"FFL/SOT is beyond most mortals too. You have to run a firearms manufacturing business. You have to have a facility (yeah I know it can be a workshop in your house if you live in the sticks) in an area zoned for manufacturing. You have to convince the ATF that it is a legitimate business and you are not just making toys.
ITAR has gone up so it probably closer to $2000 a year by the time you add up FFL, ITAR and local fees."
Talk about a point that even a lot of FFLs should be aware of. Plenty of folks out there who in reality
do maintain a license for personal use, in spite of the purpose of the law (which is the proper definition of a 'loophole,' much like a shell corporation for tax purposes). ATF is even starting to vet zoning considerations for applicants, I've heard, to ensure the stated business is truly 'in business,' and not just selling guns on the side to support a cheap machinegun habit.
"Okay, Barnbwt, how many FA firearms do you have?
Post up some vids, go ahead."
None. Precisely because they are a bad investment at this time, both practically and morally. Good money after bad. I do have some limited range experience with several weapons, though I don't do it for a living. Enough to know full auto isn't particularly special, just a lot of fun and suited to certain uses. I've got plenty invested in parts kits and machine tooling, and even more in time spent converting them to much more marketable and (legally) practical semi-auto weapons in accordance with the various laws & regs. But that's because I'm an enthusiast, and find the conversions almost as interesting as the guns themselves. Anyone buying FA for investment purposes rather than as an enthusiast is seeking to profit from the tyranny of the government. We used to call them loyalist traitors, or mercenaries. Now, we just call them crony capitalists. I hear green energy also gets wicked good investment returns off the back of your fellow man.
Contrary to populist belief, the majority (as in, all I've personally met) of folks who buy into full auto do so because they are enthusiasts and the technology is the ultimate 'forbidden fruit' (except perhaps, for destructive devices whose logistics are much more difficult). Someone wealthy enough to burn through
pallets of ammunition for entertainment won't be irreparably harmed if their HK sear loses $20K in value --just so long as they can supplement it with 100 more for the same pennies on the dollar. Likewise, a collector of antiquities won't find their 1914 Hotchkiss suddenly worthless, since it is still an incredibly scarce and old item in impeccable condition --no one was ever going to shoot it much, anyway. Only the guy who impulse-bought a $5000 MAC because he'd always wanted a full auto, even though it's really expensive for what it is, and has to work a day job & keep a budget, and can only afford to take it out rarely for a few hundred rounds at most, would find its depreciation to $800 overnight a frightful development. Most folks would seize upon the opportunity to buy $800 MACs that
aren't worn out, clapped out junkers.
"I have a DoD surplus M-16 issued through work...save the taxpayers from buying more...A few short bursts every couple years is a fun novelty..."
And yet the gall to 'challenge' me to own one myself
. Just as soon as you pony up the $20,000 for me, as I won't be buying my own at today's prices, either
. For the record, I find 223 bark annoying enough on semi-auto let alone full, which may be a large part of your dislike of the technology.
"But, given the rise in cost of ammo, I've outgrown the sophomoric fascination with high capacity magazine dumps from bullet hoses, and graduated to handloading and precision now."
Cool beans. Nothing wrong with that, except in a non-ideal defensive scenario, right? Which is exactly the scenario for which F/A is most effective (also shotguns)
"Full auto is grossly overrated, unless you have batman's budget and a belt fed."
Hey, I was serious about fast cars, beautiful women, and good bourbon. One can live quite nicely without them...and yet those with the means, typically choose not to.
"In combat, I've shot the M2 Browning HB, the M1919A6, the M1918, the M60, and even the M1928 Thompson and M3A1 submachine guns...
...The first four are highly effective -- because they are shot from a mount or bi-pod. The latter two are mere noisemakers."
That being said, neither the Thompson nor M3A1 were exactly the pinnacle of SMG development or tactics in their era, despite the mythical reputation of those iconic bullet hoses. Honestly, open bolt 45acp burp guns were never all that popular, presumably for the lack of control you describe (I'm aware of only the UMP today that uses the round, though 40sw seems more popular). I've not had the chance to shoot those two, but I've not heard great things about the Thompson's handling at cyclic, compared to a Suomi, for instance (duh, 9mm
). Until body armor mooted --for now-- pistol caliber carbines, the MP5 and a host of other SMGs were exceptionally popular for decades, presumably because they worked well enough. Most weren't honkin' 45acp tanks, though
. Just imagine how effective ZK383 9mm's with bipods and rate-reducers (and sights calibrated out to 1000yrds or some such) would have been defending fixed trench lines from charges.
Full auto battle rifles were a concept that died, practically on the birthing table, though. Every last country tried them...once
. Mild curiosity; in your recollection, was the M1918 used more for sustained-ish suppression or focused engagement? It was always an odd duck being rather too large and beefy for mobility, yet lacking the capacity and replaceable barrel of a stationary gun. I used to think my STGW57 was a beefcake; not any more
I think of the Thompson as the SMG analogue of the M1918. As iconic collector pieces; unparalleled. But I would not want to fight with one if something else were available (if only because they'd disappear in the evidence locker, afterward
).
TCB