Suppressive Fire

[Fuchs]

The SLR was from the beginning a semi-auto version of the FAL (which was known in Germany as G1 iirc). It has to be seen in context of the Sterling submachinegun which was in parallel service with the infantry and provided the full auto fire at short range that the SLR lacked.

It's possible to train very quick semi-auto 7.62NATO fire (with rifles such as SLR and G3) in order to emulate the short-range firepower of the full auto setting. It only takes a quick index finger with 'quick fire muscle memory' for this.


I remember to have been quite effective at about 30 m range with G3 full auto (multiple hits on 'kneeling soldier' target with one burst), but it's generally unlikely that you'll hit something with a 7.62NATO rifle burst that you wouldn't have hit with single fire as well. In fact, aiming low left for the burst felt like more of an effort than to simply aim at centre with the V-sight.

The real full auto advantage only comes into play when you're in an indoor firefight at distances where a compact submachinegun would have been first choice. The SLR has an excessive length for indoor use and has the Sterling as partner, thus the Commonwealth armies didn't lose much by ditching the full auto option.

Would tracer have a suppressive psychological effect? Or would it merely serve to highlight how poorly aimed and useless and laughable one's fire is?

Special forward-visible tracers were developed for .50" machine guns in World War 2 for bomber defences. The point of the concept was exactly their unnerving effect on fighter pilots.

[Markus]

It's possible to train very quick semi-auto 7.62NATO fire (with rifles such as SLR and G3) in order to emulate the short-range firepower of the full auto setting. It only takes a quick index finger with 'quick fire muscle memory' for this.

I've seen this with a .22 semi-automatic (the only semi-autos available to civilians in Australia). It was impressive - the volume was impressive, we didn't consider accuracy. Now you mention it, it was so fast it makes me query the necessity of full-auto (although I do take Ken's point that soldiers should have the option for those rare situations where auto is desirable).

The real full auto advantage only comes into play when you're in an indoor firefight at distances where a compact submachinegun would have been first choice. The SLR has an excessive length for indoor use and has the Sterling as partner, thus the Commonwealth armies didn't lose much by ditching the full auto option.

And, since carrying both a rifle and a submachinegun is a pain, why not combine them into an M4 or Steyr AUG?

Speaking of which, I have discovered that:

The [Steyr AUG] features an Spz-kr type two-stage trigger (pulling the trigger halfway produces semi-automatic fire, pulling the trigger all the way to the rear produces fully automatic fire) and a safety mechanism (cross-bolt, button type), located immediately above the hand grip.

And, while we're on the topic:

Some versions have an ALO or "automatic lockout", a small projection at the base of the trigger. This was first included on the Irish Defence Forces variant of the rifle, and soon after, the Australian Defence Forces variant. In the exposed position the ALO stops the trigger being squeezed past the semi-automatic position. If needed, the ALO can be pushed up to permit automatic fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_AUG

Presumably this does give soldiers the option then of auto fire, but stops panicking newbies from unintentionally firing on full auto.

Special forward-visible tracers were developed for .50" machine guns in World War 2 for bomber defences. The point of the concept was exactly their unnerving effect on fighter pilots.

I wonder if the pilots actually found it unnerving. Presumably they did, since it seems likely to me they couldn't otherwise know they were being shot at. On the ground though it might just tell the Taliban where you're shooting from.