PDA

View Full Version : How much are SMG's


Chattownusa
October 12, 2009, 09:07 PM
im pretty new to all the buying selling trading how much are UMP 45's or MP5K's is it worth it

GLP Standard
October 12, 2009, 09:09 PM
First off, you'll never own an H&K UMP45 because they didnt come out until 1999 (according to wikipedia). The way the laws are now, if a full auto firearm was manufactured after May 19, 1986, it can never legally be owned by a civilian (unless you're a Class III dealer).

An H&K MP5 is a different story. They came out in 1966, so as long as it was manufactured AND registered with the BATFE on or before that date, you can own one. But itll cost you about $20,000.

Worth it? That's up to you and how deep your pockets are

Chattownusa
October 12, 2009, 09:15 PM
are clones pretty good nothing full auto i personnally think fully auto is stupid on any kind full assult rifle or smg

I guess I will restate this different. I see the use of full auto on assult rifles and SMG's. I would probly own one like that if I had a chance, but in a real combat situation full auto should be support weapons. I have been a gunner and a dismount in firefights and I have co trained with many countrys. just cause your weapon can fire auto doesnt mean you train for it. burst and single fire is still the perfered firing method.

David Hineline
October 13, 2009, 12:22 AM
Yes full auto is totally stupid, that is why every military unit in the world and every elite police dept. in the world uses them.

jmorris
October 13, 2009, 09:40 AM
are clones pretty good nothing full auto i personnally think fully auto is stupid on any kind full assult rifle or smg

Not to mention a full auto SMG isn’t even an oxymoron. Maybe you should check out the Clone NFA Guns and Gear forum.:rolleyes:

Skans
October 13, 2009, 10:42 AM
i personnally think fully auto is stupid on any kind full assult rifle or smg

That's right - Tommy guns and Sten guns were useless in WWII, and the AK47was useless in Viet Nam. The infantry should only carry full-auto FAL's and M14's. Riiiiiiiiiight, that makes loads of sense!

Chattownusa
October 13, 2009, 11:05 AM
Its called fire control. full auto is people that cant hit what they want the first round. I believe highly in uses of full auto for support weapons. every military in the world has full auto weapons but not every joe in their army does burst and single. as for police dept no first hand experience there, but friends i have and family in swat teams they have full auto smg's but dont train to use them like that.

Willie Lowman
October 13, 2009, 12:31 PM
This conversation is not going to go anywhere.

You don't walk into a full auto discussion and say "Full auto is stupid" and expect anyone to be friendly and helpful do you?

If you want to talk about semi auto military rifles go to the "Art of the Rifle" forum.

AF_TT
October 13, 2009, 03:40 PM
Try assaulting through a ambush with a semi. Really though you should ask the SWAT family members to get you on the range with them so you can decide how you like it. Tell us how it goes.

JerseyDrez
October 13, 2009, 04:02 PM
Haha own3d.

SigP6Carry
October 13, 2009, 06:44 PM
IMO, full auto is stupid, too. Not because it's impractical, but because I don't have the money to by a tax stamp, gun and thousands of rounds to have fun with. There for, it's stupid. It's stupid because it's something I can't do. And anyone who does it is stupid, because I can't do it.

The Canuck
October 13, 2009, 07:00 PM
Full auto is not stupid. It has its proper application and outside that is a waste of ammo and a sure way to attract some full auto fire yourself!

Ridge_Runner_5
October 13, 2009, 11:32 PM
And anyone who does it is stupid, because I can't do it.

Just go back to your juice box, mmkay?

SigP6Carry
October 14, 2009, 12:49 AM
sarcasm is a bit lost on this, aye?

Firepower!
October 15, 2009, 03:49 PM
So in nutshell, you cannot own any auto weapon made after 1986? That is stupid!

Anyway, how hard is it for a citizen to become a class III dealer so he can have fun weapons?

Stupid or not, I really enjoy my Kirinkov and Kalashnikov on full auto....

Chipperman
October 15, 2009, 04:09 PM
You can't become a dealer just to play with toys. You need to have a legitimate business interest.

Willie Lowman
October 15, 2009, 04:43 PM
So in nutshell, you cannot own any auto weapon made after 1986? That is stupid!That's right, Firepower.

Where you must pay $5,000 for a Glock in Pakistan, we must pay $18,000 for a Krinkov.

Skans
October 16, 2009, 08:15 AM
So in nutshell, you cannot own any auto weapon made after 1986? That is stupid!

No, it's diabolical and ingenious. The government knows that some day there will be no more machine guns, or too expensive for anyone to shoot. Also, by forcing people who like machine guns to shoot old, beat up full-auto weapons is like handing them a grenade that will eventually go off and destroy the machine-gun loving owner.

It may take 50 or 300 years. Would you do mag dumps in a 150 year old Ruger AC556?

T. O'Heir
October 17, 2009, 02:17 AM
"...how much are..." 15 to 20 grand for an MP5.
"...is it worth it?..." Live in a State that allows Class 3? Got the money to feed an SMG? They're great fun to shoot, but not cheap to shoot.

Skans
October 17, 2009, 12:27 PM
"Are they worth it"

From a practical standpoint, no. Machineguns are not worth it. A machine gun will do you no good whatsoever for self defense, defense of a dwelling, or just about any scenario I could imagine, short of a civil war. Hunting with a machine gun isn't permitted, but even if it was, that would be absurd.

And, what the heck are you going to do with a registered machine gun if you ever find yourself in a position of having to do battle in a civil war, or against a tyrant that has taken over your country? In a true SHTF scenario, no one is going to give a crap if you happen to have a Form 4 with a pretty looking stamp and your picture pasted to it. If you use it to fight your own country, waiving around a Form 4 isn't going to keep you from getting shot or imprisoned if you aren't successful.

From an investing standpoint, machineguns are worth it based on historical prices. Unless there's another amnesty (which I don't see happening), supply can only get smaller and with population increasing, demand will get larger. Super rich people might pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to be the only "cool" kid in their exclusive neighborhood who has a machine gun. Who knows, Uber-rich folks have paid millions of dollars for ugly paintings. Machine guns are prettier, cooler, more "adventuresome", funner and more impressive than an ugly painting.

From a "fun" standpoint, machineguns are not worth it unless you have so much money you don't know what to do with it. I paid $2,400 for my AC556 when I bought it - I would never pay $6,000+ for one today, and I sure as heck wouldn't pay $13,000+ for an M16!! They just ain't THAT much fun to shoot. For $15,000 I could get a V8 motorcycle with unlimited acceleration and power at the twist of a throtle.....now THAT'S what I call 15K worth of fun!!!!

KC9LDB
October 17, 2009, 02:34 PM
http://www.autoweapons.com/home.html
lotta info/for sale stuff, I screw around on there all them time.

Neruda
October 17, 2009, 05:48 PM
As a matter of curiosity, what is an approx. new price - as paid by the army or athorized agencies etc.?
I'm guessing 20K has a lot to do with supply v demand among civillian collectors.

TEDDY
October 17, 2009, 06:47 PM
I believe a ma duce is $10,000.

gyvel
October 17, 2009, 06:55 PM
And, what the heck are you going to do with a registered machine gun if you ever find yourself in a position of having to do battle in a civil war, or against a tyrant that has taken over your country? In a true SHTF scenario, no one is going to give a crap if you happen to have a Form 4 with a pretty looking stamp and your picture pasted to it. If you use it to fight your own country, waiving around a Form 4 isn't going to keep you from getting shot or imprisoned if you aren't successful.


In a SHTF situation, it's not going to matter if your "machine gun" is registered or not. That really wasn't the best example.

Skans
October 19, 2009, 07:53 AM
In a SHTF situation, it's not going to matter if your "machine gun" is registered or not. That really wasn't the best example.

Exactly. You've got to think - what makes buying a registered machine gun "worth it". And, my conclusion is that it's not really "worth it" to buy a registered machine gun, except possibly for collectibility or investment. And, I don't think they make really great investments at this price point either.

The bottom line is that I wouldn't buy a machine gun at the prices they are currently at. Glad I got mine 8 years ago.

Willie Lowman
October 19, 2009, 10:50 AM
The only reason to pay current prices is because you really like shooting full auto.

If you don't, then don't.

GeorgeF
October 22, 2009, 02:11 PM
Bingo - almost nothing is worth it from a 'practical standpoint'. We would all have smaller homes with fewer rooms, smaller cars and less selection of clothing. Who needs all those frills - its just not pratical.

If you are in a wealthy profesion, or someone who appreciates firearms and their mechanisms, or some history buff and you have disposable income - perfectly reasonable. Go forth and have fun. is it practical for me to have more guns than I can carry? No - who cares?

I need to be impractical and get an Uzi, a M16 and a MAC-10. And all of the various parts to make them fire different calibers, extra mags and spare parts. Viva impracticality!