What is the benefit of Full Auto?


PDA






Skribs
January 31, 2014, 12:41 AM
Beyond just "for fun", what is the benefit of having a fully-automatic weapon? I mean, I have a pulse, so obviously I suffer from "I can haz?" syndrome regarding these weapons, but I'm wondering what the real purpose is.

For home defense? I would think semi-automatic would be preferable. Gives you more control over your rounds to leave enough in your magazine for BG #2, and gives you better shot placement.
For police? Full auto seems to be a liability waiting to happen, especially for some departments (cough, NYC, cough).
For military? I know we transitioned to burst fire on the M-16 to conserve ammo, but went back to full auto with the M4. What is the benefit over a semi-automatic?

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the benefit of Full Auto?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Telekinesis
January 31, 2014, 01:56 AM
If you're asking why people buy registered machine guns, the answer is almost always gonna be some variation of "it's fun"/"because I can" which is a perfectly valid reason. A Ferrari and a civic will do essentially the same thing, but if you enjoy driving you'll have a lot more fun in the Ferrari. A MG is the same thing to a gun owner.

Another way to look at it is with a machine gun you have the option to use FA, but you are not necessarily required to use it (i'm assuming you're talking about select fire weapons and not belt feds etc). If there was no NFA and it was only $50 more to have a select fire AR, I would have one but would keep it in semi 90% of the time anyway.

For home defense, having the gun set on FA doesn't mean you're gonna be wasting a whole magazine on one person. Even on semi-auto I expect to be putting at least 2-3 shots into an attacker, what do I care if it takes 3 trigger pulls or just 1?

For cops, well it doesn't make much sense for them to dress up in all that cool, expensive tactical gear and then just use the same gun that anyone could pick up at Walmart, they've gotta have ALL the cool toys :rolleyes:
But seriously, same reason as an individual using one for home defense.

The military is an entirely different ball of wax. Of course the previous methodology applies, but most modern military tactics (at least small unit tactics) are based around setting up a base of fire and then maneuvering around the flank to kill the enemy. Machine guns are a great tool to set up that base of fire and keep heads down so your enemy doesn't outflank YOU. Another reason is that when an enemy is about to overrun your position, every person firing has the ability to shoot FA, which might give a squad just enough of an edge to not be destroyed. From what I understand, M16s and M4s are left on semi 99% of the time. But then again, they have the OPTION of using FA if it is needed.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that both M16s and M4s have different variations that are both FA and burst. IIRC the M16A1 is FA, A2 is burst, A3 is FA, and A4 is burst. I believe the M4 also has a similar alternating pattern with burst/FA trigger packs, but I'm not positive which variation is which.

HisStigness
January 31, 2014, 03:05 AM
Not to mention class III weapons will only go up in value, so they are an excellent investment. I'm pretty sure people with FA weapons keep them locked up pretty tight and don't use them for home defense. I definitely wouldn't use a $15k+ m16 for home defense over an ar-15.

Torian
January 31, 2014, 06:00 AM
From the military perspective, I've shot fully automatic 9mm all the way up to .50 M2. I don't think it provides much of a tactical advantage unless you are firing it in more of an overbuilt action like the M240. The ability to provide covering or suppressive fire is why we usually employ it...massing of fires and all that goodness.

For a regularly issued battle rifle like the M4 - we don't even use the burst selector.

beatledog7
January 31, 2014, 08:10 AM
You can lay down a lot of fire very quickly with a full auto, but you can also go through your entire ammo supply very quickly. Military applications abound, but I don't see any rational civilian utility (meaning, beyond entertainment) for a full auto.

That said, there's no real utility (beyond entertainment) in a Corvette or a 70" TV, but I still think anyone who has the resources should be able to buy them.

Charger442
January 31, 2014, 09:58 AM
why is full auto good?

Let me give you the Joe Dirt answer:

Well, huh, might as well ask why is a tree good? Why is the sunset good? Why are boobs good?


They just are.

LeonCarr
January 31, 2014, 10:14 AM
The benefit is Full Auto is the fastest way possible to turn money into noise.

Besides repelling human wave type attacks and maybe covering fire, I can't see many military applications for full auto either.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Bubbles
January 31, 2014, 11:13 AM
For the same reasons I keep motorcycles, classic cars, horses, dogs, snakes...

Because they're fun and cheaper than therapy.

Mike1234567
January 31, 2014, 11:20 AM
I don't need or "much" want one. I suppose if I were a wealthy man then I'd probably have one or two... but then I'd probably have an armored tank too.:D

tbk5
January 31, 2014, 11:27 AM
They are extremely efficient to free up lots of space in the ammo cabinet. ;-)

Sam1911
January 31, 2014, 11:40 AM
Beyond just "for fun", what is the benefit of having a fully-automatic weapon? I mean, I have a pulse, so obviously I suffer from "I can haz?" syndrome regarding these weapons, but I'm wondering what the real purpose is.
I assume you're asking as a citizen/civilian in the peacetime USA.

For home defense? I would think semi-automatic would be preferable. Gives you more control over your rounds to leave enough in your magazine for BG #2, and gives you better shot placement.Indeed. While it is not inconceivable that certain home defense applications might be served with a submachine gun or assault rifle, the risks of unintended damage rise dramatically. You're responsible for EVERY bullet that leaves your gun. Unless you really do live by yourself a very long way from anyone else, full-auto fire, even with pistol cartridges is a terrible idea.

For police? Full auto seems to be a liability waiting to happen, especially for some departments (cough, NYC, cough).Indeed. The situations where law enforcement could/should use full-auto fire are so limited as to be pretty much negligible.

For military? I know we transitioned to burst fire on the M-16 to conserve ammo, but went back to full auto with the M4. What is the benefit over a semi-automatic?

From a military perspective, the phrases "suppressive fire" and "area denial" are really THE reason. Our infantry doctrine is to use maneuver warfare. Get group A to fire a lot of rounds at the enemy's position to keep their heads down, while group B sneaks around and flanks them and kills them at closer range. Use the cones of fire from your machine guns and "A" squad riflemen to deny the enemy the ability to move across openings or get up out of their fighting positions while your "B" and "C" squads get close enough to toss grenades or use precise rifle fire to take them out.

There is also the subject of "CQB" use of submachine guns and assault rifles in Urban Operations (especially) wherein, again, you're going for a shotgun approach -- putting a lot of lead down range at once to overwhelm multiple hostiles in a close space, with no concern for collateral damage. This is somewhat contested as the best procedure, as semi-automatic assault rifle fire does the job very very well.

Then you can get into specialized items like Phalanx systems and air-to-air or anti-aircraft systems where they're used very similarly to how a wingshooter uses a shotgun, taking down missiles and aircraft that are moving far too fast for single precise shots. But those have no civilian analogs.

Telekinesis
January 31, 2014, 11:44 AM
I suppose if I were a wealthy man then I'd probably have one or two... but then I'd probably have an armored tank too. :D

I haven't looked recently, but I think a few years ago you could get a BMP for around $20,000. About the same as a registered receiver M16 :D

Midwest
January 31, 2014, 11:59 AM
What is the benefit of Full Auto?

Because I can (If I could afford to buy one and the ammo for it).

Showing off at the range.

Invite friends who live in anti-gun states to come down and shoot it.

Zombies

Another Rodney King Riot type of situation.

Protect against bands of looters after a hurricane, tornado or earthquake.

Civil Unrest.

Ukraine situation happening here.

Would be more fun to shoot $500 on ammo rather than losing $500 at the casino.

AlexanderA
January 31, 2014, 12:25 PM
The truth is that a modern semiautomatic rifle is more effective than a machine gun in most combat situations. (Machine guns tend to be ammo-wasters.) This fact is not lost on the antigunners, and explains their rabid push to ban so-called "assault weapons."

The machine gun mystique really started in the WWI era, when you had machine guns, on the one hand, and bolt-action rifles, on the other, with very few (if any) semiautomatics present on the battlefield. (Not counting pistols, of course.) The mass issuance of the M1 Garand rifle revolutionized the situation in WWII.

It's worth noting that the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934, two years before the M1 rifle was standardized. I think that if the NFA had been enacted, say, in 1954 instead, after the experience of WWII, semiautomatic military rifles would have been included in it. (In the 1950's, M1 rifles in civilian hands were a relatively rare thing.)

Arizona_Mike
January 31, 2014, 01:33 PM
I agree. The assault rifle (as in select fire) tried to bridge the gap between the battle rifle and SMG and does a second-best job in either role.

Mike

Skribs
January 31, 2014, 04:29 PM
I should have mentioned that crew-served weapons and anti-aircraft were a bit outside the scope of tbis question.

Good answers. Scary answer re: NFA timing.

Is therapy really more expensive than a 20k rifle plus all that ammo?

SharpsDressedMan
January 31, 2014, 05:33 PM
What's more deadly? Two machine gun crews bearing down on a company of men, in a crossfire, or a company of well trained riflemen with semiauto rifles? I truly do not know who would be the victors, but I'd BET on the riflemen.

Sam1911
January 31, 2014, 06:07 PM
Is therapy really more expensive than a 20k rifle plus all that ammo?
Well...if you're an SOT 02, they don't cost $20K each. :) (Though I bet Bubbles & crew have more than made up the difference one way or another...)

Cooldill
January 31, 2014, 07:23 PM
Last week during a concealed carry class, my instructor mentioned that during SWAT training, his guys all get one fully-loaded 30 round magazine at the end of their course of fire. They can then let loose those 30 rounds in full-auto but just for fun, that is the ONLY time their selector switches ever turn that far.

He explained how each and every bullet that is fired has a lawyer attached to it. They simply do not, and will not, use fully-automatic fire in their operations. It is absolutely not needed anyway.

The ONLY time full auto fire is a valuable thing is during times of war, and even then, it's only real use is suppressive fire when you need to throw a wall of lead downrange to keep the enemy from advancing. Even at close range, most of your MOUT room clearing guys have the selector on "SEMI" for precision. In a moments notice one might need to take a careful shot that will save someone's life, not spray lead in the general direction hoping a friendly isn't hit in the next room over etc. etc.

In my military training on the M16A2 and M4, the vast majority of shots fired were on semi-automatic. When put on burst, placing most of the rounds on target was difficult. We were not allowed to put in the rounds to learn to effectively control burst/full auto, but that was just fine. Well aimed, carefully placed shots will put more people in body bags FASTER than just spraying rounds everywhere.

If a civilian really thinks that "full-auto" capability is a "must have" for there tactical carbine, IT ISN'T. In most cases, it would be very counterproductive. If they still persist, there are several bump-fire stocks on the market that are 100% civilian legal that will accomplish the same thing.

JMHO. YYMV. TGIF.

rcmodel
January 31, 2014, 07:58 PM
Full auto is maybe necessary to lay down suppressive fire in a military operation involving 'Holy Crap! They are coming through the Wire!! situations.
But only if you can gamble on the chance of wasting a whole lot of your remaining ammo supply in the hopes of slowing a few of them down.

Other then that, it serves no useful purpose in military, law enforcement, or civilian offensive or defensive operations.

But they are fun, IF you can afford to own & feed one.
The show-off factor is over the top for those with no military experience or training I betcha!

IMO: The M-14, and especially the M-16 is deadly at 100 yards plus on full auto.
But only on very short 2-3 round bursts.

And only with a very tight sling from a very supported firing position.

rc

MenaceMan47
January 31, 2014, 08:06 PM
Why would I buy one? Less trigger pulls, that's why :P

torqem
January 31, 2014, 08:07 PM
:-) it's done,( sort of)with belt-feds. Mostly fault auto is bs, intended to psyche out the ignorant. You can't get cannon fodder troops to charge belt-feds with bolt-actions any more, as they did in WW1 and as the Russians and Japanese did in WW2 But you can get them to do it if you give them an AK.

stressed
January 31, 2014, 08:13 PM
Infantry doctrine dictates that MG's in full auto can be used as covering fire suppressive weapons for movement and to flank. Constant lead keeps the enemy pinned so you can maneuver to close with and destroy him.

For a single individual who is armed with full auto against a home invader or many, you would only want it on a pistol caliber submachine gun to put as many hollowpoints on target as possible in a controlled manner. I would not recommend it on a rifle or anything bigger. Also, the sound is phycological for the perp.

Also, the M4 is not fully automatic. It retains burst the same as the others. The only automatic was the M16A1 and CAR-15, which in addition to auto had burst. (4 selection settings)

Sam1911
January 31, 2014, 08:17 PM
The new M4A1 has been reverted back to full-auto.

stressed
January 31, 2014, 08:23 PM
The new M4A1 has been reverted back to full-auto.
Interesting, just read about that. Happened after I got out. I wonder how they will implement the auto feature in training, as standard riflemen were meant for accurate killing - but giving auto would give suppressive fire to everyone in the squad at the cost of exhausting ammunition fast.

Sam1911
January 31, 2014, 09:11 PM
I suppose the idea is that, if absolutely necessary, anyone in the squad can play the part of the 249 gunner, for a second or two anyway.

I wonder how it fits in with the idea of the M27 IAR. Or maybe it doesn't. I don't know if the Marines issue the M4A1 and I don't know that the Army is interested in the IAR idea.

Skribs
February 1, 2014, 01:58 AM
M4A1 has been full auto in every FPS I've played :P Although you guys are right, some M-16s are FA and some M4s are burst. It's just a general trope in FPS games (where I pay $60 or less and get all the FA I want) that M-16 = burst and M4 = FA.

zdc1775
February 1, 2014, 07:20 AM
I suppose the idea is that, if absolutely necessary, anyone in the squad can play the part of the 249 gunner, for a second or two anyway.

I wonder how it fits in with the idea of the M27 IAR. Or maybe it doesn't. I don't know if the Marines issue the M4A1 and I don't know that the Army is interested in the IAR idea.
Unless it's changed since I got out the M-16A4 is the Marine Corps standard issue, M-4's were for SNCO's, officers, and a few select "special" Marines.

Also the Navy MP's were issued M-16A3's when I was in Security Foces and they were full auto.

Torian
February 1, 2014, 09:23 AM
I should have mentioned that crew-served weapons and anti-aircraft were a bit outside the scope of tbis question.

Good answers. Scary answer re: NFA timing.

Is therapy really more expensive than a 20k rifle plus all that ammo?
Now you tell me!

:cuss:

Torian
February 1, 2014, 09:25 AM
M4A1 has been full auto in every FPS I've played :P Although you guys are right, some M-16s are FA and some M4s are burst. It's just a general trope in FPS games (where I pay $60 or less and get all the FA I want) that M-16 = burst and M4 = FA.
All our M4s have burst selectors only...and we don't use it. Tends to foul the action quickly and cause FTF and other assorted problems.

The full-auto variants don't go to any Army BCTs that I've been at...and I've inspected many arms rooms over the years.

Moooks
February 1, 2014, 10:01 AM
Indoor/room distance conflict.

AlexanderA
February 1, 2014, 05:45 PM
The M16/M4 clockwork burst limiter is a pretty poor idea, IMO. For one thing, it doesn't reset. If you fire two rounds with a 3-round limiter, your next trigger pull will be a single shot.

Better to have FA (no burst limiter) and train the troops on fire discipline. In those rare cases when you need FA, you need FA.

hq
February 2, 2014, 06:36 AM
For home defense? I would think semi-automatic would be preferable. Gives you more control over your rounds to leave enough in your magazine for BG #2, and gives you better shot placement.

Absolutely. But, having some experience of this in rural outdoor environment, just the sound of a couple of bursts of full auto fire has a similar effect as racking a shotgun indoors. There isn't a home intruder alive who doesn't turn 180 degrees and run for his life once that happens. :what:

Other than that very rare and unlikely scenario, it's all military applications and civilian fun factor.

Glocktogo
February 2, 2014, 03:53 PM
I happen to have a very well thought out RR Colt M16A1. It has been heavily modded to make the most of full auto in a non belt fed configuration. With the Geissele SSF trigger, I can run through mag after mag in FA, two rounds at a time.

Past 15-20 yards, or prone on a bi-pod, it's useless. It is a noise generator and ammo depleter. Drop the .22lr upper on it and I can extend that to 50 yards. The mags run dry even faster though.

It's fun and a good investment, but outside a very few limited military applications, semi-auto is better in every way.

AlexanderA
February 2, 2014, 06:21 PM
OK, I think we've reached a consensus here that semiautomatic fire is just as effective, or more effective, than FA in most situations. What are the implications for the gun control debate? Logically, one of two things should happen: either (a) semiautomatic mlitary-configured guns should be added to the NFA, or (b) FA's should be removed from the NFA (meaning, in effect, that the whole NFA should be repealed). We all know that solution (a) is totally unworkable due to the vast number of such guns in existence. That leaves solution (b). We need to start educating the public, and the politicians, as to the facts discussed in this thread, to convince them that the NFA has outlived its usefulness. Unfortunately, the lobbyists and PR experts on our side won't do this. They would like to just see the NFA universe swept under the rug.

Moooks
February 2, 2014, 08:11 PM
Indoors, in CAPABLE hands, 4side brick home, proper ammo selection, neighbors far in the distance, family not in line of fire .....I personally think FA is superior.

Put yourself and an UNTRAINED adversary in a kitchen. All things equal, would you rather they have a semi or FA AR/M16 (assuming it had to be one way or the other and you couldn't wish the encounter away)? Now ask yourself "why?" now imagine yourself, well practiced and able to keep all burst COM. Which would you prefer? I know, a lot of variables, but if....

medalguy
February 2, 2014, 09:51 PM
Well, back to the original question. For me, it's about keeping a BIG smile on my face.

newfalguy101
February 2, 2014, 09:59 PM
Whats wrong with "for fun"????

hq
February 3, 2014, 12:02 AM
Past 15-20 yards, or prone on a bi-pod, it's useless. It is a noise generator and ammo depleter. Drop the .22lr upper on it and I can extend that to 50 yards. The mags run dry even faster though.

Hmm? I have no problems keeping bursts in standard pistol targets with a M16 or M4 at 70-80 yards and with a belt-fed LMG that'll extend up to 150 yards, at a much higher rate of fire. I've been trained and have qualified with a Valmet M62 / Sako RK95 (plus a number of belt feds up to 12.7mm) and shoot just about everything I collect, but after a few thousands of rounds of systematic practise anyone should be able to do the same. IMO M16 is easier to shoot without a bipod, just holding it in your hands in prone or kneeling position, while most SAW:s and LMG:s are very stable with one.

Most rifle caliber full autos are area denial weapons, but with a little practise they're capable of amazingly good accuracy at extended ranges.

zignal_zero
February 6, 2014, 12:10 AM
Having shot pistol caliber, shoulder fired weapons in both SA and FA as well as 5.56 in both configs, I have come to the following OPINION - as far as rifles go, YES I would rather have a select fire but if I had to choose between SA and FA, it would be a SA. Pistol caliber SMG's are a different ball of wax. I have a SWD M11/9 with a Lage MAX11 upper runnin the "Tactical" bolt @ 750 RPM. Once you master trigger control, that lil demon is mighty handy. I generally don't let more than 3 rounds off at a time and would take it over a SA in the same size ANY DAY. The ability to place 3 well aimed shots on a target, with a single pull of the trigger, is useful :D

LocoGringo
February 6, 2014, 01:19 AM
It's a nice thought, but facts have never stood in the way of liberal politicians and feel good hippies to ever change their minds about getting rid of all guns...ESPECIALLY those nasty NFA items. Toss the argument into the ring about "mass shootings" and they'll be pulling their hair out and ripping their clothes from insanity about how "stupid" you are. I'd LOVE for the NFA to be repealed, but right now, we're just lucky to maintain what we've got.

justice06rr
February 6, 2014, 05:24 AM
Why would you need a short-barreled rifle or shotgun?

Why would you need a suppressor?

What's the point of a 50cal pistol?

Why do you need a 500+ HP car?

Why do you need to live in a mansion or have acres of land?

Why should you have good insurance?

Why do you need select-fire capability???

And yet in this country many of us have these. We do because we deem them necessary or as a convenience. And then there's this thing called "Freedom."

If I can own/afford a Select-fire, Suppressed, SBR, Why not?

chieftain
February 6, 2014, 09:22 AM
Just a point, there was another "M16" issued with full auto capability! the first ones issued to us Marines in Vietnam, the XM16E1, a true POS. Because I was attached not organic, I was able to keep my M14 (which did have a selector) from 67 when the Mattey Mattel first showed up to spring 69, when I was forced to turn it in for the POS.

I was a rifleman before I went into the corps, so I really liked the M14. In 67 and the first half of 68 getting over run was a rather regular happening. The M14 made a much better baseball bat than the POS.

One thing I learned, is that once the NVA got through the wire, a Semi-auto weapon became automatic! The second time I was wounded was in a position that was getting overrun and a satchel charge took me and part of the trench line out. I was one of the lucky ones.

Inside the home I prefer a shotgun, in my case the double barrel 12ga hammer gun next to my bed, or the Benelli M4 in my open safe, cruiser ready.

I do like pistol caliber carbines, but more for fun than serious social work.

I gave my FNH SCAR Mk 16 to my son in law, so for my at home light carbine I presently have a SIG Carbine/ACOG setup for the immediate neighborhood. I have sighted in and ranged all the major trees/bushes and house corners around my home.

If I go on an adventure that would require serious hardware, I would fall back on my M1A/M14. Old dog and such.

Full auto is fun, but not very practical for me.

Go figure.

Fred

Sam1911
February 6, 2014, 09:23 AM
If I can own/afford a Select-fire, Suppressed, SBR, Why not?Indeed!

However that doesn't answer the question of "what is the BENEFIT?" One is a legal/philosophical question. The other is a practical one.

torqem
February 6, 2014, 09:41 AM
Put a Norrell type cyclic rate reducer in that .22 unit for an M16. The kit come with an additional weight to slow down a bolt a little, but you need an adjustable means of adding friction. Holes bored radially into the bolt body, with little coil springs and rounded "nail head" shapes, made of brass, let you adjust how much friction is applied between the bolt and the inside of the upper receiver. It varies with ammo used, too.

Schwing
February 6, 2014, 12:57 PM
I always thought that FA weapons were made so that you could shower the guy 3 lanes away from you at the range with hot brass.

Charger442
February 6, 2014, 01:12 PM
I always thought that FA weapons were made so that you could shower the guy 3 lanes away from you at the range with hot brass.
Full auto has little to do with brass ejection distance

justice06rr
February 6, 2014, 11:05 PM
Indeed!

However that doesn't answer the question of "what is the BENEFIT?" One is a legal/philosophical question. The other is a practical one.


To me, the benefits of Select Fire/FA is not hard to grasp.

Faster Rate of fire, Cover fire, Suppresive fire, and Fire Superiority (sure that all sounds the same, but they're not). And the "Fun" Factor as well.

You can always choose to shoot in semiauto mode if you wish, to conserve ammo and be more accurate. But there is a reason why the Military uses Select Fire/FA weapons.

If you know how to properly shoot and control a Select fire weapon, it can be a formidable rifle to have and a huge advantage on the battlefield.

7.62 Nato
February 7, 2014, 12:47 AM
Because the guy that gets the most holes the quickest usually loses. However most people will never NEED it.

tuj
February 7, 2014, 02:26 AM
There is a story by this ex-Green Beret in the book Codename: Copperhead where he is in Laos training forces sympathetic to the US mission. They are always shooting their AK's on full auto and not hitting anything during their ambushes and he realizes that they are going low on ammo, being guerrillas and all.

So he takes his platoon or so of guys out into the jungle and has each one step into a circle he drew in the dirt and try to hit these monkeys in this tree in front of the circle. One by one, each guy goes up, misses terribly, and eventually expends his magazine and has to go sit back down. At this point there are no dead monkeys.

The Green Beret guy then loads up an AK and puts it on semi and proceeds to lay a hurt on the monkeys; one shot, one kill. Pop pop pop, for a whole mag. Finally it was lesson learned for his Laotian troops.

When they did use full auto, it was on belt-fed 2-man machineguns usually on tripods with aiming stakes driven into the ground to prevent an overzealous gunner from traversing too far to the left or right and endangering the rest of the force.

As an aside, Pier Morgan (...shudders...) was in Houston about 6 months or a year ago and went to this one 'premier' range here in Houston. They let him shoot a regular AR15, a full-auto AR, and then they got him behind the M2 letting loose. I couldn't believe the guy wouldn't even crack a smile. He must have burned through a grand in ammo easy. Talk about MY idea of fun!

Which brings me to my final point; civilian ownership of machineguns is all about fun.

Torian
February 7, 2014, 06:50 AM
Just a point, there was another "M16" issued with full auto capability! the first ones issued to us Marines in Vietnam, the XM16E1, a true POS. Because I was attached not organic, I was able to keep my M14 (which did have a selector) from 67 when the Mattey Mattel first showed up to spring 69, when I was forced to turn it in for the POS.

I was a rifleman before I went into the corps, so I really liked the M14. In 67 and the first half of 68 getting over run was a rather regular happening. The M14 made a much better baseball bat than the POS.

One thing I learned, is that once the NVA got through the wire, a Semi-auto weapon became automatic! The second time I was wounded was in a position that was getting overrun and a satchel charge took me and part of the trench line out. I was one of the lucky ones.

Inside the home I prefer a shotgun, in my case the double barrel 12ga hammer gun next to my bed, or the Benelli M4 in my open safe, cruiser ready.

I do like pistol caliber carbines, but more for fun than serious social work.

I gave my FNH SCAR Mk 16 to my son in law, so for my at home light carbine I presently have a SIG Carbine/ACOG setup for the immediate neighborhood. I have sighted in and ranged all the major trees/bushes and house corners around my home.

If I go on an adventure that would require serious hardware, I would fall back on my M1A/M14. Old dog and such.

Full auto is fun, but not very practical for me.

Go figure.

Fred
Cool story...thanks for sharing. Reminds me of why when given a choice, I'd much rather select my LRB M21 (like M14 but without selector) than my M4 for a battle rifle.

http://oi39.tinypic.com/15eis8w.jpg

Midwest
February 7, 2014, 07:35 AM
OK, I think we've reached a consensus here that semiautomatic fire is just as effective, or more effective, than FA in most situations. What are the implications for the gun control debate? Logically, one of two things should happen: either (a) semiautomatic mlitary-configured guns should be added to the NFA

DiFi proposed to put a whole class of certain rifles under the NFA



or (b) FA's should be removed from the NFA (meaning, in effect, that the whole NFA should be repealed).

Agree, I for one would like to get a Glock 18 FA. I believe they are selling around $600 these days...

AlexanderA
February 7, 2014, 03:23 PM
DiFi proposed to put a whole class of certain rifles under the NFA

Yes, and Feinstein's proposal sank under its own weight when the lawmakers had a quick chat with the ATF (the guys who would have to administer it). The whole idea disappeared, and it wasn't even necessary to do much lobbying against it.

The time to have done this would have been around 1964, just when Colt was coming out with the civilian AR-15. But Colt had the influence, they got their design approved, and now, after millions of AR's and clones (as well as other guns of similar configuration) are in the public's hands, it's way too late to do anything about it.

The entire NFA is just a joke and a nuisance. It regulates FA Thompsons and other such guns. So what? A semiauto AR-15 (unregulated by the NFA) is a more "dangerous" gun (IMO) than an FA Thompson. If our legislators had a grain of common sense and sanity (as opposed to the ability to express knee-jerk emotional reactions), they would repeal the NFA.

Midwest
February 7, 2014, 03:57 PM
The entire NFA is just a joke and a nuisance. It regulates FA Thompsons and other such guns. So what? A semiauto AR-15 (unregulated by the NFA) is a more "dangerous" gun (IMO) than an FA Thompson. If our legislators had a grain of common sense and sanity (as opposed to the ability to express knee-jerk emotional reactions), they would repeal the NFA.
Short Barrels and AOW's should be reclassified as pistols.

Silencers should have not been put on the NFA list anyway, they are not even a firearm.

And FA's should be sold like standard capacity rifles (or pistols if applicable).


How did we ever survive as a nation before the NFA, before the 1968 GCA and the Hughes Amendment? We did very good, we went 158 years before we had any kind of gun control in this country.

Officers'Wife
February 7, 2014, 08:49 PM
I have no idea what the benefit of a fully automatic weapon would be. I only know that I resent the idea that should I be in a position to need that benefit the Great White Father in Washington has effectively denied me that advantage. What would Don Alejo do?

Ar180shooter
February 8, 2014, 12:56 AM
Is therapy really more expensive than a 20k rifle plus all that ammo?

It is if you spend 5k on ammo and then sell the MG for 25k 10 years later because it's gone up in price. ;)

Blade First
March 17, 2014, 11:15 PM
"Better to have FA (no burst limiter) and train the troops on fire discipline. In those rare cases when you need FA, you need FA."

We have a winner.

If you operate a select-fire weapon in FA mode, follow a very sound recommendation and master a single-shot [tough] or double-tap [best you can do on some platforms] with the option to hold the trigger down in SHTF situations.

Other than emergency conditions [think mag dumps] you can fire double or triples just as fast as that FA selector allows. Trust me.

Theohazard
March 18, 2014, 02:35 AM
When they did use full auto, it was on belt-fed 2-man machineguns usually on tripods with aiming stakes driven into the ground to prevent an overzealous gunner from traversing too far to the left or right and endangering the rest of the force.
In my experience, that's not what aiming stakes are used for, especially not with machine guns. When I was in the Marine Corps infantry it was mostly the rifleman who used aiming stakes in order to clearly define sectors of fire in a defensive position. In a defensive position, you don't want everyone shooting at everything they can see; instead you assign everyone specific sectors of fire using aiming stakes. If the target is outside the aiming stakes then they shouldn't shoot at it.

But for machine guns, aiming stakes are less useful in a defensive position. First, you usually have a tripod which helps you be more precise and disciplined about where you're aiming. Second, every machine gun should be prepared to form an FPL (Final Protective Line); that's when you're in danger of being overrun and the machine guns (which are generally positioned on the ends of a defensive line) swing their point of aim in order to shoot grazing fire across the front of the line. With machine guns on both ends of the line you end up forming a last-ditch wall of lead that's designed to break up enemy attacks.

But we machine gunners never used aiming stakes to avoid hitting friendlies. In a defensive position there usually wouldn't be anyone far enough ahead of the line to need aiming stakes. And if there was, our tripods only had a little over 45 degrees of travel so we usually didn't have to worry about hitting them. But if someone (or something) was too close to our field of fire on one side or the other, we usually just rotated the tripod so it was impossible to hit them.

The main issue with friendly fire and machine guns is in an offensive fire-support position. Usually the assault element moves in from one of the flanks, but sometimes you use overhead fire from an elevated position. Or you can use both. But in all of those situations aiming stakes are pointless because the assault element is constantly moving. So the area you're trying to avoid shooting is dynamic and therefore the aiming stakes would just get in the way.

Drail
March 18, 2014, 09:55 AM
Yeah but aiming stakes probably make the butter bars "feel" better. They actually believe that everything should be done "by the book".

Arizona_Mike
March 18, 2014, 11:16 AM
I seem to have a knack for doing short bursts. 3 rounders are easy on an MP5, but I can even do consistent 4 rounders on a Mac 11 buzz gun.

Honestly I do not know if a 3-4 shot burst has much advantage over a bigger more powerful cartridge. The cumulative recoil can be heavy.

Just taking the opportunity to rant a bit but the MP5 is like the ultimate refinement of the 9mm SMG concept. It is so good is so many ways.

Mike

JR47
March 18, 2014, 11:52 AM
Many years ago, in sunny SE Asia, I mastered the art of shooting an M14 in 2-3 round bursts. It seemed to encompass the best of both worlds.

If you actually cared enough to become proficient in the use of select-fire weapons, you magnified your abilities. Those too lazy, or simply too stupid, to become proficient in the use of the tools issued to them, quickly became evidence of Darwinian survival lessons.

Why is there even a question as to the "benefits" of owning a select-fire weapon? What is the purpose of the question? If we're concerned about that, why aren't we concerned about ownership of scoped sniper rifles, masquerading as "deer rifles"? Then again, if all you hunt is deer, why would you ever NEED to own a .338 Winchester Magnum, or even a .300 Winchester Magnum rifle? Neither is "necessary" to harvest a deer.

In too many cases, it's simply divide and conquer, assisted by Stalin's "Useful Idiots".

chieftain
March 18, 2014, 08:19 PM
If you actually cared enough to become proficient in the use of select-fire weapons, you magnified your abilities. Those too lazy, or simply too stupid, to become proficient in the use of the tools issued to them, quickly became evidence of Darwinian survival lessons.

Apparently you and I both did our post graduation field trip in the same general local. I did two tours attached to the 3rdMarDiv out of Dong Ha which was my tactical rear.

I guess I was to lazy and simply to stupid. All I could do was make hits in semi-Auto. I presume your problem was you couldn't hit with one round, and just had to eat up all the ammo to get hits. (PS. Darwin didn't get me by enemy action, although he tried, many more times than once. It appears agent orange, not my war wounds, is killing me.)

I was able to keep my M14 long after the Infantry had to turn theirs in. I was always attached, and my M14 did have a selector which i rarely used. More than once, I was asked to apply my ability with my M14 at range by the unit My TACP was attached to.

If you can hit with one 7.62, what was the advantage of always shooting 2 or 3 times as much ammo than you needed to. If you were good enough to hit with one round, most of the time, not always, with the 7.62 NATO a second shot was NOT needed to stop the NVA I was fighting.

As to useful idiots dividing people, you and Stalin are the only folks calling people names and trying to divide folks in this thread.

Oh yea, not anywhere in your answer are we told why Full Auto is/was better, just name calling. Who knows if you were not so shy about telling us why, I might even agree with you. I most often used Full Auto when applying IA in ambushes.

Welcome home, brother.

Go figure.

Fred

bikemutt
March 18, 2014, 09:49 PM
I dunno but shooting a full auto was on my bucket list, and I got it done last week, in Vegas. Got to shoot a Tommy gun and a GM Grease gun. Cost me $150, still haven't wiped the smile off. If they were priced a bit more than any other gun, plus a tax stamp, I'd probably buy one, just for the fun of it.

kimberkid
March 22, 2014, 02:13 AM
The value increases faster than most stocks or other investments and its more stable ... besides being fun!

My M-16 has increased $5K in two years and my HK sear has increased about $6K ... I'm ok with that even if they have topped out.

Cooldill
March 22, 2014, 02:33 AM
Full auto is not often used by today's military but is vital when needed, so it makes sense to have a selector switch with "full" as an option. IMHO I'm not crazy about the burst setting on the military's M16A2/M4 rifles.

breakingcontact
March 22, 2014, 02:37 AM
Its all about layers in the military. M249 and M240 lay down suppressive fire so guys with M4s can flank enemy.

smkummer
March 28, 2014, 11:24 AM
I am a R/O for the Knob Creek subgun matches and have some LEO experience. Full auto allows (civilians and all others allowed):

1. Just the appearance of a Uzi or Mac ( or any machinegun) may stop 1 or several bad guys from advancing. So the threat may be over without a shot fired. If not, a short burst into the ground or floor might be needed. Even the lowest form of intelligence doesn't like staring at the muzzle of a machinegun pointed at it themselves. Some think they can outrun a handgun shooter, less think they can outrun a machinegun. Of course a multi shot shotgun is almost as intimidating up close but less portable than a subgun.

2. In close range (21 feet or less) below the line of sight situations (or hip shooting) full auto has a better chance of one or more from a burst being able to stop the treat.

While these situations may never come up in a SD scenario, full auto do allow additional capability.

rondog
March 28, 2014, 11:30 AM
I can haz boom-boom?

Tejicano Loco
April 2, 2014, 04:25 AM
I bought two registered machineguns more than 20 years ago before the prices went up to insane levels : a suppressed, 45ACP MAC-10 and a 1919A4.

I knew that prices would get to a level where I would not be able to justify buying one so I figured to lock it in back then.

The benefits to me are a) fun, b) defensive capabilities in case of societal collapse of any durration, and c) expected long term financial gain.

The MAC-10 is a great CQB weapon in enclosed spaces - particularly with the suppressor. Just be sure to have plenty of magazines and practice changing them quickly. You also have to develop a sense for how many rounds you have left and know to change mags when the tactical situation requires it - not when you are surprized by the bolt slamming shut on an empty chamber.

The 1919A4 would be a great cornerstone for a defensive position and wasn't too bad mounted off the back of a pick-up as I have done before. This is best employed when you have a crew trained on it. I am a former Marine infantryman and shooting this with one of my buddies from the Corps as my A-gunner really brings out its capabilities.

I also like to think of it a my own personal force multiplier should my actions as a free citizen, in conjunction with a group of similar free citizens, be required to enforce and retain the security of our collective free state.

stressed
April 2, 2014, 04:40 AM
"Better to have FA (no burst limiter) and train the troops on fire discipline. In those rare cases when you need FA, you need FA."

We have a winner.

If you operate a select-fire weapon in FA mode, follow a very sound recommendation and master a single-shot [tough] or double-tap [best you can do on some platforms] with the option to hold the trigger down in SHTF situations.

Other than emergency conditions [think mag dumps] you can fire double or triples just as fast as that FA selector allows. Trust me.
This is how it is with the German MP40. Unlike allied weapons, this had no semi auto and it's "saftey" was the bolt pushed up and over in the cocked position. It was full auto only, but German soldiers could be good enough with the trigger to just squeeze a single aimed round off, or a 2-3 round burst as needed.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the benefit of Full Auto?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!