I'm game for it as long as your supplying the ammo. Once it comes outta my pocket, I'm much less happy with merely turning money into noise. I've been thinking of exploring the world of class 3, and I think the funnest way to do it would be a SBS or SBR. FA gets expensive fast.

 

If you're a mass murderer in a crowded shopping mall, 600RPM is a lot more effective than slower aimed fire.

If you're a machine gunner in the military, sustained automatic fire is more effective than slower aimed fire.

If you were a turret gunner in a B-17, automatic fire was infinitely more effective than pulling the trigger for every shot.

Point being, it has its uses, but not really for anything a typical civilian would need, except for turning money into noise.

That's not to say it isn't fun now and then :supergrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqWA6EQwjtk

 

I wouldn't mind going to a machine gun shoot sometime, but that's the entirety of my interest in full auto weapons.

 

fun? yes.

practical? not for me.

 

Automatic weapons, even in the military, have very limited use. The only time you see full auto being used in the military is for rare suppressive fire situations, and situations in which the target is known and you want to obliterate everything within a certain and very limited field of fire (i.e. the Air Force gunships).

Unless you are a mass murderer, you have no business as a civilian with a full auto weapon for any practical use. If you want to waste brass that is fine, but full auto is almost impossible to control unless you have an actual tripod or bipod mounted machine gun.

 

I've got a little time with full auto rifles and sub-machine guns. I agree that it is overrated for civilian use in rifles, although the references to drive by shootings and such are out of line. They can be deployed effectively in civilian contexts, though I don't see it as a big advantage. The MP5 is another issue though.

The MP5 is a fantastic weapon, and one that I would definitely own if I lived in a state that allowed it. My experience with it has been very positive. It is reliable, accurate, and devastating at short to medium range with controlled bursts. It's even better with a suppressor. Ammo is still pretty affordable for the 9mm also. There is a lot to like about a full auto MP5.

 

It's a waste. Even if you are wealthy. It might be an acceptable waste then, but still a waste.

 

NFA automatic weapons: Your 401K you get to shoot and still make money on it in the future.

:supergrin:

 

If 50 people broke into my house at the same time, I wouldn't mind having a FA weapon.

 

"Unless you are a mass murderer, you have no business as a civilian with a full auto weapon for any practical use."


Umm...Please immediately turn over your weapons and your second amendment card. You're fired!



As a civilian I have absolute business with full auto as that is what the second amendment is all about. If the founders were alive today they would smack you for saying stupid stuff like that.

to the OP: Yes machine guns are every bit as practical as any other firearm. Most of us don't USE firearms everyday so I'm not sure the word "practical" can even be correctly used when discussing them.

 

Only a waste if you use the FA option. Most FA guns have selective semi auto too.
Even the bump fire stock can be locked to only shoot semi.

At that point you can have a AR like any other AR & use the FA option when you want(or never) to have fun or other reason.
I don't think the price tag for a FA gun is practical though.

 

I was Marine infantry. I kept my M16A1 on full auto but usually only fired single rounds. With a bit of practice you could take a magazine with 25 rounds and shoot a pattern of 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1 rounds while on FA by learning to modulate the trigger. We practiced single round fire discipline but were able to fire FA instantly if the situation called for it.

In civilian life FA is fun but has no real use. Even if society went totally down the drain and the worst post-apocalyptic world were upon us, FA would would be a waste of ammo.

 

... but it seems like an incredible waste of ammo.

And the guy at the range with the bolt action .22 who fires one maybe two rounds every hour (you know the guy, every range has one) thinks you waste ammo when you show up and with your Glock 19 "assault weapon" fire 50rnds in 15 minutes. :tongueout:

It's all subjective.

 

Unless you are a mass murderer, you have no business as a civilian with a full auto weapon for any practical use. If you want to waste brass that is fine, but full auto is almost impossible to control unless you have an actual tripod or bipod mounted machine gun.

I won't say you have "no business" with it. In fact, I see no reason to prohibit it. A mass murderer can do just as much with a semi-auto and a lot more with a bomb, as recent history has often demonstrated - you aren't murdering anybody with rounds that don't hit people. In fact, in the case of individual shooters, full-auto will be much less effective than aimed fire and the guy spraying rounds will lose the fight to the guy aiming, unless they are in the open at pretty close range. Full auto is mainly useful for groups who use a mass of fire as a legitimate tactic. For an individual, it just means your ammo isn't going to last very long.

Controlling full auto is actually pretty easy. I have a video at home of an instructor I know firing off a couple of hundred rounds from an M-240 (7.62) while standing on one leg and firing from the shoulder, to demonstrate to some troops he was training just how easy it is to control if you know how. I have personally found 9mm submachineguns much easier to control and fire fast than a shotgun - in fact, pistol caliber submachineguns would be the exception to the "semi is better" rule (at close range), just because they are so easy to control. I've also never had a problem controlling 5.56 full-auto from the shoulder, standing or kneeling, but I haven't tried 7.62 from the shoulder, that I recall.

 

Automatic weapons, even in the military, have very limited use. The only time you see full auto being used in the military is for rare suppressive fire situations, and situations in which the target is known and you want to obliterate everything within a certain and very limited field of fire (i.e. the Air Force gunships).

Unless you are a mass murderer, you have no business as a civilian with a full auto weapon for any practical use. If you want to waste brass that is fine, but full auto is almost impossible to control unless you have an actual tripod or bipod mounted machine gun.

Wow doode. Just WOW!!! :wow: :shocked: :faint::crying:

 

Full auto: is it practical?

Fun, Yes.
Practical, No.

Sunday I let a lady run a couple hundred dollars worth of ammo through my M2 Carbine. She had a ball spraying tin cans and clay birds. Since most shooters never have a chance to have that kind of fun I guess it could be said to be practical.

 

No more practical than a 'vette, jet ski, home aquaruim, or any other "want".

But if you want one, get one. They are fun. but expensive. I've had a couple, don't now. When uncle sam is footing the bill, awesome, when I was, not so much.

 

I rented a Uzi at a range and it was fun but would get expensive real quick. I can say I have fired full auto. I would not buy one unless I won the lotto. Bump fire is a waste of ammo and can not hit very well.

 

In well-trained hands, a machinegun is a wonderful tool. In untrained hands, it's a waste of ammo. Like anything else, you have to learn how to use it effectively. When it comes to engaging multiple targets rapidly, there is no more effective tool. Likewise, it can be very effective for ensuring quick incapacitation of targets when using a marginal caliber at close range (ie; 9mm, .40, .45, 5.56mm). The latter reason is why SWAT and entry teams use full-auto, since they have to be careful about over-penetration with more powerful cartridges.

I have several times heard people say that IDPA pistol champions can clean the course at a subgun match faster than most of the subgun shooters. That is not comparing apples to apples. An average subgun shooter will clean the course faster than an average pistol shooter. And a champion subgun shooter will clean the course MUCH faster than a champion pistol shooter. Just like any other firearm, it's not about how many rounds you send downrange, but where those rounds go.

Training, practice, and experience always win.

 

I've fired full auto from the Ma Deuce in the service on down to rented subguns. By far the most fun, and quite possibly the most practical for the most people would be the subguns.

While an electrically driven gatling gun would be fun to have I couldn't afford to shoot it. I wasn't terribly impressed with the full auto M-16 and AK-47s I have fired. An MP5K and a Beretta PM-12s I have fired were both weapons I'd love to have.

 

Geez, some of the people in this thread sound a lot like Nancy Pelosi! F/A is a lot of fun and back in the early 90's it was a good investment. Our FA M16 is worth 12x what was paid for it.

 

Unless you are a mass murderer, you have no business as a civilian with a full auto weapon for any practical use.

If the picture in your avatar is you, it scares me that you wear a uniform and have sworn to defend the constitution with this attitude.

 

I am issued a Colt M4a1. I can't help but burn through a couple of magazines on full auto while at the range, but I would never select F/A for any practical use.

I believe that the F/A function would be of much better use to a soldier who was trying to "cover" a large area. F/A does not have a practical use outside of the military IMHO unless the intended target is inside 10m.

I would love to get my hands on a P90. I think that with almost no recoil, the F/A would really start to shine.

 

I've seriously considered taking the Full Auto plunge a few times. But, it's always the cost of feeding the beast that keeps from going through with it. As to practicality, well I'd wager to say unless it's belt fed and tripod or bipod mounted, it's probably not all that practical. When I first considered buying a full auto; I sat down and talked to my dad. He'd carried an M2 Carbine while an Adviser in South Vietnam in the early 60s. He questioned the practicality of full auto too; admitting that he'd only even used it in combat once, when his position was nearly overrun. The cost of weapons, cost of ammo and the hassle all make it not worth the trouble to me. Now, that doesn't mean I don't still think about the Vicker's Gun and 10,000 rounds of .303 for $25,000 J&G Sales had a few years ago.

 

"In civilian life FA is fun but has no real use. Even if society went totally down the drain and the worst post-apocalyptic world were upon us, FA would would be a waste of ammo. "


The most important use for full auto weapons in the hands of civilians is to ensure they are never actually needed. The people need to remain armed with current weapons so the balance of power remains intact. The second amendment is there to make sure the others remain in place.

When technology gives us the phased plasma rifles in a 40 watt range it will be necessary for civilians to own them.


Its much the same as the US having thousands of nuclear weapons. We have them so that we hopefully will never actually need to use them.