If Full-Auto Were Legal..Would You?


PDA






amprecon
December 23, 2005, 03:43 AM
If Full-Auto weapons were not illegal, would you have one or more? I have never fired a fully-automatic weapon, it does look cool, but how effective is it? I can see at close range it would be useful, but even semi-auto can be fired pretty fast. I'm not so sure that I'd even want one, say they were the same price as the semi-auto versions, just the cost of the ammunition would be astronomical. When I take my Garand, or AK to range, I'm completely satisfied to crank off rounds in quick succession and hit the gongs. I just wonder how many of those rounds would hit the gongs if fired at the same range in full-auto. It's so hypocritical of the government to ban them being that 00 buck-shot is essentially the same thing out of a shotgun aside from maybe the effective range. A full-auto MP5 sends 9mm rounds out one after the other, a 12-gauge shotgun with 00 buck sends about 10 .32 caliber sized lead balls all at once in one shot, isn't that considered full-auto too? Same amount of fire-power only the 12-gauge sends them out all at once rather than in succession. 10-round burst from MP5, 10 9mm projectiles downrange, 1 burst from 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buck, 10 .32 caliber projectiles downrange, where's the logic?

If you enjoyed reading about "If Full-Auto Were Legal..Would You?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Third_Rail
December 23, 2005, 03:45 AM
Yes; area denial weaponry; reasoning - you never know.

Zedicus
December 23, 2005, 03:51 AM
Dude, look around this site, do you realy need to ask?:D :p

In short, YES!:D

MatthewVanitas
December 23, 2005, 03:54 AM
Despite the ardent wishes of many members of the board, I don't think FA would be that popular after the "forbidden fruit" aspect wore off. Older FA would be collected like other milsurps, some toy "buzz guns" would be popular, and not a whole ton would change in firearms overall.

If the NFA disappeared tomorrow, I just about bet the the primary post-NFA products would involve barrel length: short-barreled shotguns would take up a lot of the home defense market, and M4-geries would be relplaced by the 14.5" barrel versions.

Probably the main change in terms of FA would be that we'd be able to buy genuine military weapons rather than the neutered versions. Many ranges still wouldn't allow FA fire anyway, and most folks would kepe their ARs, etc. on single for 95% of the time, probably just using burst/full as an occasional lark, or to finish off a farewell mag at the end of the range session. If it only cost $20 to add the additional sears during production, I figure some manufacturers would.

Anybody else agree? I still think it would be fitting and proper to allow FA, but after reflection, I don't think it would change any of my buying habits, except getting an un-neutered (virile?) AR lower.

-MV

MTMilitiaman
December 23, 2005, 03:55 AM
Yes, if full auto were cheaper and easier to get, such as if the NFA was repealed, I would own automatic weapons. I think a Glock 18, Mini Uzi 45, MP5 10mm Auto, PKM, and a couple others would be nifty. How practical it is really isn't a concern for me. It is better to have full auto and not need it than to need it and not have it. And it could be fun.

chopinbloc
December 23, 2005, 03:59 AM
full auto can be pretty darn devastating at close range, especially the three round burst used on the m4 and m16a2. no, you're not likely to hit anything at range with any but the first round on full auto but it keeps their heads down and there are some very limited situations where a massive volume of fire is essential. they are legal, just expensive. i suppose you mean that if the '34 gca never happened, would i buy one? yes, absolutely. matter of fact most of the rifles i own would have been offered in select fire standard and probably wouldn't have semi only except as an option. so odds are that my three ars, my ak, my mini14 and my m1a would all have been the select fire versions. heck, i'd probably buy a tec9 or mac 10 if they were full auto, just for fun. an uzi would make a great car gun and cheaper than the mp5.

i take it from your location and the fact that you've never fired a full auto weapon that you're a zoomie or a contractor. hmmm, i'll put five on kbr.:cool: am i close?

bakert
December 23, 2005, 04:04 AM
Not my thing but I know a few people that have them (fully licensed) and love 'em.

CannonFodder
December 23, 2005, 04:09 AM
Of course. Did you really have to ask? :cool:

grimjaw
December 23, 2005, 04:23 AM
If it wasn't as heavily regulated and expensive, sure. I can think of a few subguns that would be a hoot.

jmm

Majic
December 23, 2005, 04:29 AM
Not me because I don't want the job of feeding one.

chickenfried
December 23, 2005, 04:39 AM
Only in .22 lr :)

psyopspec
December 23, 2005, 04:39 AM
I would, but it wouldn't fill the niche of hunting, home defense, or carry. Basically they'd be "fun guns" except for perhaps something like a SBR for HD. Probably wouldn't need the FA option on it though.

lawson
December 23, 2005, 04:41 AM
it would be fun, but i spending that much on ammo would not be worth it to do often.

though, if i could get my hands on one of those .22LR smg's that dick casull invented, can't remember the name of them off the top of my head.

on that thought, do you think legalizing class III firearms would create a market for full-auto .22 firearms?

Valkman
December 23, 2005, 04:48 AM
They're not illegal unless your state bans them, and they're legal here. We have get togethers here where you can shoot all kinds of FA guns, plus the ranges rent them. We have weekly FA matches at the range! I have an Uzi. :)

jrpeterman
December 23, 2005, 06:05 AM
If all regulations and taxes were lifted on the firearm and civilians could purchase them for the same price which law enforcement agencies purchase them for rather than paying $ 15,000.00 per gun, then heck ya

fredcwdoc
December 23, 2005, 06:21 AM
What would even be the point of owning one?

I would have to have two!

amprecon
December 23, 2005, 07:17 AM
Don't know what a zoomie is but not KBR, DynCorp Int'l C-12/UC-35A LCCS. I think the only full-auto I'd really be interested in would be making my 10/22 full auto and a M1A1 Thompson, now that'd be a hoot.

Devonai
December 23, 2005, 07:26 AM
I still want an H&K 51 with the belt-feed conversion. Ever since I was standing right behind the guy firing one up in Dover-Foxcroft, Maine and it almost blew my freaking hat off my head, I was sold.

Matthew748
December 23, 2005, 07:27 AM
I sure would. Savings and retirement planning would take the back seat for a year or so. I would get a full-auto FAL (I am sure DSA would be making them for the public if they could), something in .22lr, and a fully automatic BAR if someone came out with a reproduction. I am assuming that the prices on the original classic BARs would remain high due to collector value.

Santa, are you listening?

chopinbloc
December 23, 2005, 07:50 AM
amprecon,
zoomie is a slightly derogatory nickname used for air force.

oh, and i really, really want an american 180. heck, i'd use one for home defense if it ran reliably.

S_O_Laban
December 23, 2005, 07:52 AM
That's a big plus one.... especially on owning a full auto BAR.

I shot J. Ross's BAR in 8MM....awesome, I say..... awesome:D

Working Man
December 23, 2005, 07:56 AM
If it was easer to get them and the cost was low, sure.

I'd take a Tommy, 2 decked out Beretta 93R, an H&K MP7 A1, MP5 K, and
a G36 K .

Do to the cost of feeding them they would only see the light of
day a few times a year. Not practical but fun. :D

Feanaro
December 23, 2005, 08:17 AM
I have a single hyphenated name for you, my friend: MG-42. :evil:

Wags
December 23, 2005, 08:34 AM
Of course I'd own a full auto if it was not restricted. Granted, I've fired so many full auto firearms over the years the want has worn off. Doesn't really interest me anymore.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

Kharn
December 23, 2005, 08:35 AM
Oh yeah, all my AR15s and AKs would be full-auto if I could pay the tax.

Kharn

ingram
December 23, 2005, 08:37 AM
An Ingram and an MG-42 first and foremost

Plus anything else I could possibly afford.

sacp81170a
December 23, 2005, 10:05 AM
HK MP40. .40 cal., controllable, and fun! I wasn't a "zoomie", I was a "skycop", and full auto fire with the M-16 was part of our quarterly qualification (this was back in the days of SAC, and we were nuclear security). Also carried the old M-60, M-203, and we were using the MK19 and M2 for convoy security when I was deployed with GLCM in Europe. Basically, we were light infantry. Then again, SAC was almost like a different service.

"To err is human, to forgive is not SAC policy."
"Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby."
"The first one's there in 30 minutes or less or the second one's free." :evil:

middy
December 23, 2005, 10:16 AM
I would. I'd probably hardly ever use "da switch", but it would be nice to have that option.

Kalashnikov
December 23, 2005, 10:24 AM
Absolutly. I plan on it when I'm older anyways:D As for the list of what I want, personally I wouldnt mind.....oh......everything.

Semper Fi

Sheldon
December 23, 2005, 10:26 AM
I doubt I couls afford any machinegun even if they were still legal.....even if I wasn't in **********. But if I could I would look into an MP5-SD and one of them Tippmann .22 lr miniature belt feds. Those look like a lot of fun....and cheap to shoot.
http://www.lakesideguns.com/title1/1919linkvidpic.jpg
http://www.lakesideguns.com/c3gallery/1919vid.jpg

M2 Carbine
December 23, 2005, 10:55 AM
I've had the M2 Carbine for many years.

If FA was as available as SA I can think of at least a dozen MGs I'd have.:)

And there's a couple FA that I'd like to build.

As far as feeding one, reload, reload and reload.:D
My M2 wouldn't have been shot nearly as much if I had to buy store bought ammo.
The same with a friend's Mac 10, UZI and MP40.

coat4gun
December 23, 2005, 11:00 AM
because WHEN the SHTF and Tyranny strikes, "we the people" are gonna loose way to many lives with our piddly bolt actions and semi-auto's. I've said it before... and I'll say it again... the longer the 68 GOA carries it's unconstitutional power, the greater the threat of force gap between the people and the Governmental Powers becomes... as that gap increases, our control decreases.

While full-auto is legal (at least in my State), the cost is prohibitive. Even most semi-autos are out of the majority of peoples budget. We are basically relegated to fighting tyranny with the lowley SKS.... and now a shortage of cheap 7.62x39... hmmm... something smells fishy to me.

JamisJockey
December 23, 2005, 11:03 AM
Tippmann .22 lr miniature belt feds

+1 Cheap serious fun
also
A UMP .45 cal, suppressed preferably.
Also, a Thompson
Maybe an AK

That's about it.

CleverNickname
December 23, 2005, 11:11 AM
I currently own three machineguns, and my dream is that 922(o) would be repealed so I could buy more.

BigFatKen
December 23, 2005, 11:19 AM
I had a AR-180. It could fire a 177 shot mag of .22LR in seconds. It was a lot of fun. The one I had was a little worn, so it was not a reliable defense gun as it jamed some.

Is the definition of a "gun" a weapon you pull the trigger rather than squeeze it?

ID_shooting
December 23, 2005, 11:22 AM
If NFA were to be removed, I would have an AK kit put together so fast it would make your eyes spin :D

Omni04
December 23, 2005, 11:24 AM
of course! One for each arm, Contra style! :D

it is true that it isn't the most practical item, but it would be a fun gun for at the range if i could afford the ammunition. I would also like to have a Thompson and a Kalashnikov along with an m-16, just for collections sake.

White Horseradish
December 23, 2005, 11:28 AM
Full-auto fire is the sound of your wallet emptying. These things use ammo FAST. I blew through 100 rounds of 9mm out of a rented Uzi in about two minutes. That was range ammo, $11 a box.

That said, I might look into the .22LR beltfeds if the cost was lower, or maybe a STEN to tear up the sandpit once in a while. At the ranges and in the circumstances I am likely to need to defend myself FA anything wouldn't do me much good and possibly create more problems. Every bullet you shoot has a lawyer attached to it and letting loose 30 of them in a short period of time sounds like a recipe for civil liability to me, since I live in the city.

If the regulation did go away I think we would primarily see a huge drop in prices on AK's because they would not need to be remade. That would be the only other FA arm I would consider, but for the reasons of cost rather than FA capability.

dakotasin
December 23, 2005, 11:54 AM
no, i wouldn't own one... unless i thought they were going to be banned or taxed or whatever.

mbt2001
December 23, 2005, 11:54 AM
I would have a browning M2 machine gun built onto my blazer... And I would have some loopholes built into my house and mount some there in case of invasion.... :rolleyes:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fuchs/images/Fuchs_5.jpg


I would be after and AKM and an AK-103, FN FAL (carbine), AK 74, MAC 10, the grease gun (i don't remember it's designation).

The number ONE FA that I would want to own is the SA 80, the one the brit military uses. That would be a super smooth gun to have even in a semi only version.... I wonder why they don't make them?

While I was thinking about shooting the M2 (.50 cal) it occured to me why governments are pretty much the only ones that can own these... Those rounds have to be close to $1.00 per round or more... and on full auto... 400 rpm.... :barf: I would be so broke, my wife would use it on me...

BUBBA74
December 23, 2005, 11:58 AM
I have a single hyphenated name for you, my friend: MG-42. :evil:
Here Here

If only I had 40 large :o

SMLE
December 23, 2005, 11:59 AM
Where I live they're legal just not affordable.
If I had the money, I'd have at least the following FAs

1918A1 BAR
1928A1 Thompson
1917 Browning water cooled MG
Vickers MG
Lanchester SMG(just 'cause it takes a 1907 SMLE bayonet! :neener: )

CAS700850
December 23, 2005, 12:22 PM
You bet, and MP-5SD just because it is a ton of fun to shoot.

cordex
December 23, 2005, 12:25 PM
on that thought, do you think legalizing class III firearms would create a market for full-auto .22 firearms?
I do.
I've said it before, a reliable, ergonomic, lightweight, large capacity .22LR with a mid-range cyclic rate (800-900rpm) and limited to 2-5 round burst would be a wonderful defensive weapon for people uncomfortable with the recoil of a shotgun. You could afford to practice with it, it would be fun to shoot and dumping a few squirts of .22LR into an attacker will ruin their day in a hurry. Easy to suppress so you don't have to worry about your hearing. Limited overpenetration issues too.

For the maximum reliability, a version might actually utilize two distinct actions controlled by one fire group. If one happened to jam for whatever reason, the other would keep rocking and rolling.

For me, .22LR and maybe 9mm and .223 would be the only calibers I'd want full auto in. But I would love to have full auto in those calibers.

grizz5675
December 23, 2005, 12:31 PM
there legal in minnesota but you have to pay a 200.00 transfer fee.In other words our state says ,hey we'll make it legal as long as we get our cut of the deal.

ACP230
December 23, 2005, 12:35 PM
Why waltz when you could rock and roll?

TallPine
December 23, 2005, 12:38 PM
Why not? *

One isn't required to shoot FA, but you might as well have that capability - better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.



* Yes, I know they are "legal" but with the tax and limited availability (high prices) they might as well be not legal. "Legal" in my terms would be that you can buy a full auto AK (for instance) at the same price as a SA AK with no additional hassles. Actually, it seems a FA AK would be cheaper since millions of them are/have been made for sale around the world. Not to mention suppressors, short barreled shotguns, etc ....

TMM
December 23, 2005, 12:39 PM
hell yea...

Glock 18
full auto FAL
select fire AR
M-14
MP-5
UMP
Micro UZI
UZI
that Russian foldable thing that looks like an UZI
Thompson
AK
Browning BAR

~TMM

MAUSER88
December 23, 2005, 12:53 PM
Ab-so-lutley!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CleverNickname
December 23, 2005, 12:59 PM
there legal in minnesota but you have to pay a 200.00 transfer fee.In other words our state says ,hey we'll make it legal as long as we get our cut of the deal.

The state of Minnesota doesn't get any of the $200 transfer tax. It all goes to the feds.

Hkmp5sd
December 23, 2005, 01:02 PM
I currently have 3 machineguns and if 922(o) goes away, I'll have at least 10 more.

Waitone
December 23, 2005, 01:10 PM
Cyphering for a moment. A Thompson is good for about 750 r/m (please don't pick nits). A 75 round drum is emptied in something like 6 seconds on full rock and roll. During that 6 seconds I will have burned something like $20 worth of ball ammo. So for the privilege of shooting a Thompson for 1 minute on full auto I will have used $200 worth of ammo. :eek:

Naahh, can't afford it.

V4Vendetta
December 23, 2005, 01:36 PM
I would. I'd like a "Tommy" gun with the 2 pistol grips & drum magazine, a MP5& a CAR15.

M2 Carbine
December 23, 2005, 02:00 PM
Cyphering for a moment. A Thompson is good for about 750 r/m (please don't pick nits). A 75 round drum is emptied in something like 6 seconds on full rock and roll. During that 6 seconds I will have burned something like $20 worth of ball ammo. So for the privilege of shooting a Thompson for 1 minute on full auto I will have used $200 worth of ammo. :eek:

Naahh, can't afford it.

Heck, all "big boy toys" are expensive.:D



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/Bell406_206B/AeroliteTO.jpg

Turkey Creek
December 23, 2005, 02:01 PM
No brainer- I'd love to have a BAR and a Thompson- anyone got an extra they aren't using?

rick_reno
December 23, 2005, 02:15 PM
I believe FA firearms are legal.

I'd own one one if ammo were free.

Too Many Choices!?
December 23, 2005, 02:21 PM
Just from the replies on these pages there are probably a few hundered thousand dollars worth of FEDERALY UNACCAPTABLE TAXES:cuss:. What a bunch of BS...People want to do something that is legal, and gubment stops them with a tax(Boston Tea Party ring a bell) :( .


Oh Yea, I would get atleast 5 cause I like Too Many Choices!? M-16 lower, with a .22 belt-fed uppper,mmmmm. Ak-47, drool. GLock 18 need I say more? A Mp5sd in 10mm, and something for over the top, maybe m203 for the m16 lower?:neener:

jefnvk
December 23, 2005, 02:31 PM
"we the people" are gonna loose way to many lives with our piddly bolt actions and semi-auto's.

I don't think shoulder fired full-autos have much, if any advantage over shoulder fired semi-autos.

If it is the mounted MG's that you are worried about, gatling guns and hand cranks for the semi-auto 1919's and M2's are perfectly legal.

I'd be more worried about things like tanks and choppers and jets, myself, than any small arms.

Sry0fcr
December 23, 2005, 02:42 PM
I couldn't see FA being any more than a novelty in a personal weapon. I'd take the option of semi auto and burst modes though.

AF_INT1N0
December 23, 2005, 02:46 PM
If it were legal.......

YES!!!
The reason they are banned is that they are too damn much fun.


Where I live they're legal just not affordable.

Then it ain't legal..

If you can't afford a $200 AK because of the $20,000 BS that goes with it..

Then it's not legal..

This Zoomies .02

Texfire
December 23, 2005, 03:10 PM
Heck, all "big boy toys" are expensive.:D



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/Bell406_206B/AeroliteTO.jpg

So where are the hardpoints on that thing? ;)

Tex

afasano
December 23, 2005, 03:53 PM
I'd have an M-16, a Tommy gun and an UZI.

adaman04
December 23, 2005, 04:23 PM
Like it's never been said before :rolleyes: ...but these limitations, laws and bans on these guns or any guns is ridiculous. Do they really think that since Sha-Nay-Nay didn't pay the jack for the NFA stamp, they aren't going to hurt someone if they want, or that the Crips don't have automatics? Just like San Francisco's handgun ban. Do you feel safe knowing that the gang ganger with his stolen Glock knows YOU don't have a gun? Me neither. Geeze I got way off topic on a rant. Sorry guys.

HECK YES I WOULD OWN SOME.

1. H&K MP5, select fire, for HD and SHTF, and general shooting.
2. Thompson...JUST BECAUSE!
3. Some .22 LR, not sure which one. Suppressed as well. :D

Crosshair
December 24, 2005, 12:26 AM
Full auto is effectivly banned, while it may be "possible" to get one, it is very difficult. If you ban the production and sale of new full-auto guns to the people they are banned no matter how many are grandfathered in.:(

gbran
December 24, 2005, 12:35 AM
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/gbran/Bullpup.jpg

rock jock
December 24, 2005, 12:44 AM
Yeah, but wouldn't use that feature much. FA is highly overrated.

BUBBA74
December 24, 2005, 08:49 AM
LOL I was watching that dvd on tv show they show on FX. The featured movie was "Triple X" and they showed a short clip of the making of the drug raid scene. They said it cost them $165 per second to shoot the footage of the helicopters firing 20mm vulcans at $5 a round.

M2 Carbine
December 24, 2005, 11:45 AM
So where are the hardpoints on that thing? ;)

Tex

I'm working on it. Got to be careful the brass doesn't go back through the prop.:)

This is my other attack aircraft.:D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/Bell406_206B/Lowpassbar.jpg

("truth in advertising". No I don't really have a BAR mounted on that PPC:D )
But a full auto BAR would be on my list if I could obtain one.;)

Stickjockey
December 24, 2005, 02:43 PM
Youbetcha! Make mine M1a1 Thompson, MP-40, and Uzi.

hank327
December 24, 2005, 04:13 PM
If all the restrictions, ie NFA, taxes, permits, ban on manufacturing new full auto weapons were removed, if the prices dropped to realistic levels, YOU BETCHA! :)

1. MP-5
2. Browning BAR
3. M240 GPMG and/or MG-3 (7.62X51mm version of the MG-42)

loose cannon
December 24, 2005, 04:28 PM
absofreekinlutely i would!start with a glock18 then maybe a krink 5.45,a milled ak47 762x39.

for fun a norell selfire 10/22 wouldnt mind detachable cans with the 18 and the10/22.

in mo you can have selfire, sbs, and sbr. but suppressors and dd's are verboten unless your a badge or a sot payer.

id even pay the 200 per if i had to for the above.

Brian Williams
December 24, 2005, 04:31 PM
The Serbu ROF would be one of the first things on my list
http://www.serbu.com/rof.htm
http://www.serbu.com/rof2s.jpg
http://www.serbu.com/rof3a.jpg





The ROF has a fairly standard open-bolt type of action, and was designed and built primarily as an exercise in building a complete gun, mostly from scratch. The only parts which were bought and left unmodified are the flash hider and the pistol grip. Those parts, as well as the trigger, safety and barrel blank, are from an AR-15. Virtually everything else, including the springs, was fabricated. The upper receiver is made from 1.375 OD, .058 wall 4130 DOM tubing. The bolt is made of 8620 which is case hardened to Rc 55-57, with a case depth of .015. The lower receiver is a weldment made from a combination of bent-up mild sheet steel and machined 1018 steel. The barrel was made from a section of AR-15 9mm barrel, though any 9mm blank would have worked just as well. The main recoil spring was wound from .041 diameter music wire. The most unique feature of the ROF is the magazine well arrangement. The vertical line just forward of the trigger guard is where the magazine well may be separated from the rest of the lower receiver. The bolt was designed to accommodate a range of cartridges and magazines; the mag well seen in the picture allows the ROF to use British Sten magazines. The next magazine well to be made will accept a PPS-43 mag, which holds 7.26x25mm ammo. Obviously, a barrel change is required to complete the conversion. So what does "ROF" stand for? Rate Of Fire. There's an implied "High" in front of ROF. The idea is that this gun was designed for a high rate of fire. At this it does okay; it fires 9mm ammo at around 1200 rounds per minute. As of when these pictures were taken, the ROF has had over 3,000 rounds of ammo fired through it. Since the ROF was built after May 19, 1986, it's considered to be a "post-'86" dealer sample machine gun which can only be bought by licensed manufacturers, dealers, government entities or law enforcement. Needless to say, there isn't really enough of a market to warrant making the ROF a production gun.

Black Majik
December 24, 2005, 04:32 PM
It sucks when the very first rifle I shot was a full-auto M16 when I was a kid, and now I have to shoot semi-auto my whole life?

In short... YES I WOULD. :)

AaronE
December 24, 2005, 04:45 PM
you better believe so, Thompson, FAL, M-14 and M1919.

be JUST fine for me
:D
AaronE

glockamolee
December 24, 2005, 07:39 PM
Beretta 93 R; Thompson W/Drum; Glock 18; Mini Uzi: Broomhandle: and of course... Mr Krinkov.

MountainPeak
December 24, 2005, 07:47 PM
What?! They aren't legal?? Darn. NEVERMIND!:)

thorazine
December 25, 2005, 02:39 AM
If Full-Auto Were Legal..Would You?

It is legal. I just cannot justify the expense of purchasing and owning one at the present time.

coylh
December 25, 2005, 03:07 AM
I think three round burst and .223 were made for each other. ;)

loose cannon
December 25, 2005, 12:59 PM
clarification of misconception follows;
full auto is legal to own.but;it must be a gun or sear/triggerpack/lower,registered prior to may 1986 you must pay a $200 tax for each and it must be possesion legal in your state.you must have a permission signature from your cheif leo or attn general of your state and pass a fed background check.

becuase the number of fully transferable(reg b4 may86)is limited and demand is high the prices are outrageous and getting worse by the month so if you "wantee"better "gettie"asap.

i belive the thread starter knows this and ment;"what would you have if they were as easy to get as a turkish mauser.

loose cannon
December 25, 2005, 01:02 PM
ill add a m3a1 greesegun to my pile in fact if i ever become dictator for life ill decree the govt to make them and others again.

everybody should have a greesegun it'd make us more civilized.

jmo

yonderway
December 25, 2005, 02:06 PM
Living where I live now, which is a decidedly more urban area that would be very vulnerable to rioting or urban warfare in the event the reconquistas get serious... yes, oh hell yes, full auto would be indespensible for supressing movement of combatants getting too close to my home. Keep in mind, I'm thinking a full auto M1919 (belt fed) behind a fortification of some sort, like sandbags.

For small arms, I don't personally have interest in carrying something capable of full auto, but I'd like a select fire option on my MBR to do a two-shot or three shot burst mode.

losangeles
December 25, 2005, 04:59 PM
Sure, I would!

But I'd probably just keep it around to look at and handle. Maybe twice a year, I'd fire it for fun. Like someone said, a minute of firing costs you in the hundreds of dollars. A fun ten minutes of firing and you'd be firing off a budget for a half-dozen guns.

Spreadfire Arms
December 25, 2005, 05:14 PM
i love my full autos.....! i think alot of other people do too. they'd probably buy them if they were more affordable.

444
December 25, 2005, 07:07 PM
Full auto is legal right now, and I own a machine gun now.
If the NFA was repealed I don't know if my buying habits would change at all. I own SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, and a machine gun now.
Yeah, I suppose that I might buy an HK MP5, but I have thought about buying one anyway.

f4t9r
December 25, 2005, 07:11 PM
you bet
i would need a M16

Kenneth Lew
December 25, 2005, 07:44 PM
I kind of lost the love for full auto weapons right now. Heck I don't shoot anymore.

The_Antibubba
December 26, 2005, 02:14 AM
If NFA were abolished tomorrow I'd get suppressors first.

tonytulipz
December 26, 2005, 04:10 AM
YES YES YES YES YES.....take away all the Red tape Regulations.

Rem700SD
December 26, 2005, 04:37 AM
I'd never get belts feds or anything crew served, but the obligatory MP5 would be nice, along with a g36 and a couple automatic carbines.....

Even with no NFA the belt fed stuff would be cost prohibitive.

medmo
December 26, 2005, 06:30 AM
"I kind of lost the love for full auto weapons right now. Heck I don't shoot anymore."

A couple mags of 9mm through an M11 would re-vitalize the love. You do love fun? Don't you?

Class 3's are heavily restricted, legal in many parts of the U.S. and are FUN in match shoots or just generally hosing things down on a range.

They wouldn't be more FUN if they weren't so heavily restricted and more affordable. It would just be less expensive....

rust collector
December 26, 2005, 09:58 AM
An mg42 session every once in awhile would just have to be good for the soul and the ammunition industry. I would also want to produce 2/3 scale 22 LR Kalashnikovs and Skorpions--who could resist one?

As we become more urbanized, every gun should incorporate a suppressor of some sort. A suppressed 300 Whisper or downloaded 45-70 single shot would be ideal for controlling urban deer populations.

Too bad we can't be trusted with dangerous things :rolleyes:

loose cannon
December 26, 2005, 10:59 AM
ammunition industry,,,,yes thats who needs to be on our side in the battle to regain our rights.they do have a vested interest in killing nfa/ gca68/fopa86,,,,,,

they could make billions more than they do now,,,,

are you listening winchester,remington,and federal et al.

another okie
December 26, 2005, 02:57 PM
Legal in Oklahoma, though I have no desire to jump through the hoops necessary to own one. If I was going to go through that process I would get a suppressor or a short barrelled shotgun. A range near me rents full autos and I go about once a year and blast a couple of hundred rounds of 7.62 x 39 or 9mm. Lots of fun, but it falls in the category of things I like to do once a year, like go to the rodeo or celebrate Christmas.

JesseJames
December 26, 2005, 03:14 PM
I was M249 SAW gunner for a while in the Army. You are suppose to do 6 to 9 round bursts to keep it 'effective fire' on target. The technique is to aim a little low, then walk your rounds in with the aid of your tracers.
It's meant to be a suppressing fire weapon as well as area target weapon.
Pretty much a long range shotgun.
Glad I wasn't a M60 gunner or I'd be deaf as a doornail. Hearing is shot as it is.

igor
December 26, 2005, 05:02 PM
It is legal here too, but there are hoops to jump. I might one day. OTOH, I've had more FA fun with Sako/Valmets than a company of recruits, thanks to a friend in the service... the hunger has subsided and I'm quite happy with my semi AK-103.

If I'd go for the "collector status" as the major hoop is called here, I'd make a collection plan (required) on current Russian military small arms. The AN-94 Abakan (Avtomat Nikonova) would be my major item of interest. Look it up: http://club.guns.ru/eng/abakan.html

Dr.Rob
December 26, 2005, 05:15 PM
In a word yes. It's still legal just complicated and there are no 'new' guns.

If the NFA was repealed, I'd still be saving all my pennies... they just don't make NEW B.A.R.'s. Full auto 30-06 is a heck of a lot of fun.

I think I'd opt for a supressor and an SBR.

And they'd have to let in imports so I could get a Bizon. :D

McCall911
December 26, 2005, 05:18 PM
Personally, I have no need or use for any full-auto, but that doesn't mean I feel the same for everybody else. If you can legally own one and have the means and the desire, then go for it.

22-rimfire
December 26, 2005, 07:27 PM
Take away all the red tape of owning a full auto and I'd have one. You can't even legally transport one out of state without notifying the BATF. Under the present regulatory environment, the only reason I'd have one or more would be as an investment.

hhmorant
December 26, 2005, 07:31 PM
If the price wasn't so artificially inflated, I'd already have a few.

Texfire
December 26, 2005, 08:10 PM
Under the present regulatory environment, the only reason I'd have one or more would be as an investment.

I'd be real nervous about getting one as an investment. Sure you could recoup your investment over time if the political environment stays the same, but just as likely you could lose your shirt if it changes. Let's say all of a sudden all the NFA goes away, your guns lose their inflated value as new select-fire guns are manufactured and the artificial scarcity dissapears. Or what if current laws become more restrictive and your investment loses all value when you can't sell it to someone.

Either way, buying a select-fire gun within the existing environment for any other reason than enjoyment seems to be a risky proposition. Ask those who invested in high-capacity mags before the AWB, but didn't sell them before the sunset. Did they make much on their "investment"?

Tex

444
December 26, 2005, 08:44 PM
"Let's say all of a sudden all the NFA goes away, your guns lose their inflated value as new select-fire guns are manufactured and the artificial scarcity dissapears. "
:what: :what: :what:

I would HAPPILY take the loss on all my titleII stuff right now if that would happen. I would brag about it. It would never cause me even the slightest discomfort.

Texfire
December 26, 2005, 11:55 PM
"Let's say all of a sudden all the NFA goes away, your guns lose their inflated value as new select-fire guns are manufactured and the artificial scarcity dissapears. "
:what: :what: :what:

I would HAPPILY take the loss on all my titleII stuff right now if that would happen. I would brag about it. It would never cause me even the slightest discomfort.

Well I agree with you. But I was just pointing out the futility of purchasing a select-fire as an investment. There are many other valid reasons, though as it stands right now I'll never be able to afford one.

Tex

45Broomhandle
December 27, 2005, 12:14 AM
Top of my FA "Want List" would be the Schmeisser MP-40 9mm. Second would be a GI .30cal M2 carbine with a couple of banana mags. Lastly, ANY .22rf FA goodies I could find. Those would be much cheaper to feed. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL THR FOLKS.

MY FAVORITE PIN-UP PIC

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5937/mp40replica4lm.jpg

http://www.hunt101.com/img/356839.jpg

Logistics
December 27, 2005, 12:23 AM
>>>If Full-Auto Were Legal..Would You?<<<

Personally, myself? No.......I've shot LOTS of F/A stuff but find it only a waste of ammo in alot of cases. Very few uses and over rated. Is it fun? Yes....but an SBR is more useful imo and not a waste of ammo.

Maybe I'm getting old? ;)

cz75bdneos22
December 27, 2005, 12:55 AM
No..

Stevie-Ray
December 27, 2005, 02:29 AM
Yup. MP5 for me.:D

Red Dragon
December 27, 2005, 02:41 AM
If I could get any full auto weapon, I would mount a SAW to my POS car so people would think twice about cutting me off on the freeway:neener:

medmo
December 27, 2005, 04:17 AM
I like the idea of a roof mounted MG on the freeway. If you have a gunner and a driver that equals two occupants. That is "car-pooling" my friend... which means HOV Lane! Great idea!

rem870
December 27, 2005, 04:48 AM
The 1934 NFA is not the problem. I can pony up the $200 tax fee. The problem is the ban that was attached to the FOPA in 1986 that won't allow any more machine guns to be manufactured for civilian transfer. However, I would like to see both of them gone. But...I don't see that happening. Not only would you have every liberal in the USA screaming bloody murder I would be willing to bet that alot of Class 3 collectors would be opposed to it as well.

loose cannon
December 27, 2005, 09:21 AM
thread still going? think ill add a rpd to the pile.who could resist a 7.62x39 portable belt fed?

if we could just repeal the 86 new fa ban it'd be lovely.

dream belt fed?a brass maxim water cooled in 762x39.that and 100,000 rounds of wolf brand and you'd be all set.

If you enjoyed reading about "If Full-Auto Were Legal..Would You?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!