Should they have discontinued the full auto option for the M16 line? Wouldnt full auto be better for up close?

It's easier to be accurate up close, so you wouldn't need full auto unless you're facing a group...which you shouldn't be.

Even when the M16-A1 with full-auto was used, it would usually fall to one member of each fireteam as automatic rifleman to use full auto while the rest used semi-auto. Under current structure, each fire team as an M249 (SAW) which is full auto and semi, fires the same ammo as an M16 but is heavier and better designed for full auto. And then a platoon adds in 2 M240B medium machine guns for light infantry, 2 M240s plus 4 strykers with .50 cal and MK19 grenade launchers for Stryker units, and 4 Bradleys for mech infantry, and you don't need full auto on an individual basis.

Many times an entire clip would be expended in a panic reaction without hitting anything. Your aiming point is lost after a few rounds anyway. Ammo is heavy, so you can only carry so much. When its gone, you are defenseless. The three round burst lets you sustain almost the same rate of fire, but you have to deliberately pull the trigger, so there is more likely the shots will be aimed.

Like the other guy said full auto is less accurate. That stuff is for the movies!. 3 round burst. Or single shot shooting in controlled pairs is more accurate, more deadly, and cost efficient. When I'm overseas I'm more afraid of the sniper than the guy who wants to be Rambo.

I personally shoot my M4 on semi 99% of the time.

The only time I ever use burst is when I'm fcking at the range or just riding ammo so we can go home.

Joel, you are clueless. You need a class 3 stamp to own any full auto. It wouldn't. Do you know how fast you would go threw ammo? Full auto is for movies. 3rd bursts are ideal. and still class 3

It is less accurate and wastes ammunition. Burst mode provides both a high rate of fire without sacrificing accuracy as bad as full auto does.