stick a guy, give him a burst, plant foot, extract, repeat - plus or minus the sticking and extracting, depending on distance. Of course, I understand at least one American branch is either toying with the idea of phasing out the bayonet or has actually already done so. Whatever.

What the fuck

Do not do this

Make separate post's instead of shitting up the thread

Nigger what the fuck? In what universe should I have to wait fifteen million seconds to post separate replies to a bunch of different posts when I can just post them all in the same entry?

Literally everybody has been doing this since the dawn of Jow Forums and nobody has ever cared. If somebody sends you an email with a bunch of different points, do you reply with separate emails to each point? Fuck off outta here. Dipshit.

Also
>post's

Do not do this

>fixing bayonet
ok gramps go get your favorite Vietnam Veteran hat and let me wheel you the fuck off of this website

Navy Seals use single fire for room clearing. One pull for each shot. However they use Geisselle triggers. Likely 3.5lb break. Which makes me think that makes the difference.
Full-auto is really only for suppressive fire. The Army said it was moving away from the burst fire (3 rounds).

This was 2007. Afghanistan was in full swing.

For that matter, the Brits and the US each had at least one bayonet charge in Iraq in 2004. The Brits had another in 2011, in Afghanistan.

And of course there were a bunch of bayonet charges during the Falklands.

So anyway, without any pissing or dick-measuring contests, let me ask you a couple of very simple questions:

What do you think has adequately replaced the bayonet, for hand-to-hand?

What do you think has adequately replaced the bayonet charge, for shock effect?

The reason the bayonet doesn't see a lot of use these days is mainly because most professional (First and to an extent Second World) forces have finally gotten the hang of logistics. Generally you don't need to resort to your bayonet if you have bullets to send downrange.

But they still do get some use, such as in the trenches, or when you're at a position of disadvantage and/or surrounded or penned in by a numerically superior force.

They have first hand accounts of troops using knives in CQB. Baynoettes are more for enemy charging you on a open terrain.

This.

Attached: skeltal.gif (255x192, 274K)

Entrenching tool always wins in the trenches.

Off yourself