When do you want a full-auto gun?

[mgkdrgn]

Zulu's and Zombies man, Zulu's and Zombies.

 

[hogshead]

To answer the question, When do you want a full auto?Tomorrow.

 

[Fred Fuller]

OK, OP, do your thing.

Quickly...

lpl

 

[Sunray]

"...TRYING to incapacitate their vehicle..." You won't ever do that with any man carried firearm. Physics won't allow it.
FA is for close range shooting and only by highly trained troopies. It ain't like what you see on TV. FA with an SMG is aimed fire.
SMG's and other MG's are great fun to shoot. Expensive though.

 

[cttbax]

I suppose the only reason I want a full auto gun is for the same reason I want the fastest boat, fastest car, lifted truck, hottest women and the biggest cheeseburger.....

Its the American way!!!

Seriously... I have no need at all, and I think it would get old stuffing mags and buying/loading the ammo for a full auto habit.

 

[dbooksta]

Jenrick and others point out that full-auto on sub-guns made sense because pistol rounds are not reliable man-stoppers, and because a good sub-gun allows for adequate control of automatic bursts. Of course, any time you can carry a sub-gun you can carry a small carbine that shoots a reliable rifle round, so tactical units have gone to carbines and apparently the argument for full-auto on tactical weapons with stocks seems to have gone away.

But to bring this back to the original question: Isn't this an argument for full-auto handguns? Tactical professionals for a long time thought pistol rounds were sufficiently underpowered that when shooting was warranted it was advantageous to get a handful on target with a single trigger pull. Apparently the extra time it would take to pull the trigger for each shot was a tactical liability. Now that we have good carbines and "PDWs" the only time you're going to be stuck shooting a pistol round is when you have to use a pistol to defend yourself.

So I'm an armed citizen carrying a concealed Glock with 17+1 and I have to use lethal force to stop an attacker. I'm not expecting to get into a protracted gun fight, but now that the scenario has escalated to shooting the difference between me winning and losing could very well be measured in fractions of a second. And that's the difference between full-auto and semi-auto in getting multiple rounds on target. (And note that with my Glock I get *six* 3-round bursts before I have to reload!)

I.e., following this logic it sounds like for personal defense weapons full-auto makes the *most* sense for (high-capacity) handguns! Except that concealable handguns (presumably lacking a stock) are the most difficult to shoot on full auto. I haven't had the privilege of shooting one yet, so can a reasonably trained shooter use them effectively on full auto? Or is it always going to be better to reset the trigger after each round cycles the action, even though that takes more time?

As for the question "How many civilians have learned that important lesson about fire control?" It's part of all good training. If full-auto were a handgun feature I would teach burst control right alongside muzzle control, trigger control, clearing stoppages, tactical reloads, etc. It would be part of the whole "don't do it like in the movies" spiel. "Don't hold your gun sideways like a gangster. Hold it with two hands when possible. Don't put your finger inside the trigger guard until you're on target and ready to shoot. Don't spray and pray." And controlled bursts would be part of tactical drills just like drawing from a holster, etc.

The other scenario raised for full-auto fire was "stopping" a vehicle. Of course nobody looks for a scenario where they have to disable a vehicle with anything less than a 40mm grenade or .50 BMG. But my original question was whether there are any non-military tactical scenarios in which full-auto is an advantage, and so far it sounds like this might qualify. Of course you can't "stop" a vehicle with small arms, but you can't "stop" a person with gunfire either. You shoot a person to get them to stop by preventing them from continuing to pose an imminent threat to people or property. If a vehicle poses an imminent threat to people or property of course your best bet is to stop the driver. But there may be multiple assailants capable of operating the vehicle, or maybe the driver ducks down below the dashboard so you can't reach him with your rifle. Now the question is: Do you enjoy a tactical advantage disabling the vehicle with a full-auto rifle over a semi-auto version?

(I'm not even sure what the tactics are for disabling a vehicle with a high-capacity rifle. From the side I would probably try to lay fire into the place the driver should be even if I can't see him. But from the front and rear I don't know whether it's better to put a few into each tire or if you can hope to hit the gas tank in the rear or the battery, belts, eletronic controls, or fuel lines in the front by firing randomly into the engine compartment. In any case, presumably being able to dump 30 rounds in 3 seconds instead of 5-6 is a tactical advantage in this niche scenario?)

 

[Red Jacket]

For self defense ? In America ? I can't imagine the scenario were someone would actually use a Transferable F/A . Theoretically , maybe . Realistically ? I wouldn't and I've got a couple dozen . Considering that 1, it's headed to the evidence locker at the local PD . 2, when the lawsuit hit's and the newspaper's/TV get ahold of it , you'll be ripped to pieces . I've used a revolver when a m.g was within reach . It would take Armaggedon to outweight the fallout . Post Armaggedon , zombie wave attack's ? sure , I'll bust out the belt-fed .

 

[James T Thomas]

full auto has it's uses

A fully automatic gun is usefull when engaging groups of enemy soldiers in the open and at a distance of over 600 meters and up to 1000 meters; "small arms." The "fire burst of six" plunges down upon the group in a drawn out lemon pattern and may strike many soldiers at once before they are able to go prone or run for cover.

Also when assaulting -in line the enemy who is dug in and requires
being driven out of their positions. ...who said the old fashioned bayonet charge took guts?

And finally when used as final protective fire. This time, you are dug in,
and he is coming to you. He has breached the barbed wire, many of you buddies have become casualties, and the red flare is about to be fired.

Back in the "World," the use might be just not to let the government infringe upon the highest law of the land. If it gets this "sensible" sounding restriction; Not Law! as it will be worded, then the proverbial camel has thrust it's nose inside the tent. So to speak.

 

[444]

I own a SMG and have fired it quite a bit. I have competed with it on and off at our local matches although I have never become serious about it. I have also taken a four day submachine gun class. Point being, I have some experience with a SMG and can hit stuff with it.

Anyway, I can tell you that no matter what the situation is, that would be one of the last things I would pull out of the safe. I see no good use for it at all other than as a fun gun. And, FWIW, I personally don't think it is that much fun. I almost never shoot it. It has been years since I took it out because I wanted to shoot it. I take it to the local matches a couple times a year and once every couple years I take it out because someone wants to shoot a machine gun and I might fire a few mags out of it then. But I get a much bigger kick out of making each shot count rather than making noise and wasting ammo.

In the local matches we have, I always find myself thinking (as I watch the other shooters) that I could shoot the course of fire in dramatically less time with better hits and much more effectiveness with a semi-auto AR15. I think I could probably shoot the course of fire quicker with a handgun due to the number of wasted shots and the very slow magazine changes with the SMG.

 

[sidheshooter]

Somewhat OT, but I was just at the range on Friday evening, having impulse-acquired a Bersa Thunder .380 on Thursday. I am on the line in lane 7 just about to take my first shot ever (as in; on target, beginning the first DA press) with this little thing, when the guy in lane 5 lets loose with what appeared to be an HK mp5A2 (or whichever one it is with the full fixed stock).

Talk about startling. Not just the din from the thing going off indoors in a small space, but also from the cavalcade of empties flying into my sight picture.

I decock/safe the Bersa and poke my head out from around the divider just in time to see this guy lock and start to dump his second mag into the cardboard while his girlfriend films him with her cell phone. Less than 10 seconds later, he’s looking over his shoulder shouting through her earmuffs, “Didja get that?!?”

Based on that, I’d say that the pragmatic answer for the original question is:

“When you want to look cool for your girlfriend, and/or youtube while concomitantly giving owners of dinky, inexpensive, alloy-framed .380s a respectable case of penis envy…”

 

[Fred Fuller]

OK, I think we've established a pretty clear consensus re. this one.

lpl