Discussion- Full Autos not signifigantly more lethal.

[artherd]

I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine. It was ceneterd around the folly of forming 'classes' of man-portable shoulder-fired firearms at all.


My premise is as follows:

All guns are very dangerous. (be they single-shot or belt-fed, they can kill!)

Fully automatic rifles are not signifigantly more lethal or dangerous than their semi-automatic cousins.

Certinly not different enough to warrant a totally new classification system.


Consider the following hyopthetical scenarios. Same shooter, with:

An engraved Browning BAR in .338Win Mag (with 2 30 round mags) in semi-auto.

Versus an M-16 in full-atuo (with 2 30 round mags.)

Versus an AR-15 semi-auto ((with 2 30 round mags.)


I would be hard pressed to come up with a situation in which any one of these guns was likely to kill more people quickly than any of the others.

I find it hard to belive that the element of full-atuo increases lethality any more than 30% over a semi-auto. Sometimes I think lethality would be decreased (given finite ammo, full auto resulting in fewer hits/shots-fired.)


Discuss?

 

[wasrjoe]

It's just a different tool for a different job. You still see semi-autos in our military... the M14 (when specially fitted with a full-auto blocking device, of course). I think the stigma has a lot to do with their military use and the fact that full-auto is unsuitable in hunting. For some types of firearms it is much more efficient... pistol coliber carbines for one. For others, like the M14, it's borderline useless.

People seem to have an illogical fear of some nut going crazy with a full auto, killing "scores" of people and all that. However, I'm much more scared of someone like that DC sniper or someone using a bomb. Firearms are, because of what they can be used for, the target of untold amounts are illogical thinking.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

It takes a lot of practice to be able to shoot proficiently with a machinegun. Unlike the movies, there is a fair amount of recoil to deal with. That is one reason why the military went to the 3-round burst on the M4. The other reason is you run out of bullets real fast and instead of teaching the troops trigger control, they decided to alter the gun.

A person with a semi-automatic using rapid, aimed fire, would be more "lethal" than someone spraying bullets in the air with a machinegun simply because he is more likely to hit his targets.

One comparison I like is a single shot shotgun and a semi-automatic AR-15. Assume the AR can shoot 30 rounds of .233 in about 20 seconds. Yes, we can all dump a magazine faster, but we're trying to hit a target with this one. That comes to 30 .223" projectiles in 20 seconds.

Then take a single shot 12-gauge shotgun using #4 buckshot. Assuming the shooter can load and fire a shell every 5 seconds, he can get 5 shots fired in 20 seconds (time 0-5-10-15-20). That comes to 205 .24" projectiles in 20 seconds.

If we throw in a M16 with a cyclic rate of about 800 rpm, we end up with about 260 .223" projectiles in 20 seconds. Not that much more than the single shot shotgun.

Add a pump or semi-automatic shotgun to the mix and you can argue either will send more lead down range that a machinegun in the same time period.

 

[David Scott]

I've met a lot of people who don't really know the purpose of full auto. Its proper military purpose is "suppressing fire" which makes the enemy keep their heads down to stay out of the hail of lead. The result is that the enemy can't fire back accurately while you position troops or whatever. You don't really kill many enemy troops with suppressing fire.

It can also be used to break an infantry charge, or to roust out enemies hiding in underbrush or other penetrble concealment. It's useful for clearing streets, rooms and hallways in urban house to house fighting.

In the non-military world, full auto is of limited utility (IMHO). Its use in police actions often risks "overspray" on civilian bystanders. There are better, nonlethal options for riot control, like water cannons, rubber bullets and tear gas.

I am not arguing that full auto should be limited to the military. I'm just pointing out what it was designed for. It's no more lethal than a muzzle-loader on a target-by-target basis, but when used against groups it runs up the casualty count faster.

It's also my opinion that full auto can be a crutch for those who will not learn marksmanship. The old spray and pray.

The bottom line, for me, is that if anyone is going to have full autos, then everyone should be able to have them. I don't like the imbalance when governments and criminals have the big guns and solid citizens are restricted to lesser weaponry.

 

[ID_shooting]

DS has it correct. Full auto is used mostly as a suppressive-fire weapon. The likelyhood of hitting your traget is damatically reduced when spraying down the hood. What is increased though, is the chance of hitting an unintended target in an urban setting.

Expirience tells me that one quick burst from an M2 or M60 will make an agressing squad think twice about assulting your position

Do I want one, oh you bet, but I still see no real need for one myself other then helping keep ammo companies in business.

 

[Mikul]

Full-auto would be better than semi for a large group, placed close together. For everything else, go semi.

I have thought that a full-auto carbine would be good for a sudden attack by a close enemy. A small group comes accross a larger group. The smaller group opens with full-auto fire while they run like gazelles. Keep the enemy from pursuing while creating distance.

 

[Penforhire]

Interesting points. Bear in mind I am not against private ownership of full-auto weapons, BUT... since they are harder to control are they not more likely to cause unintended damage? Might that not be a basis for separate classification, in the same sense that land mines are indiscriminate of their targets?

 

[wasrjoe]

Interesting points. Bear in mind I am not against private ownership of full-auto weapons, BUT... since they are harder to control are they not more likely to cause unintended damage? Might that not be a basis for separate classification, in the same sense that land mines are indiscriminate of their targets?

Semi autos can be just as hard to control if you don't know what you're doing and you are pulling the trigger fast enough (or bump firing for that matter). A full auto stops shooting after you stop pulling the trigger. It's harder to be proficient with a full auto but I doubt there's any significant increase in danger.

 

[tcsd1236]

The fact that you are putting so many rounds down range with a single pull of the trigger with FA justifies the additional legal controls, whether or not the shooter is actually hitting their target...in spite of your comparison with the shotgun.

 

[XLMiguel]

It ain't the gun, it's the gunner.

A trained person in a target-rich environment can clearly be deadly serious. An unskilled dweeb in spray n'pray mode, though dangerous, has more to do with [bad] luck than seriousness of purpose.

 

[artherd]

tcsd1236- we've given a sound logical argument describing the reasons that Full Auto does not nessicarily mean any more rounds delivered downrange. Infact it can mean less within the scope of shoulder-fired weapons.

Thus, as a general rule, Full Auto as applied to shoulder-fired weapons is not a deterministic factor in much of anything.

And you're telling me that 'despite my logic' I am worng? Explain? Show facts please.

Penforhire-

Yes, fully automatic fire is somewhat harder to control. But not greatly so, at least not inherantly.

.223 full-auto in a normal rifle is very easy to control. Perhaps not as easy as most semi-auto rifles, but...


Compare 10 rounds put 50meters downrange in 2 seconds.

Both are possible with a FA rifle, and a semi-auto pistol.

But the guy with the AR will have achived better accuracy (and probally be done in 1 sec max)

While the pistol shooter will be spraying bullets everywhere, comparatively (in accuracy terms.)

Next example:
My semi-auto .338 Win Mag versus a FA .223REM. Which one is more controlable there? The 8lb .338WM will knock you silly with *any* kind of rate of fire, but the .223 will be hightly accurate in comparison.


I am not argueing that the same gun in FA vs semi is *the same* in terms of controlability and lethality. Rather I argue that they don't differ by *very much* and certinly don't deserve to be in their own whole class of weapons.

 

[ID_shooting]

A lot of it depends on the weapon itself. An m60 or an m2 will be more accurate than say an mp5 or an m16 (pre-burst model) becuase of thier slower rate of fire combined with more wieght. I was able to qualify expert with both crew-servs with plenty of ammo left over because I was able to hit targets with 3-6 round bursts. A good 60 gunner with a good AG on a roof top over a 1000 yd area would be absolutely effective. As for the SAW, I can't comment on it's effectiveness since the only time I saw one was in Armorer's school. Any more recent vet able to compare the m60 to the SAW in this regard?

 

[Diggler]

The fact that you are putting so many rounds down range with a single pull of the trigger with FA justifies the additional legal controls, whether or not the shooter is actually hitting their target...in spite of your comparison with the shotgun.

Hmm, let's look it up...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, except for the situation where too many rounds are put downrange with a single pull of the trigger. That is, unless you're with the government or other law enforcement agency."

Hey, tcsd1236 is right!

Sheesh.

 

[XLMiguel]

Hmmmmm. Indulging n a little thread drift, let me say a fool with a tool is still a fool.

So the question becomes,,"Is a full-auto fool inherently more dangerous than a semi-auto fool?"

Intuitively, I would say "Yes". I saw a ND in basic training by an idiot whose M-16 was on full-auto that was positively terrifying. However (and fortunately), no one was hurt, but the potential for damage certainly was greater than a single discharge, and the idiot was definitely damaged by the DI as he disarmed him.

But logically, gun control laws have no more effect on fools than they do on criminals, and it makes no sense to infringe on the public at large because of what some fool 'might' do.

I've seen a lot of goobers with guns who make me very uncomfortable (and I do my best to avoid them), but they have the same rights as you and me until they do something sufficiently dangerous/harmful that it becomes illegal, at which point the law needs to be all over 'em (and remember, unenforced laws are meaningless).

I prefer to put the responsibility where it belongs (with the individual) and deal with the screw-ups when they happen. Inflicting more 'control' is of no particular benefit, and the likelyhood of the gov't getting right is that good in any event.

 

[CatsDieNow]

It's also my opinion that full auto can be a crutch for those who will not learn marksmanship.

In WWII, my grandfather was assigned a machine gun because he was such a crappy shot with a rifle.

 

[Penforhire]

I follow all the logic in this thread but surely there is SOME limit to the destructive capability we all want in fools' hands (thanks for the term Mike). That limit is probably not "automatic" weapons. I'd be okay with non-regulation of those, but I do not agree that a typical semi-auto weapon is 'as dangerous' as a full auto in the hands of a fool.

The point that you can send "x" rounds downrange with a semi in two seconds does not mean that is what normally happens. Whereas a two second pull on an auto-trigger really does send a bunch of rounds downrange, and unlike the shotgun analogy the full-auto weapon's projectiles may not all be travelling to the same point of aim.

But what about explosive devices. I'd like to "play" with a stick or two of dynamite but I wouldn't want a fool like me to have a personal nuclear device. What is the threshold of public safety?

 

[Molon Labe]

First of all, it is my opinion that NFA 34 is immoral and unconstitutional, and that we have a right to own full-auto weapons without any government interference. Now having said that, I don’t have a desire to own a full-auto weapon. As Clint Smith is fond of saying, “They only turn money into noise.†Personally, I much prefer carefully-placed shots with a bolt action or semi-auto...

 

[pbhome71]

Based on my experience in a military academy...

1st year cadets - all 40 of them. None of them have tried a FA Uzi before.

Target - human silhouette, range 5 meters.

Each cadet was given 1 magazine with 10 rounds loaded. The Uzi was in FA mode, firing from hip - spray and pray at 5m range.

After 40 cadets done, the instructor went to the target and save it. There was no hole in the target.

 

[killermarmot]

arthered and I argued aabout this for a few hours the other night only to find out we agreed but didn't understand the arguments and alegories the other was making as my girlfriend puts it he thinks it's purple and I think it's fuzzy. But one thing we did come to that is pretty interesting is in my opinion the 338 win mag ina crowd would probably kill more people then the other two do to the power of the round and over penetration etc. So while I can only think of a couple situations I would rather have full auto I can think of lots that I'd rather have a semi or a large caliber bolt or single shot. But I subscribe to thought that each is suited to something diferent and in some cases the full auto could inflict maybe 20-30% more casualties but on a per target basis it is no more lethal. And probably deserves about the same attention CCWs get in...<insert pro carry state name here> But after seeing the guys who violate the rapid fire rules at the range blowing up target frames not sure I'd like to see a full auto MG42 for sale at Wallyworld. Just for my safety at teh range not for the children. But they should certainly be more accesible then they are now especially for the tortured souls here in CA

 

[CleverNickname]

Based on my experience in a military academy...

1st year cadets - all 40 of them. None of them have tried a FA Uzi before.

Target - human silhouette, range 5 meters.

Each cadet was given 1 magazine with 10 rounds loaded. The Uzi was in FA mode, firing from hip - spray and pray at 5m range.

After 40 cadets done, the instructor went to the target and save it. There was no hole in the target.

IMO, this is more an argument against shooting from the hip than against an argument against full-auto. In the year and a half that I've had my FA Uzi, I've let ~20 other people shoot it. The vast majority, if not all of them, had never shot a full-auto before. After instructing them to shoot from the shoulder, and to use short 2-4 round bursts, not one of the shooters had a problem keeping their rounds on target at 5-7 yards.

I shot my Uzi some from the hip when I first got it, but I don't any more, because accuracy goes down the tubes. Of course, I don't shoot my pistols or semi-auto rifles from the hip either, because my accuracy sucks then too.

 

[Mulliga]

30 .223" projectiles in 20 seconds

205 .24" projectiles in 20 seconds

False analogy. A .223 rifle round has more energy than a single #4 pellet, and it obviously has a much greater effective range.

Anyway, the NFA was and continues to be a disgrace.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

False analogy.

Ok, replace it with a Ruger 10/22 using a 30 round magazine.

 

[atek3]

pistol caliber SMG's are VERY controllable on full auto.

With one day's instruction my first time with an UZI, I was able to keep a full 30 round magazine within the thoracic cavity of a sillhouette target from 5 meters, as were two of my friends. Oh that was one continous string. Naish, the instructor did a demo where he put three targets side by side and from 5 meters "fanned" the target with the 30 round mag. Six hits out of 30 rounds fired. Next he put three targets side by side and put a ten round burst into each in the same time. The lesson being of course that "spray and pray" does not increase "firepower" more than aimed fire. If you wanted to maximize fatalities in a group homicide ala columbine or jonesburo, accurately aimed semi auto fire would be more deadly than FA 'spray and pray'.

The fact that you are putting so many rounds down range with a single pull of the trigger with FA justifies the additional legal controls,

Not following you. Because holding the trigger down on the M16A2 releases 3 bullets and holding the trigger down on a bushie AR15 releases only one bullet, civilians in possession of the former should be incarcerated for 5 years without parole and upon release be forbidden to touch firearms for ever? I don't think thats very fair. I mean thats what legal controls in this case are right? Threats to punish people for touching a mechanical object far less lethal than a benelli M1 or one ton car going 60 mph.

atek3

 

[Diggler]

If it were REALLY about how many rounds you could put downrange in a certain amount of time, then:

1. You wouldn't be allowed to shoot with friends.
2. Things like this would be illegal.

 

[tcsd1236]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, except for the situation where too many rounds are put downrange with a single pull of the trigger. That is, unless you're with the government or other law enforcement agency."

If you think that the real wording to that passage automatically gives you the right to own any and every type of firearm, you will be in a distinct minority in this country. I have no problems with lawful private ownership of firearms, but certain types of weapons such as FA need more controls placed on them than others in the interest of public safety. As in so many other issues, the public on this issue has a valid interest in restraining private rights in the interest of public safety.