Ful auto vs semi-auto accuracy?

[billt]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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

[crusader rabbit]

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

[fullautovalmet76]

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.   

[fightingquaker13]

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

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

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   )
You tote it  
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  

Edited to add:
Wow I just finished reading the thread, (yeah I know    )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.

[crusader rabbit]

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

[ericire12]

But what about the uber lethality of firing from the hip? Outlaw those darn pistol grips

I think the scenario your "friend" (gay joke ) 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

[Timothy]

But what about the uber lethality of firing from the hip? Outlaw those darn pistol grips

I think the scenario your "friend" (gay joke ) 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...

[crusader rabbit]

But what about the uber lethality of firing from the hip? Outlaw those darn pistol grips

I think the scenario your "friend" (gay joke ) 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! )