Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Full auto isn't any more dangerous than anything else.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by twoblink, Dec 13, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. twoblink

    twoblink Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,736
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    This is a quote from Correia in http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=170071&page=3
    thread..

    My question:

    How fast can you pull the trigger on a semi-auto? I can empty a mag to the point where you almost think you are hearing a continuous stream of bullets, not single shots.. and I'm sure there are quite a few people who have faster trigger fingers than me.

    Because I fully believe his statement; a semi + fast finger is close to the damage potential of a full auto IMHO... (Insert image of twoblink with A-team van in background, mini-14 in hand, cigar in mouth) "I love it when a plan comes together."
     
  2. 8Balls

    8Balls Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    Finland
    Semi-auto is imho more dangerous than full auto. (Lots and lots of noise + recoil = hard to control, hard to hit anything if range is over 50 meters) Ofcourse my experience is limited to AKs in 7.62x39, and that was hard to control, cant say anything about mp5s or ARs...
     
  3. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    Can shoulder fired weapons be more dangerous? Maybe.

    Can mounted MG's be more dangerous on full than semi? I have no doubt.
     
  4. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,751
    A thought, but if full auto is not dangerous, then it seems to me that Browning, Johnson, Maxim, Schwarzlose, etc., wasted a lot of time designing machineguns, and armies wasted a lot of money buying them. I think the results from WWI and WWII pretty well indicate that machineguns in the hands of people who can use them are a whole helluva lot more dangerous than semi-auto rifles.

    Jim
     
  5. Azrael256

    Azrael256 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,135
    Location:
    Dallas
    No doubt about that, but it assumes two things. First, that the person shooting has both the proper training and equipment. That's quite an assumption. Second, it assumes conditions for which machineguns were designed. There is quite a difference between a trained soldier fighting off the enemy with his trusty M2 and a gang-banger blazing away at his rivals with a mac-10. If the gangbanger stopped, took five or six carefully aimed shots, he would likely do far more damage. Trying the same thing in the trenches might well get you splattered by a Maxim. They're two different worlds.
     
  6. Correia

    Correia Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    10,648
    Location:
    SLC
    Jim, in the context of that other thread, there was some discussion of full auto, and sure enough, just as there always are, there were several gun owners who piped in that full auto is more dangerous, and therby needs to be more regulated.

    That is, of course, hokum. From that perspective, they are the same as anything else.

    Now in the context which you refer to, totally different. GPMGs are valuable tools on the battlefield. In that first thread, when they were talking about danger, they were speaking in the traditional gun grabber, bliss ninny, sense. Where they are just too dangerous to be in the hands of regular people.

    What I'm saying is that full auto is no more dangerous to society, and the individual, than any other type of gun.
     
  7. Werewolf

    Werewolf Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,192
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    NO Kidding! In WWI the MG was devastating and was the single most influential factor in creating trench warfare and the massive casualties that resulted.

    The tactics of the time just didn't exist yet to deal with the massive amount of firepower an attacking unit faced during a charge against a MG. Once the die was cast the MG combined with new indirect fire artillery methods revolutionized and defined 20th century warfare.

    MG's are very, very dangerous - in the right hands, trained hands. In untrained hands they just become bullet hoses. That said it is still wrong for the US and State governments to violate our god given and 2nd amendment right to have one (yeah - yeah - I know - we can have one if we want... if we're well to do, want to wait a long time, roll over and beg for the privelidge that is).
     
  8. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    A full auto is more deadly, in the sense that you can sweep a battlefield and kill lots of folks in short order, but in terms of civilian contexts, a semi auto is probably just as effective in 99% of typical situations where a gun will be employed. The main danger of a civilian owning a machine gun is to a totalitarian government. That's why they want them out of our reach. Not because criminals will use them against us. If a criminal has a Tommy Gun, and I have an M1 Garand, we are equally matched. I am better armed, if we are both behind barricades or we are more than 25 yards apart.
     
  9. Tequila_Sauer

    Tequila_Sauer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    196
    "Because I fully believe his statement; a semi + fast finger is close to the damage potential of a full auto IMHO"



    Shhhh.....don't say it out loud. If the democommies find out, they'll be coming for those next.
     
  10. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,748
    When you fire a full auto or fire a semi-auto real fast, you are making the assumption that you will actually hit a target. That is not valid IMHO.
    If the target is 5 feet way, sure you will hit it. If the target is 100 yards away, you will likey be more dangerous to the target in semi-auto.


    [below is not politically correct at all]
    I look at it this way: If you were standing in the center of a football field with the stands full of enemies and you had a full auto rifle and a semi-auto rifle, which would be more dangerous? If you emptied the full auto in one burst across the stands on one side, you would likely hurt a lot of enemies. If you fired aimed individual shots at the other side with the semi-auto with the same amount of ammo, you would kill or hurt more enemies with the semi than with the full auto. Full auto is powerful and effective in many situations, but I think semi-auto is more deadly especially for the individual.

    The Deadly Weapons video did a demonstration of this. They placed about 5 big targets out at 40 or 50 yards and spaced out across 30 yards or so. He fired a full auto FAL sweeping across all five. He nicked one. He fired 5 shots in semi and put a bullet into each target in almost the same amount of time.
     
  11. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,748
    Mabye someone can speak up with more information, but my understanding of full auto crew served weapons is that they are not typically used to "sweep" the battlefield the way most visualize it. They are mounted and aimed to hit specific points with a burst of fire and the aim adjusted gradually to cover across the target area or out front of advancing infantry. I guess human wave attacks are a different issue, but I would think you still need to shoot at individual targets or you won't hit anything.
     
  12. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    I believe they would set up a crossfire so as to keep the enemy from advancing. If the enemy was on the move, they open fire. In WWI, this was used to make the space in between trenches a meat grinder.
     
  13. Kurush

    Kurush Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    I believe he was talking about dangerous in terms of a gun owner flipping out. I'm trying to picture Dylan Klebold et al coming to school pulling an M1910 Maxim gun on a sokolov mount behind them like a radio flyer wagon but it's not working out for me.

    m1910mg.jpg
     
  14. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    What do you think the AWB was all about?
     
  15. f4t9r

    f4t9r Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,670
    agree
     
  16. jsalcedo

    jsalcedo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,683
    But it is a heck of a lot more fun.
     
  17. Valkman

    Valkman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Messages:
    6,759
    Location:
    North Las Vegas, NV
    My Uzi would be good for clearing a room but not much more - to me anyway. Anywhere past 20 yards my semi AR with EoTech on top is much more deadly. Past 50 yards a full-auto rifle or carbine would not be useful as much as semi or burst fire. For me. :cool:

    Yep, full auto is fun. At a gathering here in Vegas last march I got to shoot all kinds of FA guns including a brand new M3A1 Grease Gun that had been in wraps since WW2. Sweet. Dumping a Beta mag out of another guy's M16 is a hoot also. :)
     
  18. junyo

    junyo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    719
    Except in those conflicts the machinegun was being designed and built to augment bolt action rifles (with the exception of the Garand). What have recent wars taught us? Browning's WWI designs still in wide use, some German designs from WWII, and not a whole lot of innovations/improvements since then. Infantry weapons, which worked their way from bolt action to semi auto to full auto, then worked their way back to select fire. If machineguns are so lethal, why are they pretty much relegated to a niche roll, a support arm?
     
  19. Andrew S

    Andrew S Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    213
    A semi auto might be more effective against a single target but it doesnt make it more dangerous.


    An automatic weapon has the ability to dump large capacities of rounds in a short period of time with no effort at all. The fact that anyone can just hold a trigger down and fire continuously makes it even more dangerous to EVERYONE around that area. You have to remember that bullets dont disappear when they miss that 1 person you are shooting at. They keep going until they hit something. It could be a tree, wall, or another person. They are more dangerous.
     
  20. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    To me, someone running around screaming and spraying without aiming would be far more likely to be put down by someone carefully aiming and shooting a few well-placed rounds directly at their COM. :scrutiny:

    Why I've always felt so many "office rampages" would be over quickly if people were allowed to CCW in more places...
     
  21. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    I've never seen the word "danger" in the Second Amendment.
     
  22. Andrew S

    Andrew S Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    213
    You mean the vague and outdated phrase that we have the right to keep bear arms? I am sorry but this is the weakest argument I see people make on these forums.

    edit:

    And to make myself clear I am not saying we should ignore it. Just saying that its completely outdated and that it needs to be rewritten.
     
  23. Solo

    Solo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    The Second Amendment is fine the way it is.
     
  24. SomeKid

    SomeKid Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,544
    Location:
    FL
    You are right, it ought to be re-written as follows:

    "If a person says their right to keep and bear arms is infringed, it IS infringed, and the government will bend over backwards to rectify the situation."

    ...just reading that will cause minor strokes in your average anti. I would love to see those commi lawyers at the ACLU give a collective reading on this version.
     
  25. jtward01

    jtward01 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    268
    One of the gun mags, I believe it was American Handgunner, mentioned a few years ago that since the government began to regulate full auto weapons only one person has been murdered with a legally owned fully auto weapon. The victim was the wife of a police officer. He killed her using his department issued Thompson sub-gun.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page