If the hughes amendment was repealed...

[memphisjim]

ye ye id get a fat man suit that held 2 ak74 pistols with drums
might go ak74 on my weaker left hand

 

[Billy Shears]

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.

Dodging the question. Why is demand for full auto pistols low? And why is it that when one does come out, it doesn't stay on the market for long. There is a reason there is no demand for these things: they aren't practical.

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.

No, that's not what I am saying. You're getting the order backwards. I don't say they are worthless because the military and police don't use them. I'm saying the military and police don't use them because they are worthless. Numerous attempts to create an effective full auto pistol in a service caliber have all failed. It's not for lack of trying. But about every generation, since the 1920s, someone tries to reinvent the wheel with this thing. And every time, they find that what they come up with just doesn't work well, and isn't controllable enough to be truly practical, that you just can't achieve the needed level of controllability with a service caliber full auto pistol, and the latest attempt gets relegated to the dustbin with all the others that came before.

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

But controllability isn't. Sure you can make it small. That's doesn't mean that it will be controllable.

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.

It's pointless to make any full auto pistol. They don't do the job as well as other weapons. And if a pistol is to be used for concealed carry, then it has to be small, or at least reasonably compact. If not, it won't be concealable.

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.

Not really enough to matter. Yes the bullet's dwell time in the barrel is lower. But the pistol's mass, and therefore its inertia is also lower, which means it starts moving earlier. It also has fewer control surfaces for the user to interface with -- a single grip instead of two handgrips and a shoulder stock -- so it affords the user less control to resist muzzle rise.

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.

No, it would make a collosally bad choice for CCW. And I am not even remotely convince a pistol meeting the criteria you describe can be made to exist. And once again, even if it could, it would still be a bad choice, for the same reasons that a pistol with a deactivated safety device or handloaded ammo would be a bad choice: the user would be someone a prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney would certainly portray as someone with a reckless disregard the safety of others, and/or an increased desire to kill someone, as evidenced by his choice to carry a "more lethal" weapon.

 

[Pigoutultra]

You claim that he is dodging the question, yet you are dodging as well. The physical practicality and the legal practicality are two completely different things. And saying that the military has no market for a ccw is a legitimate argument. It would be a disadvantage for the military to conceal their sidearms, they need to be able to access them as fast as possible. Is it really practical concealment-wise that one should instead of carrying a machine pistol to carry a submachinegun? You keep comparing the two, but a submachinegun isn't nearly as concealable as a machine pistol. In a purely efficiency point of view, full auto or burst function would be out of the question compared to semi-auto, but the effectiveness of them are a completely different story. If burst fire wasn't effective than the M16A2 wouldn't be around. Even if you didn't have to conceal your weapon and you lived in an Open-Carry state, what would you rather carry, a machine pistol, or a submachinegun? The machine pistol has all the advantages of a pistol, just with more options.

 

[Billy Shears]

You claim that he is dodging the question, yet you are dodging as well. The physical practicality and the legal practicality are two completely different things.

They are two different things. But both of them, independently, show carrying such a weapon to be a bad idea, if it were legal to do so.

And saying that the military has no market for a ccw is a legitimate argument.

You are ascribing to me arguments I have never made. I never asserted anything regarding the military's need for a ccw or its lack thereof. I have been saying that the military does not use a full auto pistol, period. I said nothing about said pistol's facility for concealment. I have said that full auto pistols usually feature things like vertical foregrips, extended & ported barrels, and/or attachable shoulder stocks that would make any such weapon less concealable (and yet still fail to impart a sufficient degree of controllability).

It would be a disadvantage for the military to conceal their sidearms, they need to be able to access them as fast as possible. Is it really practical concealment-wise that one should instead of carrying a machine pistol to carry a submachinegun?

See above. I never said anything about the military needing to conceal its pistols. Perhaps the Austrian EKO Kobra unit requested the Glock 18 because they wanted a concealable full auto pistol; I don't know. They are an elite antiterrorist unit, and like many such units, sometimes have people operating undercover, or at least inconspicuously. I do know they have made little, if any use of the weapon once they got it, and their standard sidearm remains the semi-auto Glock 17.

You keep comparing the two, but a submachinegun isn't nearly as concealable as a machine pistol. In a purely efficiency point of view, full auto or burst function would be out of the question compared to semi-auto, but the effectiveness of them are a completely different story. If burst fire wasn't effective than the M16A2 wouldn't be around.

You seem not to be aware of the reason for the three round burst feature of the M16A2. It was introduced as a replacement for the full auto capability the M16A1 had. The reason this was done was to limit soldiers to what they had always been trained to do in any case, but often failed to do: fire bursts instead of spraying. The M16A1, with its full auto capability, was never intended to be a bullet hose that the soldier could just spray and pray with. Soldiers were always meant to fire bursts, and were trained to fire bursts. In practice, however, they often didn't do that. Under the stress of actual combat, a certain percentage of them always tended to forget their training and blaze up all their ammo. The three round burst feature of the M16A2 was introduced as a means of forcing fire discipline on soldiers.

Now given this reality, do you really believe every shooter out there who would pack a full auto pistol for ccw if he could, would be immune from this tendency to forget training and lose his sense of fire discipline under the stress of an actual gunfight?

Even if you didn't have to conceal your weapon and you lived in an Open-Carry state, what would you rather carry, a machine pistol, or a submachinegun? The machine pistol has all the advantages of a pistol, just with more options.

The only extra options it offers are bad ones. Foolish risks taken with no practical gain to balance them off. It offers a method of fire which is no more effective than rapid, controlled semi-auto fire, but which is far harder to control, and is therefore riskier to bystanders, and which therefore increases the likelihood of a tragic incident. And to top it all off, it increases the likelihood of the shooter using such a weapon being charged criminally or sued civilly, for reasons directly relating to his his choice of weapon.

So in exchange for no practical increase whatever in your defensive capability, you open yourself up to a hugely increased level of liability.

It's. A. Bad. Idea.

 

[Pigoutultra]

I was under the assumption that the reason for the switch from full auto to burst fire in the M16 was common knowledge and I didn't need to explain it. When I was talking about the M16A2 I was comparing burst fire to semi-auto fire. If there were not any situations where burst fire is more effective than semi-auto fire it would not exist. There is another reason militaries don't usually use machine pistols. Machine pistols were/are marketed to bodyguards and personal security forces, who require the firepower of a submachinegun in a smaller and more concealable package. Even the secret service has used machine pistols before. And when I was talking about the military not having a market for ccw, I was referring to someone else's argument that you rebutted. A full auto machine pistol does not lose control in less than 3 shots, which is how many shots are in a two-round-burst.

 

[Billy Shears]

I was under the assumption that the reason for the switch from full auto to burst fire in the M16 was common knowledge and I didn't need to explain it. When I was talking about the M16A2 I was comparing burst fire to semi-auto fire. If there were not any situations where burst fire is more effective than semi-auto fire it would not exist.

Yes, burst fire is sometimes useful. You do understand that on the M16, it is intended to be used on the battlefield, and that in this environment, it doesn't matter if a round or two out of the burst misses the target? You do understand that a civilian on the streets of some city, or inside an apartment complex, or really anywhere he might find himself, will never have this luxury of not needing to worry about where his rounds go if they miss, nor will he ever have to worry about a prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney hauling him into court because he was perceived as more reckless or dangerous as a direct result of the weapon he used? You do understand this?

There is another reason militaries don't usually use machine pistols. Machine pistols were/are marketed to bodyguards and personal security forces, who require the firepower of a submachinegun in a smaller and more concealable package.

Machine pistols are marketed to bodyguards and personal security forces, however they are very little used by bodyguards and personal security forces. At the risk of repeating myself, there is a reason for this. Such people usually use semi-auto pistols, or if they see a need for a full auto weapon, step up to an actual subgun like the MP5 or some other weapon in this class. Again, there is a reason for this.

Even the secret service has used machine pistols before. And when I was talking about the military not having a market for ccw, I was referring to someone else's argument that you rebutted. A full auto machine pistol does not lose control in less than 3 shots, which is how many shots are in a two-round-burst.

Then why don't the secret service, FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshalls, and police forces all over the country issue pistols that fire two round bursts? If this were such a great idea, why is that nobody, but nobody, seems to be on board with it?

 

[S.W.G.]

- Yes, using a slect-fire pistol for CCW is a bad idea.

- No, it isn't practical for battlefield use.

- Yes, SWAT would be better off using a submachine gun.

However, I think that such a weapon could be useful to security forces and armed guards at National Guard depots, banks and the like.

You are implying that a select-fire handgun would just randomly throw rounds down range, but there are quite a few videos out there of SOT's getting nice groups with these guns.

I think it's important to remember that we aren't talkin about engagements at 20+ yards, were talking about drawing and firing at something like fifteen feet.

and the latest attempt gets relegated to the dustbin with all the others that came before.

The Glock 18 has been around for more than two decades. If it was such a worthless piece of crap why hasn't Glock discontinued it?

 

[Billy Shears]

- Yes, using a slect-fire pistol for CCW is a bad idea.

- No, it isn't practical for battlefield use.

- Yes, SWAT would be better off using a submachine gun.

However, I think that such a weapon could be useful to security forces and armed guards at National Guard depots, banks and the like.

Apparently no one else does, because not only are none of these people armed with such a weapon, they are raising no clamor to be provided with them.

You are implying that a select-fire handgun would just randomly throw rounds down range, but there are quite a few videos out there of SOT's getting nice groups with these guns.

After how many man hours of training to acheive that level of proficiency? Most people, as I said way back in an earlier post, don't get nearly enough range time as it is with their semi-auto handguns, and adding a further level of complexity to their training is not helping. Nor will it help to add the need to make a second, split second, crucial decision -- the decision of whether or not to employ the burst feature of leave it on semi -- after the decision of whether or not to fire has been made. And then, of course, this necessiates further training to develop the ability to manipulate the selector switch quickly under stress.

I think it's important to remember that we aren't talkin about engagements at 20+ yards, were talking about drawing and firing at something like fifteen feet.

And at that range, cultivating the ability to fire accurate double taps will serve you every bit as well, without opening up all the liabilities an NFA pistol would do.

The Glock 18 has been around for more than two decades. If it was such a worthless piece of crap why hasn't Glock discontinued it?

They keep it on the market because their version is a relatively simple modification, which means the manufacturing costs are low enough to maintain it in their product line. And even so, they sell very few.

 

[Sam1911]

Seems to be getting repetitious.

The arguments for and against are all spelled out here, multiple times. Especially considering that this is a practical non-possibility, it seems that all the information someone might need to have an informed opinion has been presented.

Let's quit arguing over it before we become even more frustrated.