Shortcommings of the "spray and pray" philosophy

[Hazcat]

1/10 a second its not alot of time.  

1/10 of a second is a LONG time.

TAB, I know you have heard an M60 fire.  Sure doesn't sound like 600 rounds per second (at least not to me).  Sounds more like one per 1/2 second.

All I'm saying in the end is that full auto SOUNDS a lot more scary when described (or shown in the movies) than it is in reality.

Standing and sweeping yer "Tommy Gun"  from side to side ain't really gonna do near as much damage as aimed fire. (INMHO)

[Timothy]

Haz,

The other night on OC the Tactical weapons experts were shooting the latest and greatest military version of the SAW.  Both of these guys are SpecForce guys, one from Australia, one from the US.  

At the end of every show, they have a little competition.  This week they tried three round bursts from the rifle in the prone, kneeling and standing postions.  Neither one of them could get more than one round on the targets at fifty yards in any position.

[Hazcat]

Haz,

The other night on OC the Tactical weapons experts were shooting the latest and greatest military version of the SAW.  Both of these guys are SpecForce guys, one from Australia, one from the US. 

At the end of every show, they have a little competition.  This week they tried three round bursts from the rifle in the prone, kneeling and standing postions.  Neither one of them could get more than one round on the targets at fifty yards in any position.

THANK YOU!

My contention is... stand about 10 feet from a wall that is 12 feet wide.  Do a 'Hollywood" type spray (less than a second from start to finish) you will have what, maybe 3 or 4 bullets in the wall?  With a semi or even a lever I could (and most likely would) do more damage cause I will aim before pulling the trigger.

[fightingquaker13]

1/10 of a second is a LONG time.

TAB, I know you have heard an M60 fire.  Sure doesn't sound like 600 rounds per second (at least not to me).  Sounds more like one per 1/2 second.

All I'm saying in the end is that full auto SOUNDS a lot more sarcy when described (or shown in the movies) than it is in reality.

Standing and sweeping yer "Tommy Gun"  from side to side ain't really gonna do near as much damage as aimed fire. (INMHO)

And it does save money. Getting back to my not so glorious paint ball days (GT Army Team) BULLDOGS! [ROFL] we started with pump actions my freshman year and ended with semi's junior and senior years. The thing is that while the volume of paint went way up (hey y'all paid for it, sorry ) the kill ratio didn't. More ammo downrange in the heat of the moment no more accuracy. Our Sponsor, Captain Brown clued in on this and gave us a serious ass chewing after we to lost Catholic U.   He threatened to take our nice new guns and replace them with sling shots unless we averaged one kill per ten rounds. He made us train that way and it made a heck of a difference. Our subsequent games were longer, but we won more. That whole "bringing accurate rifle fire upon the enemy" actually works.
FQ13  

[Timothy]

Another stat that I won't bother to find again because I'm lazy.

According to something I read some time ago, there were nearly 100,000 rounds fired for every North Vietnamese casulty during the years of our involvement in Viet Nam...

Spray and pray is for your Church League car washes!   

[Sponsor]

[Hazcat]

What started me thinking about this is how far (laterally) between rounds is there?  Yes, I realize it would be based on "rate of sweep", but MB ought to show us some demos so we have an idea.

[fightingquaker13]

Another stat that I won't bother to find again because I'm lazy.

According to something I read some time ago, there were nearly 100,000 rounds fired for every North Vietnamese casulty during the years of our involvement in Viet Nam...

Spray and pray is for your Church League car washes!   

I'm too lazy to look as well, but it would be interesting to compare to WWII stats. Granted the japs and the Nazis had bolt actions. Still, seeing the number of rounds fired, enemy dead, and our guy's survival rate would be interesting. I'd still rather have an M-16 than a Garand, but the difference in training and use mindset between the two might tell us a lot.
FQ13

[Timothy]

Well Haz, based on the fact that 1 moa at 100 yards is only 1/60 of 1 degree and equals 1.047 inches, can you estimate the degree of movement sweeping the barrel for one second?

It's not difficult math, just use the number you know, I say, as you do, that the lateral degree of movement would be considerable.  Say you move the muzzle only 10 degrees, that equates to 600 MOA, yes?  In simple engineering terminology, that equals a "Shit Load"!

[Hazcat]

FQ,

Unless I'm clearing rooms I'll take the Garand every time. (though I would prefer a magazine fed Garand).

[Hazcat]

Well Haz, based on the fact that 1 moa at 100 yards is only 1/60 of 1 degree and equals 1.047 inches, can you estimate the degree of movement sweeping the barrel for one second?

It's not difficult math, just use the number you know, I say, as you do, that the lateral degree of movement would be considerable.  Say you move the muzzle only 10 degrees, that equates to 600 MOA, yes?  In simple engineering terminology, that equals a "Shit Load"!

Tim,

I pretty much ran the limit of my math ( ) doing the feet between rounds.  So figure 600 rounds per second, 2400 feet per second for the rounds.

Now show the strikes on a graph from you out to , say 100 yards, when you will sweep your muzzle 5 feet laterally in 1/2 second.

My thought is there will be HUGE blank spots.