Has any one ever done a TWO round Burst kit?

IPSC_GUY · #1 05-05-09, 03:26

I am looking at buying a Registered Receiver. I have always wanted a fun switch and now it seems somewhat possible.

I am wondering though, has any one ever come up with a two round burst rather than the traditional three round burst?

I am thinking that this might actually prove interesting and useful.

IPSC_GUY
SIERRA II ALPHA

dewatters · #2 05-06-09, 17:56

"The Black Rifle" shows experimental 2rd and 6rd burst cams that Colt was playing with back in the 1960s.

dhrith · #3 05-06-09, 18:15

The Russians.

Well, ......you did ask....;p

Iraqgunz · #4 05-06-09, 18:40

If it were me I would go with a full auto rather than a burst of any flavor. One just needs to master firing short burst rather than letting a mechanical device do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPSC_GUY

I am looking at buying a Registered Receiver. I have always wanted a fun switch and now it seems somewhat possible.

I am wondering though, has any one ever come up with a two round burst rather than the traditional three round burst?

I am thinking that this might actually prove interesting and useful.

IPSC_GUY
SIERRA II ALPHA

Greg Bell · #5 05-06-09, 22:15

I remember H&K did some work with them in the 80s-90s and found them to have merit.

Oscar 319 · #6 05-06-09, 22:29

My old departments G36's had 2 rnd burst/FA selectors. That was years ago. Back then I thought it was pretty cool. Those guns were replaced with M4's.

CarlosDJackal · #7 05-07-09, 16:39

Do hammers, double-taps, or controlled pairs count?

markm · #8 05-07-09, 16:52

2 round bursts are the easiest to do with a FA AR in my experience.

If you just let off the trigger after the first shot, the second one sneaks in anyway.

SWATcop556 · #9 05-08-09, 02:20

I would think that controlled bursts on FA would be more beneficial.

A controlled pair is essentially the same thing as a two shot burst.

YMMV

IPSC_GUY · #10 06-09-09, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhrith

The Russians.

Well, ......you did ask....;p

THE AN94 does not count. It fires it's first two rounds at an extremely high cyclic rate, I think its 1800 rounds per minute. Nice idea though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqgunz

If it were me I would go with a full auto rather than a burst of any flavor. One just needs to master firing short burst rather than letting a mechanical device do it.

Actually what I really want is a 4 position selector, Safe, Semi, Two Round Burst, Full Auto. I can squeeze out two round bursts if I really concentrate but I think a mechanical double tap will be faster and will ensure only two, not three or four accidentally going down range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWATcop1911

I would think that controlled bursts on FA would be more beneficial.

A controlled pair is essentially the same thing as a two shot burst.

YMMV

Maybe I am being lazy desiring the gun to do it. Trick is, first getting a RR in my hot little hands. Thought I had one but when I looked at it it was TRASHED ! ! ! the hammer pin holes were actually oval, I was astounded. Had to pass.

IPSC_GUY
SIERRA II ALPHA

Skintop911 · #11 06-09-09, 17:24

I have no use for burst. I roll to auto and make a burst if I need it.

Further, going back and forth from semi to burst in the AR will mean that not all of your bursts will be 3rds. Some will be one or two rounds.

HK offered two-round bursts for a time. They may still.

The most jacked up FCG I've seen was on a DPMS: A 4-position selector, sequenced (from the 9:00) Safe-Auto-Semi-Burst. Blech.

Col_Crocs · #12 06-10-09, 02:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqgunz

If it were me I would go with a full auto rather than a burst of any flavor. One just needs to master firing short burst rather than letting a mechanical device do it.

True. I find burst triggers too limiting and again, it just takes practice. You'll get used to counting rounds as you go and it just becomes natural after a while.

On a side note... the 2 round burst is actually what you'll first achieve while learning the 3.

Failure2Stop · #13 06-10-09, 03:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqgunz

If it were me I would go with a full auto rather than a burst of any flavor. One just needs to master firing short burst rather than letting a mechanical device do it.

I agree with this.
The shooter must master SA and FA trigger manipulation.
Why have a selector position for something you can easily do in SA?
Without the ability to alter the time needed between shots, you will wind up with a narrow band of effective range, whereas the ability to properly work the trigger depending on aiming needs will be a constant.

There have been 2-round burst trigger packs for a few different guns, there is a very good reason you don't see many of them around in military or police inventories. Think about the AN-94, which fires the first two, and only the first two shots at 1800 rpm. That is because the cyclic rate needs to be extremely high to get both shots on target when fired from the standing. They had to turn out the most complex assault rifle with phase-shifted operation and effing pulleys in the gun to get a viable two round burst. I am not going to put that much effort into something I can just train someone to do that has application at every distance.

However, if you don't care about actual, practical application of the fire, knock yourself out.

Iraqgunz · #14 06-10-09, 13:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skintop911

I have no use for burst. I roll to auto and make a burst if I need it.

Further, going back and forth from semi to burst in the AR will mean that not all of your bursts will be 3rds. Some will be one or two rounds.

HK offered two-round bursts for a time. They may still.

The most jacked up FCG I've seen was on a DPMS: A 4-position selector, sequenced (from the 9:00) Safe-Auto-Semi-Burst. Blech.

I can only imagine how well that performs. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

Skintop911 · #15 06-10-09, 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqgunz

I can only imagine how well that performs. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

Yup. Lots of unintentional 2-5rd burst fire, as muscle memory thinks you're rolling to semi, not auto.

I'm struggling with a legit need for a four-position. If I had to have one, I'd want it SAFE-SEMI-BURST-AUTO (ala HK). At least there would be a progression.

CarlosDJackal · #16 06-11-09, 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqgunz

If it were me I would go with a full auto rather than a burst of any flavor. One just needs to master firing short burst rather than letting a mechanical device do it.

Isn't a 2-round burst also called either a "Double Tap" or a "Hammer"?

+1. I'll never understand why they decided to go with a 3-burst system with the M-16A2 and the M-4. Especially since it added to the number of parts and complexity of the fire control group. Get an FA rifle and learn to use it effectively and have fun burning up ammo once in a while (I know I am

).

Personally, I'm of the belief that good, rapid trigger control and accuracy with a semi-auto rifle is just as effective as any burst of FA system for MOST of the real-world applications. While F/A is fun (I have the videos to prove it), it's purpose is limited. YMMV.

Iraqgunz · #17 06-11-09, 12:59

IIRC it came about after some rocket scientists did a study or analysis of rounds fired during Vietnam in which they concluded that personnel just burned through their ammo. Then along came the M249 which kind of killed the need for each squad to have "automatic riflemen".

What really need to happen was for personnel to be properly trained on when and how the fun switch should be employed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlosDJackal

Isn't a 2-round burst also called either a "Double Tap" or a "Hammer"?

+1. I'll never understand why they decided to go with a 3-burst system with the M-16A2 and the M-4. Especially since it added to the number of parts and complexity of the fire control group. Get an FA rifle and learn to use it effectively and have fun burning up ammo once in a while (I know I am

).

Personally, I'm of the belief that good, rapid trigger control and accuracy with a semi-auto rifle is just as effective as any burst of FA system for MOST of the real-world applications. While F/A is fun (I have the videos to prove it), it's purpose is limited. YMMV.

CarlosDJackal · #18 06-11-09, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqgunz

IIRC it came about after some rocket scientists did a study or analysis of rounds fired during Vietnam in which they concluded that personnel just burned through their ammo. Then along came the M249 which kind of killed the need for each squad to have "automatic riflemen"...

Oh, I know why they did it. I was on AD when they started fielding the M16A2 and the M249 SAW (yes, I'm that freaking old!!). I remember a test they did comparing units who were equipped with the M16A1s (82nd) vs ones with the M16A2s (USMC) in MOUT operations (room clearing, etc.). Despite the slower times iposted by units equipped with the A2s, the Army elected to adopt it anyway. I was also involved in testing various optics on M16A2s whose carrying handles were cut off and Weaver bases installed in the Spring of '85.

I remember when they implemented the old "Division 86" concept and when the "Light Infantry Divisions" (with heavier rucks) were being stood up. I was the unfortunate victim of the LWCM "concept" that took a Mortar Platoon from 3 x 81-mm Mortar Squads and an FDC Section that had 4 vehicles to a "Mortar Section" consisting of 2 NCOs, 2 Mortar "Teams" made up of 2 EMs and the M224 60-mm LWCM and all the other crap that came with them. Plus, we lost all our vehicles to boot!!

I hated jumping all that crap (I regularly jumped the bipod, both large and small baseplates, the sight, the aiming poles, TA-1 telephone, plus all the other crap that came in my Arctic Survival Ruck).

I just have never been able to comprehend the stupidity of the concept.

Iraqgunz · #19 06-11-09, 16:24

Don't worry. I went on active duty in 1986.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlosDJackal

Oh, I know why they did it. I was on AD when they started fielding the M16A2 and the M249 SAW (yes, I'm that freaking old!!). I remember a test they did comparing units who were equipped with the M16A1s (82nd) vs ones with the M16A2s (USMC) in MOUT operations (room clearing, etc.). Despite the slower times iposted by units equipped with the A2s, the Army elected to adopt it anyway. I was also involved in testing various optics on M16A2s whose carrying handles were cut off and Weaver bases installed in the Spring of '85.

I remember when they implemented the old "Division 86" concept and when the "Light Infantry Divisions" (with heavier rucks) were being stood up. I was the unfortunate victim of the LWCM "concept" that took a Mortar Platoon from 3 x 81-mm Mortar Squads and an FDC Section that had 4 vehicles to a "Mortar Section" consisting of 2 NCOs, 2 Mortar "Teams" made up of 2 EMs and the M224 60-mm LWCM and all the other crap that came with them. Plus, we lost all our vehicles to boot!!

I hated jumping all that crap (I regularly jumped the bipod, both large and small baseplates, the sight, the aiming poles, TA-1 telephone, plus all the other crap that came in my Arctic Survival Ruck).

I just have never been able to comprehend the stupidity of the concept.

CarlosDJackal · #20 06-15-09, 01:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqgunz

Don't worry. I went on active duty in 1986.

Geezer!!