re: Rhodesians and semi auto. Please don’t come here and post drivel from undocumented sources. It isn’t hard to check around and see you are posting stuff that is just plain BS:
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-94342.html
Bottom line: The jury will ALWAYS be out on whether semi auto is better than full auto 3 shot bursts than full auto whole magazine. It all depends on how many are coming at you, how many of you there are, how much ammo you have, distance,whether you are considered expendable or someone invested some training in you, and a thousand other variables....
Sheese.
HankBJuly 30, 2004, 08:57 AM
Speaking as One Who Was Not There, but who has spoken to some who were, Preacherman is largely correct. Many of the FALs had a modified safety switch that stopped the lever from being moved to the full auto position, though the FA parts were still intact. But here and there, some troops apparently took it upon themselves to "de-modify" the switch and restore the FA capability, though it was seldom used. It wouldn't surprise me if some who did this were chewed out by their noncoms, but my understanding - gleaned second or third hand - is that the Rhodesians were a bit busy to spend a lot of time checking this.
I recently finished reading Thompson's book Mahohboh, in which he describes using an SLR (Self loading rifle, a FAL knockoff) on elephant cropping missions during his career as a game warden in Rhodesia. He emphasized that he NEVER used the rifle's full auto capability when cropping elephants . . . but the way he wrote things up, the FA capability on his rifle was still intact.
Now maybe all I got were the comments, but they don't make your case.
Admittedly, full auto and burst settings have their place, but that was not the question. The question was one of whether 2000 semi-automatic rifles in the right hands could facillitate a coup de tete, and it sure beats chucking rocks, especially if the American taxpayer picks up the tab.