Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Wha?
if M-16's were legal again...
- Thread starter dekibg
- Start date
- Status
Wha?
I for my part am completely fine with Fully-Automatic rifles/guns being very restricted... literally the ONLY gun control part I'm fine with.
Why?
Full-Auto is useless for self-defense - and a huge liability because of lack of accuracy
Full-Auto is rarely used in military settings
Most ranges don't allow full-auto for liability reasons
However (aside from the responsible "fun switch" time on private land) - full-auto would be very appealing to deranged psychos who want to inflict mass casualties on a large crowd (movie theater, public event, schools....) ...
Why?
Full-Auto is useless for self-defense - and a huge liability because of lack of accuracy
Full-Auto is rarely used in military settings
Most ranges don't allow full-auto for liability reasons
However (aside from the responsible "fun switch" time on private land) - full-auto would be very appealing to deranged psychos who want to inflict mass casualties on a large crowd (movie theater, public event, schools....) ...
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That sort of thinking is what tears the heart out of the gun rights movement.
We seem to say:
"Gun control is wrong, wrong, wrong! Based on a false premise, the lie that restrictions save lives, and in contradiction of the founding principle that. as Tench Coxe said so incredibly eloquently, '...Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people..' ... oh, except, you know, machine guns. Those are scary. We'd better not trust people with those!"
It's a collapse of a logical argument that pretty much pulls the teeth of our entire movement.
We seem to say:
"Gun control is wrong, wrong, wrong! Based on a false premise, the lie that restrictions save lives, and in contradiction of the founding principle that. as Tench Coxe said so incredibly eloquently, '...Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people..' ... oh, except, you know, machine guns. Those are scary. We'd better not trust people with those!"
It's a collapse of a logical argument that pretty much pulls the teeth of our entire movement.
Would be very nice to have the option when desired.
I think we could see suppressors removed from NFA long before FA though. It would please me greatly to see them hanging on peghooks in blister packs at my LGS for seventy five bucks.
I think we could see suppressors removed from NFA long before FA though. It would please me greatly to see them hanging on peghooks in blister packs at my LGS for seventy five bucks.
Full auto has a high potential for abuse while offering little to no real world application.
It's basically good for one thing : mowing down folks with little to no regards how many hits you actually get.
The tommy gun wasn't used for precision work during the prohibition times...
But who cares - full auto won't be legal this year, next year or 10yrs from now. It's more a pipe dream for folks who salivate over the thought of being able to carry a full auto Uzi with them on a daily basis...
It's basically good for one thing : mowing down folks with little to no regards how many hits you actually get.
The tommy gun wasn't used for precision work during the prohibition times...
But who cares - full auto won't be legal this year, next year or 10yrs from now. It's more a pipe dream for folks who salivate over the thought of being able to carry a full auto Uzi with them on a daily basis...
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
So, that means we should ignore/denigrate the words of Mr. Coxe, and the concept of a free citizen holding as his/her right, the arms of the soldier?
Reminds me of another great old quote, Mr. Franklin's, regarding those who can give up essential liberty.
Reminds me of another great old quote, Mr. Franklin's, regarding those who can give up essential liberty.
AR-15Nutt
Member
WoW ! if that does not come straight from <deleted> talking points/agenda, i do not know what does.
Last edited by a moderator:
fanchisimo
Member
That could be said of guns in general. The vast majority of gun owners never end up using their guns for self defense.
The extra background check is acceptable but it would be so horribly back-logged if people could buy new FA firearms so it would need reworking as well.
The thing you have to remember it is not all that hard for people to make them into FA. and even more easy with these triggers or stocks to make bump fire more simple to do.
To tell the truth I think it should go back to the 1980's model, yes you can do it but you do have to jump all the hoops to get there.
Would I personally want one....only if it was historic. Then it would likely hang in a save save but a few times a year. The giggle factor goes way down as you start to add up the costs to feed the thing.
To tell the truth I think it should go back to the 1980's model, yes you can do it but you do have to jump all the hoops to get there.
Would I personally want one....only if it was historic. Then it would likely hang in a save save but a few times a year. The giggle factor goes way down as you start to add up the costs to feed the thing.
1911 guy
Member
Do you drive a car capable of more than 70 miles an hour? I think those should be banned.
Yes, that was sarcasm. And yes, it illustrates the point of logical disconnect. We have become so used to seeing cognitive dissonance that we often accept it without realizing it.
Yes, that was sarcasm. And yes, it illustrates the point of logical disconnect. We have become so used to seeing cognitive dissonance that we often accept it without realizing it.
Vern Humphrey
Member
So why do you need a 3-round burst, then?
I gather the problem you're trying to solve is having so much ammo left after the fire fight is finished.
It's much more difficult than you think, way beyond kitchen table gunsmiths, at least to do properly, where the gun is properly timed, reliable and does not run away, fire out of battery and blow up or jam on full auto.
DaisyCutter
Member
I have a DoD surplus M-16 issued through work... An old 20" barrelled, triangle handguard, clapped out clattery Vietnam War era M-16. Apparently the military found them obsolete, and some shrewd police agencies found a legal way to borrow the rifles and save the taxpayers from buying more.
A few short bursts every couple years is a fun novelty.
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.
Full auto is grossly overrated, unless you have batman's budget and a belt fed.
I made a little vid of the ugly ol' M-16 a few years ago: https://youtu.be/YXnWYTF4LSM
I think $15k for that rifle (if it were transferable), would be a low price in this market. Frankly, it isn't worth $500 absent the FA selector. So the price for those transferable FA firearms is grossly inflated. The primary reason to buy Class 3 FA firearms, is for investment. No more are being made, so they appreciate in value every day.
I have no need to personally own one.
A few short bursts every couple years is a fun novelty.
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.
Full auto is grossly overrated, unless you have batman's budget and a belt fed.
I made a little vid of the ugly ol' M-16 a few years ago: https://youtu.be/YXnWYTF4LSM
I think $15k for that rifle (if it were transferable), would be a low price in this market. Frankly, it isn't worth $500 absent the FA selector. So the price for those transferable FA firearms is grossly inflated. The primary reason to buy Class 3 FA firearms, is for investment. No more are being made, so they appreciate in value every day.
I have no need to personally own one.
Drilling a hole in the receiver is not enough to install the regular GI M16 autosear. You have to mill out a low shelf receiver for enough width for the autosear to move freely. On a high shelf receiver, you might as well be building a new receiver from a blank.
Drop in auto sears and lightning links were created because milling out an AR-15 receiver for the GI autosear is not an easy thing to do.
Last edited:
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Full auto has a high potential for abuse while offering little to no real world application."
Spoken like a true full-auto cherry. I'm sure you have the same opinion for bump-fire stocks, bump-fire, and by extension all autoloading rifles (and pistols). Freedom has a high potential for abuse; the horror.
"It's basically good for one thing : mowing down folks with little to no regards how many hits you actually get."
Well, it's a good thing that distinction is a fundamental basis for why we have a right to keep and bear arms for marksmanship competitions. Somehow this feature is more dangerous despite being less effective
"The tommy gun wasn't used for precision work during the prohibition times..."
Thompsons were used far, far more by .GOV revenooers than by any organized crime (but I repeat myself, especially during Prohibition times). Same with BARs and other 'military style' weaponry of the era. Gangsters then, as now, preferred small concealable cheap pistols (they actually hid them in their lady-friends' beehive hairdos). What SMGs predating the Thompson were used for, was similar to the role we now call "light machine guns," where fairly accurate fire from a large capacity magazine was used to engage or suppress small areas of opposition at a distance. Czech ZK383's had bipods and rate reducers to increase accuracy and reduce ammo consumption, while Finnish M31 Suomis were pie-plate accurate at 25yrds on full auto and basically served as assault rifles for trench positions during attack (numerous instances of single gunners fending off entire charges with others feeding them magazines; I'm sure none of that fire was carefully placed). And to repeat myself, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is precisely so we have the same capability for defense as the typical serviceman of the day.
"But who cares - full auto won't be legal this year, next year or 10yrs from now. It's more a pipe dream for folks who salivate over the thought of being able to carry a full auto Uzi with them on a daily basis..."
Might want to grab that pearl necklace to clutch to your breast before reading up on Hollis v. Lynch (prev. Holder) in that case. The illegal charade that is the Registry closure is rapidly coming to a head, and the result will the dismantling of either the Registry or the rule of law even further. And thank goodness, since many of the distinctions the ATF increasingly uses to classify trigger systems as fully automatic are intrinsic to semi-autos in general.
TCB
Spoken like a true full-auto cherry. I'm sure you have the same opinion for bump-fire stocks, bump-fire, and by extension all autoloading rifles (and pistols). Freedom has a high potential for abuse; the horror.
"It's basically good for one thing : mowing down folks with little to no regards how many hits you actually get."
Well, it's a good thing that distinction is a fundamental basis for why we have a right to keep and bear arms for marksmanship competitions. Somehow this feature is more dangerous despite being less effective
"The tommy gun wasn't used for precision work during the prohibition times..."
Thompsons were used far, far more by .GOV revenooers than by any organized crime (but I repeat myself, especially during Prohibition times). Same with BARs and other 'military style' weaponry of the era. Gangsters then, as now, preferred small concealable cheap pistols (they actually hid them in their lady-friends' beehive hairdos). What SMGs predating the Thompson were used for, was similar to the role we now call "light machine guns," where fairly accurate fire from a large capacity magazine was used to engage or suppress small areas of opposition at a distance. Czech ZK383's had bipods and rate reducers to increase accuracy and reduce ammo consumption, while Finnish M31 Suomis were pie-plate accurate at 25yrds on full auto and basically served as assault rifles for trench positions during attack (numerous instances of single gunners fending off entire charges with others feeding them magazines; I'm sure none of that fire was carefully placed). And to repeat myself, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is precisely so we have the same capability for defense as the typical serviceman of the day.
"But who cares - full auto won't be legal this year, next year or 10yrs from now. It's more a pipe dream for folks who salivate over the thought of being able to carry a full auto Uzi with them on a daily basis..."
Might want to grab that pearl necklace to clutch to your breast before reading up on Hollis v. Lynch (prev. Holder) in that case. The illegal charade that is the Registry closure is rapidly coming to a head, and the result will the dismantling of either the Registry or the rule of law even further. And thank goodness, since many of the distinctions the ATF increasingly uses to classify trigger systems as fully automatic are intrinsic to semi-autos in general.
TCB
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"So the price for those transferable FA firearms is grossly inflated. The primary reason to buy Class 3 FA firearms, is for investment."
The primary purpose to invest in class 3 firearms, is to profit at the expense of your fellow mans' right to keep and bear arms. Somehow that moral disconnect doesn't figure for certain collectors. Many more owners of Class 3 items, even uber-expensive ones like HK sears/trigger packs, actually do use the items frequently, even to excess, precisely because they can afford to. My personal experience is that the folks terrified of their loss of value are the folks with one or two $5000 MAC and UZI guns that have no intrinsic value, for which a grossly and artificially inflated price was paid up front, and who are not wealthy enough to easily suffer the loss in value should the Registry reopen (unlike the very wealthy collectors).
"Full auto is grossly overrated, unless you have batman's budget and a belt fed."
So are fast cars, expensive bourbon, and beautiful women (no, seriously)
"So why do you need a 3-round burst, then?"
Because 223 is too wimpy to kill anything on the first shot (no, seriously)
"To tell the truth I think it should go back to the 1980's model, yes you can do it but you do have to jump all the hoops to get there."
How charitable of you. Does that include the 200$ tax stamp properly adjusted for inflation since 1934? Or is the background check supposed to be the prohibitory restraint on our constitutional freedom? History has already shown what happens when that prohibition becomes anything but; it is quickly replaced with another by any means possible (even a fraudulent congressional vote, when the prohibitory 'tax' becomes too affordable)
So many gun owners don't even know what they're missing. Think of all the technological advances that don't have any future outside DARPA (the most effective technology development center ever, btw) because there is no civilian market; servo-controlled trigger systems with zero weight or perfectly customizable characteristics, SALVO-type platforms which deliver two hits on a target within a fraction of an inch of each other (go on; tell me how that wouldn't be useful for hunting), sub-gun and assault-rifle competitions with the kind of shooting we all wish we could engage in becoming mainstreamed, and last and most important; the most effective self-defense platforms available. As I described with the Finns' experience in the Winter War, assault on a fixed position (i.e. a defender in a bedroom) is basically impossible when facing automatic weapons. Controllable, highly effective select fire PDWs like the P90 are practically ideal for home defense, yet are withheld from the populace by some nameless fear and desire for control.
TCB
The primary purpose to invest in class 3 firearms, is to profit at the expense of your fellow mans' right to keep and bear arms. Somehow that moral disconnect doesn't figure for certain collectors. Many more owners of Class 3 items, even uber-expensive ones like HK sears/trigger packs, actually do use the items frequently, even to excess, precisely because they can afford to. My personal experience is that the folks terrified of their loss of value are the folks with one or two $5000 MAC and UZI guns that have no intrinsic value, for which a grossly and artificially inflated price was paid up front, and who are not wealthy enough to easily suffer the loss in value should the Registry reopen (unlike the very wealthy collectors).
"Full auto is grossly overrated, unless you have batman's budget and a belt fed."
So are fast cars, expensive bourbon, and beautiful women (no, seriously)
"So why do you need a 3-round burst, then?"
Because 223 is too wimpy to kill anything on the first shot (no, seriously
)"To tell the truth I think it should go back to the 1980's model, yes you can do it but you do have to jump all the hoops to get there."
How charitable of you. Does that include the 200$ tax stamp properly adjusted for inflation since 1934? Or is the background check supposed to be the prohibitory restraint on our constitutional freedom? History has already shown what happens when that prohibition becomes anything but; it is quickly replaced with another by any means possible (even a fraudulent congressional vote, when the prohibitory 'tax' becomes too affordable)
So many gun owners don't even know what they're missing. Think of all the technological advances that don't have any future outside DARPA (the most effective technology development center ever, btw
) because there is no civilian market; servo-controlled trigger systems with zero weight or perfectly customizable characteristics, SALVO-type platforms which deliver two hits on a target within a fraction of an inch of each other (go on; tell me how that wouldn't be useful for hunting), sub-gun and assault-rifle competitions with the kind of shooting we all wish we could engage in becoming mainstreamed, and last and most important; the most effective self-defense platforms available. As I described with the Finns' experience in the Winter War, assault on a fixed position (i.e. a defender in a bedroom) is basically impossible when facing automatic weapons. Controllable, highly effective select fire PDWs like the P90 are practically ideal for home defense, yet are withheld from the populace by some nameless fear and desire for control.TCB
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Truly, I think the civilian market would find more use for the An-94 "Nikonov" than the Russian military has.
So you decide for the rest of us that because you are afraid of something, the rest of us should be denied the right to it?
Personally I'd *absolutely* find a real-world purpose in a full auto firearm. I'd like to have a full auto P90 by my bed at night.
Oh please, how many full auto guns have you actually SHOT before?
You have watched entirely too many Hollywood movies.
Watch these videos and tell me if I'm just mindlessly spraying bullets everywhere, or if I'm putting them exactly where I want them to go:
Even when I go full cyclic on an AK47, I'm still controlling the gun and putting rounds where I want them to go.
Right, which is why it was used by the US Postal service and many, many law enforcement agencies. Obviously they liked them being innacurate so they could increase civilian casualties. :banghead::banghead:
(Hint: They are plenty precise if the shooter is properly trained)
Full auto is perfectly legal *today* - it's just expensive because the government doesn't let mere mortals make new ones.
An FFL with SOT can order in new full auto cheap. And there's plenty of home FFL's with SOT's with collections of home-made AK's, AR's, etc, as well as police demo models that they've ordered in and keep in inventory. (If you go that route it costs, what, about $1500 a year to maintain the manufacturer license and SOT? And some mandatory paperwork here and there...)
DaisyCutter
Member
Okay, Barnbwt, how many FA firearms do you have?
Post up some vids, go ahead.
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.
Getting a love letter from a PD for a demo full auto is not an easy thing to do either. You will generally end up making postie full autos and not buying them.
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
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 latter two we kept under the seats of the jeep.)
The first four are highly effective -- because they are shot from a mount or bi-pod. The latter two are mere noisemakers.
Now as for videos, I don't have any -- when I was shooting, the targets shot back and there was no time for fiddle-futzing around with a camera.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"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
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
Either full auto has no practical application OR it can be used to make multiple hits on multiple targets. Can't have it both ways
LOL Vern, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the anti-machinegun propagandist in the thread.
You know as well as I do that a M3A1 would make a great home defense gun (if you lived alone without any nearby neighbors).
You picked the wrong rec room!
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
