People spend their money on what is important to them. I have a friend who spends more money on fishing than MGT spends on firearms and shooting. I know some who spend heavily on attending sporting events or other entertainment. I know others who spend large amounts money on drinking and drinking related activities. It is common for people to spend huge amounts of money on vehicles; payments, insurance and maintenance. These folks are not wealthy. We all prioritize based on our wants and needs. Most of us could shoot and own automatic weapons if we wanted to.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The myth that owning and shooting a Machinegun is unaffordable
- Thread starter Machineguntony
- Start date
Theohazard
New member
Some of you guys seem to be missing Tony's point. He's not saying that shooting a machine gun is cheap. What he's saying is that shooting a machine gun isn't prohibitively expensive for most people. For most avid shooters, if they owned a machine gun they probably would be able to afford to shoot it once or twice a month, especially if they spent less money on some of the other things Tony mentioned that cost about the same.
As for the cost of the machine gun itself, that's a different issue entirely, but Tony also freely admitted that in his original post.
As for the cost of the machine gun itself, that's a different issue entirely, but Tony also freely admitted that in his original post.
Since I don't play the lottery I doubt I will ever win it. And like Rush says "the lottery is a way for poor people to pay taxes".
I have shot a full auto Mac 11 and an M-60 and it was fun but I have no desire to own one. Not even a full auto 22lr. They just don't work for what I own guns for.
I have shot a full auto Mac 11 and an M-60 and it was fun but I have no desire to own one. Not even a full auto 22lr. They just don't work for what I own guns for.
You can't shoot a gun you don't have. Acquiring the machinegun is the expensive part and you're talking about shooting ammunition on the cheap???
I reload my own ammo and I'll tell you that I couldn't reload enough ammo to shoot the machinegun I had using my single stage press.
The first 1500 rounds of ammo I had purchased for the gun ran though it so fast...it was one hungry beast.
I reload my own ammo and I'll tell you that I couldn't reload enough ammo to shoot the machinegun I had using my single stage press.
The first 1500 rounds of ammo I had purchased for the gun ran though it so fast...it was one hungry beast.
My position on shooting full auto is that it's not that expensive, especially when compared to some of the other things people do for shooting sports recreation and non-shooting sports recreation.
First of all, you need the gun first. For that, you're talking easily 10-30X the price of equivalent semi-auto, for each MG. Considering the vast majority of firearms collections are (allegedly) less than ten weapons, the acquisition of the MG itself is a complete non-starter for the vast majority.
Second of all, is the ammunition consumption. It is certainly true that even expensive MGs are capable of shooting many times their value in ammunition, but to do so is --again-- immediately impossible for the vast majority. When many refer to MGs being too expensive to shoot, they are referring to the fact that their desired ammunition consumption would be much higher than for their semi-autos.
Well, compared to the cost of a transferrable M60* (or two), yeah I can see how you might conclude the operating costs of full/semi autos are similar. There's also the cost of insurance (unless you're an idiot) and maintenance to consider, if you want your 'investment'** to retain its value. There's also the high 'opportunity cost,' represented by how many other firearms would be missed in order to afford the machine gun (this is why I personally do not partake, as one or two MGs would replace a dozen that I also enjoy shooting). Lastly, the investment is becoming increasingly risky, as we approach the logical conclusion of a final ban on MG sales or the dissolution of the Hughes Amendment, and for many it is a lot of money to tie up in a single undiversified investment that can be destroyed in an instant.So when compared to the cost of other shooting sports, shooting full auto is either roughly the same or not that much more expensive than other shooting sports.
I've got no problems with people owning nice things. I myself own a very nice automobile, and many nice firearms. I got a good education, a job, and work hard and save my money to be able to do so. Same as doctors, lawyers, and other professionals who are able to realistically (and responsibly) afford expensive machinegun purchases. Most I've met made no bones about how out of reach these machines are, and lament it (because it limits their ability to partake of even more machine gunnery, and because it necessarily marginalizes MGs' protection in this country)
Pretending that these luxuries are affordable, or can be responsibly purchased by most (or even many) gun owners is something of a sport among a few in the NFA crowd, I've noticed (just as high-fashion snobbery is a sport among some of the general gun crowd). I don't know if it's people trying to rationalize an exorbitant purchase, or the so-called 'humble brag,' but it is more irritating than not to people who are already fully aware of what they can afford. Just be happy and honest you can enjoy the rarified atmosphere of machine gunnery, and recognize that the great majority of your fellow gun owners are unable to share it with you (and work with them to take down these stupid NFA barriers in the future)
TCB
*what, like 60-70 thousand dollars each, these days?
**"investment" is an odd word for profiting from the US govt's unjust restriction of our civil rights
It's a MYTH that shooting full auto is expensive.
What's your take?
I wouldn't call it a myth. Since we are only talking about the cost of sending bullets downrange, not getting the gun to do it with, its still more expensive than what most people will shoot, simply because it is difficult not to shoot MORE rounds with a full auto.
On the plus side, most machine guns (that get shot) are chambered in the common military calibers, which are the cheapest ammo you can get.
7.62NATO or 5.56mm GI ammo is dirt cheap, compared to some other things. But even cheap as they are, a full auto makes it easy to shoot a lot of rounds. Shoot a lot of rounds, it's more expensive than shooting fewer.
And what about those guns NOT in commonly found calibers? Not cheap shooting them, I would expect. Seen many 6.5 Jap Hotchkiss guns on the full auto line lately??
I'm forced early retirement, living on less than 25K a year doing my best to hang on until Social security kicks in, when my income will effectively double. Won't be for some time yet, though. Shooting what I already own isn't easily affordable for me these days, let alone a full auto. SO, no, for me, affordable full auto is a MYTH, not a reality.
I still think it's more perception than reality.
That is exactly what I was talking about in my post.
In reality a minute is 60 seconds.
If your the one on the pot that 60 seconds will seem a lot shorter than if your the one on the other side of the door that needs to go.
Your perception is that $125 isn't that much money. To a guy that has to sell something in order to cover the extra $60 he needs to pay his electric bill this month, the same $125 would be perceived as a lot of money.
It's worth noting that in both instances they are also realities.
Machineguntony said:Every weekend, for the last five weeks or so, my new long range shooting hobby involves lighting up 200-300 rounds of 308 accuracy ammo, which if new would run $30 per 20 rounds (dinging steel at hundreds of yards is so fun). If new, that's about $300-$400 worth of 308 per session (I reload so it's only about $100 actually). No one turns to me and say, 'wow that must be expensive'.
The rate of consumption bears on the calculation of expense.
200-300 rounds of that sort of long range shooting sounds like it would take most of a day. It might even require enough focus and attention to form in each application of the trigger that you would run out of focus before you would run out of ammunition or sunlight. $100 for a full day of shooting is something lots of us can wrap our minds around.
Quite apart from whether running through $100 in ammunition would reasonably hold someone's interest, it can't take all day.
A 1975 Cadillac Eldorado takes less gas to drive for 10 minutes than a hybrid Civic might take to drive all day, but people will still wonder about your gasoline budget if you are seen in the old Eldorado.
I guess if you have $25-30k to spare to buy a full auto then the cost of ammo would look like chump change.
That would just about pay off my house, so yeah, no full-auto for me...
Yeah, it's hard to ignore the cost of the gun. Would I buy a full-auto today if I didn't already have one? When the price was $2,400, taking the plunge was hard enough. And, I've had fun shooting it! But, at $9,000+ for an AC556, I would have a hard time coughing up that kind of money for the privilege of owning a full-auto gun.
I'd get a binary trigger, spend the money to tune it to work as good as it can, and be satisfied with simulated full-auto fire.
I'd get a binary trigger, spend the money to tune it to work as good as it can, and be satisfied with simulated full-auto fire.
If you can afford to do even those things, I believe you are more well-off than the majority of Americans in 2016, sadly.Look at what hunting out of state, the cost to keep a fishing / ski boat running, fly to go skiing in the winter, or motor sports. Or, have you taken a family of 4 to a Cowboys / NFL game lately? (Nothing like helping make a billionaire a multi-billionaire.). How about Vegas twice a year?
Machineguntony
New member
What I'm trying to dispel is the idea that repealing the MG ban would be a hallow victory. If people think that MG ownership is out of reach, even if Hughes were repealed, then Hughes will never be repealed.
I get that some people think MGs are overrated, and that certain people wouldn't buy a MG, even if new MGs again costed $1000. That's a fair opinion. But freedom is the right to decide for yourself that you don't want something.
That's all I was trying to do, ladies and gentlemen.
I get that some people think MGs are overrated, and that certain people wouldn't buy a MG, even if new MGs again costed $1000. That's a fair opinion. But freedom is the right to decide for yourself that you don't want something.
That's all I was trying to do, ladies and gentlemen.
Machineguntony said:I get that some people think MGs are overrated, and that certain people wouldn't buy a MG, even if new MGs again costed $1000. That's a fair opinion. But freedom is the right to decide for yourself that you don't want something.
I agree entirely.
Machineguntony said:What I'm trying to dispel is the idea that repealing the MG ban would be a hallow victory. If people think that MG ownership is out of reach, even if Hughes were repealed, then Hughes will never be repealed.
I don't see anxiety over ammunition cost as a substantial basis for political support for the Hughes Amendment. In all the conversations about 2d Am. rights and fully automatic arms, I've never encountered the objection that legal regulation of NA arms is inconsequential because of the cost of ammunition.
Instead, I would peg the political support for the restriction as part of the "Who needs an army gun?" component of the anti-AR sentiment.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
If I could buy a full auto STG-22 for the same price as my semi-auto I would full auto that thing all day everyday with cheap bulk 22lr and not worry about how it ran.
Since everything I read about full auto 22lrs says they are incredibly unreliable, I can't bring myself to pay the $3,000+ for a jam-o-matic. There isn't a whole lot of variety available concerning designs either.
There are huge swaths of the NRA that are not supportive.
SAF would only touch it at this point if they had a 'perfect case' and it is a long way down the road on their planned suits, which may get interrupted if the court make-up changes.
The full auto owners group, the name of which I can't remember, never seems all that supportive. Many members are, but some seem not to be as their assets would be wiped out.
The state specific repeals were laughed at and given no bite to protect citizens of the respective states.
There have been a couple of attempts over the last ten years to form national groups specifically geared at addressing the issue. Almost no membership response and no financial backing.
A lot of heavy lifting to be done to see any progress on the issue.
Since everything I read about full auto 22lrs says they are incredibly unreliable, I can't bring myself to pay the $3,000+ for a jam-o-matic. There isn't a whole lot of variety available concerning designs either.
There are huge swaths of the NRA that are not supportive.
SAF would only touch it at this point if they had a 'perfect case' and it is a long way down the road on their planned suits, which may get interrupted if the court make-up changes.
The full auto owners group, the name of which I can't remember, never seems all that supportive. Many members are, but some seem not to be as their assets would be wiped out.
The state specific repeals were laughed at and given no bite to protect citizens of the respective states.
There have been a couple of attempts over the last ten years to form national groups specifically geared at addressing the issue. Almost no membership response and no financial backing.
A lot of heavy lifting to be done to see any progress on the issue.
Don't get me wrong; if Hughes were repealed and I could legally buy an actual Title 2 select-fire assault rifle for anywhere close to the price of a civilian semiauto, I'd probably own at least one. If it were select-fire, it wouldn't have to be outrageously expensive to shoot, in moderation. The capital cost of buying one is out of most Americans' practical reach at present, though.What I'm trying to dispel is the idea that repealing the MG ban would be a hallow victory. If people think that MG ownership is out of reach, even if Hughes were repealed, then Hughes will never be repealed.
cecill said:Exactly. And, if full auto were legal, most of us would already own one.
Full auto weapons ARE legal in the vast majority of the United States. Do you think that this whole thread has been about the cost of firing illegal weapons?
Most people do not own them as they do not justify the cost as a wise use of their limited financial resources.
Same reason most of us don't own private jets, 500 foot yachts, or vacation homes on the French Riviera.
Last edited: