Imagine you could buy a modern fully-automatic rifle as easily as buying a semi-automatic rifle. No NFA. No ATF (if only). Just stroll into your local gun store, do the business and walk out, full-auto M16 in hand. Good idea? Bad idea? If you could, would you? Why? If not, why not?
Talk to anyone with a class 3 automatic weapon and almost all of them will tell you that the several thousand dollar tab for the weapon soon pales in comparison to the constant burning through hundreds of rounds of ammo every time you go to the range. You soon will be looking into high volume reloaders.
Yes, I think I should be able to buy one without all the current hurdles, as should any other American citizen who is not prevented by law from owning a firearm. Don’t know if I *would* buy one though.
Bob said “Fine for the battlefield, but not for urban environments.”
…… i’m thinkin’ ahead to when the urban environment becomes a battlefield.
….. when the tyranical come to ‘re-educate’ us, i want all the stopping power i can get my hands on.
For normal applications, I think full auto is counterproductive. Unless you’ve been trained by armed forces, you should probably consider it a waste. You’ll probably, get scared, then burn through all of your ammo in about two seconds, thereby becoming a sitting duck.
But a conversation with a guy in my basic training unit reminds me why you might want full auto. He was an Eskimo from a small island in the Aleutian Archipelago. I asked him why he signed up for reserve duty. He told me that, during WWII, the Japanese Imperial Army had over-run his village. It seems that his father had had to fight them in the village street with a harpoon. So he said he preferred an automatic rifle in case it ever happened again. He had a wife and two kids, after all.
I used to own a select fire Thompson, and it sure was fun, but expensive. I’d like to get an M16A2, but they’re ridiculously expensive anymore, and the ATF are a bunch of asshat bureaucrats. I do know that if I was a thug confronting armed citizens during some sort of civil unrest, it would scare the beejus out of me if somebody gave a few short burps of auto fire in my general direction. I think I’d seek a softer target.
I would definitely like to own automatic weapons. I probably wouldn’t use (but others should have the right to buy) a full auto assault rifle. I would like the three round burst capbility that latest M16 uses. It has the bonus of the ‘assault rifles’ actually being assault rifles as opposed to scary black rifles.
What I would like is an updated version of some of the military sub machine guns, like to full auto tommy gun, sten, PPSh 41 or 43, M3 etc.
What I would like even more is to see what the commercial market would come up with. For example, I would LOVE a Calico M100 in 22lr (ammo price matters) that had full auto capability. 100 rounds, compact light package, affordable to shoot…all around a whole lot of fun. I would also like that full auto glock pistol to play with.
I would love to own a sub-gun – say, an Uzi or MP-5 or something more modern in that category. A full auto assault rifle uses more expensive ammo and is, as many have said, hard to control.
My preference would be a good full auto smg… preferably the old fashioned MP5 or one of those new fangled TDI Vector SMG’s in .45.
A burst fire M16 would be nice too.
I support it… for this reason: when the second amendment was written there was no distinction between ‘civilian’ and ‘military’ firearms.
Good comments. Love this blog.
My choice of auto would be the M2 Carbine. I really enjoyed my M1 Carbines.
I have always been amazed by the mechanical tempo of an automatic weapon. The logistics required to feed the beast is down right intimidating. The output is spectacular; the bullets fly out faster than the mind can think.
And everyone I know who’s been schooled is their use has said the same thing; ammo burns fast and targeting is hard to control. And once you’re out of ammo in a bad situation, your adversaries tended to know it — and the one’s you didn’t hit typically know about where you are. Full automatic tends to be more trouble than its worth.
I tend to look at a 12ga loaded with buck as being a parallel – as opposed to serial – submachine gun, without the ‘climb’ problem. But anyone who wants the real thing, feel free!
Honestly, in this economy who can afford the rounds to go full auto?
I want another one. Legal this time. Burst fire seems to make the most sense. I want my Gov’t to know I can have one. While I cannot say w/certainty, I’m sure my neighbors appreciate my suppresed .22
For other than situations like adivus described I prefer semi-auto with reasonably sized magazines. I appreciate PersonFromPorlock’s view of buckshot being a parallel submachine gun, but prefer slugs. They’ll take down big game, and knock down thugs who have body armor.
The best reason would be that the robbers and thugs would all know that any of their potential victims could blow them away.
I believe that the militia clause of the second amendment sets the scope of the KBA clause, essentially defining the arms to which we had a right as those arms borne by an infantryman appropriate to the times. Today, that can only include fully automatic small arms.
Most people that freak out over machine guns don’t realize that although they are restricted, they are perfectly legal to own and are owned legally by thousands and thousands of people. Yet they are almost never used in real world crime.
Besides the fun and challenge of learning to shoot the thing, if we are citizens and not subjects we should not allow our civilian police forces to own anything we law-abiding citizens cannot own.
Sorry to repeat if someone has already said as much.
Mr. lawyer in the video must not be familiar with McClure-Volkner. Full Autos not already registered before 1986 are not “quite legal to own, possess and use.” They are strictly illegal to own by citizens. It is the terrible price that was paid for the gunowners right to travel law and it wasn’t worth it.
Already registered full autos are legal but way out of the price range for most of us.
M2 Carbine was my issue weapon for 3 years. On semi-auto, it was accurate out to about 100 yards; on full auto you MIGHT get the first two rounds on target, but anything after was going high. Full auto is for untrained “spray and pray” shooters. The more rounds you shoot, the quicker you have to stop and reload. Other than for fun or from a weapon heavy enough to control (think mounted .30 or .50), full auto is for people rich enough to buy ammo $500 at a time.
Pingback: Saturday News | On the North River
Two words:
Flash Mobs
I’m slightly conflicted about this.
Pros:
1–Once again, you wouldn’t have to be “as wealthy” to own full auto. As late as 1990, you could still pick up a select-fire AR or AK for under a couple grand. The further we get from 1986 (thanks Reagan!), the crazier prices get. They don’t call the firing line at Knob Creek “Millionaire’s Row” for nothing.
2–Normal people could take advantages of technological advances in full-auto. Ever shoot a Kriss Vector, maybe as a range rental? Cool gun. Can you buy one? Nope.
3–Wouldn’t have to deal with the jack-booted thugs, ahem, BATFE. Also, no tax stamp and paperwork. While $200 isn’t the deal-breaker that it was in 1934, it’s nothing to sneeze at. Waiting six months for approval is a PITA as well.
4–Good way to disperse flash mobs.
Cons:
1–Finding a place to shoot would be an adventure. It is getting tougher and tougher just to find a normal range to shoot at. Ranges that can allow full auto tend to be waayyy out in the boonies.
2–Ammo cost. No way around it, even if you reload. That Vector I mentioned earlier? 1100 rounds/minute. Multiply that times $25 per box of 50.
3–Controllability is a problem without proper training and discipline. Not good for zombies. Head shots only.
4–Guns will break more often and require more maintenance. To use a car analogy, your Honda Civic won’t be nearly as reliable and cheap if you take it club racing.
i have a rifle and i use it to hunt fish. its my pastime. add me on facebook lol