Why didn't more folks by full auto when they were readily available?


PDA






leadcounsel
November 14, 2010, 01:32 PM
So, did more people not buy them because they didn't have the foresight to see the decline in availability? No 'need' for them?

Hindsight being 20/20 and all, it just blows me away that someone COULD just walk into a gun store and plop down some cash, no paperwork, and walk out with such outstanding full auto weapons... but didn't!!! :banghead::what:

Seriously, think of the amazing weapons you could have owned with little effort.

Now, to get something it takes an act of Congress and a vault of money.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why didn't more folks by full auto when they were readily available?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
One-Time
November 14, 2010, 01:38 PM
Id venture a guess that is because most at that time were raised in bolt guns or single shot muskets, though as I understand Thompsons were pretty popular but were just very expensive, some $200 dollars IIRC which was a LOT of money in those days-

From Wiki-

In 1928 Federal Laboratories took over distribution of the weapon from Thompson's Auto Ordnance Corporation.[20] The cost at this time was US$225 per weapon, with $5 per 50 round drum and $3 for 20 round magazine.[20]

In 1926 the Cutts Compensator (a recoil brake) was offered as an option for the M1921; Thompsons with the compensator were catalogued as No. 21AC at the original price of $200.00, with the plain M1921 designated No. 21A at a reduced price of $175.00.[21]

After they passed the NFA in 1934 it added an additional $200 to any of those type weapons which made the cost of the gun and stamp unaffordable

Mahnmut
November 14, 2010, 01:40 PM
Keep in mind what was happening in 1934 when the NFA was enacted. Full on economic depression. People had money for food and housing, not too much discretionary spending going on then. I'm sure there were many other reasons as well. One being that fullly automatic weapons deployable by one person wasn't even "that" common in the military, much less by the common citizen.

browningguy
November 14, 2010, 01:40 PM
They were always expensive for the working man. $200 in the south back in the 30's was out of reach for the great majority of people.

Shear_stress
November 14, 2010, 01:47 PM
They were always expensive for the working man. $200 in the south back in the 30's was out of reach for the great majority of people.

Absolutely. Adjusting for inflation, two hundred dollars in 1934 (year of the National Firearms Act) is equal to $3171.13 in 2009 dollars. Even $200 in 1968 (year of the Gun Control Act banning the import of full autos) is equal to $1219.75 in 2009 dough.

Mp7
November 14, 2010, 01:48 PM
For a gun that is ( very) expensive to buy and feed and only good for fun
and full-on SD .... it would be just unjustifyable for anyone
but rich gun nuts ... and gangsters.

Shotguns fed families and protected homes. Still are good at it today :)

rcmodel
November 14, 2010, 02:09 PM
There was never a time when machineguns were cheap.

In 1934 a brand new Ford sedan cost $555.
At the same time, after the NFA was passed, a fully equipped Thompson, some ammo, & a tax stamp cost about the same.

At about the same time, a Colt .45 revolver sold for $25, and a set of four car tires cost $6.35!

A farm hand made $216, and a steel worker made $423, a year!
Or an average wage of $26.62 a month.

SO, in 1934 it would take you almost two years pay to buy a Thompson.
And that would not leave you any money to get to work, feed the kids, and feed the Thompson.

rc

CraigC
November 14, 2010, 02:22 PM
Yes we must remember that the NFA was passed in the days of the great depression. Those guns were very, very expensive to produce back in the days when everything was machined from forgings. To put it in perspective, my online inflation calculator puts $225 in 1928 money at $2792.19 in 2009 money. Add the $200 NFA tax stamp and you're at double that. There aren't many folks buying $3000-$6000 guns nowadays either and despite what many believe, we are in FAR better economic condition now than then.

medalguy
November 14, 2010, 03:05 PM
Back in 1934 my father was working in a CCC camp because there simply wasn't any work to be had in rural South Carolina, even with an engineering degree from The Citadel. To consider purchasing a full auto Thompson at that point in time would not have been anything one would even think about. As said, average wages at that time were about a dollar a day. And WHY would anyone want a Thompson back then? Certainly, no one had disposable income at that time. A farmer would buy a single box of .22 ammo and expect to kill 50 rabbits with that box. They sure didn't haved the time nor money to buy boxes of .45 ACP ammo to shoot just for fun.

We forget we live in a wonderful period of time. We have waaaay too much disposable income in a time when some people on this planet scrape by on a few dollars a year and have no time for anything but subsistence living. I think our kids and my generation as well forget just how great we have it today, despite our bitching about current events. I hope it continues.

I for one enjoy taking my firearms out for a day of shooting and just blasting away several hundred dollars worth of ammo just to punch paper, not to bring home tonight's dinner. What a wonderful place we live in.

Justin
November 14, 2010, 03:36 PM
Allow us to play a game of "Let's Pretend We're Living In The Past."



If you're basically living a subsistence lifestyle during the worst economic downturn the modern world has ever seen, it's not really all that likely that you would be interested in collecting overly expensive guns of dubious utility on the off chance that politicians might get around to capping the supply of them around fifty years in the future.

shiftyer1
November 14, 2010, 03:47 PM
I would think at that time guns were tools, not toys to play with on saturday. It's hard to come up with a specific use other than just for the fun of it or fighting a war.

X-Rap
November 14, 2010, 04:10 PM
Why did we not all buy gold when it was $200 an ounce? How come our dads didn't park that 57 Chevy or corvette in the garage and leave it under a tarp?
Why didn't I marry that girl that went on to make millions?
We all have 20/20 hindsight and are missing those same opportunities as we speak if we just knew what they were.

wideym
November 14, 2010, 04:23 PM
I've talked to a couple of gunshop owners who sold NFA weapons in the 70's and early 80's about this subject. Both commented that the "cheap" machineguns were the MACs and that no one seemed interested in a "bullet hose" that cost about $600 with the tax stamp.

They said that there was an interest in the Ruger ACC, M-16s, and M-14s, but many people who had "war trophy" MGs never registered them because local LEOs never really cared at the time or were waiting for another amensty which never came. There are a lot of WWII MGs lying at the bottom of the river now since they closed the registry.

Plus, the anti-gun politicans always claimed their "new" gun law was the last and nobody ever expected them to close the NFA registry.

InkEd
November 14, 2010, 05:07 PM
The closing of the NFA Registry is IMHO one of the most unconstitutional gun laws ever passed. It is just a wrongful act on several levels.

It criminalizes something that people were granted the right to own by the Bill of Rights. The law hurts the economy too. The money made from all aspects of new
gun production is a tragic loss of millions of dollars. It would create production, distribution, sales and other jobs for people. There would be capital gains for manufacturers and dealers. Contracts for different arms would not be loss to other countries or at least to a lesser degree. Lastly, don't dare forget that every
link in the chain will be taxed by the government on various levels. The mere greed of the government for tax money should be reason enough to reverse the laws.

Also, the main reason for inflation is because our money isn't backed by anything other than promises (read: lies) from politicians that everything will be okay (as long as they're in charge) and that we have nothing of which to worry. Pretty soon, when we need cash we'll just go take it from the monopoly game in the closet instead of the bank. It'll be worth about the same AND it comes in fancy colors. IMHO the US needs to work on becoming a more self-sufficient nation (or at least rely on our allies instead of enemies) for almost all aspects. We are living pretty comfortable lives compared to other generations. However, we can and should strive to do better than ever.

CapnMac
November 14, 2010, 05:18 PM
If you're basically living a subsistence lifestyle during the worst economic downturn the modern world has ever seen, it's not really all that likely that you would be interested in collecting overly expensive guns of dubious utility on the off chance that politicians might get around to capping the supply of them around fifty years in the future.

So, just what do you know about 2060 that we don't? <sad, wry, broke, smile>

AR27
November 14, 2010, 05:43 PM
IDK, You tell me? :neener:

Trebor
November 14, 2010, 08:17 PM
I briefly looked into buying a MG before the registry closed. I was only 19 at the time though and just couldn't come up with the money due to the sudden rise in prices.

It turns out it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway as the only MG's we could buy in Michigan back then were C&R eligible MG's and I didn't have a C&R. (I didn't find out about this until years later. The price of the MG's in 1986 stopped me at "Step 1" before I looked any further into it).

rondog
November 14, 2010, 08:43 PM
To be honest, after renting several f/a's at a machinegun shoot and seeing how fast they eat through the ammo, not to mention just where are you going to shoot one, that pretty much quenched my desire to ever own one. Not to mention the cost. If I just gotta shoot one, I'll rent another to get my fix.

Kinda have the same attitude about wives.....

Zoogster
November 14, 2010, 08:55 PM
Also keep in mind that especially a few decades ago before the closing of the registry the average type of individual into guns enough to spend that kind of money was not entirely fond of the idea of registration.


Registration of guns was very rare, and being registered and tracked as an NFA firearm owner was not desirable to many.

Not only registration but legally requiring permission to cross state lines.
Checking in with government when there is a change of address.
The sense and expectation of freedom was higher in previous generations. They didn't have all the security screening today for example that reduces the average person's expectations of privacy and liberty.
Today people post personal info online, give tons of information on lots of forms, get virtual strip searches in airports, go through screening just to go to sports games or other public events..etc
The type of thing considered common today make what was once seen as a serious infringement seem a lot more minor than back then.


There was no also internet so even though they were easily purchased before 1986 (and imported prior to 1968) it was not known as a legal option to a significant portion of the population.
You had to already know it was even legal to research it at a library to learn the specifics, or know someone personally who had experience in dealing with them.
So you had to learn it was even an option almost by accident to then research how to do it.

CLEO sign off in most of the nation could be very difficult.
When your average cop was carrying a revolver, asking them permission to have things they didn't even have access to would not always work in your favor.
Once again there was not tons of people on the internet telling you that you could just make a trust, or software to make it easier.
Information freely available today once required hours looking people and resources up the old fashioned way or hiring a lawyer specializing in that portion of law just to discover.
You wouldn't stumble upon it in blogs where thousands of people give detailed descriptions and expectations of the exact process and their experiences.
Today even the youngest most naive individual can spend a short time online and know generally what to expect, what to do, and what the outcome will be.
Back then it took someone quite a bit more dedicated to learn the process and feel confident they had cross their "t"s and dotted their "i"s to begin the process.
Or to know someone personally who had already gone through the process, and obtain information from them.

kimbershot
November 14, 2010, 11:26 PM
life was different back in the 60-70's. i could have purchased an m16 cheap by todays standards--600??. i could have purchased a new corvette for 4kish. i could have supported a family on the 175/week that i earned when i graduated high school in 69. i bought gas for 25cents per gallon. gold/silver same thing. so, by the time you add it all up, things were cheap by today's standards, but today is today. no regrets.:rolleyes:

PT1911
November 14, 2010, 11:40 PM
I had the problem of not being born yet... whats your excuse?:D

In all seriousness, IMO, it is pretty simple.... In that time, and even now many gun owners are more interested in a hunting weapon or a handgun.. The full autos dont fill either niche. They are a niche of their own.. an expensive one!! They are also, for the most part, impractical for much other than fun. I dont know many people that would opt for a full auto for any purpose other than for range use or as an investment. The only benefit they offer is putting rounds down range and suppressing enemy fire... not many situations that would require that in my neck of the woods. Of course, that doesnt mean I wouldnt love to have a short barreled full auto rifle.

jmorris
November 15, 2010, 12:06 AM
Why didn't more folks by full auto when they were readily available?


Why didn't more people buy primers before they dried up.

Why didn't more people sell stock before prices fell.

Why don't people go to the ER right before they have a heart attack.

Lack of information, knowlege or just being optimistic. It goes the other way too. There are a bunch of people that still have tons of stuff they stock piled for the doom that Y2K was going to bring.

jmorris
November 15, 2010, 12:07 AM
FWIW they are still readily available, they just cost more.

medalguy
November 15, 2010, 01:52 AM
You're right about those years being very different. Back in the 1960's I collected machine guns just for the fun of it. I shot them and traded them. No one really cared about MGs back then. We would openly buy and sell them at gun shows without anyone raising an eyebrow. There were no terrorists or radicals back then with the exception of a few radicals out in San Francisco. Some of my best customers and sellers were police officers in fact. But that all changed in the late 60's when the amnesty came about. Lots of people I know didn't register all or even most of the machine guns they had, fearing ATF would swoop down and arrest them for possession of the guns they did admit to owning and registering. And who could have forseen a cutoff on manufacturing or registering new guns twenty years in the future? No one really cared about machine guns one way or the other back then.

Really, back then WWII wasn't that far off and most guys who were war veterans didn't have much interest in the war weapons of their war and the younger guys didn't have the money to buy them, let alone shoot them. I can recall buying .50 BMG ammo at gun shows for 5 cents a round, sometimes even less. Ammo was cheap then. .30-06 surplus ammo could be bought for 3-4 cents a round, but then minimum wage was a dollar an hour if I remember correctly. Who had the money to buy tons of ammo?

So, things were indeed different years ago. Who knows-- the prices we pay today may seem very cheap in another twenty years. Better buy that gun today before the price goes sky-high next year.:eek:

GoingQuiet
November 15, 2010, 02:17 AM
I have customers that told me stories. Here's the best one.

In 1986 - $200 was a lot of money. It still is a lot of money. The going phrase was "I'm not spending $200 on a damn HK sear and another $200 to register the damn thing with ATF"

Remember - back then, $400 got you more than a tank of gas.

Just like anything else - demand caught up.

PTK
November 15, 2010, 05:20 AM
I guess I might be strange, but I read the question more along the lines of pre-Hughes purchases, not pre-NFA. Pretty much the same answers apply, though - in 1986, $200 was still a load of money.

Ingsoc75
November 15, 2010, 10:34 AM
I think it might also be a generational difference.

For those of us who were raised in the 1980s and 1990s and not being old enough to even purchase a MG prior to May 1986 it's kind of a "forbidden fruit" type of thing.

Do full autos really serve a purpose? Not really, but it sure would be fun to own one just because you have the privilege to in many states.

Some day I would love to own one but for now bump firing my AK74 is the closest I will get.

X-Rap
November 15, 2010, 12:13 PM
I would love to have an MP5 and an M4 but that is about all I could afford to feed. If automatics ever become easily available at reasonable prices I hope suppressors do as well.

RS14
November 15, 2010, 01:45 PM
I suspect that it also had to do with the relative lack of light automatic weapons. In 1933, your choices were things like the M1918 BAR, or even heavier and more unwieldy belt-fed machine guns, or the Thompson, which was still both expensive and heavy. The Germans had a few good subguns, not that they would have been widely available in the US, and pretty much everything else came after the NFA, including all assault rifles.

Furthermore, the Thompson wouldn't have been all that well known as a military weapon. Other than some actions in Central and South America, subguns didn't see much military use until WWII. The average veteran had trained and fought with a bolt action rifle, and that probably shaped his views of what a military weapon should be like.

7thCavScout
November 15, 2010, 02:01 PM
Thought you all might enjoy this vintage ad from a Sears & Roebuck Catalog

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/7thCavScout/cowboyTommygun.gif

Prince Yamato
November 15, 2010, 02:47 PM
I love how he's actually killing people with it in the ad. Imagine if that ad was released today! :D

TexasRifleman
November 15, 2010, 03:06 PM
Take a Thompson. In 1934 they were $200, pre NFA.

That's about $3300 in today's dollars.

That's an expensive item, then and now.

Then, say in 1935 the price of the gun was $3300 plus another $3300 in taxes.

Now we are at $6600 in today's dollar for a 1935 Thompson. Steep entry fee back then.

As a result, unfortunately, the biggest buyers were criminals.

mboylan
November 15, 2010, 03:18 PM
You need to remember that ammo was really expensive until the early 90s. Most people could not afford to feed one. Some people bought one and sold it after they discovered they could not afford to feed one. Most people today cannot afford to feed one.

If you cannot afford a MAC at today's prices, you probably cannot afford to shoot one regularly.

Also the trust route was not available until the 90s. Most CLEOs would deny permission.

Claude Clay
November 15, 2010, 04:10 PM
so many good points--

adjusted cost; $6600 in '86 bought 8 or 10 other assorted pistols & rifles

bullet hose--just how i perceived them at that point in time. a couple hours at the press made enough ammo (600 plus rounds of various calibers) for 3 range sessions. the MG eats that in less than a half hour--if it runs.

id like to add--if it runs--the many people who i observed back than spent way more time consulting and tinkering than actually shooting. today they seem to run much, much better.:uhoh: though at each MG shoot out of the 30 odd that start, half do not finish cause of malfunctions. go figure...

the MG crowd, my observation based on the clubs local to me, are among the most sharing gunnies i know. many hand me the gun and a stick (or more) of their ammo. others i make ammo specific to their MG: happyness is a warm gun:D

X-Rap
November 15, 2010, 09:13 PM
I would love to have a big blow up of that page in the sears catalog to frame, if I opened one today and saw that add I'd be at the store in a heartbeat.
Someone skilled at graphics and such could do a modern version with crack dealers and gang bangers instead of cattle rustlers.

CleverNickname
November 16, 2010, 11:47 AM
Also the trust route was not available until the 90s.

"Not well-publicized" would be more accurate. The law hasn't changed since 1968, but the internet has done a lot to facilitate communications and make it easier to find out information that wasn't readily available before.

IBEWBULL
November 16, 2010, 11:56 AM
We can thank Ronnie Reagan for the present laws on class III.
http://www.mdwguns.com/NFA_Items.html
This snuck up on us and if we wrer aware of the door being closed I think things would be a lot different.
Why don't people buy more supressors today?
The same reasons apply to this as the class III and I am still cash poor and have no suppressed weapons.

Ingsoc75
November 16, 2010, 12:08 PM
I think the only way for 922(o) to get repealed is for some lawmaker to remove it as part of a larger bill. That's how Hughes and Rangel snuck it into FOPA.

Sam1911
November 16, 2010, 12:11 PM
We can thank Ronnie Reagan for the present laws on class III.
http://www.mdwguns.com/NFA_Items.html


Wow, that web site sure gets some stuff wrong. I'm not sure why folks would put such easily verified false statements in the first line of their commercial web page, but I guess it takes all kinds...

In 1986 Ronald Reagan signed the executive order that no military style firearms could be imported into the US, and that full automatic weapons produced from the day of signing this order could not be sold to civilians.


Yeah, that's all wrong. In 1986, Ronald Regan signed the Firearm Owner's Protection Act which included as a last-minute addition the "Hughes Amendment" which closed the registry. Reagan didn't author any of it and just signed what he was told (correctly) was a largely positive law that really did do a lot to help out gun owners. This was not an executive order -- at all -- but rather a bill that had worked its way through both houses of Congress and was passed. All Regan did was sign it -- with the blessing of the Republican party and the NRA.

Further, the restriction on imports of foreign-made military weapons goes back 18 years earlier to the Gun Control Act of 1968, when Reagan was still Governor of California.

Zoogster
November 16, 2010, 05:26 PM
Further, the restriction on imports of foreign-made military weapons goes back 18 years earlier to the Gun Control Act of 1968, when Reagan was still Governor of California.

Yeah he was in California busy signing the Mulford Act, banning open carry in California around that time (1967.)

Sam1911
November 16, 2010, 05:50 PM
Yeah he was in California busy signing the Mulford Act, banning open carry in California around that time (1967.)

Right, but that didn't have anything to do with full-auto weapons and this isn't a general "I hate Reagan" thread. :)

788Ham
November 17, 2010, 12:18 AM
While still remembering.......... back in '67, a buddy of mine and I would spend less than $10.00 apiece and go to the nearest sptg gds store, but a brick of .22's for $3.99, and several boxes of 12 ga. shot gun shells for $1.89 a box and go shooting all day long! We'd go about 35 miles north of town and shoot the Be'jesus outta every jackrabbit and P-dog that ran the dirt in front of us. Now, I've seen the same $10.00 might buy you "one" box of .22's, the fancy assed one's some folks like to brag about using for paper punching. The little Win. semi-auto I paid $49.00 for wouldn't get you much of a rifle now days at all, except maybe a worn-out one at a gun show. I haven't any need for a MG, the older days were a lot simpler too.:rolleyes:

Bruno2
November 17, 2010, 12:26 AM
The $225.00 tax was to make it impossible for snybody except the exremely wealthy. There is no need to raise the tax now b/c the price of the guns are so far out of reach. Thanks Ronnie thanks alot.

Sam1911
November 17, 2010, 10:43 AM
Thanks Ronnie thanks alot. Yup. Thanks Ronnie. Thanks for signing what the conservatives and gun-rights group told you to sign.

Thanks for signing a law that would...

1) Reform the ATF's abusive practices toward dealers
2) Clarify the definition of a "prohibited person"
3) Reopen interstate sales of long guns, getting rid of the "contiguous states" problem
4) Allow ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service
5) Remove the requirement to keep records on ammunition sales
6) Codify the "Safe Passage" provision to permit travel between states where your guns are legal even through those areas where they aren't.

Soooo...

Does "Ronnie" deserve credit for these things? Does he deserve blame for the Hughes Amendment?

jimmyraythomason
November 17, 2010, 10:51 AM
Thanks Sam1911 for setting the record straight. I for one DO thank President Reagan for all he did for us! Now to the original question; in 1934-35 my grandfather had a wife and 7 kids to feed. The ONE box of .22 shorts or handful of #9 12ga shells they could get went to put food on the table. As an Alabama sharecropper,who OWED the landowner money after it was all said and done,he had no need for or ability to buy a "fun gun". I can remember when my dad bought dynamite at the hardware store. Why didn't everyone buy that when they could?

DoubleTapDrew
November 17, 2010, 01:09 PM
In those pre-Internet days before the Hughes Amendment capped the supply it may not have been well known that you could own them, or at least knew how to go about owning them.

Back in the mid-80s I thought it would be so cool to own those types of things, but my limited knowledge on the subject (along with picking the brains of the typical gun show "experts") lead me to believe you needed a "class 3 FFL license" just to own a title II firearm or device, so it got put into the "someday..." category. Of course the fact I was 10 didn't help. You'd have to mow a lot of lawns to come up with the price of the stamp, let alone the MG.

The closing of the NFA Registry is IMHO one of the most unconstitutional gun laws ever passed. It is just a wrongful act on several levels.

Want to hear the really disgusting part?
It didn't even pass.

Recorded vote for Hughes Amendment:
Ayes: 124
Noes: 298
Not Voting: 12

Source: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B769hyKWckIHOGU3OWQ2ODQtMjM1YS00Njg2LTg3MjEtOGJiNzFiNGJiZDgz&hl=en
They put it in the FOPA anyway.

Sam1911
November 17, 2010, 01:35 PM
In those pre-Internet days before the Hughes Amendment capped the supply it may not have been well known that you could own them

Very astute point!

There is a LOT of "common" knowledge that we take for granted now which was simply not easy to acquire even 10 or 15 years ago. Growing up I didn't know anyone who knew anything of owning a Title II firearm, or who knew anyone who did. I shot regularly and visited probably a dozen or so gun shops spread out over two states pretty often, but none of them were SOT 03s -- in fact, I'd never heard of one. (Similarly, I didn't know anyone who owned an AR-15 or AK until I went off to college. Never met anyone with a carry permit, etc.)

Now the "gun culture" is far more developed than it was a few decades ago (though certain elements like the hunting culture have perhaps declined somewhat) and the ease with which we share information, values, concerns, interests, etc. makes such things vastly more accessible to the "average" gun enthusiast. Instead of limiting the gun obsession to debating Model 70s vs. M700s in the local rod & gun shop, "Joe Average Shooter" can log in to dozens of gun forums every night and argue dB reduction levels of various suppressors, and find out how long it is taking the ATF to return a Form 1 this month, and make plans to travel next month to a machine gun shoot 300 miles away where he'll hang out with shooting buddies he's known for years but never met, etc.

It's a GOOD thing! :)

Of course, now -- just like happens when a few million young guys discover how cool are M1903s and Enfields and Mausers (that their dads bought for $20 to cut into hunting guns) -- there is a big demand for something that was a declining (or at least capped off) commodity 20+ years ago.

speaksoftly
November 17, 2010, 02:46 PM
Same reason people don't buy them now. They're friggin expensive.

JHK94
November 17, 2010, 03:47 PM
$49.00 for wouldn't get you much of a rifle now days at all, except maybe a worn-out one at a gun show

Of course, $49 in 1947 comes to $311 today, and you can get a nice .22 for that, for less even.

And $4 for a brick of 22s? That $25 now, and I can usually get bricks for $15. So it looks like guns and ammo are cheaper now...

mokin
November 17, 2010, 04:09 PM
Thanks 7thCavScout. I was thinking about that ad when I started reading this thread. That image stiicks in my head when I think about the availability of fully automatic guns "back in the day".

deafdave3
November 17, 2010, 04:14 PM
I've had many opportunities to own a full-auto. I still do. I just see no point. I cannot financially justify it. Sure, its fun at first, but the thrill dies quick. And the waste of bullets are always expensive. Now, a full-auto .22, on the other hand....

mboylan
November 17, 2010, 08:40 PM
Of course, $49 in 1947 comes to $311 today, and you can get a nice .22 for that, for less even.

And $4 for a brick of 22s? That $25 now, and I can usually get bricks for $15. So it looks like guns and ammo are cheaper now...
Guns and ammo are much much cheaper in today's dollars than they were in the 60s and 70s. People complain too much. You can accumulate a reasonable gun collection and a decent stock of ammo with a moderate income now a days. That was impossible to do in the 50s and 60s without being very well off.

You mean 67, but I get your point. In 1960, that brick was more than $5.

mr.trooper
November 17, 2010, 09:21 PM
So, did more people not buy them because they didn't have the foresight to see the decline in availability? No 'need' for them?

Hindsight being 20/20 and all, it just blows me away that someone COULD just walk into a gun store and plop down some cash, no paperwork, and walk out with such outstanding full auto weapons... but didn't!!! :banghead: :what:

Give your elders more credit. Your grandparents weren't stupid OR lacking in foresight - in 1933, a $225 Tommy gun cost the equivelant of $3700 in todays money.... during a REAL depression.

Why don't people plop down $4K on Mac-11's and Sten guns today? Because few shooters desire to jump through hoops just to spend used car money on something with no practical application.

OrangePwrx9
November 17, 2010, 11:18 PM
Ha ha, funny question. I remember my Dad often telling of Pa deer hunting trips in the '30s, where he, his brothers and a couple of neighbors in Pgh. piled into an old car and headed for the woods when all they had between them was 5 cartridges. Nobody had money for ammo.

The guys they'd invite along on these hunts were sometimes guys they knew had a few cartridges for a gun they had. The idea of full-auto arms under those circumstances is laughable.
Bob

If you enjoyed reading about "Why didn't more folks by full auto when they were readily available?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!