Full auto?

[Reco]

When I was in the US Marines I used to feel like the M16 A2 was lame because it was Semi/Burst. IT wasn't until later in my tour when I received advanced marksmanship training that I understood that full auto has its place but rapid well aimed shots are more effective allowing for extended fighting. Full auto unless maybe belt fed and a ton of ammo is a waste in most cases and is usually useful in short intense engagements.

Reco

 

[soberups]

I will probably be working toward getting more food/water with a reliable semi-auto on my shoulder. Than sitting at home not getting more food trying to make it fire reliable full auto. In a SHTF situation I think most deaths will be due to starvation not combat.

+1

Best all-around weapon for survival is a scoped .22LR. Its quiet and it can take down anything from squirrels to birds to deer. 1 shot= 1 meal. Ammo is cheap and easy to stockpile, and unlike the .223/ .308/ 7.62x39 it isnt overkill for the small game which will be the majority of what is available. And in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, it can serve at least adequately as a self-defense/anti-looter gun in a SHTF scenario. At ranges of 100 yds or less, a .22LR to the nostril, eyeball or testicle of the bad guy will definately persuade him to do his plundering and pillaging elsewhere.

 

[3 AE]

I had the opportunity during Iraqi Freedom to fire @100 rounds of .50 cal. BMG in the M2, and @200 rnds of 7.62 through the M240G in full auto. HOLY MOLY!!! Talk about adrenalin rush! The target was a barrel we threw overboard at about 100 yards. My rounds were hitting everywhere but the barrel. Then the Marines let me use a M16 A2 with 3 round burst capability. That was NICE. My hit ratio went up considerably. I'll leave the full auto to the Marines,they were good at it. Semi auto is just fine with me.:gun21::gun13::gun18:

 

[gearhead]

in a SHTF situation, My full autos would stay on semi. You cannot hit anything. and you are going to have a finite supply of ammo. 30 rounds takes 1.5 seconds. The belt feds are nice, but you cannot feed them for long. 1000 rounds goes really quickly. so unless you have your own manufacturing plant, and supply lines you will not be able to sustain the belt feds for long. i can put 1000 rounds though an m16 in a couple hours of lea-surly shooting at the range. actively engaging someone is going to drive your round count up significantly. and you are opening yourself up to return fire every time you are changing magazines.

Slow well placed shots would be much better. In a SHTF scenario i would rather have a hunting rifle that i know i can hit you as far away as possible. But that is just my opinion.

Agreed. And, IMHO, unless you are operating with a group of people full auto will get you killed. It will draw attention, prevent you from keeping your target in sight, burn up precious ammo, and heat up your barrel to the point that you'll have to stop firing to allow it to cool. Also, there's the issue of the quality of conversions. Are you a gunsmith? Could you trust your life to a weapon you modified yourself? I for one, would not trust my life to a weapon modified based on plans I found somewhere on the internet or other publication. Any idiot can spray and pray, marksmanship is a skill earned through practice and dedication, and will serve better than the ability to fire automatically WSHTF. Belt fed weapons are another matter, but again - how much ammo do you have, and do you really trust your life to your modification? Misfires tend to be nasty.

 

[Arkarayne]

In a real SHTF situation, if i want a full auto gun, i'd just "acquire" one from one of most likely many scattered about amongst the fallen.

Personally semi-auto promotes accuracy, speed, and control. you don't have a multi-bullet spray to cover your butt, and you'll learn darn quick to be quick, or be dead. be accurate, or be dead. sure, spraying bullets scares the **** out of most people who'd be on the receiving end, but in SHTF, barring the unlikely event of taking over or acquiring an ammo manufacturing factory or machinery, bullets are finite. the less you can use to get the job done, the better.

Interesting side-note of History: Hitler (of all people) wanted his troops to stick with semi-auto weapons. in the time of war, ammo's expensive, and lazy soldiers who just spray-and-pray usually end up using much more ammo then need. (i paraphrased haha but that was essentially his reasons) but, his generals wanted the hot new thing in the world (which was soldier-carryable machine guns) so they got them, and the semi-auto went dodo in the military... and the ammo bill got reeeeallly big.

 

[TheHossUSMC]

The whole purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that we would never fall under a tyrannical government. Being able to have the same weapons as the military is vital to holding the government accountable. I was the M240 gunner for my Platoon and I would own one today if it wasn't for the unconstitutional ban on new ones. I would own a M60 right now if the ban didn't create a limited supply and drive the demand to ridiculous levels.

As far as practical use I would always recommend a vehicle mounted full auto weapon, and one for your home base security. Strategically placed light and medium machine guns can make world of difference in many situations. Also laying down covering fire helps to facilitate squad movement and can pin down enemies so that they can be flanked. Honestly there is no good reason to not have a full auto weapon readily available to the law abiding general public.

You can also easily, and legally most places, purchase a full auto weapon in parts. Meaning you cannot readily assemble it. Like buying they whole kit to build an rpk with a flat receiver.

Even the french police carry sub machine guns.

All that being said. EVERYONE should have several semi auto rifles and use those for the majority of operations. You need to know how to use the tool if your gonna try to use it.

 

[Oohrah]

Reco, Also a Marine 57 to 65 and fired every full auto they issued or suddenly found a home in the Corps. A time a BARman, but some time with an air cooled .30. A WASTE OF AMMO with full blown auto. Even with a BAR off a bipod hits were only made by feathering the trigger to a couple of rounds. Fault with M 14 full auto was also a control factor of way too light of a weapon. There are ways to tame things down, but many more hits per round running semi auto!

 

[FarmerTed1971]

3 round burst baby, 3 round burst!

 

[TheHossUSMC]

Reco, Also a Marine 57 to 65 and fired every full auto they issued or suddenly found a home in the Corps. A time a BARman, but some time with an air cooled .30. A WASTE OF AMMO with full blown auto. Even with a BAR off a bipod hits were only made by feathering the trigger to a couple of rounds. Fault with M 14 full auto was also a control factor of way too light of a weapon. There are ways to tame things down, but many more hits per round running semi auto!

I have heard of those problems with both of those systems, and I agree that the weapon should be designed to be full auto if it's gonna be that way. When I see people with full auto glocks i have to shake my head. Obviously they have their place, but it's a very limited range of use.
A belt fed medium machine gun on the other hand has many uses and can be adapted for things it was never intended to be used for in the first place. Like I said before there is no good reason to keep machine guns out of the hands of good citizens.

 

[Oohrah]

Really they don't. Probably the easiest state to acquire a class 3 is Nevada. There are a bunch of them! Used to be a background check (takes awhile) and I believe $200. In fact you go through simular with owning a supressor. I believe your can deal direct with other class 3s, and when you maked a purchase, you simply pay a transfer fee, that is a very small amount plus the cost of the item.
Any full auto heavy enough, and fired off a non moving bi or tri pod, is very good for sustained fire in short bursts. Shoulder fired is usually off target by the third round, and are magazine fed, rather than belt fed.

 

[RVTECH]

The b7arrel has to be able to endure the sustained rate of fire and not melt.

To all of us 'Vets' out there - remember the extra barrels and asbestos glove kits that came with the "60" - including the 1150 rounds of ammo? Fun to carry wasn't it?

 

[CharlesAFerg]

The whole purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that we would never fall under a tyrannical government. Being able to have the same weapons as the military is vital to holding the government accountable. I was the M240 gunner for my Platoon and I would own one today if it wasn't for the unconstitutional ban on new ones. I would own a M60 right now if the ban didn't create a limited supply and drive the demand to ridiculous levels.

As far as practical use I would always recommend a vehicle mounted full auto weapon, and one for your home base security. Strategically placed light and medium machine guns can make world of difference in many situations. Also laying down covering fire helps to facilitate squad movement and can pin down enemies so that they can be flanked. Honestly there is no good reason to not have a full auto weapon readily available to the law abiding general public.

You can also easily, and legally most places, purchase a full auto weapon in parts. Meaning you cannot readily assemble it. Like buying they whole kit to build an rpk with a flat receiver.

Even the french police carry sub machine guns.

All that being said. EVERYONE should have several semi auto rifles and use those for the majority of operations. You need to know how to use the tool if your gonna try to use it.

The only problem with vehicle mounted would be versatility. Unless it's a removable platform, it's likely to get knocked out due to it's size. Any tyrannical government will likely go after the survivalists through legislation and force. Learn from the Iraqis on this one, they would bury PKMs and use them wherever. Vehicles must be civilian until used otherwise, they're just a large and obvious target otherwise.

I completely agree, that full-auto weapons should be available. Even more importantly, though, we should be manufacturing such weapons as a FIM-92A Stinger or 9K38 Igla MANPADS at the state level. Individual air defense systems, regardless of how archaic, will get the job done. As seen in many of the guerrilla wars in the recent past and currently, these relatively modern, but also relatively outdated, infantry weapon systems can cause extreme havoc when employed in a guerrilla situation, not necessarily confronting front line units.

I feel that even the most simple anti-aircraft weapons are even more important than rifles, fully automatic or not. I do, though, feel that inexpensive anti-tank weapons should be emphasized and produced locally as well, and those MUST be more powerful than the RPG7. I say this because i feel that the RPG7 has pretty much lived out it's useful life, with direct consideration to the armor and tactical improvements directly attributed to the experiences of our brace forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless, of course, more advanced warheads are used. (eg, tandem HEAT or thermobaric)
I don't know how much AT4s cost (more effective, technologically advanced), but perhaps they would be inexpensive as well.

Even for the state's own guard, I feel that local production of essential weapons such as these should be considered.

With all of that said, I feel that if some sort of government oppression was to take place, rifles alone would make for one **** of a bloodbath considering the technology employed by modern military forces today. Thermal imaging and electronic intelligence being the most important, IMO.

Still, I have a massive amount of faith that our military would defect in large numbers if they were somehow ordered to perform confiscations and operations against the population. Even if it was a gradual thing, which I feel would be a realistic scenario, I feel the same way. I trust our military and most of our military leaders. That's another discussion, though.

 

[Oohrah]

Charles, I feel exactly as you do! Even though fully auto would not be my weapon of choice. Any of good character ought to be allowed to have one if they wanted one. Once, any citizen could plunk his money down and walk out with a BAR or a Thompson legally, no questions asked. With today's modern weapons the record of kills continues to climb from over a mile to almost two, now. I believe then latest record was taken from a Canadian by a Brit. Guess whatever the need might be for auto weapons, can be acquire by a bolt run or semi auto, from a distance! I don't know what generation you are from, but first choice of a take down is a crew run automatic weapon.
BARs and 60s were primary targets for the most part! It's hard to adjust to today's high tech ideas, but land is controled by the foot warrior. I feel our state guard is woefully under trained in small arms tactics before being sent to Poppyland. I know a few who have served, and one that was a friend, KIA, toward the end of Sept. 2009, who served with the Oregon NG, and resided in Crescent City, Kalif. Where they spent days of firearms training, we spent weeks and months. Always believe that training hard in peacetime, saved blood in war! The outsanding problem I see with adaption of full auto is a limitation of ammo supply, and lack of the training to be effective in its use to the uninitiated. The neat part is we are now replacing those worn out AKs with our small arms, and ammo. Why they would do this with a very good chance we just might be fighting them against our own weapons is bothersome! You did hit the nail on the head when limited accessability due controled numbers manufactered, drives the price up to unaffordable level even if deemed legal. We live in very dangerous times within our country with the present leadership, I fear. I look for Kalifornia citizens to be disarmed when the latest bill of long gun registration passes. It pugs the last hole of total registration of all firearms, and the ammo ( has passed a series of restrictions with the latest being registration of all handgun ammo, with sales only through a state's FFL holder) Guess it's welcome to the Brave New World. Big Brother is more than watching you!!!!

 

[TheHossUSMC]

Very true that we should try to learn from others experience. I only mention a vehicle mounted full auto because I think that if your going to be driving a vehicle in a place with hostiles then you would want one then. I'm not saying that they exclusivly should be used there.
Like I said before I was an M240 gunner in my platoon, and know alot about employing the weapon in combat. My point earlier was that I should be allowed to buy an M240 at a reasonable mark up from manufacturers cost and keep it at home. With the current law FPA enacted in 1986 we cannot purchase new machine guns. This creates a limited supply because the NFA in, i think, 1936. So only registered machine guns manufactured before 1986 can be purchased. I think I saw a M60 for something like 40k online and the
M2 .50 cal is about the same or more. This is soley because the limited supply drives up the cost.
BTW there is nothing wrong with AKs. I love them and would prefer an AK in most combat situations over an M16. I didn't mean for this to get into an AR or AK thing but the stoutness and track record of the AK are well proven. Although I would prefer an M240G to both of those, unless clearing buildings.
Anyway with our baby steps towards restoring the second amendment I think we may see these rights return over time. Unless of course there is a meltdown WROL type of thing. In which case I will be hiding my *** in the bushes with an AK.

 

[CharlesAFerg]

Charles, I feel exactly as you do! Even though fully auto would not be my weapon of choice. Any of good character ought to be allowed to have one if they wanted one. Once, any citizen could plunk his money down and walk out with a BAR or a Thompson legally, no questions asked. With today's modern weapons the record of kills continues to climb from over a mile to almost two, now. I believe then latest record was taken from a Canadian by a Brit. Guess whatever the need might be for auto weapons, can be acquire by a bolt run or semi auto, from a distance! I don't know what generation you are from, but first choice of a take down is a crew run automatic weapon.
BARs and 60s were primary targets for the most part! It's hard to adjust to today's high tech ideas, but land is controled by the foot warrior. I feel our state guard is woefully under trained in small arms tactics before being sent to Poppyland. I know a few who have served, and one that was a friend, KIA, toward the end of Sept. 2009, who served with the Oregon NG, and resided in Crescent City, Kalif. Where they spent days of firearms training, we spent weeks and months. Always believe that training hard in peacetime, saved blood in war! The outsanding problem I see with adaption of full auto is a limitation of ammo supply, and lack of the training to be effective in its use to the uninitiated. The neat part is we are now replacing those worn out AKs with our small arms, and ammo. Why they would do this with a very good chance we just might be fighting them against our own weapons is bothersome! You did hit the nail on the head when limited accessability due controled numbers manufactered, drives the price up to unaffordable level even if deemed legal. We live in very dangerous times within our country with the present leadership, I fear. I look for Kalifornia citizens to be disarmed when the latest bill of long gun registration passes. It pugs the last hole of total registration of all firearms, and the ammo ( has passed a series of restrictions with the latest being registration of all handgun ammo, with sales only through a state's FFL holder) Guess it's welcome to the Brave New World. Big Brother is more than watching you!!!!

Heh, "poppyland." You're right about that. I've never heard somebody call Afghanistan that, but it makes sense.

I feel that firearm rights are currently going in our favor in a positive trend, particularly in the realm of concealed carry/open carry.

While I understand your points, I'm trying to specifically bring up the idea that the only effective way to fight a well supplied and well trained military is through guerrilla tactics, but differently than, say, the Iraqis. We, as Americans, have many more people who know how to use weapons and have a basic idea of their specific tactical uses.

Squad tactics aside, the sheer amount of not necessarily firearms owners, but the people who are vigilant yet silent. Marksmen, much more deadly than any guerrilla warriors besides, say, the Dutch in South Africa, or the early Israeli Haganah. Many people would stand up if times became too rough, or some atrocity forced people (or groups/organizations) to act. Which, of course, will probably not happen, and legislation will be the only battleground as it has been for many, many years. In the age of information, though, oppressive forces are much faster to oppress, so it's a whole different ballgame. This, though, is why I feel legislation not only has been, but will be the battlefield of the future. Much less bloody, and I still have faith in the system powered by the people in an age of mass information.
(As long as the people still control it, of course)

I feel that people would end up burying small arms, keeping them underwater, disassembling them, even building them from scratch. EG Sten.

Still, I feel that the state must have a stockpile or manufacturing capability to manufacture weapons that match or at least legitimately threaten those of the military at least on the most basic level. Infantry weapons, yes, but most importantly are MANPADS and man portable AT systems. Crew served weapons come later, when it is possible to actually have a group together and not be singled out as a target, which isn't a problem with small 1 or 2 man teams and other simple weapons.

With regards to your National Guard friends, my condolences to the one who was killed. I respect them all very much, and feel they have done so much that isn't appreciated by the public. Still, they may not have as much training as they should, but I don't feel there is much they can do with regards to fighting training that will stop IEDs. I feel that detection technologies, intelligence to fight these militants, and proper protection will be the future tools to protect these guys from such attacks. There just isn't much that combat training can do when combating an IED.

 

[siphin]

I think the intimidation factor of having full auto is pretty strong, but the practical value of it is low, at least in a SHTF scenario.

The intimidation factor only lasts as long as the person has ammo pumping through the weapon so in 1.3 seconds the intimidation wears off and the guy being shoot at but not hit will simply come out of the hiding spot he took and rush your position (a person like me would wait for him to run out of ammo either completely or till a reload is needed then take take him with a knife as to conserve ammo, this would be fallowed by a raid you your body and confiscation of all remaining ammo and hand guns.). leaving you dead with no ammo. Full auto only works in a squad formation as you rely on others to suppress the enemy why you reload or change out your barrel. like wise you can lay down just as effective cover fire with a semi auto. plus in a survival situation ammo may not be that available so it would be wise to conserve it as much as possible.

so to your comment about full auto having a high intimidation factor i would say no it does not. any person who has used or had a full auto used on them knows that they are only good for cover fire and in a survival situation would serve no purpose unless you formed a team of people who had the proper skills to operate a full auto efficiently with out wasting ammo. Its been my experience that most people who want a full auto are either Vets or people who have never used one before. Well i have used one and feel that there is nothing better then proper shot placement. why use 100 rounds to do the work of 4 or 5?

 

[UrbanMan]

I wouldn't be converting any of my guns to full auto, or selective fire either. See it as a solution to a non-existent problem to quote Jeff Cooper.

Love to have an old MAG-58 or PKM, but would need lot (and lots) of ammo.

.22 LR is not much use for anything but training newbees and hunting very small game, but saw this video on a .22LR machine gun conversion. Imagine an OMG roaring up your street, intent of looting and shooting, then you begin engaging with several hundred rounds of .22 LR while the bigger bores take well aimed shots. There is a purpose of automatic fire, but usually supportive as it is not well aimed.

The .22 LR link is here.

Saw and shot a 7.62x54 conversion of a M1919A6 machinegun - worked good and ammunition is cheaper and available. Contact [email protected] for the firm that converted it.

cheers,

UrbanMan
http://www.urbansurvivalskills.com

 

[CharlesAFerg]

Hate to dig this one up, but...

Full auto doesn't have a good purpose unless you are in combat and operating in a squad.

For average "Joe American" full auto would be a detriment vs an asset.

...isn't "Joe American" one of the many specialized members which would likely make up a squad in a modern American militia/defensive militia (eg Katrina neighborhood militias)?

Somebody has to have it, and I don't think everybody will have full-auto. It's the individuals that will ultimately become part of a squad. My mother didn't just give birth to a squad. If it were only that easy.

 

[best defense]

Full auto is fine if you are in a battle where one shot may not hit but a bunch fired together may. Also useful for keeping the enemy's collective heads down while your side out flanks them. It has been documented in WW2 that the weapons that did the most damage were machineguns, but the weapons that had the most psycholigical effect were things that made real loud noises and big holes, like cannons. That said, if you want a machinegun, I don't see why you shouldn't get one if you thing it will help. Just be prepared to carry about 5 times as much ammo as anyone else.

I will stick to my semi auto with a scope and snipe as best I can. I figure that snipers will do more to demoralize the opposition that a whole bunch of people with machineguns.

Besides, I'm too old to go out in the field and run around with the younger crowd, machine gun or not.

Now, putting a suppressor in my rifle would be more in my line of thinking.

 

[Oohrah]

Indeed Charles, that's the way of the world of success. Teams!!!! Old Corps was a fireteam. Start was a gunner, Asst. gunner, team Ldr. and a rifleman with three teams to a squad, and a squad leader total of 13. Oohrah, good answer Charles!

Best Defense, spray and pray doesn't do squat except put a big dent in your ammo supply, that would be more effective in well aimed fire. Your scoped suppressed fire is +1. Plenty of time to shoot and move without having the whole neighborhood on alert. Some of them could be the bad guys that you have invited to party with you.