From: lcline@agora.rain.com (Larry Cline)
Subject: Re: A thought about fully automatic weapons...
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 09:28:45 GMT

In article <102969@netnews.upenn.edu> yee@mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:
>On tpg it is frequently stated that fully automatic weapons are less
>than useful in a militia and that all one really needs is a semi-automatic
>weapon.  The only real use of a fully automatic weapon is to lay down a
>field of fire to suppress the enemy.  Fully automatic fire is difficult 
>to aim and that it only results in the waste of ammunition.
>
>I have come to question the veracity of the statements which purport to
>say that fully automatic weapons are not really all that useful.  I speak
>not from experience but from other data points.
>
>First of all, I note that the military has not yet decided to forsake
>automatic weapons in favor of semi-automatic weapons.  Could it be that
>short bursts are indeed useful?  I note that the M-16 is capable of
>3 shot bursts.
>

This is just a matter of control.  It is easier to control a short burst
and not send rounds flying uselessly into space.  When I was shooting the
M-16 is was told to shoot in short bursts.  After a while I was able to
keep it down to 3-5 shots but it took me a while every time I tried it.
With a mechanical shutoff, I would be assured of a short burst.

>Second, I take notice the arguments posed on rec.radio.cb and
>rec.radio.amateur.misc  For those of you who are not familiar with current
>FCC rules, CB's are restricted to 4watts.  Amateur radios (aka ham radios)
>can transmit as much as 1500watts.  In this analogy, CB's are the semi
>automatic weapons and Amateur radios are the fully automatic weapons.
>In rec.radio.cb, the posters are constantly arguing that increased power
>does not buy you a whole heck of a lot.  Most of the advantages come from
>a better antenna.  Thus, high power amplifiers are not useful and not a
>good idea.  On rec.radio.amateur.misc this is not an issue at all.  Better
>transmissions are achieve using both better antennas and higher power.  If
>hams were to take the "lessons" from rec.radio.cb to heart, all would be
>operating QRP (low power) and hoisting up mammoth antennas yet the typical
>ham transciever runs at circa 100watts output.  Only those interested in
>low power do so.  Those who are not transmit at far higher power levels.
>

Anyone who has worked with shortwave radio (particularly for long range,
full time military communications) knows the difference a change in power
output on the same frequency with the same antenna can produce.  Sometimes
adjusting the power up or down will cause the reflected wave to return to
just the right spot.  Most amateurs using shortwave (HF) radio communications
tend to be going for long range communications which do not occur with a
ground wave.  CB communications tends to be short range.  At the lower power
levels, return waves tend to be eaten up by intereference (mainly solar),
though I have gotten some good signals on low power communications.

This information is from 10 years as a CG radioman who talked to just about
every location in the world and had to repeated qualify on the M-16.

>Could it be that the arguments saying that fully automatic weapons are not
>that useful fall in the same category as those found in rec.radio.cb ?
>I wonder.  Anybody care to comment?
>

Apples and oranges.


-- 
Larry Cline (Amiga Harpoon Scenario Administrator)
lcline@agora.rain.com
C_________   Industrial Graphics