exactly, auto is not for accuracy but throwing bullets at people.

Full auto in small arms is a very close quarter combat tool only. If someone very mad, determined on drugs/whatever is charging you like a raging bull you only have 2 seconds to squeeze off as many bullets as possible you need full auto. That's it's only use when not in a lmg.

+GunEnthusiast And who knows,, you might hit a few.

+Cha Dizzy Most casualties in Vietnam and the Middle East were inflicted with explosives, machine guns, and more accurate rifles (SMLE, G3, SVD, etc.). The AK is mostly irrelevant outside of ethnic cleansing in urban areas.

Seth Barcello Wondering how you got that data. Did you go from corpse to corpse asking what type of gun killed them?

Don't underestimate full auto in experienced shooter hands. Two weeks ago mass shooting happened in my country. One guy, ex war dog, shot one and a half magazines from AK at full auto at a table in a cafe killed all 5 that he aimed at, injured 20, guy just flipped out and was disarmed by a guy who jumped at him and was arrested. There is a reason why full auto guns are banned for civilians, experiences soldiers use full auto for covering not really for picking out targets.

Yes for terrorists who intend to slaughter unarmed and unawared crowd it is indeed effective.

depends on the situation. even larry admits that there is a time for full auto, note he said very limited in the real world. full auto is used not for accuracy but for fire suppression. small units platoon and smaller, use full auto for breaking contact. can't do that effectively with semi auto or burst gun. even more proof that full auto does have its place on the battlefeild is the us army going to the m4a1. which is full auto not burst. but it will agree with larry and you that most oftern 90% of the time, that does not mean you should discount it completely.

There are a few FUNDAMENTAL issues with how this video hopes to prove it's point. Firstly, they are firing the old AK round. 7.62x39mm. This round has significantly greater kick than the more modern rounds such as 5.56mm or 5.45mm, the caliber Russia and allies have switched to. Second, this man is aiming at the enemy's HEAD. At a 10 meter range. This is the wrong response, center-of-mass shots are typically what happens if you are unfortunate enough to be in this situation. These two points are enough to discredit the argument the video makes. However, the dude is correct. Full auto has limited uses, but let me give you a list of these: - You are clearing a building - You are in a jungle and run directly into the enemy (less than 50~m) - You are ambushed (any kind) - You wish to suppress an enemy which you have a general direction in mind These are VERY important situations to have full auto in. However, most engagements happen at 300m, so he is "right"

Jack Bartlett couldn't agree more Jack. great list could i add breaking contact as well to that list?

I was about to quote that shit lmfao

I guarantee he has fanboys out there with this as their ring tone.

Well, he is ex Delta so as far as I'm concerned he gets to say whatever he wants. He gave his best years to our country.

Yes i do salute him for his service, but the statement he made would only be justified if he made all three targets on point.

Larry was completely aware of how that's gonna sound at the time. What is humor?

Yea I had to replay that, LAV is great!

That was embarrassing to me. Guys at the top of the game shouldn't have ego's. Ego's are deadly and dangerous. Then again, the top of the game doesn't make training video's and sell millions of dollars worth of product. They are killers, and killing is a sad business best forgotten.

He's a retired US serviceman, I think he's allowed to have a ego, don't you think?

Chloe Robinson No he's supposed to be ex Delta. Deltas are selected specifically because they do not have a propensity ego. Ego is deadly in a special operations environment.

Well, I don't think he's going to suit up and jump on a plane to a active war zone anytime soon? Give the man some slack. He is retired, he can do what he wants. Go fuck yourself for trying to push your idea of how someone should be on another person. Not that Larry gives a shit anyway.

RAGETREE The Second Amendment is an all or nothing affair. That "but" you use means you're not a true proponent of our Rights.

RAGETREE I totally agree with you, on this one, besides there are states that do allow full autos, just cost up the ass. Well and a lot of paper work.

spartan5811 What a completely unfair statement to make. Just because they, and I, don't see the practical need for civilians to "all" have full auto does not mean we are not "all for our rights". Cops can also use grenades, and other high end explosives. Should those be made readly available for all? There is a difference between not supporting our rights, or taking advantage of those rights. Hell look at the rest of the world and how they handle firearms. If we didn't have a Supreme Court that backed our Bill of Rights as much as they do we wouldn't be allowed to own and operate any firearm. We already are allowed damn near anything, is that not enough? Do you feel like you deserve a fully automatic firearm? That it's what, your right too? I say we take what we got while we have it. It's not the 18th century anymore.

BurnThePope0514​ I own a full auto legally. It is our Right. Restriction of one Right might as well be restriction of them all. 

And who is going to be the last word on what is "practical" and reasonable? Feinstein, Bloomberg? See how that works? Our rights are our birthright. Any attempt, whether already codified in law or will in the future is an unconstitutional infringement. Everyone has a line in the sand. Mine was the AWB of 94. That happens again, I guarantee there will be a kinetic response. As far as looking at other countries, fuck off. They get their rights from their govt. we give govt permission to exist. We can rescind that, too.

No one on the "street" has ever said that 😂

chief, got news for ya! this comment seems to have been posted 5 years ago as I'm posting this.

bring tons of ammo then....your gonna need it.....

Otay!

Chuck Ward cod players ve like

**john rambo wants to know your location**

Still valid info

Weren’t Thompson’s used in Vietnam too? I heard that they could be quite useful despite their muzzle climb as well. The .45 rounds apparently put enemies down easily.

gilgamesh310 - The short answer is “yes, in limited numbers and applications.” I’m one of the small number of people who used the Thompson. It is too heavy to be practical, as is the ammo in large quantities. There is no muzzle climb to speak of if you have a good grip on the gun. Remember, it is a 10 pound gun shooting a pistol cartridge. It is strictly a short range option though it does hit hard in close. I preferred the XM-177 due to its light weight. Love the Thompson for a day at the range shooting government ammo that is delivered by a truck. On a modern battlefield i prefer something else, unless you are in a house or going room to room.

@@rascal0175 Thanks for responding. It's good to get this information from someone who actually has this kind of experience, rather than from young hotshots think they know everything from googling information for 5 minutes. I'm guessing shotguns were used for some of the purposes SMGs are too.

gilgamesh310 - It was all used but standard combat units had limited choices, if any at all. Everything had its use or place. Standard items were sometimes modified in the field or by armorers in the rear. There are influencing factors, like weather, terrain and mission. What is good for one purpose may be out of place in another, or even next to useless. There is no perfection with firearms that I am aware of, no one size fits all that is constantly applicable. Right now the M-4 seems an excellent choice, but I’d like to see them with a larger cartridge and a piston vice the system we have now. Usually you work with what you are issued. Special ops has more latitude. In the end, you use what is in your hands.

Jimi5.56 yeah because this delta force guy apparently doesn’t know what full auto is used for? Lol

Wtf is this comment doing here.

Keyboard warriors

Theyre just explaining this to everyone reading the comments because Larry didnt mentioned it

This is always the case on videos like this, or those about fight scenes being debunked in movies. The commenters think they know much more than people who have experience in the areas they’re talking about.

Was just about to post this question too. Would be interesting to see how the shot placement would be with a slant brake, or any muzzle device for that matter.

alucardshell I have an akm not full auto. But I can tell a difference when not using tge slant break. I would imagine the ak 74 comp does an even better job

TheTyrial86 And all burst does is automatically stop the fire after you're landed one shot and missed the other 2. Burst fire is literally the most worthless mode ever put on any weapon system, UNLESS it's a hyperbust that gives the ability to get both shots on paper. The only reason regular burst fire exists is to prevent troops from wasting ammunition. Another problem with burst fire is that if you let off the trigger before the burst finishes, the next time you pull the trigger, it'll just finish the previous burst. You may fire 2 rounds your first trigger pull then only get 1 round on your next trigger pull. Full auto with a nice low fire rate that makes the firearm easy to control and easy to fire controlled pairs with is the best of automatic fire for anything lighter than an LMG.

Tombs Clawtooth I have used burst. It is pretty reliable. And better under the condition. I am prior military so I understand what burst is meant for. Which is why I said what I said. Full auto for this application for evety troop is not a good idea since you have force multipiers like SAWs and 240G's

TheTyrial86 No it isn't a good idea for every troop, because a lot won't have the self control under stress to fire in controlled bursts. If the person is fully capable of controlling the firearm, there's no purpose to burst fire as it is literally just training wheels.

Preach!!!!!

Not really. Semi auto was still far more accurate, which is exponentially more important than how many rounds you're getting on target. What you say about real-life scenarios also applies to recoil control; in a real situation, it's going to be far harder to control the kick of a gun. Combine that with the pre-existing issues of trying to be accurate and aware in the first place, and that means full-auto is generally not feasible.

@@michaelbrooks3220 You are correct 95% of the time, but i've actually seen a combat video from Ukraine where a gunfight was won because of full auto, it was in a trench at point blank. One turned the corner and they were face to face, both AK74's and the guy with semi auto only got 1-2 shots off and the full auto guy let it rip and the spray in that situation made it impossible to miss. So full-auto has its uses in trench warfare for sure... with 7.62x39 the recoil is too much, but in Russia and Ukraine 5.45 is perfect for full auto.

Russian "center mass" is different than ours too. We are supposed to aim for the space between the nipples (where you put your hands for CPR) were as they aim for the belt buckle and let 'er rip.

I agree with you. Great comment. Though you should say firing Bursts rather than Burst fire, because Burst fire is an option on some firearm that only allows you to fire typically 2 or 3 rounds :-) so what you're looking for is firing in bursts :-)

DrSabersky I didn't know that, I just learnt something new :-)

For sure... Bad video.

If they at all knew what they were talking about they probably would :)

Because full auto is good at killing crowds of people.

Armed Analysis you don't even need a firearm to kill crowds of people.

C. Gonçalves yeah bombs and chemical and bio weapons. Timed and conceal bombs that blend in to the environment can provide time for an get away

No cause fully autos can be fired in bursts....

and ak 47 for full auto, COME ON DAWG

He aimed centre mass with full auto. so it is valid according to your theory.

Alex Nguyen no he aimed for the head

@Paul C you dont need to be in the military to Say he should aim for the chest in that test

3 targets hit within 3,5 sec with full auto- why bother about number of rounds?:))))))!

+Karp Calmari I know exactly what you mean, I do the same on BFBC2 Vietnam..

Exactly. It's for suppression

Man, single fire and semi auto is the same thing

Of course they would, the recoil is much more manageable and MOST 74's have a nice break on them.

If those had been people, and they had been moving and ducking for cover and shooting back and Vickers was full of adrenaline and scared, he'd have hit none of them most likely. People are hard to kill.

***** The burst trigger weight is inconsistent in semi auto because of a cam being cycled. The full auto trigger gives you more accuracy in semi auto due to consistent trigger weight and the option to open up if you really need to. Soldiers can still be trained to use discipline to limit their shots to bursts, so I don't understand the need for burst mode.

andykorso your comment makes no sense

andykorso i read all of that, yea 18 yr olds got them thick skulls

***** Love your comment, completely agree with all those statements. I think it 'tends' to be more useful at such close ranges because the chance of missing are a lot lower. It all depends on how well you can control the gun versus how much you need that enemy suppressed and how much you need that full magazine. Semi is great for most conditions.

something different is that video where spetznas shooting behind car in windows with full auto.. that is totally stupid, but when you are in room and only thing between you and your target is some good hard wall, than Full auto wins :)

Spetznaz units practice full auto regularly as any special forces unit does. It's what makes difference between a normal shooter, an actor, and a presenter. In the case if LAV it's because who he is...ex Deltz Force operator.

He probably used an AK because they're always AKs in the movies.

AK slant brake or many of the aftermarket brakes would have helped. Aim for the chest/stomach and that 2nd/3rd would have hit the neck/head.

***** The message is the same though muzzle brake or not. I've hardly ever used the burst on my M16 outside of "Huh, I wonder what it is like to try it" moments.

they aren't so hard to control, have you ever shot one before?

Jay M It's not easy to control in full auto mode

NormanMatchem You are quite right saying that the AK47 has up-and-right barrel tending. During my army serving, I tried shooting my AKM without the compensator (or muzzle brake, as you call it). I was getting a rather predictable result: most of the bullets just hit the sky. ))

Full auto fire is very scary sounding to non experienced fighters.

Jane Doe They described how the AK full auto chatter made mockery of their single shot garrands and carbines. That sound must have suppressed them far better than the inaccurate rounds fired. Full auto is a big deal when both sides are low grade draftees.

full auto cant even suppress if it lasts 3 seconds only

That's why the only weapons that get used on full auto are belt-fed machine guns.

Jordan Jenkins I'm just saying you can go full auto in a room you khow......

We got some experienced school shooters in this thread

icyl burst

In a second you can fire about 10 shots with AK. Good luck with hitting at least 5 of them. 5 / 3 = 1.666...nah, not enough to kill a bad guy.

Duhhh

Technically even bolt action rifles can suppress. Just ask the British in the 2nd Boer War. Realise that "suppress" is a military euphemism stemming from the need to generalise, like how "casualty" may be either injured or dead. Suppress means you shoot at the enemy so effectively they are all either dead, wounded or have given up trying to fire back. That's key, when they can tell the fire is so accurate they have no choice but to duck below the trench line and stay there, that is suppressed. Obviously if you can fire faster (like you have machine guns and other side only has bolt actions) you will have an edge in suppression fire but its a fine balance, you may suppress them just as much firing a shot once every second. Then you can suppress them for about half a minute every mag. But if you rock n roll full auto you're going to only suppress for about 3 SECONDS per mag. Full auto is important for dealing with the hardest sort of target and that is a fleeting laterally moving target. Can you hit a target running about 7mph laterally? You need to not only track the moving target but aim ahead of them as well. This is where full-auto really excels and semi-auto cannot really compete. That is to point significantly ahead of where the target is running and squeeze off a long burst. At 600rpm it's impossible for them to run "between" each bullet, even if by extraordinary luck as they approach the stream the first bullet barely nicks their breast pocket, the next bullet will clip their spine at a rate of 600rpm, 10 shots per second 0.1 second gap between each bullet. Trying to fire semi-auto as fast as possible just isn't good enough, split times of 0.2 are about as good as you can do. The M16A2's burst sucked because the burst was too short in duration, you have to precisely estimate the lead so well it's hardly any better than just leading a single shot. My source for this is the BREN gun manual of arms, detailing how the weapon is expected to be used and its relative strengths and weaknesses. It is considered a dedicated purpose of the section machine gun - unique to its full automatic fire - that it is for more than suppression but denying movement. A bolt action rifle can be enough to force someone to keep their head down just by shooting any head that pops up. But any rifle, even semi-auto, struggles to track and lead fast moving target. That's the difference between suppressing the enemy and truly pinning them down. Pinning them down for long enough to move close enough to throw grenades at them till they surrender, call artillery in on them or another squad move into a high enfilade position to rain in fire, or someone crazy enough to get into their trench/bunker system and clear them out in close quarters. But that's not going to happen if they can scatter after they get suppressed.

Treblaine jesus do you take that much time out of your day to write that whole thing

mitchell brenner About as much time as it took you to read it.

Treblaine nope... I took about 4 seconds to look how long it was then replied to you nice come back bitch

Because they don't know anything about weapons. Full auto is useful for suppressive fire but semi is best another time. Before I was in the Light Infantry I always thought full auto was it too but I learned that semi auto with anted shots is much better. Full auto is most useful if you need to peel off and get out of there, for ambush, or if you are on support for an attack. To be honest after being in full auto isn't even a big deal to me anymore. Semi Auto AR is fine.

Best *at other times*

What the heck *aimed shots* Lol

bratz2 it still should be legal, imagine how much more money would be spent on rounds... If they're looking at stimulating the economy then the firearms industry is a good place to start

Mikhail Faustin Because full auto is better and this video is just trying you to back off and not purchase it.

abraham seras​ It's funny considering the fact that he did.

Don't even waste your time. This guy is convinced that he can "one up" various firearms professionals from his chair in an Akron ghetto. If you give him the chance, he'll tell you all of the SOF units that he "served with." Lol

+Connor von Kill dude watch his video "Why I'm Fat". Then you see that he was indeed a Delta Force member.

Loaded language like ghetto is a racist asteism. Russian fsb and spetsnaz alpha are special operators who use the ak platform exclusively wow I'm sure they could do it much better than what you might think. And conner your word of mouth doesn't make everyone arbituarly concede. Kyle lamb presented the 1-5 drill and the chaos drill. These drills plateau at some point. This is so because of the space in between targets in the drill as well as their size of the targets and distance from the shooter to the target.

+Connor von Kill so your under the impression that by some arbitrary reason that truth is something that can be subverted just on the basis of YOUR perception of the character of a person. Lol that's a direct rhetelogical fallacy.

And you will be using up all your bullets and 10 of them remained unharmed.

Aero Windwalker okay but sure they'd be scared shitless i know i would be after hearing automatic fire

Aero Windwalker so when ISIS shoots up people theyd kill more people if they used semi auto?

James Grill For a trained shooter most definitely, unless the terrorist has a machine gun and do not need to worry about reloading.

ESPECIALLY for a relatively untrained shooter, semi-auto is more likely to score hits. The use of full auto by default is due to a lack of training. And machineguns absolutely need to worry about reloading, a PKM like ISIS is so fond of can run through a 200 round belt in around 15 seconds.

I

Dillon Flannery Ak-47 is accurate because it killed 58,000 US troops in Vietnam which the North Vietnamese Army and the Vietcong were victorious.

Dillon Flannery LOOK LOSER THOSE TWO MILLION VIETNAMESE WHO DIED THERE WERE MAJORITY VICTIMS OF INDISCRIMINATE HEAVY BOMBING OF YOUR USELESS B52 WHICH BECAME THE BIGGEST MISTAKE OF YOUR COUNTRY. WHY NOT ASKED SOME AMERICAN VETERANS OF HOW UNRELIABLE WAS M16 RIFLE AS A TOY GUN DURING THE WAR. IT WAS A LAUGHING STOCK AND ALSO BECAME A DEADLY CAUSE FOR THOUSANDS OF US SOLDIERS WHO DIED IN THE FIELD DUE ONLY TO MALFUNCTION. IT WAS SO PATHETIC!

Dillon Flannery YOU CANNOT FIGHT A WAR THAT IS NOT YOUR WAR AND IT'S A GREAT LESSON FOR AMERICANS THAT IT IS NOT GOOD MINDING OTHER BUSINESS. THE ONLY THING THAT VIETNAM NEEDS WAS THEIR OWN INDEPENDENCE AND INFACT THE FIRST AMERICAN SERVICEMEN WHO HELPED THE LATE HO CHI MINH TO FIGHT AGAINST THE JAPANESE COULD TESTIFY THAT. ACTUALLY, HO CHI MINH DID NOT TRUST CHINA NOR RUSSIA SO THAT'S WHY HE DECIDED TO WRITE A LETTER TO PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT TO HELP VIETNAM ABOUT THEIR INDEPENDENCE FROM FRANCE. IF ONLY AMERICA HAD A WISE DECISION TO HELP VIETNAM RATHER FRANCE THEN I'M SURE VIETNAM WILL BECOME THE FIRST COMMUNIST ALLIED COUNTRY IN FAVOR FOR THE US WITHOUT LETTING THE 58,000 US SOLDIERS TO DIE IN VAIN.

Dillon Flannery SOMETIMES YOU SHOULD USE YOUR MIND FIRST BEFORE BULLET IN ORDER TO SAVE THE LIVES OF YOUR SOLDIERS AND ALSO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT YOUR COUNTRY WILL ONLY SPENT FOR WAR. ONLY A MORON PERSON CAN HASTILY MAKE WAR WITHOUT THINKING FIRST BETTER OPTIONS. THEREFORE,, PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE IS BETTER THAN MILITARY WARFARE.

Dillon Flannery YES YOU ARE 'COZ UR SO HAPPY THAT THERE WERE 2 MILLION VIETNAMESE PEOPLE DIED THERE WHO BECAME VICTIMS OF YOUR SELFISH GOVERNMENT BEFORE.