The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: fightingquaker13 on May 19, 2010, 02:04:22 PM
-
Today, I got in small debate with a friend. He said full auto should stay banned because its too dangerous. I disagree mostly. My argument was this. If we are dealing with assault rifles (not smgs or full machine guns, eg, no uzis or m-60s) I'm not really sure where the advantage in FA lies. Yes, they are great if you want to clear a room. Yes they will help if you are in a group and want to lay down suppresive fire. However, these are military applications. Where is the plus in a civilian application? Why is it more "dangerous"?
Lets compare apples to apples. Take two platforms, an M-4 and an M-forgery. Here's the question: Is the M-4 that much "better"?
Lets assume 3 target. 1 at 25 yards, 1 at 50, 1 at 100. I fire a three round burst at each. Or I fire single shots. Are my chances of hitting significantly better with the burst mode?
FQ13
-
I'm not getting the connection to full auto being more "dangerous"? Less accurate, and more difficult to control perhaps, but certainly any firearm can be considered dangerous if not handled properly. Back in early Viet Nam the M-14 was considered to be "uncontrollable" in full auto. Again, harder to control, yes. "Uncontrollable" no way.
Full auto has it's applications, but they are extremely limited. In Viet Nam wasteful full auto fire brought about the 3 round burst limiter. GI's were simply pouring through ammunition in no time mostly because of "spray and pray" wild, uncontrolled, full auto fire. Shooting fast will never replace shooting accurately. The military has learned this the hard way, and is going back to teaching better marksmanship skills. Should it be "banned"? NO. We tried that with drugs and alcohol and it improved nothing. Bill T.
-
I'm not an expert, by any means, but I'd like to chime in anyway. ;D The chances of hitting your target would have to diminish with each successive round when firing a three round burst, due to muzzle rise, operator movement, etc. Therefore, in my opinion, multiple rounds would not assist in being on target. I would assume the advantage of three round burst would be the possibility of putting multiple rounds in a target with one pull of the trigger. I guess you can "spray and pray", but for the most part nothing is going to affect your chances of hitting your intended target more than good ol' fashioned aiming, whether your using single fire, three round burst, or full auto.
Swoop
-
Let me clarify here. I don't mean this to be a political debate. I think we are all on the same page on this one. I just used the issue as an intro to the question as in "Here's another case where pepole who have zero knowledge of guns get hornswaggled by the antis".
Secondly, I guess the question is about grouping. Is the "spread" of the 3 round burts going to increase my chances of hitting a target I would otherwise miss. Ie, at 100 yards will I get say 1 dead on POA and 2 flyers within say, a six inch radius that might turn a near miss into a hit?
Sorry for the lack of clarity in OP.
FQ13
-
The only time I've fired full auto was way, way back in the 70's, select fire M16. Quite honestly I could have cared less if I hit anything. Take your Bushy out and shoot three rounds as fast as you can press the trigger, if you hit the target three times, you'll have an estimate of a three round burst. I say, you probably won't hit two and three on target.
;D
Statistics of the Viet Nam conflict indicated that for every NVC killed, the US military expended 100,000 rounds of ammunition.
-
The only time I've fired full auto was way, way back in the 70's, select fire M16. Quite honestly I could have cared less if I hit anything.
Right there with you. In ROTC, range time for cadets was not a priority. When it did come, it was almost always single shot. The very few times we got use the burst, it was "Hey, this cool". :-[
FQ13
-
I seem to recall one of the "Shoot-em-up" shows on the Outdoor or Sportsmans channel actually did a test from a couple of different ranges. IIRC, neither one of the retired Spec Ops boys could get three good hits on a 12 x 12 steel at 50 and 100 yards shooting bursts.....I think it was "Tactical Impact" Television..
Don't remember if they were shooting 5.56 or 7.62. I suppose there would be a dramatic difference.
-
Today, I got in small debate with a friend. He said full auto should stay banned because its too dangerous. I disagree mostly. My argument was this. If we are dealing with assault rifles (not smgs or full machine guns, eg, no uzis or m-60s) I'm not really sure where the advantage in FA lies. Yes, they are great if you want to clear a room. Yes they will help if you are in a group and want to lay down suppresive fire. However, these are military applications. Where is the plus in a civilian application? Why is it more "dangerous"?
Lets compare apples to apples. Take two platforms, an M-4 and an M-forgery. Here's the question: Is the M-4 that much "better"?
Lets assume 3 target. 1 at 25 yards, 1 at 50, 1 at 100. I fire a three round burst at each. Or I fire single shots. Are my chances of hitting significantly better with the burst mode?
FQ13
I own a few of these weapons and I can say they are dangerous, like other firearms if not properly controlled. Shooting from 50m and beyond, I believe semi-auto is the way to go. But I will say for defensive work in close quarters for a civilian, a SMG is very effective. To ban them because they don't necessarily serve a useful purpose for civilians is a specious argument.
How about we ban .50 BMG rifles from civilians? They are too dangerous! One can shoot down an airliner with a weapon like that.... ::)
-
I have played seriously with FA's than most people who don't actually own one, mostly by luck and circumstance. FQ to answer your question in my opinion, you would be much better off, making 3 single hits, given the platform you suggested, on FA, caliber and type do matter, I have shot the all american 180 22rf, squirt gun, tons of fun, like peeing in the snow, you can hold it on target ( even a novice ) until it runs out of ammo, kind of like shooting those old gallery Thompsons that shot lead BB's at the fair, M16's, AK's in 7.62x39, G3's in of course 7.62x51, MP5's, Glock 18's and Beretta 93r's, the MA deuce of course is not part of the consideration here. I shoot them well, but if in normal situation, would not hit the FA switch, UNLESS, I want 1 sumbitch dead right now, and it has to be quick. I can put a fist sized hole of 32 rds from a MP5, one continuous burst on a IPSC target at 15 yards, that takes about 1 1/2 seconds, without reaction time, why would I do that, unless, I really want that guy dead, and I expect no body else to be firing back at me. You can make more accurate hits faster with 1 shot or a controlled pair, on MULTIPLE targets, IHMO, than with a most FA's. The larger and more energetic the round, the harder to control. If I was on the street, and had to make a decisive shot up close and personal, that Glock 18 will be wonderful. If he's got 2 or 3 buddies, not so much. If it is full auto time, I want a belt fed and a good position to shoot from. 30-40 rds sounds like alot, until a second and a half later, its empty. In controlled shooting, 30 rds ought to get you the hell out of there, with probably some coroner showing up to give time of death.
The 3 round burst deal came up to reduce wasted shots, not to encourage accuracy.
-
FA, you bring up a question that has bugged me for a long time. It is semantics, but is true. The difference between dangerous and deadly.
"I own a few of these weapons and I can say they are dangerous, like other firearms if not properly controlled. Shooting from 50m and beyond, I believe semi-auto is the way to go. But I will say for defensive work in close quarters for a civilian, a SMG is very effective. To ban them because they don't necessarily serve a useful purpose for civilians is a specious argument. "
The only Weapons that are dangerous, are those that can do harm with no one controlling them, like an IED, land mine, booby traps, and then certain animals, and places on this earth like MT Everest, or quick sand, they are by nature not contained, and waiting for the victim to fall, whether just or unjust, being in their presence is cause for due diligence, and even that might not help.
Deadly however, that is a machine or animal, including a well trained marshal artist, that is capable of swift death or injury when pointed or given cause, like the Marines, a good precision rifle, laser guided missles or a well trained attack dog.
No affront to you FA, this just gave me the chance to get the difference off my chest.
-
He said full auto should stay banned because its too dangerous. FQ13
They never were "banned". Just highly regulated. Banned means no one can own one. Not the case with Class III weapons. Bill T.
-
I would respond by saying your point is well made. Q: What is a dagerous gun? A; Any gun that fires a bullet and finds itself in the hands of a man determined to use it.
All that said, that ain't the point here.
Picture in your head three targets. A standard shillouette on a 4'x8' piece plywood. They are at 25, 50 and 100 yards from the shooter. Now, take an M-4, or Ak or whatever. Time limit is 1 second or less per target. Fire a three round burst. Fire a single shot. What's the difference interms of getting in the black on the target?
FQ13
-
FQ, With your immediately previous postulate, your chances with a 3-shot burst would enhance target acquisition at any of the ranges stipulated--but only minimally and only by chance. A 3 shot burst should have exactly the same chance of hitting your target as a single shot--dependant upon the aiming capability/accuracy of the operator and the weapon involved. That's because the operator would be aiming in similar/identical fashion. If the first shot missed the target, the following two shots would have a chance of hitting it by inadvertantly correcting for the lousy aim of the first shot. In a practical application, there would be a very limited likelihood of shots 2 or 3 actually hitting the target because of operator movement and muzzle rise. Still, the fact that 2 additional hunks of lead are flying downrange would mean that a small enhancement would have to exist. In real life, full auto or a three-round burst is simply an efficient way to lighten the load of ammo carried back from the range. Semi-auto accuracy allows the operator to compensate for any eccentricities that may exist in the shooting scenario before sending shots two and three or more downrange.
In an effort to apply statistical science to the art of accuracy,
Crusader
-
No affront to you FA, this just gave me the chance to get the difference off my chest.
None taken. I think you make some great points here. :)
-
FQ, With your immediately previous postulate, your chances with a 3-shot burst would enhance target acquisition at any of the ranges stipulated--but only minimally and only by chance. A 3 shot burst should have exactly the same chance of hitting your target as a single shot--dependant upon the aiming capability/accuracy of the operator and the weapon involved. That's because the operator would be aiming in similar/identical fashion. If the first shot missed the target, the following two shots would have a chance of hitting it by inadvertantly correcting for the lousy aim of the first shot. In a practical application, there would be a very limited likelihood of shots 2 or 3 actually hitting the target because of operator movement and muzzle rise. Still, the fact that 2 additional hunks of lead are flying downrange would mean that a small enhancement would have to exist. In real life, full auto or a three-round burst is simply an efficient way to lighten the load of ammo carried back from the range. Semi-auto accuracy allows the operator to compensate for any eccentricities that may exist in the shooting scenario before sending shots two and three or more downrange.
In an effort to apply statistical science to the art of accuracy,
Crusader
Nice post Crusader. I think you have underscored my basic belief. If I were to go one on one with my M-forgery, against someone equally trained who had the real deal, I would not feel out gunned. I'd just spend less ammo before the thing was decided one way or the other. I don't think the selective fire option would influence the outcome. Unless I caught him in the the middle of a mag change. ;) Beause, all joking aside, the three round burst turns a 30 round mag into a ten round mag. Is the trade off worth it?
FQ13
-
There is no such thing as a "Dangerous weapon", There are only "dangerous people".
The pen really IS mightier than the sword , if you are holding the sword, and some one like Mike Janich has the pen.
The main purpose of FA on the Sturm Gewehr derived "assault rifle" was to suppress mass attacks and for countering ambushes.
Then the Russkies realized that if it worked well against mass attacks it should be the bomb if used to launch mass attacks.
To address FQ's great question, which I will simplify as "is there any real benefit to the civilian in having a FA rather than Semi auto version of the same fire arm.
As a non LEO civilian I would say it depends on the weapons purpose. If it is to impress the other guys down at the range , OF COURSE FA is better. Duh !
In the real world, not so much.
Going to put a 3 round burst into Bambi,( or a feral hog where you are) ?
Second, and most important, how does the ammo get to where you are firing ? (Every old grunt out there knows where I'm going ;D )
You tote it ;D
I'll admit to being prejudiced by the Marine Corps tradition of AIMED Fire, every cook and clerk is a trained rifleman, but I still have to ask, when you want to send word to some one do you mail to their home address ?
Or do you send 3 or 4 copies to the right street and hope one finds him ?
The only time FA is practical is if you want to kill every thing in front of you. Not very common for most of us.
But they are fun ;D
Edited to add:
Wow I just finished reading the thread, (yeah I know ;D )That was a great answer CR.
And FQ seems to have captured the essence of my post, 3 round burst turns it into a heavy 10 rounder.
-
Quaker, you echoed my thoughts from sometime in the middle of the night (so you can easily see these sorts of questions keep me awake).
Given the same operator, and selective switching between 3-round bursts and single-shot, in effect your 3-shot option turns your 30-round mag into a 10-round mag (as you note). Only the first shot of each burst would have the same chance of hitting your intended target as would all 30 or your single shots. If you were able to go full auto and sweep a crowd, you would probably have a reduced chance of hitting multiples of your intended targets than you would by shooting one at a time--but, you would also instill a pretty hefty fear factor into members of said crowd. The closer and more compact the crowd, the more enhanced would be your chance of actually hitting someone. And, the slower the sweep, the more times you make contact with a target--but, you should be about as likely to hit the same target more than once as you would be to hit multiple targets.
My choice would be single shot and greater practice time with the weapon.
Some additional thoughts, FWIW.
Crusader
-
But what about the uber lethality of firing from the hip? Outlaw those darn pistol grips ::)
I think the scenario your "friend" (gay joke ;D ) was looking for was one with a wall of hundreds of people lined up shoulder to shoulder and unable to disperse... Like maybe the stands at a sporting event...... or you know, an advancing platoon.
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=7794.msg163867#msg163867
;D
-
But what about the uber lethality of firing from the hip? Outlaw those darn pistol grips ::)
I think the scenario your "friend" (gay joke ;D ) was looking for was one with a wall of hundreds of people lined up shoulder to shoulder and unable to disperse... Like maybe the stands at a sproting event...... or you know, an advancing platoon.
Or a firing squad...
-
But what about the uber lethality of firing from the hip? Outlaw those darn pistol grips ::)
I think the scenario your "friend" (gay joke ;D ) was looking for was one with a wall of hundreds of people lined up shoulder to shoulder and unable to disperse... Like maybe the stands at a sporting event...... or you know, an advancing platoon.
Absolutely right Eric--firing from the hip has always been the best way to obtain absolute accuracy. Harken back to the days of Chuck Conners in The Rifleman. Or that other character Nick Somebody with the shortened carbine and the rounded lever. THAT is enough proof for me and should put an end to any further discussion. ;)
Actually, I think it's going to be difficult to get the advancing platoon to remain in formation while you spray them with automatic fire. You might have better luck with the mass of humanity at a sporting event, but I think they would tend to scatter as well. Best bet might be the Senate or House of Reps--sort of corral them so they can't get away! (And that is intended as hyperbolic exaggeration included for a humourous effect--not as an indication of intent. Crusader doesn't want to be on any more lists! :P)
-
Actually, I think it's going to be difficult to get the advancing platoon to remain in formation while you spray them with automatic fire. You might have better luck with the mass of humanity at a sporting event, but I think they would tend to scatter as well. Best bet might be the Senate or House of Reps--sort of corral them so they can't get away! (And that is intended as hyperbolic exaggeration included for a humourous effect--not as an indication of intent. Crusader doesn't want to be on any more lists! :P)
I was just trying to make the point that FA really comes into its own on the battlefield when it can be a true force multiplier.
*Let the record show that I did not mention firing FA on congress ;D
-
To be honest, the only REAL advantage I can see for FA in a civilian firefight is the psychological advantage. I remember stories of the psychological effect the german "zipper gun" (1300 RPM german machine gun that sounded like a zipper when fired) had on allied troops.
So, if you wanna SCARE your opponent, then by all means go FA. If you want to SHOOT the sumbitch, go with semi-auto.
-
It all depends on the gun, ammo, and man doing the shooting.
-
I am glad the 2A says nothing about the right being contingent upon the practicality of the weapon. If that was the case, we would be limited to six shot revolvers, pump shotguns and bolt action rifles. Really, does any civilian NEED anything more than that?
-
Need, all depends on the number of threats that need to be addressed, more necessary these days, like when confronting latino's, who I belong too, if you get affronted by a car load of at least 6, get real good, and deliver 1 perfect shot to the heads of each or hedge your bet, and have 15+ rds available. Better yet, have several hundred horsepower and just drive your butt out of there.
-
Full Auto or burst firing can be useful in a few situations.
One is the 'human wave' attack...or a version smaller than a wave...
Two would be in hitting exposed moving target at range, assuming the weapon is controllable enough to keep on target. Correct lead estimation is less critical.
Third is when the target is concealed in a small area, like a sniper behind a bush. Since aimed fire is not possible, full auto or burst might nail the target. Again, the weapon must be kept on target.
All three of those are generally military situations, but one of the purposes of a Well Regulated Militia is to ensure the civilian populace holds the means to counter an invasion or government turned tyrannical. I'd not mind being able to purchase weapons that would meet my needs for both personal self defense and a not so probable military roll.
-
...but one of the purposes of a Well Regulated Militia is to ensure the civilian populace holds the means to counter an invasion or government turned tyrannical.
Bingo!