Full Auto - of any real use?

I had a technician who had fought through France with a Thompson. Always set on full auto but with daily use he could fire any number of shots for each touch of the trigger ! That took every day use with a huge amount ammo .Not many civilians would or could do !
Click to expand...
Many of the pistol caliber guns are full auto only, and most of those will give single shots with little effort and just a little practice. Most of those guns have cyclic rate of around 500 rpm and getting single shots is not difficult. Guns with a higher cyclic like the MAC's, are a little tougher, but it can be done.

Anyone see the new Jack Reacher movie? Just saw it the other day and thought of this thread---

In one scene the bad guy chases Jack and the girl into a commercial kitchen, they're unarmed and he bursts in the door and sprays his Glock 18 all over hitting pots and pans etc...

Great fun I'm sure, but not useful even in the movies lol
Click to expand...
That's just typical movie stuff. Look around on YouTube, there are videos of people who know how to shoot them shooting them. The results are "different". ;)

I thought Thompson was full auto only
Click to expand...
I believe all are select fire.

but I would have loved to have a small SMG with a really high rate of fire loaded with ammo capable of penetrating an automobile
Click to expand...
Something like the MAC's would fit that bill, but are not generally well thought of, especially by those who haven't shot them much. That high cyclic rate can be intimidating.
 
The three-shot burst is more controllable than FA. After three rounds, most battle rifle's muzzles have risen way past any target. Stops the PBI holding the rifle over their heads and spraying from cover too. In any case, it's not something that works well in untrained hands.
"...movie?..." Nothing in movies is real. Including the sound of the shots.
"...machining out auto sears for AR's..." No machining is required to make any semi-auto rock and roll. An FAL can be made to with a wooden match. There are also a whole bunch of places(24 I think it was. Might have been 12 though.) on one that can be used as a bottle opener. Your buddy should think more about being an ammo source as well if he's going to do that. snicker.
"...could fire any number of shots for..." Knew a guy who could fire single shots with the SMG(forget which one. M3, I think) one FA. Dunno if it was luck it skill though.
 
Its not luck (except maybe with a MAC), and not really skill, as its really pretty simple once you get used to the gun.

As far as the "run up and away" theory, thats where the technique comes in. If you fight the gun, and "try" to hold the gun on target, it will tend to run up and off to the side of the strong hand, IE, up and right for a right handed shooter.

If you relax, and think of the gun more as a fire hose, and think about how you would try to keep that water on target, IE, just keep bringing it back on target, you can easily keep full mag dumps on target with little effort.

Its more about "riding" the gun and going with the flow, than it is trying to hold it on target.

As an example, one of our "contests" when we were all shooting together regularly and would get together to shoot, was to see who could put a full mag from a pistol caliber gun into a paper plate at 10 yards, with one pull on the trigger. It was usually a pretty tight contest for those with MP5's, MP40's etc, and those who shot them regularly.

This was the last target I shot with my SWD M11/9mm "MAC" right before I got rid of it. It was shot at 10 yards. Two separate mags, each with 25 rounds, one pull on the trigger with each mag, and a total time of about 3 seconds. I wouldnt have won the plate prize, but either mag would have been more than sufficient.

ry%3D400
 
Once again, just my opinion

The fully auto sub-Machine gun or the actual machine gun has no practical use for most civilians in a self defense situation. Absolutely in an urban or suburban setting. In an absolute rural setting a distant maybe.

While they look cool and are totally intimidating, they are offensive weapons. I'm sure that someone could come up with a scenario that may make the use of one reasonable, I'm sure it
Won't be realistic.

The military uses them as offensive weapons, the police use them as offensive weapons, the gangs use them as offensive weapons.

It would be a way hard task to explain the how and why someone used a fully auto machine pistol to dispatch a mugger that accosted you in a gas station. Keeping in mind as well the requisite (MEN'S REA) or state of mind of the shooter when he fired. This would be the fear for ones life. The use of a fully auto would easily be explained as a depraved indifference, or reckless. Not saying that's what would happen, but.....
 
They are simply a weapon, like any other, and used both offensively and defensively. If youre being assaulted, and its what you have, its a defensive weapon.

For what a registered gun goes for these days, I doubt the owner would risk using it, unless it was all that was available.

If I had a valid reason for using deadly force, the weapon is meaningless, except maybe in a civil case and public opinion. Criminally, a good shoot is a good shoot.
 
AK103K said:
If I had a valid reason for using deadly force, the weapon is meaningless, except maybe in a civil case and public opinion. Criminally, a good shoot is a good shoot.
Click to expand...

A case of self defense must meet 5 criteria simultaneously; innocence, imminence, avoidance, proportionality, and reasonableness. A full auto may have a bit of hard time meeting the last one or two.

You will be charged criminally if you fail to make a case of self defense. Failing to meet any one of the above 5 criteria that is.

-TL



Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
If I shoot someone in self defense three times with a handgun or three times with a SMG, whats the difference?
 
ak103 said:
If I shoot someone in self defense three times with a handgun or three times with a SMG, whats the difference?
Click to expand...

Somewhere between 0 years and life, depending upon whether your lawyer or the prosecutor is better in the criminal trial, and somewhere between 0 and several million dollars depending upon whether your lawyer or the plaintiff's is better in the civil trial.
 
If I shoot someone in self defense three times with a handgun or three times with a SMG, whats the difference?

To a juror, it can make ALL the difference (right or wrong)

About 30 years ago, my father was on a criminal jury that involved a homeowner that shot a burglar. There were a lot of nuances in the case that I won't bore anyone with, but in summary, it appeared to the prosecutor that the homeowner had ample chance to flee/retreat the home and didn't 'need' to shoot the burglar. In fact, according to my father, the evidence suggested that the homeowner actually went out of his way to shoot the burglar.
One detail that several of the jurors took notice of was the .44 mag with an 8" barrel the homeowner used during the incident. The jurors felt that the choice of weapon made the homeowner look like a guy that 'wanted' to shoot someone. It made him look like a Dirty Harry Wannabee in their eyes. These jurors were actually more compelled by the choice of gun, than they were by the 'actual' evidence that suggested the shooting was unnecessary.

Anyway, after many hours of deliberation, they acquitted the homeowner. Not because he was innocent. My father said he was clearly guilty by the letter of the law. However, their consensus was that the scumbag burglar deserved to be shot........and thus he got shot. So the homeowner was the lucky recipient of a jury nullification. (rightfully so IMO)

However, if you shoot someone with an SMG- you could find yourself at the tender mercies of a less sympathetic jury that will look at your 'evil gun' as an indicator that you were drooling for the day that you got to shoot someone.

A 5 shot snubby won't have that effect on a jury.
 
I understand the horrors of going through our legal system and have been a juror a couple of times myself. The thing I learned the most by being involved with it is, 99% of those there dont want to be there and are doing their best to get out of it and go home. So you REALLY dont want to be there, no matter what the reason.

I do find it somewhat entertaining though, that so many will basically tell you to its better to do nothing because you "might" get in trouble.

Im in no way saying I want to go through the system just to prove a point, but if the gun I have is the gun I have, Im damn sure using it to protect myself, and not worrying about who it might offend down the road.

Then again, suggesting you "might" choose to actually defend yourself is another off topic around here, so probably best not to go there either.

I still feel that if you have acted in self defense, with a handgun, rifle, SMG, whatever, if you were justified in your actions, it likely wont even get to court, at least not criminally. I understand the civil cases are a whole other matter, but I believe in many places, if you arent charged criminally, the matter is basically stopped right there.

But of course, this is really a moot point anyway, as the majority of people dont have access to full auto weapons anyway, and as I said before, I doubt those who do have them, would risk losing them, if for nothing more, than the thought of losing the equity in them.
 
I vaguely remember a case where gun store owner thwarted a robbery with a S&W 76. I think it was a Mas Ayoob article.
 
Full ato-of any real use

Necessary? That is the same argument the anti gunners fling on the wall on all firearms.
I wouldn't hesitate to grab my Uzi, if an unknown number of Felons are trying to break into my home.
Better dead than able to sue.
Duty to retreat is passe, in most states. Pity those in the noth east.
Duty to retreat and proportional response are not logical.
The perpetrator does not have a right to declare the ruels, of Hoyle, is in effect, for the victim, and that he be given a fair fight or fair chance to rob, rape and kill you.
Yes the Uzi is useful if that is what you want, or a shotgun, or rifle or pistol or revolver, or baseball bat, of your world heavy weight champion wife of husband.
 
If lethal force is required or assumed to be warranted then it really shouldn't matter what is used to apply that force. Dead is dead and it doesn't matter if a 22LR was used or a 50 BMG. You have the right to defend your person and your property. If someone is on your property without permission you have the right to remove them. If they are trespassing and have a gun they are a threat to you. They have deadly force available to them and you should have the same force for yourself.
A court can decide if there was a threat in legal terms but only you can decide if you feel threatened. Then you have to be able to explain the threat you felt. For an old man who is partially disabled it might be nothing more than a man entering his home or a group of teens taunting him.
If a person feels his life or wellbeing is in jeopardy he has every right to act against that threat. Will a jury make that call? I don't know but if I am on that jury and I believe the defendant was in fear then he will walk.
 
I do not own an automatic weapon. Whether one would be of value in a real life situation depends entirely on the circumstances of that situation. I do think that in most self-defense situations an automatic would not be desirable.

We often get caught up in the discussion of need. The Feds clearly think we don't really need automatic weapons, but will allow it if we have the money and are willing to jump through the proper hoops. My state has determined I don't need one, period. To paraphrase another member, if need is the requirement, and government is the arbiter of that need, we are in real trouble. I also believe that in a fight against tyranny an automatic weapon might be very useful.
 
It is my considered opinion that in order for a full auto weapon to be of any use one must have a nearly inexhaustible supply of ammunition. The military establish support for full auto weapons but as an individual I think it would be useless or worse to have one for any use other than the shear enjoyment of a once a year no holds barred group shoot. I can see more need or use for a 50 BMG bolt gun as it would allow targeting vehicles and individuals at a very long range. Machine guns are used for cover fire or to defend a location from mass attacks. They are typically not as accurate as a bolt gun
 
full auto-of any real value

This why we have Dillon 1050s and 650s. It takes about twice as long to load as to shoot but I have plenty of time. With Ponsess Warren motor, on the 1050, I can eat supper while it works. Lots, of fresh ammo, for the next war.
:) Still, primers a 32.00 a thousand powder, at 228.00 eight pounds, and bullets at 110.00 a thousand it gets expensive.
Wife might have to go to work. :)
 
Considering only a simple defense question (are they ever simple?) the more rounds on target the better. And full auto capability allows the shooter to put more rounds on the target in the shortest possible time.

The horrible fact is that most folks shooting full auto will put bullets just about everywhere but the target; but that is a matter of training and skill, not the weapon.

Jim

P.S. Can we do without the photograph of a black man as the criminal? Why inject race into the discussion? In a couple of "interactions" in my time as a deputy sheriff, the bad boys were definitely white. And in a whole bunch of wars, the only black people on the battlefield were Americans.

JK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top