common use firearms?


PDA






dodgeboy12008
January 31, 2013, 10:52 PM
If the NFA of 1934 would not have been passed, do you believe that full auto arms would be in common use today? Without the regulations and limited supply of the market today, they surely would not command the price that they do. Surplus M-14s and M-16 could be CMP firearms there by creating a large supply. The price of AR-15s may also have a lower selling point because why spend $1000 on a semi auto when $1200 would get you a retired M-16a2? Just a thought after finding out about the case of US vs Miller and the ruling that the NFA is unconstitutional.

If you enjoyed reading about "common use firearms?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sam1911
January 31, 2013, 10:58 PM
I imagine there would be less of a mystique about them. There is so very little practical use for full-auto fire outside of a war zone that most folks probably would have one or two and pop off a mag dump from time to time, but without the "you can't have it" allure full auto would be a feature like a barrel shroud or bayonet lug. Interesting but not something you'd get real worked up about.

And, sure, the price for such would be a lot lower.

OptimusPrime
January 31, 2013, 11:02 PM
I don't think so. All other firearms have always been legal and roughly 1/2 the country doesn't even partake in those. Even the military recognized that autos are best when limited and M16A2s were reduced to three round burst.
So they'd be out there but I don't think the popularity would be too high. Doesn't suit my needs, I know that.

fanchisimo
January 31, 2013, 11:05 PM
I doubt there would even be many semi-auto only weapons, maybe for training youth. The cost of the few extra pieces of metal and holes to be drilled would be negligible. Like you said why would people not pay a small difference to have an extra option. I agree with Sam that it wouldn't be utilized by most people that often. I was playing with bump firing for a while but it just goes through ammo to fast. Occasionally I still did before ammo dried up.

avs11054
January 31, 2013, 11:12 PM
If the NFA of 1934 would not have been passed, do you believe that full auto arms would be in common use today? Without the regulations and limited supply of the market today, they surely would not command the price that they do. Surplus M-14s and M-16 could be CMP firearms there by creating a large supply. The price of AR-15s may also have a lower selling point because why spend $1000 on a semi auto when $1200 would get you a retired M-16a2? Just a thought after finding out about the case of US vs Miller and the ruling that the NFA is unconstitutional.

Maybe, maybe not. I doubt they would be nearly as expensive as they are today. I remember hearing once that full-autos were only about $500 more than semi-autos before 1986. I would want one for the "coolness" factor, but that is it. I think that a mag dump from a semi-auto is expensive enough. And with how much quicker I would go through a mag with a full-auto, I might just not have that much fun with it.

As far as practicality, I've never shot a full-auto, but I would think that a semi-auto would be more effective for a defensive shoot. I agree though that most fire-arms would probably be select fire so that you could shoot semi-auto or full-auto.

OptimusPrime
January 31, 2013, 11:16 PM
There is no question that semi-auto is far and away better for defensive purposes. Full auto is used to lay down suppressive fire and shock and awe the bad guy into taking cover. Aiming, squeezing, and bullet placement is how you win. Full auto is how you scare.

MErl
January 31, 2013, 11:18 PM
I'd expect suppressors to be extremely common, standard equipment.

I'd expect a common question to be "3 round burst for home defense?"

slamfirev10
February 1, 2013, 01:04 AM
keeping them (full auto) fed would be a cost issue for many,

i would happily own and fire a 3 round burst if not for the nfa

and like sam1911 said,
there would be less of a mystique about them.

akv3g4n
February 1, 2013, 09:23 AM
I'd expect suppressors to be extremely common, standard equipment.

And they should be even today. They should be seen as just another piece of safety equipment just like ear plugs and safety glasses. It would cut down on hearing loss for the shooter and noise pollution for everyone else around them. They would certainly make for happier neighbors in a lot of situations.

I'm not saying to mandate them by any means, but certainly encourage shooters to use them. It just seems like common sense. A muffler for your firearms.

Ranger Roberts
February 1, 2013, 10:22 AM
I don't think they'd be all that practical for most people. The cost of ammo would be a killer for the average Joe. However, if I could buy them without the hassle of tax stamps and the wait, I would! Don't get me wrong, they are really really fun! When I was in the army, we generally only used them in road block situations.

Isaac-1
February 1, 2013, 10:39 AM
How many could afford to shoot them on a regular basis with todays ammo prices.

hso
February 1, 2013, 10:50 AM
SBRs and suppressors are common use in countries that allow them to be purchased by the public as standard firearms/accessories.

Bianchi?
February 1, 2013, 12:29 PM
I think we would see a LOT of full auto .22's, especially scale models of popular machine guns. But anything else would be primarily used in semi-auto mode.

Ryanxia
February 1, 2013, 12:40 PM
Suppressors would be much more common and probably built into several models. Also it would be nice to be able to SBR my Saiga 12 without having to do paperwork/pay $200.

c4v3man
February 1, 2013, 01:03 PM
A full auto .22 would be nice. Also, many sport rifles being purchased today would only need a sear added to be made select fire, which means there would be no reason NOT to own a select fire model at minimal added expense. Granted I can't see firing anything other than a .22 full auto on a regular basis, but as said above 3-round burst would be fun.

And I would spend the $200 necessary to own a supressor for my more commonly used firearms. But at $200+$200NFA+hassle, it's not worth it.

And finally, it would make the aftermarket a lot more interesting. Could make non-auto weapons auto, even if not designed to operate as such. Which would perhaps have small problems in certain designs, which would lead to solutions, products designed and produced (likely here in the USA) to resolve said problems, etc.

TRX
February 1, 2013, 04:59 PM
If 1934 hadn't passed, all AKs, Thompsons, Stens, M-16s, etc. would still be select-fire. The AR-15 would never have existed, and semiauto AKs, FALs, etc. would have remained "civil guard" or "training" oddities.

A lot of the .22LR and pistol-caliber full auto SMGs and carbines that never quite made it in the police or military markets would still be in production, or at least have been made in greater numbers.

The Act also covered suppressors. We might have seen some shooting ranges go "suppressed only" as urban encroachment brought lawsuits over noise. It's entirely possible some manufacturers might have come out with entire integrally-suppressed product lines, even if they were only simple "muffler" devices to take the bite out of the sound signature.

Larry Ashcraft
February 1, 2013, 05:09 PM
I could have bought a Thompson, tax stamp and all, for $1200 in the early 1980s. I had the money too, but decided that I really didn't need a "range toy" all that much.

Carl N. Brown
February 1, 2013, 05:14 PM
I passed on a Reising Model 50 pre-'86. Just could not justify $200 registration tax on a $150 gun with three kids in school.

(With the supply of registered full-auto froze at 19 may 1986 levels, a Reising today is $3,000 and a Thompson is $20,000 and up.)

dodgeboy12008
February 4, 2013, 11:54 PM
I wasnt thinking purely on the idea of defense. Im of the mind set that not every firearm has to be defined and reasoned to be owned. Im sure most of us have some just because. But now pondering the idea, I think short barreled rifles would be more common also. An Ar with the 10ish inch barrel would be close to perfect for home defense short and maneuverable with the power of a rifle round.

willypete
February 5, 2013, 01:31 AM
An Ar with the 10ish inch barrel would be close to perfect for home defense short and maneuverable with the power of a rifle round.

Maybe if it also featured a suppressor. Otherwise, noise would be pretty loud.

I think we'd see a lot more full-auto stuff than we currently do. How many mall-ninjas who like to play dressup with their AR wouldn't go in for "the same gun the military/specops/operators have!" to include the firing options?

A few of you seem to underestimate the utility of full-auto for close defense use. While dumping a mag into one target may be ineffective, controlled bursts are pretty nice at close range. The 5.56x45 is pretty controllable under full auto. I recall being able to keep it in the black of a B27 at 25 yards for a magazine's worth. Also, I've cut 4x4s in half using a Mk46 machine gun, same range. Full auto isn't the uncontrollable beast you might think...

Full-auto pistol caliber carbines would be pretty nice for HD, too. Kriss, anyone?

If you enjoyed reading about "common use firearms?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!