What is the benefit of Full Auto?

chieftain said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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or (b) FA's should be removed from the NFA (meaning, in effect, that the whole NFA should be repealed).

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

AlexanderA said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Skribs said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

"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.

tuj said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Yeah but aiming stakes probably make the butter bars "feel" better. They actually believe that everything should be done "by the book".

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

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".

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

Its all about layers in the military. M249 and M240 lay down suppressive fire so guys with M4s can flank enemy.

Full auto has advantages in certain situations

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.

I can haz boom-boom?

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.

Blade First said:

"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.

Click to expand...

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.