Board Thread:General Nerf discussion/@comment-27306930-20160603044700/@comment-26431461-20160707041008

Hogan milligan wrote: AuburnAttack21 wrote: FLATtheFISH wrote:

In real steel, burst fire is more practical than full auto. Don't see why the same concept couldn't apply to the Nerf world.

And no, I'm not implying that drawing direct paralells to both are right. Just sometimes. This is not one of those times, I'm afraid. Nerf weapons fire so slowly that the concept of 'burst fire' doesn't really match what's going on in battle. If you told me I could only fire three darts every fifteen seconds, I'd be using a Retaliator, or in fact any other bolt-action rifle, not a fully-automatic weapon. Trying to conserve ammunition in this fashion thus ruins the purpose of having such a weapon, especially when assaulting an enemy position! The point is to defeat the position, and firing full-auto is the best way to do that. It either gets them out of the battle or it gets them out of that area. not all nerf guns fire slowly...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1wUC_v1yK8 firing full auto is in most situations less effective due to the need to reload frequently, leaving yourself exposed to attacks and requring you to carry a lot of ammo. However, i dont think burst fire would be all that great on a nerf gun, as their is no recoil on a nerf gun. the point of burst fire is to keep you from wasting ammo by firing shots off target after the recoil has messed up your aim. i would rather have full auto and learn to conserve ammo. even better would be a powerful semi auto that is somewhat accurate. I suppose auburn meant no stock blasters fire fast, and that's very true. Rapidstrike is so gross in stock form. But in modified form, I'd probably use bursts.