The NSSF is starting a “Modern Sporting Rifle” campaign to get people to stop calling semi-auto black rifles “assault” weapons. They suggest that the “assault” term applies only to fully automatic firearms. I don’t disagree with the campaign, since the term was coined to sow confusion and fear about guns.
But it reminds me of a question I have had for a while: When is a fully automatic firearm tactically advantageous?
AFAIK a select-fire gun, if available, would always be preferred to a semi-auto gun because when ammunition and conditions permit you would always prefer to deliver three-round bursts to a target you’re trying to put down than a single round with each trigger pull. (Of course, if ammo is limited or precision is required you would stick to single-shot mode.) Following this argument, everyone who carries a Glock 17, for example, would absolutely rather carry a Glock 18 if they had the option. And training and tactics for self-defense would make liberal use of its full-auto mode.
AFAIK, the only other purpose for a full-auto weapon is to lay down suppressive fire to support advancing or retreating. But this is not a tactic that would normally be attempted with a fully-automatic version of any current civilian-legal firearm. Rather, this role is ideally met with “squad” automatic weapons – i.e., rifles that sport one or more of the following features: (1) shoot from an open bolt; (2) accept drum magazines or linked ammunition; (3) allow for rapid barrel changes. Also, suppressive fire would never be tactically expedient unless the shooter had both a copious supply of ammunition and a rifle with the aforementioned features.
Are these assessments correct? Am I missing any other reasons for full-auto firearms (of course, other than the fact that they are a hoot to shoot and a great way to burn up spare ammo)?
But it reminds me of a question I have had for a while: When is a fully automatic firearm tactically advantageous?
AFAIK a select-fire gun, if available, would always be preferred to a semi-auto gun because when ammunition and conditions permit you would always prefer to deliver three-round bursts to a target you’re trying to put down than a single round with each trigger pull. (Of course, if ammo is limited or precision is required you would stick to single-shot mode.) Following this argument, everyone who carries a Glock 17, for example, would absolutely rather carry a Glock 18 if they had the option. And training and tactics for self-defense would make liberal use of its full-auto mode.
AFAIK, the only other purpose for a full-auto weapon is to lay down suppressive fire to support advancing or retreating. But this is not a tactic that would normally be attempted with a fully-automatic version of any current civilian-legal firearm. Rather, this role is ideally met with “squad” automatic weapons – i.e., rifles that sport one or more of the following features: (1) shoot from an open bolt; (2) accept drum magazines or linked ammunition; (3) allow for rapid barrel changes. Also, suppressive fire would never be tactically expedient unless the shooter had both a copious supply of ammunition and a rifle with the aforementioned features.
Are these assessments correct? Am I missing any other reasons for full-auto firearms (of course, other than the fact that they are a hoot to shoot and a great way to burn up spare ammo)?
