If the hughes amendment was repealed...

[Sam1911]

That's how I feel too.

Unreal. Read Post 47 again. Do we have to be so self-deluded as to define "pro-gun" as refusing to acknowledge physics and responsibility?

A lot of ifs, maybes, and perhaps. Which might be a problem with any thread like this.

IF the law didn't exist ...

IF the guns were more available and less expensive ...

IF I was in some situation where stray rounds weren't a problem ...

IF society wouldn't make immediate character and judgment calls against someone who would use this to defend themselves ...

AND NOW,

IF physics can be overcome so that this type of gun lands all shots as accurately and controllably as a semi-auto does ...

Then sure.

Can I be "pro-gun" now, too?

 

[Billy Shears]

Don't be surprised Sam1911. On any issue like this, involving something about which people in society feel strongly, there is always going to be a subset of people who demand absolute ideological purity. And if you aren't a true believer in the pure faith, then you are almost as bad as the enemy, because you are more likely to lead the faithful astray. It's a very religious mindset, and like religion, not a thing about which people with this mindset are inclined to be reasonable.

 

[Billy Shears]

Even if G18s and Beretta 93s or similar guns are in fact "too hard" to control as some of you say, it's not like the free market wouldn't come up with a solution to this problem. If someone came up with a recoil management solution to this problem, would some of you change your tune?

I'm a political conservative too, but let's be realistic. The free market is not a magic wand that can wave away all problems. As a matter of fact, it has been trying to come up with a solution to this problem since the 1930s. It hasn't. This is because you can't simply waive the laws of physics. When you combine a cartridge of sufficient power, a lightweight weapon with a single hand grip, and reciprocating parts of low mass, it cannot do otherwise than add up to a weapon of high cyclic rate, with insufficient inertia to dampen the recoil enough to allow a high degree of controlability.

The best solution I ever saw to this problem was in a magazine article I read in the '80s. I can't remember the name of the inventor or his system, or I'm sure I'd be able to find something about in on the internet. He took a Browning Hi Power, made it capable of full auto fire, and attached a T-shaped second handgrip to the frame, which went above the slide. The sights were moved the right side of the pistol's slide, and the weapon was rotated 90 degrees, so that the firing hand was held horizontally (looking like what would now be called a "gangsta style" grip), and the support hand, oriented vertically on the T-shaped grip. The T-shaped grip allowed the left hand to brace against the rise (or in this case, leftward rotation, since the pistol was held horizontally). The result was, by all accounts, a very controllable weapon.

However I trust you can also see the downside. With these modifications, the weapon may have been made a practical full auto weapon, but it was made distinctly less practical as a semi-auto weapon. The T-shaped handle increased bulk, and the change in position of the sights required the weapon be fired tilted 90 degrees to the left, which made one-handed use difficult, if not impossible.

 

[CoRoMo]

Originally Posted by Me
There are two differing sides in this thread...

What I should have said there, is that there are two different DEBATES/ARGUMENTS occurring in this thread. If you read the rest of that paragraph, I tried to make those thoughts clear, but let me give it another try here.

That's how I feel too.

One position here is debating a RKBA issue, but the other is talking about practicality. I know that a lot of us hate being told what is practical when it comes to any tangential RKBA issue. After all, that's what the fascists who are trying to disarm this nation are doing; they are only talking about "what is practical", but we know the end game; their larger agenda. Just remember who you're talking to. Context is everything. When the antis say that a firearms platform is impractical for CCW, we know where they are headed with that. But when our own team tells us that a firearms platform is impractical for CCW, we really can't react the same way.

We might soon find our government telling us that a 33-round Glock magazine is impractical. If we were to discuss that here, there would be a lot of pro-2A guys saying the same thing. The only difference is that the pro-2A guys aren't saying that the magazine shouldn't exist, they're just saying, "That size magazine is a little big for daily carry".

Now... back to the REAL subject of this thread.

...a double tap is a single tap away.

A very high cyclic rate 2-shot burst may print both shots very close together on a target at defensive distances... a trained shooter can do the same thing...

Yes, a trained shooter CAN do this at the range and on the course, but in that moment of need, WILL he? This may be the whole benefit. I certainly train to get pairs accurately on target, quicker, but I'm only shooting paper and steel, and if the weather is bad, I go home. If I were ever to need the pistol on my hip, I can't truly say that I'll be thinking "front sight, press, front sight, press". I'll probably be thinking about my wife and kids, I don't know. I've read a lot of first hand accounts of self defense situations, and it amazes me when the good guy/officer says that he/she actually DID think "front sight, press, front sight...". Hope I've trained enough that I do too. I've been in a few situations where I froze like a statue, had tunnel vision, and moved in slow motion. I second guess the effectiveness of my training all the time. I figure that I'd be lucky to squeeze off one successful shot. If the pistol would spit out two at a 0.06 sec split, I might end up eve luckier.

That's why I say that I would try to adapt the concept to CCW. If it didn't work out, well... it go away just like any pistol that doesn't work out.

 

[rocky branch]

Years ago I had a Scnellfeurer.
Fired it without the stock once. Really bad idea.
Somewhat better with the stock, but really impractical.

Hard to believe anybody thinks a burst from a civilian carry piece is anywhere near a good idea.
One does take on some responsibility when opening fire in a defensive mode.
They should stick to bump firing their Glocks.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Suppose one is using three-shot burst or even FA and just one of the cartridges in the middle of the barrage happens to be a squib load for some reason. Suddenly, you have a bullet stuck in the barrel with another full round about to be fired!

No wonder the army has crimps on all the primers. They can't have one cartridge fail!

Suppose for a moment that you are having fun "bump-firing" and the same thing happens! There is a potential for one big BANG that you did not expect!

I need to hear each and EVERY round being fired.

 

[CoRoMo]

We've loaded up super light squib loads, many times, on purpose. Never once were they able to cycle the action in an AR15 or a pistol. Not once, in our tests. So the squib followed by another live one, doesn't make sense.

Only once ever got one stuck in a barrel, but that one was in a revolver. It was a 'primer only' load. I've never tried one of those in a semi, but I'm certain that it wouldn't cycle another round from the mag. In the semi-autos, the bullet always made its way out the pipe.

 

[Pigoutultra]

How 'bout reduced caliber?

Hi, I'm new to THR and this is my first post. I think that what was done with the vz. 61 was pretty good. It was slightly larger than a standard sized pistol and it fired a relatively low powered cartridge. If say a G18 was adapted to .32 ACP or .30 Luger, it would be more than controllable for FA and even more controllable in Burst Mode. This would solve any recoil induced problems with inaccuracy.

 

[Sam1911]

(Welcome to THR!)

If say a G18 was adapted to .32 ACP or .30 Luger, it would be more than controllable for FA and even more controllable in Burst Mode. This would solve any recoil induced problems with inaccuracy.

It would ease those problems, but not eliminate them. But then, you're using a .32 ACP or .30 Luger for self-defense. Is it demonstrably better to hit a bad guy with 3-5 very low powered shots in a burst than it is to hit him with 2-5 controlled shots of 9mm, .40, .45, .357, .44, or some other more substantial round -- at a rate of ~5 shots per second, as most practiced shooters can do with a semi-auto or revolver?

The more you work to ease the drawbacks of using the full-auto gun, the less sense it seems to make. IMHO

 

[Pigoutultra]

Well, to achieve that rate of fire with a semi-auto pistol in a defensive situation would be pretty difficult, especially in a sub-compact/compact design. In a full size steel frame handgun, the weight is there to reduce the recoil enough were automatic fire is accurate and effective. Though it really comes down to user preference. If someone is not confident that they can control the recoil on full auto then by all means don't use full auto, but for someone who is well enough capable of controlling a full auto pistol then they have more options. I respect your opinion and it makes sense, but I for one would rather have at my disposal a firearm that is capable of more than 5 shots a second if there would ever be a situation where the advantages that full auto brings to the table can be fully realized.

 

[Billy Shears]

Well, to achieve that rate of fire with a semi-auto pistol in a defensive situation would be pretty difficult, especially in a sub-compact/compact design. In a full size steel frame handgun, the weight is there to reduce the recoil enough were automatic fire is accurate and effective. Though it really comes down to user preference. If someone is not confident that they can control the recoil on full auto then by all means don't use full auto, but for someone who is well enough capable of controlling a full auto pistol then they have more options. I respect your opinion and it makes sense, but I for one would rather have at my disposal a firearm that is capable of more than 5 shots a second if there would ever be a situation where the advantages that full auto brings to the table can be fully realized.

The essential point you keep missing (and you are not the only one) is that you can't have that. Lots of people would like the advantage of a compact full auto, if they could have one. From time to time, some special unit or military organization will request such a weapon, and designers will do their best to provide it (the last such attampt, I believe, was when the Austrian antiterrorist Einsatzcommando Kobra commissioned Glock to design and build the Glock 18 for them), but then, when the actual operators who will use the pistol actually get their hands on the weapons, the weapons are quickly abandoned, because they simply cannot do the job as well as other weapons. You are up against physics here. You will never get a pistol of practical size and weight, while firing a service caliber cartridge, that is controllable enough. The weapon's low mass and lightweight reciprocating parts combine to create a too-high rate of fire, and a weapon whose lack of mass leaves it without enough inertia to dampen recoil and muzzle rise.

In short, I too would like a full auto pistol that would be practical to use. But since nobody has yet created one, I can't obtain one and neither can you, and I don't believe it would be a good idea at all to tote around one of the various inadequate attempts at creating such a weapon.

And what's more, the legal climate and public perception being what they are in this country, it's almost inconceivable that this wouldn't come back to bite you in the ass in the event you ever had to use the gun in self defense. Any way you look at this, in practical terms, it's the mother of all bad ideas.

 

[essayons21]

However, as said before, a trained shooter can do the same thing 0.15-0.20 sec apart with any service semi-auto sidearm and have a confirmed sight picture for both shots, so where is the value in the additional complexity?

I would argue that a device, which is mechanically either the same level of complexity, or less complex than a semi-auto, which allows a relatively untrained shooter to surpass a trained shooter, represents an overall reduction in the level of complexity.

Billy Shears,

Most folks in this thread are not arguing for true full-auto, but 2-3 round select fire. I believe it would be very practical to build a modern full-size pistol in 9mm which would fire 2 rounds having similar recoil and muzzle rise to a comparable semi-automatic .45.

 

[Billy Shears]

I would argue that a device, which is mechanically either the same level of complexity, or less complex than a semi-auto, which allows a relatively untrained shooter to surpass a trained shooter, represents an overall reduction in the level of complexity.

I believe he is talking about the mechanical complexity introduced by a mechanism capable of differentiating between both semi-automatic, and automatic fire, and also by the added complexity in training in necessitating that the shooter master both rapid semi-auto fire, as well as controlled full auto fire. Introducing full auto does add complexity, in either case.

Billy Shears,

Most folks in this thread are not arguing for true full-auto, but 2-3 round select fire. I believe it would be very practical to build a modern full-size pistol in 9mm which would fire 2 rounds having similar recoil and muzzle rise to a comparable semi-automatic .45.

Probably not, actually. In such a case, you would require a burst limiting mechanism, which introduces still more mechanical complexity. The HK G11 rifle, had such a feature, but this required an additional mechanism to boost two round burst fire to over 2000 rounds per minute in order to ensure that both fired rounds had left the barrel before the recoil impulse could lift it off target, and to put regular full auto fire back to a more convential 600 rounds per minute. This introduced considerable extra mechanical complexity into the mechanism. I am not at all sure that it would be possible to shoehorn such a mechanism into a pistol-sized package. Another attempt to do this, the Russian Nikonov AN-94 assault rifle also requires a more complex mechanism, using a unique pulley system and a method of operation its designers call "blowback shifted pulse" to "pre-load" the second cartridge into the chamber. Only thus could they make the cyclic rate fast enough to lauch two bullets before the recoil impulse caused the muzzle to rise off target. The Nikonov also has to boost the cyclic rate to over 1800 rounds per minute (and a separate one to limit regular full auto to 600 rpm), or the muzzle will climb off target and both rounds will not hit the target, and this, I remind you, is in a rifle, which is far more inherently controllable than any pistol.

In either of these cases, a mechanism capable of the feats you describe, necessitated considerable increased complexity (and expense -- which is one reason the AN-94 remains limited to specialty troops, and the main body of the Russian army still uses the old Kalashnikov), and there is little likelihood that these complex systems could be miniaturized to fit into a pistol.

 

[Pigoutultra]

The Beretta 93R had a three-round-burst function and there was no noticeable difference is size as far as I can tell. And to your other point: machine pistols almost always have a very high cyclic rate because of the light reciprocating parts, the G18 fires at 1100 rpm, I would think that the recoil would not be able to take full effect during the .05 seconds between bullets in a 2-3 round burst. And with the AN-94, it is a rifle and the reason it has an even higher cyclic rate for its 2 round burst is so that absolutely no recoil is felt until both bullets leave the barrel so that it can theoretically put two bullets in the same spot. A pistol, on the other hand, does not need to have that kind of accuracy. I think I'm not being clear in this post as I don't write very well due to my ADHD, so I'll try to sum it up. An-94 needs to be more accurate compared to a machine pistol such as the Beretta 93R only needing to be around as accurate as a semi-auto.

 

[Billy Shears]

The Beretta 93R had a three-round-burst function and there was no noticeable difference is size as far as I can tell.

The Beretta 93R is out of production. You might want to reflect on the fact that it did not have enough customers for Beretta to consider it worth keeping on the market.

And to your other point: machine pistols almost always have a very high cyclic rate because of the light reciprocating parts, the G18 fires at 1100 rpm, I would think that the recoil would not be able to take full effect during the .05 seconds between bullets in a 2-3 round burst.

Then you think wrong. Both HK and and Nikonov realized that in a rifle (which, I remind, you, is inherently more controllable than a pistol) required a rate of fire of around two thousand rounds per minute, if the weapon were to be capable of firing a burst before the muzzle climbed off target. Both of the pistols you named -- pistols, which are less controllable, than rifles -- have a rate of fire barely more than half that.

And with the AN-94, it is a rifle and the reason it has an even higher cyclic rate for its 2 round burst is so that absolutely no recoil is felt until both bullets leave the barrel so that it can theoretically put two bullets in the same spot. A pistol, on the other hand, does not need to have that kind of accuracy.

Actually it does. Because a pistol is less controlable, it would have to have at least that rate of fire in order to put two shots close together, rather than in the same hole.

I think I'm not being clear in this post as I don't write very well due to my ADHD, so I'll try to sum it up. An-94 needs to be more accurate compared to a machine pistol such as the Beretta 93R only needing to be around as accurate as a semi-auto.

If it were, then why isn't the 93R still in production? Even with a forward handgrip, attachable stock option, and a longer, ported barrel -- all of which considerably diminish the weapons concealability, and make it less suitable for civilian carry, BTW -- it is considerably less controllable. It was so much less controllabe (and less practical) that it hasn't found enough customers for Beretta to keep it in production. Why do you think that is?

 

[S.W.G.]

The Beretta 93R had a three-round-burst function and there was no noticeable difference is size as far as I can tell.

The mechanical parts that manage the burst-fire are located in the hollowed-out right side grip panel. There is a video on YouTube of a guy disassembling the plate to make it full auto. (With a rubber band!)

 

[S.W.G.]

The essential point you keep missing

The Beretta 93R is out of production. You might want to reflect on the fact that it did not have enough customers for Beretta to consider it worth keeping on the market.

Then you think wrong.

Why do you think that is?

I don't want to get into the middle of anything, and maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but (to me at least) you're coming across as kind of rude.

Just sayin'.

 

[Pigoutultra]

Since when does a pistol's accuracy get compared to that of a rifle(except T/C Contender of course)? The machine pistol does not need to put 2 bullets in on hole, it needs to put two bullets in a 2" or less group at 7 yards. The recoil is not nearly severe enough to bring the muzzle up as fast as you say it will. If people are capable of double tapping their pistols with that kind of accuracy, why can't a two-round-burst pistol produce the same accuracy?

 

[Billy Shears]

from S.W.G.

I don't want to get into the middle of anything, and maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but (to me at least) you're coming across as kind of rude.

Just sayin'.

Perhaps that is not rudeness, but frustration, at the stubborn irrationality displayed by people who simply won't face facts. It's hard not to lose patience with people who stubbornly cling to demonstrably bad ideas. Wishful thinking is simply not an admirable quality, and frustration with those who insist in engaging in it is understandable.

See below for more examples...

Since when does a pistol's accuracy get compared to that of a rifle(except T/C Contender of course)? The machine pistol does not need to put 2 bullets in on hole, it needs to put two bullets in a 2" or less group at 7 yards.

Actually it does need to be about as accurate, relative to the ranges at which it would be used, as the rifles I mentioned. The G11 and AN-94 were designed, not as weapons to be issued to snipers or designated marksmen, but to common soldiers. They didn't need to be minute of angle accurate, they just need to be capable of putting a burst on a man-sized target at reasonable ranges.

The recoil is not nearly severe enough to bring the muzzle up as fast as you say it will. If people are capable of double tapping their pistols with that kind of accuracy, why can't a two-round-burst pistol produce the same accuracy?

Because it doesn't! It just doesn't.

For the tenth time -- WHY AREN'T THERE MORE FULL AUTO PISTOLS? Why are almost all the models that have ever been made out of production? Why don't more people use them? Why don't elite police, military, and antiterrorist units, who have the luxury of operating in free fire zones that civilians NEVER WILL, use these weapons? Why don't they?

You can ask why all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. They aren't controllable enough even for these elite operators, nevermind civilians who, if they ever shoot in anger, will do so in areas where bystanders must always be considered. Even the Glock 18, which is perhaps the least uncontrollable of these things so far, has found very, very few customers.

Pistols are secondary weapons. Apart from very, very specific applications (e.g. Vietnam tunnel rats) where a pistol's small size is uniquely advantageous, it's never preferred over a long gun as a weapon by those who are expecting trouble. It is only carried and used for the reason that, unlike other small arms, it is compact enough to be carried at all times. Eight decades of experience, from the days of the Mauser Schnellfeuerpistole onward, have taught us that a full auto pistol is simply a poor compromise of characteristics. Period. Full stop. End of story.

The only advantages a pistol has - compactness, concealability,capability of one-hand operation -- become liabilities when combined with full auto fire in serious cartridges. The result is a weapon that is needlessly complex, from a mechanical standpoint, offers no performance advantage over semi-auto pistols, wastes ammo, and isn't sufficiently precise. Eight decades of experience have taught us, the hard way, that if you want to take advantage of full auto fire, you simply have to step up to a larger, more easily controlled weapon. If compactness, or convenience of carry is the premium quality, then you simply have to accept being limited to semi-auto fire as the price you pay for the convenience of a small, compact, concealable weapon.

Life is all about trade offs. You can't have everything at once. To get some things, you have to give up some others. Why can't you accept that this applies to firearms, just like it does everything else in the universe?

 

[Pigoutultra]

I'm beginning to think that you are taking this personally and that you think you need to go on an ideological crusade. My point is that if someone can accurately perform a high speed double tap, then a two-round-burst should be capably of producing the same accuracy. I agree that full auto pistol is inefficient at best and ineffective at worst, but a two-round-burst function can do nothing but improve effectiveness.

 

[rclem57]

For the tenth time -- WHY AREN'T THERE MORE FULL AUTO PISTOLS? Why are almost all the models that have ever been made out of production? Why don't more people use them? Why don't elite police, military, and antiterrorist units, who have the luxury of operating in free fire zones that civilians NEVER WILL, use these weapons? Why don't they?

What has surprised me throughout all of your arguments is that you seem to fail to discern the difference between burst fire and full auto. (Isn't that what this thread started out asking anyways?) You continue to talk about spraying rounds all over the place, how can you do that with burst fire? I trigger pull resulting in 2 to 3 rounds in close proximity does not sound like any sort of disadvantage to me other than running out of ammo faster, but like you keep saying in the real world when will you actually need more than those 2 to 3 rounds anyways?

 

[Billy Shears]

What has surprised me throughout all of your arguments is that you seem to fail to discern the difference between burst fire and full auto. (Isn't that what this thread started out asking anyways?) You continue to talk about spraying rounds all over the place, how can you do that with burst fire? I trigger pull resulting in 2 to 3 rounds in close proximity does not sound like any sort of disadvantage to me other than running out of ammo faster, but like you keep saying in the real world when will you actually need more than those 2 to 3 rounds anyways?

I make no distinction because I am talking about bursts. The correct way to fire full auto is always to fire bursts. Even belt fed machine guns are supposed to be fired in controlled bursts.

The Beretta 93R and HK VP70 both had three-round burst limiters in order to make the firer keep it down to short bursts.

And yet this whole category of weapons is still insufficiently controllable.

 

[Sam1911]

My point is that if someone can accurately perform a high speed double tap, then a two-round-burst should be capably of producing the same accuracy.

Two completely different things.

A "high speed double tap" correctly performed, involves two distinct, deliberate sight pictures, and (of course) two separate decisions to fire and operations of the trigger.

So, precision is quite possible, even at speeds of 0.15 sec. splits or better, because the sights are confirmed to be back on target for each shot.

 

[Billy Shears]

I'm beginning to think that you are taking this personally and that you think you need to go on an ideological crusade.

I'm not taking anything personally. I'm merely expressing (understandable) frustration at people who will not face facts, and who insist that you can so fit a square peg into a round hole, or that two plus to can so equal five.

Whether you like it or not, the fact is that this is not a practical class of weapon, and not only are they conspicuous by their absence among those users who do have the option of choosing them, but most of the full auto or burst-fire pistols that have ever been made have long since gone out of production for lack of customers, and most of these weapons required extended and ported barrels, forward handgrips, attachable shoulder stocks and other such accoutrements in order to make them less uncontrollable, and all of these things would be highly impractical for a civilian concealed carry weapon. These are the facts. Face them.

And even if it were possible to make this square peg go into the round hole (which it isn't), none of that would make it a good idea in today's legal climate, to carry a weapon like this and employ it for self defense.

These things are not particularly hard to understand, so I am becoming a little frustrated at what looks more and more to me like an unwillingness to face facts that conflict with a cherished notion, so if I do have an ideology for which to mount a crusade, that ideology is realism. We should be realistic, particularly when it comes to firearms and self defense.

My point is that if someone can accurately perform a high speed double tap, then a two-round-burst should be capably of producing the same accuracy. I agree that full auto pistol is inefficient at best and ineffective at worst, but a two-round-burst function can do nothing but improve effectiveness.

Actually, it can do plenty of other things, like increase your legal liability, just for one thing. It can also result in one round in the target, and another that sails over the target's shoulder to strike something behind him. As Sam1911 stated, a double tap involves putting the sights on target and pressing the trigger deliberately for both rounds. A burst, even a two round one, is a different thing, and the second round is fired automatically without either of those things. And then there remains the legal aftermath, which is nightmarish enough, even for people using ordinary firearms, in justified shootings. To carry a weapon that increases a judge or jury's tendency to believe the shooter a reckless cowboy or Rambo wannabe is simply not a good idea. It would be a bad idea, from this standpoint, to carry a full auto weapon, just as it would be a bad idea to carry a weapon that has had a safety feature deactivated, or to carry a weapon loaded with handloads instead of factory ammo.

 

[essayons21]

For the tenth time -- WHY AREN'T THERE MORE FULL AUTO PISTOLS?

Supply and demand.

For the same reason there were few small reliable, CCW pistols until after shall-issue CCW became the norm in the US. Now they are ubiquitous.

You keep saying that because the military and police don't use them, automatic pistols are worthless. Last I checked, no military or police uses a .380 pocket pistol, but I sure find it useful.

The reason autopistols have been large is because their potential customers had no need for concealment. Miniaturization is easy.

Re: ROF. The rifles you mention contain complex devices to speed up the fire for bursts, then to slow it down again for full-auto for controllability. A pistol would have no need for such a device, as it is pointless to make a small full-auto pistol.

Also because of the significantly shorter barrel of a pistol (~4" instead of ~16"), the bullets dwell time in the barrel is much less, and the ROF necessary to get 2 rounds out before the recoil impulse takes you off target at 10 yards in lower.

I see no reason why a 9mm pistol, with light operating parts, and no other devices couldn't reach a cyclic rate of fire of 1800 RPM, and put 2 rounds in a 10" circle at 10 yards in the hands of a relatively untrained shooter. If Hughes was repealed and a pistol like this was marketed, it would make a good choice for CCW.