How to respond to VietNam vet re: full-autos

[cordex]

Lets see, all those .22 cal balls inside 5 inches at across the room. Now full auto spraying the room would not be over those diameters?

Really now, that logic just went out the window hey?

Okay, brownie, tell me ... in your years of training and military service, were you ever taught to spray rooms randomly as a way of being effective with a full-auto? Or were you taught to keep tight groups on individual targets and use burst control to keep from wasting ammo?

Think of a shotgun as a weapon with dedicated, adjustable burst-fire and it all comes into focus.

 

[geegee]

With all due respect to Vietnam vets, his tours over there are 100% irrelevant to whether he's right on this question. Some vets favor gun control; some don't. People come away from combat with differing opinions about guns ... same as everyone else. Tell him that you respect his service, but don't let him use it as an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

I've heard that one used too often: "I know what those can do", or in other words, "You have no military service, so your opinion on this weighty issue is irrelevant." The lack of logic of that argument is too easy to overcome, yet sounds so "enlightened" and is usually delivered in such a condescending manner.

OTOH, it's interesting that most of the anti-gun legislators in Congress are not gun owners, yet are seen as the ideal class of people to write gun legislation, e.g. Hillary and Schumer. :banghead: geegee

 

[Monkeyleg]

brownie0486, from my admittedly poor knowledge of firearms history, I recall that the purpose of the shotgun and the machinegun are pretty much the same: to deliver multiple hits to the target as fast as possible. The end purpose is to deliver maximum trauma and shock to the target.

I don't know about your patterning, but I want a 8" or so pattern with 00 buck at 50 to 75 feet. Two or three shells, and that's a lot of holes.

At my best with my Thompson (and, I'm a bit proud to say I was a good shot with it), I could put all 50 rounds into a 3' patterning target at 50 feet. And the holes were pretty well dispersed.

 

[brownie0486]

I was taught to spray rooms with at least one partner as well as many other entry techniques.
Never entering alone under those conditions.

I know of no instance where an entry team has ever had to use that technique. Domestically speaking.

Shotguns were covered pretty extensively with Binelli's. I know the spread patterns in room distances and the damage they cause, say at 9-16 feet, and no question it's effective and has been used as first through the door for entry work.

IMO, if the room needs sweeping, [ I assume your "spray rooms" meant sweeping ] it would require two to be effective with a good operator on the scatter as one of them.

One of either going in is foolish if it those conditions. Sweeping is indiscriminate offense.
Have never heard it happening domestically.

Tight groups with burst control 3 at a time in an urban setting. Scatters have their place in the scheme of things.

If I'm sweeping with the sub I have 30 rds of 9mm to spend in a big arc at the entrance/doorway. If I have the scatter I have perhaps 6 for the same arc. At 15 feet, each 00 will open up at the widest point 5 inches. Closer and less one inch for every 3 feet. You have 30 inches of death at the maximum distances and less usually as not all inside will be at the far walls of the arc.

When the sub runs dry, the reload is one second to up and running for another 30. The scatter really can't be reloaded and must be dropped to continue with something else if we are then moving inmto the room.

Hope that answered your question.

Brownie

 

[brownie0486]

Monkeyleg:

I gave a scenario a few minutes ago relative what I thought someone said about sweeping rooms.

At 75 feet your pattern will be 25 inches. You want 8 inch patterns stay aroud 25 feet. The scatter will cover a man at the shoulders left to right at about 54 feet. Certainly still enough on him at 75 feet to probably put him down if the shot pattern and hold keep the cone of fire centered perfectly left to right.

80% of a 20 rd mag from a thompson at 75 feet all day on a suit coat on a hanger from a pole if I have myself planted right.

I like the toys as well.

Brownie

 

[Hal]

Sweeping is indiscriminate offense. Have never heard it happening domestically.

'bout a year ago. SWAT team member hunkered down, reached up over above his head and kind of off to the side/backwards,,poked his MP5 into a window and hosed down the living room,,,changed the magazine and repeated it. You can search over at TFL for the incident.

I forget the entire context of the post. IIRC, it was about some guy that shot one of the LEO's at his front door responding to a DV/possible suicide(?), then retreated into the house. SWAT was called in, and things turned ugly. (uglier?)

 

[brownie0486]

Hal:
I would assume he had some form of intel to determine he was in the home alone. Otherwise it wasn't a smart ploy.

Did the article say whether he hit anything in the room?

Thanks for the headsup.

I know a line officer that pretty much did the same thing with his glock 17 through a window, then found out innocents were in the room when they cleared it. No accounting for somes actions whether they wear the blue or are non LE.

Brownie

 

[mercedesrules]

He thinks he's better than you. Shun him. He's one of "them".

MR

 

[brownie0486]

mercedesrules:

I'd prefer you just say thankyou for the service they provided to this country in protecting your freedoms and be on your way myself.

Yup, one of "them". Thats what you call people who have different views than yourself. The old us vs. them mentality.

Brownie

 

[mercedesrules]

(Brownie0486) I'd prefer you just say thankyou for the service they provided to this country in protecting your freedoms and be on your way myself.

He's for gun control, so evidently he didn't fight to protect my rights. He fought to protect his.

Yup, one of "them". Thats what you call people who have different views than yourself. The old us vs. them mentality.

Exactly. It's called a debate. You're for gun control, I'm not.

MR

 

[Don Gwinn]

I've held my peace until now, but I have to respond to that, Brownie. Mercedesrules is being too divisive for your taste? Why was it acceptable (and correct) for the original subject of this thread to tell a friend that since he was one of "them" (cake-eating civilian who had not "seen what those can do" in Vietnam) his opinion on the matter was less worthy and his right to keep and bear arms irrelevant?

After all, it was apparently the height of bad form for Mercedesrules to comment on "them" (people who think they're better than the rest of us and deserve to make our choices for us) in response.

Please reconcile those two positions for me.

 

[brownie0486]

Hi Don,

I have gone over the thread here twice now and see nowhere I stated it was acceptable for the vet to state that position as well.

Likewise, in reading what Monkeyleg stated in the original posting about the vets comments I did not see him mention the vet making that statement. I have reread it twice and don't see it if it is there.

If you are referring to the vets reported comment about "seen what those can do" I still see no reference to the vet making that statement. I took that quoted remark as an explanation for the vets opinion on civilians owning them. No more or less.

If you are indeed referring to that quote in the first post about the vets comment and that you took it as an us vs. them attitude when he said it, that would be your opinion on the comment. I don't see where the vet was making it an us vs them by the quote [ above ] alone but you may certainly have taken it that way.

As to whether he meant what you suggest or he meant what I thought the comment came from in his thought process I can't say.

I can say I don't look at it as an us vs. them problem. I don't agree with that attitude but certainly others may have no issues with it. I don't agree with it because I feel that delineates us as a nation and creates another set of barriers/hurdles to overcome to come to terms with each others ideology.

Where I'm concerned, due to the LE background, where I hear it more often from brother officers [ who really do have an us vs them attitude all to often for my taste], I don't hang with the us vs them crowd in "blue". Their attitudes are not to my liking and in that venue I see too many with that attitude who abuse their position and force their prejudices on the public.

I have many issues with the boys I have been forced to work with over the years on different depts. I believe that we need to be objective in our actions and too many [ for my taste ]police officers and even admin at times have the impression it is us vs them on the streets, which it is not. I think it is a jaded view and not one prone to objectiveness.

It [ the us vs them thought process ] also leads to dicrimination which comes with its own set of issues.

Though I am not sure I have given you an adequate answer to your questions, I hope that clarifies a liitle further my feelings on the us vs them comment in mercedesrules post.

The us vs them can be used for about any scenario.
The vets vs non vets
The haves vs the havenots
The liberals vs the conservatives
Etc, etc, etc.

I don't agree with the thought process behind it as I feel it is counter-productive.

There is one us vs them I do believe in [ there may be a few more but not right off the top of my head ]. Thats when it concerns the safety of the US and it's citizens from those who would do us harm.

Even vets who have been there and done that have been known to return to the country they fought in as soldiers and come to terms with the former enemy. I would not be one of them but I understand their point of view whether I agree with it or not.

Brownie

 

[Monkeyleg]

Brownie, the vet I was talking to wasn't presenting his argument as an "us versus them" position. He essentially was questioning why some folks--like me--think there should be no restrictions on weapons that he feels are much more destructive than others. It's a valid question, but I was unable to convince him of my position. The next time I'm in his office, I'm going to invite him to THR for further "education."

By the way, while not questioning your experience and training with subguns and shotguns, I have to question your statement about 25" patterns at 75 feet. Because it's been awhile since I took my shotgun out for practice, I went back to The Firing Line to find an old post of mine and the response from another member.

Here it is:

************************
Well, I finally had a chance to pattern the PMC 9 pellet 00 buck. At fifty feet, the best grouping was with a modified choke on my M1S90. Groups ran about 8-9" including the one or two flyers with each shell. Without the flyers the groups were 6-8." Is that acceptable, or can I do better?

Thanks for any replies.


__________________
Dick

TFL Alumni



10-11-2001 04:18 PM

Dave R
Senior Member

Registered: 01-07-2000
Location:
Posts: 3174

I get best groupings with modified choke, too. 8-9 inches at 50 ft. sounds pretty acceptable to me.
*************************

 

[brownie0486]

It's a mystery to me as well. 50 feet would have been 16" on the Benellis so thats twice the area opened up on your results.

The Benellis at HK held 1" every three feet out to the furthest distance shot which was 18 feet in the rooms. They used a 20 inch tube.

I like your results better though. How long a barrel on yours, do you know what the other gentlemans barrel length was? I don't know if that would make a difference or not. Chokes were the same.

Thanks for the info, I think I'll call HK next week to see if they have an answer.

As to the vet, thats the way I read/interpreted it also.

Brownie

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Monkeyleg, why do you feel it necessary to convert this guy to being pro citizen machinegun ownership? Why does it matter to you what this guy thinks?

In all due respect, it sounds like this guy has the background and understanding to make the judgement he has made. You may not agree with it, but he is making an informed decision. It might be another matter if this person was just some liberal spouting a party line on a topic about which he had no direct knowledge, but this guy does have knowledge and direct experience.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Double Naught: it's really not a matter of converting the guy to the idea of making full-auto's available at every gun shop. As much as he likes guns, as much as he did honorable service for our country, and as much as he is a thinking man, he still cannot understand the problem that "radical groups" like the NRA have with licensing and registration.

He doesn't see the connection that most members of THR see: licensing=registration=confiscation. Much as I've described those scenarios being played out in CA, NY, IL and the British Colonies, he doesn't believe me.

Certainly I can understand how a veteran arrived home from a terrible war would want nothing to do with weapons; I've met many veterans who feel the same way.

But, as I said, this guy wants to be able to buy, own, and carry a gun for the protection of himself and family. He's not Josh Sugarman.

He just doesn't understand or believe what Josh Sugarman has in mind.