wannasupra
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 109
Would you ccw a pistol capable of burst fire? Fa?
If the hughes amendment was repealed...
- Thread starter wannasupra
- Start date
- Status
No. I am responsible for every projectile that leaves my barrel. Much harder to control that with FA. If you've ever taken a decent defensive pistol training class, you'll know that you can rapidly put shots on target without FA, and that you hit slide lock sooner than you'd expect even with SA. You're not on a battlefield situation where you want suppressive fire.
Burst might be nice to play with at the gun range from time to time so if I had one I would likely be more familiar with the pistol capable of burst so I would probably be carrying it. But not for it's burst capability, simply because I would be more familiar with it.
ekgandj
Member
absolutely not. It is good for war and range but too many liabilities. +1 for Zoom6zoom we are responsible for every round we send down the barrel.
General Geoff
Member
Why not? A select-fire pistol that is otherwise identical to its semiautomatic counterpart has no downsides; it only gives you more options. No need to flip the switch to burst or auto unless you want to.
armoredman
Member
Carry? Not likely. Own for fun and range plinking? Heck yeah!
Prince Yamato
Member
I agree. If legal, I'd totally add one of those switches to the back of my Glock, if only to increase my shooting options. I'd probably keep it on semi by default but I'd want the option of fully auto if I could have it.
What is the purpose of fighting for our right to own full autos if all we are going to do is bring them to the range or use them for "fun"? They serve a legit purpose.
VegasAR15
Member
That is exactly what I would do. I would love to carry a G18, just because it has a full auto capability, doesn't necessarily mean that I will use it.
GoingQuiet
Member
It would vary depending on state law.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Home defense possibly with an SMG or something, but no way I'd carry a firearm like that.
The lawyers would line up around the corner if you ever had to use it and broke so much as an eyelash on a bystander.
There's a reason cops don't carry them.
The lawyers would line up around the corner if you ever had to use it and broke so much as an eyelash on a bystander.
There's a reason cops don't carry them.
10mm Mike
Member
man... that would be sweet.
I have to wipe the drool off of my keyboard now.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Front sight, press, front sight, press ... at all distances greater than a very few feet. You're responsible for every round that leaves your gun.
In the moment of dire need, they'll be leaving fast enough as it is. A good pistol shot can hit split times of well below 0.20 sec between aimed shots. That's more than five rounds a second. Even with my xDM and 19+1 carry, that's less than 4 seconds to an empty mag.
I don't need to go any faster than that. And I REALLY don't need the pistol firing when my sights aren't aligned.
As others have said, there's a reason few (we might as well call it NO) folks who can carry whatever they chose, chose to carry something like a G18. It just isn't as effective (meaning "the most effective hits in the shortest time") as a G17 or other standard autopistol in trained hands.
Would I carry one for self-defense? NO. I want my defensive side arm to be exactly as complex as it MUST be to do the job, and NO more so. I don't want extra parts to fail. I don't want extra switches to be engaged or disengaged, or halfway engaged.
I want a sidearm that is reliable and fires once each time I tell it that I've got the sights on target.
In the moment of dire need, they'll be leaving fast enough as it is. A good pistol shot can hit split times of well below 0.20 sec between aimed shots. That's more than five rounds a second. Even with my xDM and 19+1 carry, that's less than 4 seconds to an empty mag.
I don't need to go any faster than that. And I REALLY don't need the pistol firing when my sights aren't aligned.
As others have said, there's a reason few (we might as well call it NO) folks who can carry whatever they chose, chose to carry something like a G18. It just isn't as effective (meaning "the most effective hits in the shortest time") as a G17 or other standard autopistol in trained hands.
Would I carry one for self-defense? NO. I want my defensive side arm to be exactly as complex as it MUST be to do the job, and NO more so. I don't want extra parts to fail. I don't want extra switches to be engaged or disengaged, or halfway engaged.
I want a sidearm that is reliable and fires once each time I tell it that I've got the sights on target.
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
Like hell it has no downsides! There's a reason that full auto handguns are so rare, even in military organizations, and even among elite units whose personnel can pick what they want: they're virtually uncontrollable, and spray ammo all over the place to no effect. Some are less uncontrollable than others (the Glock 18, from what I've read), but even the least uncontrollable of them takes a lot of training to become proficient with, and there's very little you can do with them that you can't do better with a semi-auto pistol, and nothing you can't do better with a dedicated submachine gun.
Even the most elite special ops personnel, who can carry what they want, and have a the luxury (which you never will) of being able to operate in an environment where they don't have to worry about liability from what stray rounds hit, don't carry them. That really ought to tell you something about how ineffective these weapons are. Full auto pistols simply aren't very practical. The lightweight slide reciprocates so fast, that it leads to a very high rate of fire. Combine that with the light weight, small size, and and limited gripping surface of a handgun, and you have a weapon that is simply always going to be a real challenge to control. There's no way around physics. If you really want full auto, you need a larger weapon.
Sorry, but there's vitually no civilian, self-defense shooting scenario where you'd need that kind of firepower. And you'd increase, by orders of magnitude, your likelihood of a stray round hitting a bystander, as well as your chances of being criminally charged and civilly sued for being reckless.
In a perfect world, we'd be able to own these things and carry them. But it's not a perfect world, and if we don't want our rights taken away, we have a duty to be responsible with our firearms, and I can't see carrying one of these things as responsible.
Last edited by a moderator:
General Geoff
Member
What part of option don't you understand? Select-fire means you can leave it on semi-auto.
mrnkc130
Member
Same can be said of most modern handguns...a poor reason not to use them...
Depends on who is shooting it, one might get that impression watching range rental videos on youtube, but with practice they can be very effective.
Have you ever seen a glock 18c in action? They arent SMG's, nobody said they were. They have thier niche as a PDW. Like others have said, its not an open bolt pistol that mags dumps every time you pull the trigger. its a full size SELECT FIRE pistol. If the need arises that you need a lot of bullets really fast you have the option, otherwise you have a regular pistol.
and we will strive for nothing less...
wannasupra
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 109
I was thinking more along the lines of an M93R.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
How does that change anything? Except for being out of production (apparently no one wanted any, go figure) and even harder to find than a G18.
And, no, I still wouldn't carry one. Especially considering the long barrel and bulky folding front grip. (Oh, and having my bulky, uselessly capable, and absurdly valuable -- even without Hughes -- firearm confiscated as evidense in the event of any self-defense use.)
That would be worse than carrying a 92F.
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
Most modern handguns don't even come close to the liability risk of a full auto pistol. The poor controllability, and risk of stray rounds going off in unintended directions is a bloody damn good reason not to use this kind of pistol.
No, they can't. As I said, there's a reason that almost nobody in the special ops community uses these things, even though they could. If they were very effective, these people would use them. But they don't.
I grant you that if you get lots and lots of practice, you can control them better than a novice would. That still doesn't make them a good weapon. From the Mauser Schnellfeuerpistole, to the Soviet Stetchkin, the the HK VP70, to the modern Glock 18, these pistols all have one thing in common: they are rare, and are all either out of production, or made in very, very small numbers. There's a reason for that.
Yes, I have seen them. I'm also aware that practically no one actually uses them. They were built at the request of an Austrian Einsatzkommando Cobra antiterrorist unit, and even they only ever used them for limited applications. Their standard pistol is the Glock 17. This is not a suitable weapon for civilian concealed carry.
I understand option very well. I also understand that for someone even to seriously contemplate carrying one of these things as a self-defense arm for civilian use reveals such an unrealistic mindset, and such an utter and alarming lack of understanding of the liability issues, that I find it rather troubling.
Prince Yamato
Member
Seriously? 9mm full-autos don't "spray all over". You can control them in bursts. I don't know what all the hullabaloo is with automatic pistols. I think that if not for Hughes, most of us would be carrying select-fire pistols. Moreover, I'm fine with those of you who wouldn't carry one, but I'd like the option to carry a modified Glock.
You're no more liable for defense with an automatic than you are with a semi-automatic. You're only liable for the nature of your shooting (i.e. self-defense) and whether you caused personal injury to others while shooting (i.e. your bullet hit someone it wasn't supposed to). I can think of only one state (Massachusetts) that raises the charges if you commit a crime with a machine gun. Murder is murder however, so I would assume you'd still be facing heavy time if you shot and killed someone unintentionally with a single-shot pistol.
I'm not saying that in a modern court it would be perceived as unusual to use a full-auto in self-defense- it would certainly raise questions- but only because select-fire pistols are not commonly available. If they were, I'm willing to bet that it wouldn't be that big of an issue, provided all your other actions were legal.
essayons21
Member
Putting legal concerns aside, how is a 2 round burst from one sight picture not better than a controlled pair? In any pistol with a high cyclic rate, both round will exit the barrel before any significant muzzle rise.
Full-auto is stupid, and even with a select-fire burst you would get crucified in court if you ever had to use it, but tactically 2-3 round bursts make sense, especially in a small caliber, low recoil, high capacity pistol.
Full-auto is stupid, and even with a select-fire burst you would get crucified in court if you ever had to use it, but tactically 2-3 round bursts make sense, especially in a small caliber, low recoil, high capacity pistol.
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
Yes they do, unless you are very well trained. Most civilian shooters (and most cops and military personnel too, for that matter) don't practice near enough as it is, and that's with semi-auto firearms. A civilian who has to pay for his own ammo (or components, if he reloads -- which most CCW holders don't) isn't going to get nearly enough practice with a full auto weapon that cycles at over 1000 rounds per minute, as most full auto pistols do to become really proficient at controlling it.
They're not practical. Most are not very controllable. They climb off target very quickly. This can only be remedied with a great degree of practice which, as I said, most shooters simply will never get.
Frankly, I wouldn't and truth to tell, I'm not really keen on anyone packing something like that in his holster. I think it's a problem waiting to happen.
Have you ever sat through a trial or seen the results of jury deliberations? Because I do it all the time, and unless you are familiar with the legal system, you have no idea what a crapshoot a civil or criminal trial is. We live in a society that has a court system so asinine that it awarded a woman two million dollars for spilling coffee in her lap. Every time you put yourself in the hands of jury, you are putting you fate in the hands of an almost random selection of strangers who bring all kinds of silly notions and prejudices into the jury room with them, and most of whom get most of their ideas about weapons from movies, television, and the liberal press. If you think for one moment you will not be portrayed as a reckless cowboy or a Rambo wannabe, or if you think a prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney could not sell that image of you to a jury, you are living in a fantasy world. I read in one of Massad Ayoob's articles that a man was found guilty after a shooting because he had disabled the magazine safety on a pistol that wasn't even involved in the shooting incident for which he was in court, but it allowed the opposing attorney to portray him as someone so reckless that he would disable a safety device, and the jury bought it. This may sound ridiculous, and it is, but it happened. Do not make the mistake of thinking logically, and of concluding that because X seems sensible to you, it will appear that way to a jury or a judge. Watch lawyers in action some time. There is no limit to the rhetorical trickery and legal chicanery to which they will stoop to win a trial. They will persuade the jury by whatever means they can, including fallacious arguments, cherry picking facts, playing on emotion, and anything else they can get away with. And because most people think with their emotions far more than they think with their rational minds, this works a distressingly large amount of the time. Never forget this.
What do you think would likely happen to you if you used a full auto weapon? What do you think would happen to you if you used a full auto weapon and even one round hit something you didn't want it to?
See above. You must not have much experience with courts or juries.
Last edited:
Onward Allusion
Member
For CCW??? Er, no way! This is the same reason why I love DAO pistols & various revolvers for SD. No adrenaline charged doubletaps or AD's. I subscribe to the idea that my safety is my trigger finger.
Last edited:
General Geoff
Member
So you're saying the reasonable man standard holds no water anymore? It doesn't matter what the prosecutor slings at the jury; if your defense attorney is competent in the least, he will counter all appeals to emotion and irrelevancies with sound logic.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I think exactly the opposite is suggested. The "reasonable man" standard is going to be applied against you in this case.
Even many "gun guys" with much experience are going to say this is not a particularly "reasonable" choice of defensive arm (certainly if USED in public with the happy switch engaged) and have some serious questions about the validity of the shooter's choices. Whether the shooter is skilled enough to maintain some modicum of control and avoid unduly endangering others, or not, the decision to make such a borderline and risky choice is going to speak to his nature, character, and intents.
Now, we all know juries are deliberately NOT made up of "gun guys" so how much less "reasonable" is this going to appear to those who aren't in-the-know?
Assuming that a defense attorney is going to be able to utterly refute those suggestions with a little courtroom logic is ignoring the fact that this would rightly, indeed, be a highly controversial gun to carry. If it were me sitting on that jury, YES, I'd be taking a very long look at the defendant and trying hard to see him as a rational, believable, sympathetic victim. Trying HARD not to immediately dismiss him as a (insert ninja-operator-fantasy meme here) with a kewl toy and no sense at all.
(Assuming of course, that there was some question as to the events which lead to any of this being submitted as evidence in a trial. That might not be the case.)
Last edited:
- Status
