NOTE: If you want a machine gun you should be able to have a machine gun. Heller Schmeller. The “shall not be infringed” bit in the Second Amendment is clear on that point. OK, so, in what circumstance would a machine gun be preferable to a semi-automatic rifle for personal defense? If you could keep a full auto around to defend hearth and home (and trailer and boat and etc.), would you? Thanks to Slide Fire and their very understanding friends at the ATF, you can (kinda ish). So what’s stopping you?

Recommended For You

121 Responses to Question of the Day: Who Needs A Machine Gun?

  1. Select fire gives you a tactical option that you may or may not need. A compact SBR with full auto capability is the preferred weapon of tactical teams for a reason.

    • If the taxpayer is buying the ammo and an unlimited pile of is actually within arms length.

      Oh its good for a stiffy. Add MRAP, nifty shades, a thigh holster etc.

    • What tactical teams are you referring to. Cause the SOF community preaches semi auto, and they got way more experience than any tactical team in the US.

        • Suppressive fire is useless if it isn’t accurate. The only people firing full auto are the belt feds cause that is all they got, and they still keep it to 3-5 round burst. Noise isn’t going to keep peoples head’. Full auto has about two major uses. If somehow the semi breaks(seen it happen twice now), and blind firing around a corner in CQB.

    • “A compact SBR with full auto capability is the preferred weapon of tactical teams for a reason.”

      Because, toys, that’s why.

  2. For home defense, short of a complete breakdown of society (complete with roving gangs of bandits) I don’t really think I need full-auto fire in any personal defense scenario I can envision. I’m not a commando.

    I’m not saying I don’t WANT a fully-automatic weapon. I’m saying I don’t think I NEED one.

    • If it wasn’t illegal to manufacture them for civilian use, and didn’t require a tax stamp, a full auto gun would probably only be a tad more expensive than a normal one. At that point, why deny yourself the option?

    • Never limit yourself in fire power when it comes to defending your family and home. In a SHTF scenario where your locality turns into an all out lawlessness where the bad guys start coming for your, women, food, guns, or supplies, wouldn’t you want that full auto since they already have them? Where has this happened? Los Angeles Riots, Katrina, 911, etc.

  3. Home invasion by 3-4 bad guys that ignore Californiastan’s mag limits. As stated above ” A compact SBR with full auto capability is the preferred weapon of tactical teams for a reason.”

    • Oh right… because then you (who presumably are following the CA mag cap law **you referenced it not me) will now be out of ammo in half a second with accuracy of spraying and praying instead of 3ish seconds carefully aiming rapid firing semi auto. Judging by your comments I suspect they shoot you in the back the of the head while you are donning your tactical gear and chest rig with spare mags in your closet before you even get a shot off.

      Im sorry, but your statement above is just delusional.

      • If you have 30 round mags from before the mag limits, I believe it was Jan 1, 2000, they are still legal. I’m glad you are so familiar with CA’s ambiguous gun control laws. Are you familiar with the term ex post facto?

        So your solution is to just die? I’ll not be taking advice from you, thanks.

        To quote another here “After all you can always flick the switch back to ‘semi’ if you want.”

        • NYer here, I’m familiar with the term ex post facto, but that didn’t stop SAFE from outlawing “pre-ban” magazines.

    • Then all you have to do is decide if you want to be the husband or the wife with your new cellmate, Roscoe…

      That is of course after your subsequent trail, where the prosecutor convinces a mostly liberal, Cali jury that you’re a crazed lunatic for going full-auto on some BGs with your evil assault weapon with .30 caliber ghost clipazines.

  4. No need, no use for HD, but want anyway . . . what’s stopping me? Lack of money for the gun and ammo to feed it.

    • Your right even if the prices dropped to a “normal” level, the cost of care and feeding is quite high.

      • That’s what select fire is for. The “select” part means you don’t need to empty your wallet in one pull.

  5. No offense, but what does “need” have to do with rights? If we can’t have it domestic LE shouldn’t have it. The 2nd is also about keeping the people on a level playing field with the “Authorities” ( I luv quotation marks and parentheses.)

    • No one said here that needs have anything to do with rights. The question isn’t about rights, but needs vs. wants.

      • No, it is about rights. Because needs vs. wants are unimportant when you have the RIGHT to. If I have the right, you don’t need to know if my ownership of something is because of a NEED or WANT – that isn’t any of your business.

  6. “So what’s stopping you?”

    You know that old line about every bullet fired has a lawyer attached to it? That.

    For fun at the range, I’d love to have one. For personal defense, no way would I want to open myself up to that liability. That, and I don’t really envision myself in any scenario where full-auto would turn away the bad guys but rapid semi-auto fire from the same rifle would not.

    Also, them things eat ammo fast, and I ain’t made of money.

  7. Unless I can get my hands on an american 180 or one of the old tippman replica machine guns, even if they were legal I would probably not own one. Well I might put select fire on my ak for entertainment but the cost of ammo wouldn’t let me use it sadly.

    • what I have is a better combo The Geissele Super 3 Gun (S3G) trigger and reload your own ammo …fast …controllable not like the stocks they are pushing that have the rifle bouncing back and forth more than it should and fun fun fun to shoot I’m getting a woody just thinking about it….see ya i’m off to the private range..

  8. A couple home invaders who have them. They don’t care about laws. That’s one scenario. And the AK sporters can easily be modded back to full auto, not to mention how many illegal full autos coming in from mexico. The bad guys have them, that why you need one. And should the time ever come when we need to reset the government, well, we’ll need more than that.

    • You win the internet today. You seem to be the only one who gets it. Everyone else seems obsessed with self defense, lawyers and laws. Yeah, that is cute. We need full auto because of the intent of the 2A. Come on you guys….

      • Sorry, brah, the 20th century is over. FAR better solutions out there than a Maxim on sled mount. Full auto is fun, and yet not entirely useful. Unless you are shooting at aircraft or are the last man left facing a banzai charge and dropping hammer in Sundance/Cassidy mode you are mostly just wasting ammo.

        You honestly want to address the “intent” of 2A? Where is your artillery?

    • They also hold their gat tipped 90degeees (like on TV) and have their pants hanging down off the ass. Do I need to do so also?

  9. Full auto isn’t ‘aimed’ fire, machine guns are area weapons.

    Fun to shoot, but for almost any reasonably foreseeable self/home defense scenario probably not optimum. Although probably pretty useful after TEOTWAWKI

    • Shooting out 100-300yd maybe, close in, bullshit spoken from a person who’s never shot a machine gun.

      15yd with a open bolt mac, shooting 3-4 round bursts, 32 rounds.
      http://i.imgur.com/4zlm5Gn.jpg

      15yd with a open bolt mac, 32 round magazine dump.
      http://i.imgur.com/78Ct35p.jpg

      An AR-15/M-16 with a good suppressor or break would be even better. Less mass going back and forth and a better buffering system.

      • Three round bursts with a Vietnam era M-60 is or can be aimed fire even at 100 yards. You are right. The guy has never fired an automatic weapon of any kind under any circumstances particularly under duress.

        • Yes, indeed. Light and medium MGs are far more effective when you keep your rate of fire down. Just cuz you gots a changeable barrel don’t mean you want to be doing it all the time. The tactical necessity for full auto fire exists, its just not top-O-the list. Somewhere between getting crabs and kissing the mother-in-law full on the lips. Unless she is hot. That adds an entirely different dynamic to the equation that is unhelpful.

  10. I could see the utility of a burst fire capable weapon (3 round is what I’d like) for HD. Basically allowing a triple tap with focusing on keeping the aimpoint vice also compensating for cycling the trigger. In a home invasion I wouldn’t want to be hosing the place down, but I think putting a couple of rounds on each target immediately gives a better chance they’re out of the fight prior to engaging the next intruder.

      • The latest M4A1 rifles that are replacing the existing Army M4s in circulation are getting rid of 3 round burst and going full auto. Mainly because the trigger pull is more consistent with auto than burst, even when firing semi-auto.

  11. Heller doesn’t actually state that banning (or restricting) machineguns is constitutional, it states that IF the only weapons protected by the second amendment are weapons that are military useful, then it would call into question restrictions on weapons such as machineguns, including the M-16.

    I have long wondered what would happen if a state passed a law stating specifically that in order for civilians to better able to train for possible militia service, they MUST be allowed to purchase select fire weapons such as the M4 (and others), with no NFA tax required so long as the firearm was made in the state and restricted to use within the state (thus specifically NOT in interstate commerce).

    • No such animal. The firearm itself is in interstate commerce, if nothing else, and that is all that is needed under the very broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. There was one case where a farmer who was growing for local consumption was held to be subject to the Commerce Clause because his marketing of crops locally affected national markets. So the likely result would be that if you want full auto for service in the militia, join the National Guard.

      • There was one case where a farmer who was growing for local consumption

        Even worse — he was growing for personal, on-farm consumption! Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). But since Lopez was decided, I’m guessing that the Court would overrule Wickard if it had the right case.

    • You’re correct, Heller didn’t address machine guns because that was not the issue before the court. It was simply whethe DCs ban on hand guns, and the storage requirements were constitutional. But, the subject came up during orals. The lower court referred to the issue of technology and constitutional rights which was referred to during orals:

      US Court of Appeals, DC pg 53:
      “The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
      long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
      colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
      of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
      Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
      preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
      also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
      1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
      colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
      the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
      speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
      to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
      Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
      “search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
      modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
      v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
      Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).”

      SCOTUS orals discussion (Clement was Solicitor General for the US arguing in support of DC’s gun laws):
      GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult — I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day — but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is.
      CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn’t involve a restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrow one — narrower one directed solely to machine guns?
      GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it. Now, it seems to me that the District is not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre – pre-law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.
      JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn’t mean once it’s an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it’s an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is — which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is -it is nowadays commonly held.
      GENERAL CLEMENT: Well –
      JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don’t see why you have a problem.

      GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I — I hope that you read it that way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it’s going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion — I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.”

    • See the “Firearms Freedom Act”. The original law (Montana) specifically excepted machine guns, but some of the other states allow them as long as they are made in that state. I’m sure it will be quite a few years before we see how it all shakes out.

    • While the commerce clause’s impact on the NFA of ’34 is purely an academic legal issue, it’s amusing to think about it.
      – – – The wheat grown on the farm for consumption on that farm impacted on interstate commerce because wheat grown in a neighboring State would not be put “in play” in the marketplace to the extent that this wheat was grown for consumption on that farm. Lovely.
      – – – Now, enter the Hughes amendment. To what extent would machine guns not be manufactured in another State and sold in the neighboring State because a machine gun were manufactured in such neighboring State for exclusive use in that neighboring State? There is no plausible case to be made that there would be even a theoretical impact on interstate commerce in machine-guns because of reduced demand from intrastate commerce in machine-guns.
      – – – The Hughes Amendment having closed the civilian machine-gun registry makes the wheat precedent inapplicable.

  12. I keep a Tavor for home defense and yes if I could get select fire weapons systems I would, the Tavor would be replaced with a Negev. As to what’s stopping me, the county I live in will not sign off on full-auto and one can’t do an NFA trust on full-auto in the state I live in.

  13. Well Jerry definitely does not NEED a full auto. Neither do the police.

    IMHO full auto is pretty much useless in a handheld single operator weapon. Even on the battlefield, I can’t imagine that taking 4 seconds to clear a 30 round magazine instead of 2 will be significant very often. Add to that the fact that when ranges are extended beyond 7 yards, all but the first shot are usually wasted.

    On the other hand, if I had the budget, a place to shoot it and the freedom to purchase one, a mini-gun would definitely be on my must have list.

  14. I don’t see how a machine gun, submachine gun or true select fire rifle would be useful in a home invasion scenario. So I don’t need one. Not even a little. I sure want a full-on 1963 M16A1. I would like to toss it into the back of a 1963 Corvette Sting Ray split-window coupe and drive the length of Route 66, but I don’t think that any of those things are going to happen.

  15. Slidefire sucks and most couldn’t afford the ammo for full auto if full auto firearms weren’t already ridiculously expensive thanks to the feds. Other than the gungrabbers I think the wives of gun folks are glad machine guns are mostly outlawed from us. Full auto is pretty useless outside combat, and even in combat semi is used more than full for ammo shortage and accuracy reasons. I am amazed suppressors are legal in most states and they haven’t banned more firearm types and ammo overall. I do wish we had it as a trade off though, if we could give “them” full auto for a law that would make anti-gun legislation illegal so this anti-gun madness would end I’d give it up because it’s the least of my constitutional rights that is sacred. Full auto firearms are probably used in zero gun death in the US but if full auto was common in most or all firearms of course there would be more dead from murder but how many more IDK. I think 30k a year is great numbers for a population of 330+ million and 400+ million firearms floating around in a free and armed society the real last one on earth, and being only about 10% of that 30k is citizen on citizen murder those numbers are excellent. Most gun deaths we all know are suicides, then gangs, then domestic as in between family members, then justified, then police, then accidents. Even if we take those crazy folks that do mass shootings and mix it in with citizen on citizen gun murders we still have less than 4k a year dead.
    The reason I go into the gun murder stats is because this would be the only valid reason to ban full auto or firearms in general, and the numbers just don’t support the idea of this.
    Yes I’d love to have full auto without the BS.
    Yes I think more would be murdered annually if full auto was normal.
    Yes I would give up full auto for a law banning any future anti-gun legislation.

    • Yes I would give up full auto for a law banning any future anti-gun legislation.

      Foolish. Was does a “law” mean when you have a president that ignores the law with impunity (and in fact is cheered on by 40% of the population and all the MFM).

  16. What stops me? For one, slidefires are illegal in California.
    For two, I don’t need one for any conceivable scenario. Semiauto is fast enough for pretty much any home invasion (except for LEO). As noted above, full auto fire is primarily area suppression, allowing other soldiers to engage individual targets. I don’t see the point in spraying my house with bullet holes rather than the BGs with aimed fire. If ITEOTWAWKI, I am going to die anyway when the drugs that keep me from rejecting a transplanted organ run out.
    For three, other than giggles, I don’t really want a FA, nor can I afford one.

  17. No one needs full auto. Until they do.

    If the second amendment ever gets exercised to its intended conclusion, that is when we will all need it.

  18. I know. The guy who is laying down cover fire while the remainder of the team maneuvers on the target. Or, someone with a wad of cash who wants to have some fun at the range. How about it being a 2nd amendment right. Nothing else comes to mind. Oh, if bad guys have them, it will allow us to engage them while they are busy shooting holes in the ceiling.

  19. Suppressing fire and killing bursts (first automatic burst against a group of unaware enemies, intended to kill as many as possible before the enemy becomes aware they are being engaged).

  20. in a close combat situation with multiple attackers where seconds count they are indespensable .In Korea i once met face to face with 3 chinamen in a British trench where i was on tdy,they had slung burp guns where as i had my m2 carbine at a waist ready posistion . i had been admonished previousyl by my captain never to sling a carbine or rifle in a trench ,always carry hip ready.thank God ! as they struggled to unsling i let loose with my 30 rd full auto m2 into center mass ,2 went down but the 3rd behind the 2 had his ppsh unslung and somehow let go the whole magazine in the air in about 2/>> seconds he dropped it and turned and ran and amazing went up and over the straight side of that 10 ft deep trench and down the hill he went on path thru the barb wire and minefields ,as i stumbled over the 2 downed figures who were still writhing and cursing trying to change magazines ,the Britt
    s above up higher on the above hill opened up with bren guns sten guns ,lewis guns and lord knows what ever else ,and as far as we could determine never touched the 3rd man.without the full auto feature i might be dead as it took quite a few slugs of the 30 carbine to penatrate the heavy padded clothes the Chinks wore ,and must have never touched the 3rd man. and as i was up the trench i heard 2 pops and assumed some Britt with a webly 38 ,put down the 2 wounded with head shots . never went to look.but were many instances where having a full auto paid when one hasnt time to aim and a point and burst does the job.

  21. Having used a M-16, I wouldn’t want one for home defense. It’s much better to pull the trigger, re-aim and pull the trigger again. On the other hand, a 22LR full auto could be a lot of fun, and only mildly expensive. Anything bigger is just to expensive to feed since emptying a mag is just to much fun.

  22. Aside from fending off roving bands of looters, I can’t imagine a scenario where I would ever NEED a fully automatic weapon. If it comes to that where I live, things have gotten to the point that gun ownership is no longer a hobby, but rather a necessary means of fight for your life type survival.
    In a situation that would warrant the use of one, ammo would already be a precious commodity. Nobody would be able to afford wasting a single round. In a military combat situation, ammunition resupply is a given, so using machine gun fire in a suppressive manner is a viable option. Without a military supply chain backing you, not making every shot count is tactical suicide. It’s somewhat akin to getting lost in the desert, not rationing your water supply and chugging every single ounce you have in the first two hours.
    That being said, would I like to have a select fire weapon to play with? Of course! Would I ever shell out the ridiculous price for one of the registered NFA toys that are in civilian hands? No way in hell. $15,000 for the same $1,000 AR platform rifle I already own with the addition of a giggle switch? I’d rather spend the extra $14K on a stockpile of ammo and a couple of more guns to shoot it with. Things like the Slidefire stock are cute gimmicks, but they are a poor substitute for a proper automatic weapon.
    Should the 1986 ban on new machine gun sales be lifted, (Not going to happen) I would run right out and spend the $200 for a tax stamp and make the necessary mods to my AR for M16 internals. Until then, I’m happy to squeeze the trigger really quickly.

  23. When I bought my first gun, the old guy behind the counter gave me an unforgettable bit of advice: “Son it doesn’t matter if you’re shooting 22 LR or 50 BMG. Every round you fire has a flying lawyer attached to it so you live by the four rules like they’re your religion.” Even if I could buy full-auto just as easily as any other firearm, I wouldn’t use one for home defense because of the liability.
    Articles about NFA stuff always lead me to wonder just how much backlash there would be against the re-opening of the MG registry by current owners anyway. Unless you’re a collector of weapons no longer made (STG44, MG42, etc) those guys sitting on their $25,000 M16A2s would be left with chump change over night.

    .

    • Collectors wouldn’t complain too much if Hughes was repealed. Most collectors I know would like to collect more, but the guns are simply unavailable. Investors would bitch and moan, but unlike collectors, investors don’t care about guns. For them, a machine gun is just an alternative investment, like precious metals and paintings.

      • While there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with speculating, it’s a money-making enterprise because there risj involved. And the risk is that the artificial scarcity could end. So, you pays your money and you take your chances.

  24. Jerry doesn’t even NEED full auto. I’ve seen him essentially equal full auto with a freaking revolver LOL

  25. Machine guns are like all guns. You don’t need one until you do.

    No civilian, even a civilian policeman, needs a machine gun–well, unless there’s a general riot or something. Then the civilian policeforce will be guarding government stuff, and private citizens can do whatever they’ve prepared to do. Maybe put on lipstick and drop their pants.

    • “Machine guns are like all guns. You don’t need one until you do.” Same applies to hand grenades. And parachutes.

  26. “So what’s stopping you?”

    Because I don’t want to have to say, “Sorry kids, no money for college, Daddy has a gun fetish…”

  27. If I were a shop keeper in the Rodney king riots or in New Orleans I would absolutely go for full auto. TEOTWAWKI would also be useful, foreign invasion or governmental tyranny is another. Couldn’t hurt for hog extermination either.

  28. Full auto is just plain fun.
    Load up 30 or 40 mags and have a TON of fun.
    Sure, the first half dozen mags go really quick, but then you get serious and work on control.
    Before you know it, another thousand rounds is gone. You’ve only been shooting for a couple hours and it’s time to police brass.
    Then it’s back to the shop to start reloading again.

    It’s too bad all of the gun clubs around here are anti Second Amendment.

  29. It’s sickening to read so many comments rationalizing how the government so generously allows us to own semiautomatic rifles and nobody NEEDS select fire. Guess what, antigunners love to conflate all scary looking rifles with machine guns so if you’re glad select-fire without registration can land you in prison, you can join up with Everytown because you’re flying their flag with that crap.

  30. A machine gun is not at all useful for home or self defense. But they are excellent for controlling key avenues of approach and a necessary part of any militia formed to check an out of control government. And that is what the second amendment is all about.

  31. Full auto for hearth and home protection? An emphatic NO. What’s stopping me? Common sense and 35 years of mil/le experience.

  32. As expected the comments section has already completely filled with the Home Defense Commando’s and talk of defending their home with a FA SBR… people must be made of money, I for one would give up whatever minuscule force advantage a FA weapon gives me to not have to deal with the obvious consequence that it will get to spend a few nights/months/years in the local PD armory, and then the very probable but less certain outcome of some bloodthirsty DA who wants to make their career off of putiting you away for the rest of your life for “mowing down” an underpriviledge youth who was just on the verge of getting their life on track and aspirations of becoming a pastor/ menor or whatever garbage they talk about when one of these goons gets what he deserved.

    That being said, for fun at the range, or god forbid a TEOTWAKI scenario I absolutely do “need” a FA weapon. Not happening anytime soon though due to finances, and the fact that my wife has only barely come around to the idea that I just got an AR.

    I’ll spend my stamp collection fund on a suppressor first.

    • I’m pretty sure the full auto proponents have not attended Uncle Sam’s schools/homes for misguided youth (Ft Benning/corresponding USMC post). Or they would have learned better.

      • Oh, yea. Once you spend a few months humping every f**king thing you need on your back you understand that “Conserve Ammunition” is not just funny words on a poster at the qualification range.

  33. Well in my opinion FA weapons are usually not too really suitable for your average defense situation. However in the right circumstances they are very effective. The break down of society and serious home invasions, for instance. Although in both cases you can usually use a more… ‘conventional’ weapon with most pretty much the same level of success. But for my money it’s far better to have a little too much gun that not enough. After all you can always flick the switch back to ‘semi’ if you want.

  34. I think a .22 MG would be useful. Something like the MGV-176 or American A180 especially with a suppressor.

    Also a PKM with an ammo backpack would be useful for pest control (wild hogs).

  35. The only gun I own that I wish was full auto is my AES-10B RPK. Semi-auto, it’s basically a heavy barrel AKM, a little bit more accurate than a standard 16″ AKM.

    Bipod extended and a 75-rd drum in the well, you can almost see a small tear running out of the ejection port, as the RPK weeps to become what it was truly meant to be, with the selector set on the evil intersection between safe and fire.

  36. For HD, I’d rather have a burst fire weapon than a full auto one. For general purpose amusement, post-apocalypse, or 2nd Revolutionary War purposes, I definitely want the option of having a few heavy hitters in the gun safe, though.

  37. I have an Arsenal SAM7R and I dearly wish it was select fire. Not because I need it, because I want it. America is about having things we don’t need, but want. That is what the land of opportunity means!
    What is the use of trying to get ahead in life, getting that bigger house, bigger garden, shop in the back, a boat, I mean, who NEEDS a pleasure boat? What’s the need of a bigger RV? What’s the point of a man having toys?

    I have been self-indulgent pretty much my entire life. I don’t have real big ticket items, but I do have 100 grand in perfect condition Snap-On tools. Wire feel welders…hell, you name it. I do have a boat, I have a pilots license, I have my Sig P229 Elite with Rosewood grips, but how much of this stuff do I need? I’ve got a 1974 Cutlass with a built 455. It has Mondello roller Rockers, Mondello HEI ignition, Holley etc. Do I need that? No, but it sure turns heads when I pull my boat out of the water with it! Everyone watches that!.

    My point, if it escapes anyone, is this is what being an American is about. Having the things we want and striving to have more and better than we need.
    If man was meant to be satisfied and live in a cave, we’d all still be living in caves.

  38. If Gary Fadden and Harry Beckwith had defenddd their lives with one… Oh, wait. They did? Even though their tactics were not of high regard, it’s about force multiplication in the example of Beckwith. Fadden, on the other hand, grabbed the AC556 with the giggle switch, pressed the trigger once, 6 rounds went out the muzzle against the bad guy. Anyway we slice it, those were DGUs.

  39. The second amendment should not be viewed in the limited light of self defense. It is meant to be in defense of our country. As stated in previous court cases the right of self defense forms the cornerstone of our ability to serve in defense of our communities. While there are limited tactical reasons for the weapons, they are there and it performs a critical role. It takes discipline to use the weapons properly thats not the same as other weapons. Discipline is something you build every day. When it comes time for me to ask for help from the people, the weapons need to be available along with the discipline. Based on this, I would argue that one is needed every day.

  40. I’d really like a 3 round burst option. AR’s oughta have 3 positions. A full auto .22 LR could also be fun and affordable. As has been said before, the 2nd is about rights, not needs.

    • The 3 round burst option was dropped from the original M4 due to how bad it ruined the single fire option. Its a horrible trigger, its why the M4A1 uses full auto instead.

  41. is true the use for a full,auto would be if and when folks had to stand against a tyanical govt or foriegn soldiers brought in to subdue us freedom lovers ,so whatcha do?? easy,, the 1st one of them you kill ,you take his rifle,.he wont mind, and youve got your full auto,and his ammo, killing more enemy will give you more guns and ammo.,let them supply us and die from their own weapons.

  42. Dont want slide fire. Do want full auto. Was affordable at one time to do a transfer but not now for me anyway. You can shoot an AR from the hip and with a little trial and error, bump fire it justlike slide fire.

  43. I think we need to get the machine gun registry opened up. So we can have the newer, SAFER weapons. You know safer for the children and all.

  44. I fall into the “not” column. Fullauto is wasted on the average troop. Aimed fire, from cover. Kill the enemy. There it is.

    Oh, yea. I LOVE blasting ammo. Just can’t justify doing it very often with Wifey. She frowns on undue waste.

  45. A group of thugs is breaking down your door. You wait inside, finger on the bang switch. Door breaks open. Five of them burst in at once. Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.

    A herd of cats are pooping in your kids’ sandbox in the backyard. There are dozens of them. You could shoot one and let the others scatter, but they’ll soon be back and in greater numbers. Switch to full-auto. Squeeeeeeeeeeeze.

    Motion sensors go off at 3 am. A burglar comes sneaking down your driveway. You head for the window and let off a 30-round burst. Burglar manages to get away. Tells all his friends to stay the heck away from the house with crazy guy with the machine gun. Crime in your neighborhood plummets. Your neighbors are grateful. They all start reading TTAG.

  46. I thought full auto weaponry was all that and a bag of roses, until I shot a rented Glock 18. That was the fastest $60 I’ve ever spent in one establishment since my last ex girlfriend dragged me along shoe shopping.

    Unless one reloads , most mere mortals with a day job lacking sponsorship by Uncle Sam or a company simply cannot economically afford to run full auto weaponry frequently. 200 rounds of ammo lasts me about two hours , but with full auto that’s only 5×30 round magazines. Even reloaders will need to put in real quality time at the bench to keep up with that pace.

    And for what? If five armed dudes kick in your door, I hate to say it, but you’re not getting out unscathed no matter how fast you can shoot. If anything, full auto actually is a detriment in a defense situation: even if you’re a crack shot and get 95% of your 30 rounds on target, that means two bullets went into the background to threaten god knows who. I’d hate to be the guy who negligently shot his neighbor in the process of ventilating two wayward honor students .

    Logically, full auto is like a Formula One ready pickup truck: a fascinating technological toy, but worthless for real life use.

    • Hmmm, yes, more and more full idiots every day….. full auto may be the safest assurance at reduction 😉

  47. My reason to own an automatic weapon is this: I am a non-violent free man.

    There are no other reasons I need to have one. I want one and it’s not governments place to dictate family values.

  48. Do I need a full auto? Hell no. Do I want a full auto? Hell Yeah, just for the sheer fun of it. If, a realistic scenario in your life involves 5 or more armed men bursting into your living room, you’ve been making poor life choices. You should probably give up ripping off Sinola Cartel heroin shipments..

  49. I had friends who in Vietnam kept their M-16s on semi-auto all the time they were there. Dad was fully qualified on the BAR and Thompson and only fired them in 2-3 round bursts. Semi-auto is best for most people. On the other hand, I really do not have a problem with people having fully automatic weapons and I think they should be protected by the 2A.

  50. Some where I read that the FBI had a book that stated if confronted by a thug with a sub machine gun and a thug with a shotgun, to take out the guy with the shotgun first as he is more dangerous than the guy with the sub machine gun. I always thought it was interesting that SEAL teams in Vietnam used Ithaca 37s for the point man and break contact guy.

  51. Sometimes I wonder. The reason
    I would want a fully automatic rifle is the same reason military forces want them. Same tactical purpose. Same strategic purpose.

  52. “OK, so, in what circumstance would a machine gun be preferable to a semi-automatic rifle for personal defense?”

    There are two scenarios where full auto would be preferable: suppression fire over a relatively wide field of fire and defending against a surprise ambush at extremely close ranges.

    Yes, a 30 round magazine only provides 3 seconds or so of full auto fire. Nevertheless, when you need it, you need it. If I had to provide suppression fire so my family could evacuate or so that a partner could reach a wounded or pinned down person, I need full auto. If enemy attackers literally pop up at 15 feet, I want to be able to immediately spray them without having to take time to aim.

    If I could have one, I would definitely have one.

  53. Hmmm… who needs a jacked up 4×4 sittin on 20″+ rims with mud tires wrapped around em?
    Who needs a Corvette?
    Who even needs a gun for that 1 in a million chance you may need it?
    Yet people still want all those and I want full auto.
    Is it outrageously expensive? Yes.
    Will I ever find myself needing it? Probably not.
    Yet I & many other gun owners still want them along with an Israeli supermodel who suffers from nymphomania & a high end supercar or really jacked offroader. You can try to convert those wants to needs through any mental gymnastics you wish but, in the end, you just really really wanted those things so you ponied up your cash or credit to get them (yes even the supermodel you won’t get one of those without droppin some serious dough).
    For those sayin they’d trade off FA for a bill saying that past that the government can’t make any new laws pertaining to limitations on guns. What is there to stop them? How many times have yall bemoaned Fudds doing the same thing and ranted about incrementalism?
    Ok I’m gettin off the soapbox now thanks

  54. I think burst fire (3 Rds) would probably be more effective than full auto. But to answer the title question; this guy!

  55. “So what’s stopping you?”

    Only about 1/4″ of metal and a $8-10 “Safety Sear” on my FAL… and 3 weld blobs put in the way by a parinoid company….

    Oh, and money to dump .308…

  56. I would only need one in SHTF, or foreign/domestic invasion scenario. I would need a M191 for humans and M2 for light armor. Also, a M134 would be nice, but them things fire too quick, that you waste ammo, but boy is it one hell of gun!

  57. Looks interesting, but is there way to limit it to a “burst mode?” This just looks like a way to quick way to deplete a magazine

  58. Don’t put down the Slide fire unless you have owned one.. They work well, install easily, and beat $10,000-$15,000 for a real full auto,It just takes an afternoon to learn how to use it and tol burst fire it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *