Ful auto vs semi-auto accuracy?

[fightingquaker13]

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

[billt]

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.

[SwoopSJ]

I'm not an expert, by any means, but I'd like to chime in anyway.    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

[fightingquaker13]

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

[Timothy]

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.

 

Statistics of the Viet Nam conflict indicated that for every NVC killed, the US military expended 100,000 rounds of ammunition.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

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

[Timothy]

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.

[fullautovalmet76]

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....  

[m25operator]

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.

[m25operator]

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.