The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Question: Fully Automatic Weapons in Self-Defense

BillCA · November 18, 2011, 09:37 AM

Diana

I'm in violent agreement with those who say that a full-auto weapon is not, generally speaking a good choice for self-defense. In terms of self-defense, a "high capacity" semi-automatic is probably a better choice.

The semi-auto with a 20, 30 round or larger magazine will permit the defender the use of controlled and sustained rapid fire. Against two or three antagonists, this is daunting since it prevents them from rushing their target and/or taking effective aim.¹

The full-auto weapon, contrary to Hollywood screen lore, tends to empty a magazine very fast. The M-16 rifle's cyclic rate of fire averages around 800 rounds/min. That means a 20 round magazine runs dry in 1.5 seconds and a 30 round magazine in 2.25 seconds. In untrained hands, it's difficult to keep the muzzle on (or near) the target. Even in trained hands, using manual short-bursts, a magazine is likely to run dry in 5-7 seconds or so in a desperate situation.

Best of all worlds would be to allow civilian ownership of select-fire (full auto) rifles with a 3-round burst trigger as ltc444 mentioned. This allows short bursts of "automatic" fire without wasting ammo or running the magazine dry with minimal effect. The Military found that a 3-round burst was the best compromise between aimed semi-auto fire and "directed" automatic fire.

Military doctrine teaches that full-auto fire is for suppression of enemy fire and engaging attacks of massed soldiers advancing towards you. These occur very rarely (and should!) in civilian life.

Where full-auto weapons are desirable is in the formation, training and use by the legitimate civilian militia². Whether called upon to thwart riot, rebellion, insurrection or even some invasion, having the capability of full-auto fire is useful in dealing with larger numbers.

Within urban and suburban areas, the risk of collateral damage from the use of full-auto fire is much too high. Most building construction in the U.S. offers poor bulletproofing. Especially against .30 caliber and larger weapons. F/A fire in an apartment or condo building seriously increases the risk of injury to innocents.

Current laws prevent sales of new F/A arms to civilians, although ownership remains legal in many states. The laws should be changed at the very least to permit sales of weapons capable of up to 4-round bursts to be sold to civilians and magazine capacity restrictions lifted.³

After it has become apparent that the BATFE aided Mexican drug cartels in the acquisition of weapons, the government has failed to protect the lives of innocents. These cartels have access to black market full-auto weapons and explosives and the boldness to use them. With our government limiting and actively discouraging civilian sales, ownership and use of firearms, it will only be a matter of time before cartels see "armed America" as a myth. Then we will see them terrorizing civilians and police with automatic weapons as they do in Mexico.

¹ Most thugs want to strike fast and get away, calling as little attention to their crimes as possible. Sustained rapid gunfire thwarts both these efforts by drawing out their engagement and increasing the risks of others reporting "shots fired". Few criminals are so motivated that they'll risk severe injury from an armed defender to complete a crime.
² Legitimate civilian militia as opposed to "activist-radical" groups claiming to be a militia. Sadly, Congress and the States ignore their duties to support a legitimate civilian militia.
³ Ideally full-auto should be legal, however it may be easier to convince politicians that a "limited fire" automatic rifle is viable in civilian hands.
 Fortunately Texas and Arizona with their well armed populations stand as a major obstacle. California may be "ripe" for their first test.

November 18, 2011, 09:37 AM	#13
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	Diana I'm in violent agreement with those who say that a full-auto weapon is not, generally speaking a good choice for self-defense. In terms of self-defense, a "high capacity" semi-automatic is probably a better choice. The semi-auto with a 20, 30 round or larger magazine will permit the defender the use of controlled and sustained rapid fire. Against two or three antagonists, this is daunting since it prevents them from rushing their target and/or taking effective aim.¹ The full-auto weapon, contrary to Hollywood screen lore, tends to empty a magazine very fast. The M-16 rifle's cyclic rate of fire averages around 800 rounds/min. That means a 20 round magazine runs dry in 1.5 seconds and a 30 round magazine in 2.25 seconds. In untrained hands, it's difficult to keep the muzzle on (or near) the target. Even in trained hands, using manual short-bursts, a magazine is likely to run dry in 5-7 seconds or so in a desperate situation. Best of all worlds would be to allow civilian ownership of select-fire (full auto) rifles with a 3-round burst trigger as ltc444 mentioned. This allows short bursts of "automatic" fire without wasting ammo or running the magazine dry with minimal effect. The Military found that a 3-round burst was the best compromise between aimed semi-auto fire and "directed" automatic fire. Military doctrine teaches that full-auto fire is for suppression of enemy fire and engaging attacks of massed soldiers advancing towards you. These occur very rarely (and should!) in civilian life. Where full-auto weapons are desirable is in the formation, training and use by the legitimate civilian militia². Whether called upon to thwart riot, rebellion, insurrection or even some invasion, having the capability of full-auto fire is useful in dealing with larger numbers. Within urban and suburban areas, the risk of collateral damage from the use of full-auto fire is much too high. Most building construction in the U.S. offers poor bulletproofing. Especially against .30 caliber and larger weapons. F/A fire in an apartment or condo building seriously increases the risk of injury to innocents. Current laws prevent sales of new F/A arms to civilians, although ownership remains legal in many states. The laws should be changed at the very least to permit sales of weapons capable of up to 4-round bursts to be sold to civilians and magazine capacity restrictions lifted.³ After it has become apparent that the BATFE aided Mexican drug cartels in the acquisition of weapons, the government has failed to protect the lives of innocents. These cartels have access to black market full-auto weapons and explosives and the boldness to use them. With our government limiting and actively discouraging civilian sales, ownership and use of firearms, it will only be a matter of time before cartels see "armed America" as a myth. Then we will see them terrorizing civilians and police with automatic weapons as they do in Mexico. ¹ Most thugs want to strike fast and get away, calling as little attention to their crimes as possible. Sustained rapid gunfire thwarts both these efforts by drawing out their engagement and increasing the risks of others reporting "shots fired". Few criminals are so motivated that they'll risk severe injury from an armed defender to complete a crime. ² Legitimate civilian militia as opposed to "activist-radical" groups claiming to be a militia. Sadly, Congress and the States ignore their duties to support a legitimate civilian militia. ³ Ideally full-auto should be legal, however it may be easier to convince politicians that a "limited fire" automatic rifle is viable in civilian hands.  Fortunately Texas and Arizona with their well armed populations stand as a major obstacle. California may be "ripe" for their first test. __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)