Why aren't slow rate of fire full auto guns a thing any

>>32889704
Because all the WW1 generals who thought that a more reasonable rate of fire would waste less ammo and be more combat effective are dead now.

>>32889725
Oops, mistyped it, but you know what I mean.

>>32889704

9,5/10 would open carry all day

File: Dont do it.png (574KB, 851x353px) Image search: [Google]

574KB, 851x353px

>>32889725
rapid full auto is barely controllable. The grease gun has a full auto rate of fire that makes full auto controllable on a directed target. Users of the grease gun could only praise the feature. The worst thing about the grease gun was charging the bolt, but otherwise, it was just a great gun, with a nice weight to it, that allowed controllable, full auto fire.

Rapid 45 acpt fire doesn't make any sense imo. Since semi auto 9mm is too weak to have a sure kill, a 4-5 round burst is needed. Full auto 45 acp like the Thompson shoots too quick, so you're forced to fire semi auto. 45 acp solves it. The grease gun however has a perfect rate of fire. It's a shame the UMP 45 never took off

They're coming back

Militaries realized that controlability means more than fire rate. If you can't effectively hit a target area, you have no chance of killing an enemy combatant.

The Singapore military seems to be ahead of the curve when it comes to adopting these extremely low recoil/slower fire rate weapons like the Ultimax.

File: 19440025-015front.jpg (158KB, 2800x2136px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 2800x2136px

what would be more of a pain in the ass to fight ?

24 troops with Enfield firing 23 rounds a minute each
or a single Vickers machine gun

I would worry more about the Enfield troop having more eyes looking about
and also being able to fire at separate targets in parallel

>just for reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun#Specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon#British_organization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute#World_record

>>32889875
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFlQuiPLB8s
interesting

>>32889976
thats not even a question

>>32889704
>tfw we will never have Arm West's much more controllable design as standard issue
Go to 10:07
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOUKXIrDE0I

>>32890384
I wouldn't buy his design too much. Open bolt and slower rate of fire? Big deal. You can get closed bolt and slower rate of fire just as easily. If you slow the rate of fire, then the rifle becomes inherently easier to control; I am not impressed.

>>32889704
bc a FA M4 doesn't weigh that much more than the grease gun but is several times as capable.

>>32889704

New technology coming out will make full auto controllable, like the AK 107-108. This recoil system needs to be on more weapons.

because slow rof means low dps

Because in the extremely rare situation where you actually need full auto, you dont want a full auto that can be emulated by firing fast in semi.

>>32889976
That's why you have a vickers protected and supported by 6 or so men in armed with Enfield. Now your squad of 10 (4 to operate vickers, 6 riflemen) has the power of 20 men. This is the basis of modern small arms tactics

>>32890566
you can't go 500rpm in semi dude.

File: 1405279133001.jpg (76KB, 648x537px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 648x537px

>>32890582
>>32889976

give your 24 troops an AK-74M/RPK-74M and 10 mags each and enjoy entering the 21st century.

File: IMG_3591.png (463KB, 600x515px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 600x515px

>>32890540
Underrated.

>>32890599
Automatic fire at close range I burst is nowhere near the same firepower as sustained non stop long range fire. Even in the case of the rpk there is a limit compared to a belt fed machine gun, and represents a cumbersome compromise

>>32890478
We're talking about rate of fire independently from the weight and caliber of the gun.

>>32890478
He's asking about the fire rate, not why we don't issue the M3 in place of the M4. You make an AR cycle anywhere from the high 600s to over 1000rpm.

>>32890470
Closed bolt a shit.