I love watching FPS Russia and his gun porn, loots of fun. His latest is on the SCAR17 - a machine gun that will do 600 rounds a minute [more or less, since i really have no dog in the show I don’t care. Lots of bullets in a short time with a 30 round magazine.]
So. 30 rounds, in 20 seconds or something stupid like that, m’kay?
You can’t use it to full effect unless you belt feed the damned thing, so why is it better to have that over say my M1? If I have to keep flipping magazines into the damned thing, why freaking bother? My M1 is a perfectly cromulent combat weapon, very sturdy, demonstratably problem free compared to some of the modern stuff - I don’t think I have had a misfire or jam in some 40 years of ownership, and it has been in the family since my Dad got issued with it for WW2.
[I admit I am more of a hand gun person, personally - my going slogging in the woods hunting days are now over, there being a lack of wheelchair friendly woods around for hunting …]
Not much, really. I suppose that by firing an entire magazine so quickly, you might mitigate inaccuracy due to recoil simply because the barrel doesn’t have enough time to move. Or you might make your aim worse because you’re dealing with all that recoil force in only three seconds instead of six or eight.
That strikes me as the sort of thing that hobbyists enjoy simply because it’s mechanically complicated and difficult. It reminds me of people who spend hundreds of thousands on a wristwatch because it’s got a new and elaborate timekeeping mechanism. Some time ago on this site someone in Cafe Society was arguing that more people should like speed metal music because some drummer could play 180 or 240 beats per minute, or something. It’s technically impressive, and if you’re into that sort of thing I’m sure it’s great, but as I’m not really interested, the big number just doesn’t do much for me.
Civillians can get the permits and extra tax stamps for fully automatic weapons, but its really not worth the headaches and the expense unless you REALLY want one
M1 what? Garand or carbine? The former is as/more powerful than the SCAR (see below), the latter less. The former has only 8 rounds, but they’re big and heavy, so militaries have have heading towards intermediate rounds for the past 50 years or so, because you can carry more. So the SCAR mk.17 is similar as ~.308 is roughly equivalen to Garand’s .30-06. The mk. 16 is closer to M16/M4 .223.
Firing speed - Wikipedia says the heavier one uses 20rd magazines. I don’t know how true that is but it will lower the firing rate.
It also says it’s 625 rd/m, whereas the M2/M3 carbine is 850–900, and many other rifles have higher rates. Many WWII weapons were faster, but that’s not necessarily an advantage.
Overall advantage - not much if you’re not trained for it. And modern military guys without belt magazines aren’t told to shoot fully auto.
And being from 2009, it is essentially impossible to get. So even if the zombies come, you aren’t finding a MP7 (2001) in a redneck’s truck, sorry Zombieland. And even if you did, good luck finding the ultra-ultra rare ammo.
M1 Garand. Lovely weapon, wonderful hunting tool. One of my favorite though expensive [for the ammo] target toys, since I don’t hunt any longer, hubby does it takes place of his Mosan-Nagant and he loves it now.
Honestly, if all you are doing is 3 round bursts, what the hell is the point of full auto? I don’t want a bullet hose, I want accuracy IMHO. [less chance of hitting a bystander] Unless you plan on being in combat, which I seriously do NOT want, the M1 i perfectly servicible for hunting though I suppose if we are invaded my ability to snipe with it could come in handy.
The primary point of hand-held full auto has always been suppressive fire in order to permit maneuver. This is of limited value outside of a military context.
A couple of gun shows ago, I was offered a supposedly full auto AK 47 in the parking lot for $450.00 cash no questions asked. With my luck, had I fallen for this, it would have been an ATF sting operation.
By the way, I’ve got an M1 Carbine. Can’t afford to shoot the damn thing, but like my German dog and Italian car, pretty enough to be considered “art”.
Even if it had not been, had you taken the person up on it you would have been in violation of the National Firearms Act, and thus could never, ever let that weapon see the light of day again. Had you fired it and anybody reported you to the police you would be looking at a significant felony.
I would have noted his license plate and reported the incident, myself. If we as gun owners demand that we maintain certain rights we also have the responsibility to report people who violate those rights, because they can only cause damage to them.
I wasn’t even tempted. I do not have a Class III license, and I am not interested in owning an illegal weapon I buy from legitimate dealers, and not just some guy in a parking lot.
I did not see his car, or get a name. I just walked right past him. In retrospect I should have maybe gathered more info and turned him in as you suggest.
There’s plenty of time for recoil to throw off aim in a hand held automatic weapon. Even the second shot will be affected enough to matter at longer range, and for a light weapon and less than highly expert shooter the rounds after first few will be hopelessly off. It’s just noise to perhaps keep an enemy’s head down. You can see that in plenty of footage of combat, in the news from Iraq for example, guns being fire full auto and you can see the muzzles are rising to 10 or 20 degrees. You’d aim that high to hit something miles away: they aren’t aiming and aren’t hitting anything except by chance.
This is why features like 3-shot burst on second generation M16’s were developed, also why some armies gave up on full auto settings for 7.62mm NATO rifles like the M14 or FN FAL and just used semi, thus making their firepower not a lot greater than the M1’s (except 20 round standard box magazines instead of 8 round clips). Also on the Russian AN-94 there’s a special reloading mechanism where the 2nd round, only, is fired before the recoil mechanism of the gun cycles back fully and imparts force to the shooter.
It’s a different story of course if the weapon is heavier (perceived recoil a function of gun recoiling mass for a given type of ammo) and/or more solidly set, in prone position with bipod (like light machine guns), tripod or cradle or pintle mount of some kind.
That’s why I joined the CMP (that and the rifles). Cheaper than most places, but there were a few hoops to jump through to join.
Buying Carbine ammo is a bit like Christmas. You look at the prices and get aghast:eek: at >$1/round. Then I remember that .30 Carbine is one of the few rifle rounds that comes in boxes of 50 not 20, just like pistol calibers. And then it’s a relief after the initial disappointment.
That isn’t actually in the military with an issue weapon, fairly slim unless one is living in a war zone. While I am an excellent shot, I prefer to not be living in a war zone [and should a war break out in eastern Connecticut, you can be quite sure that I would do my level best to sneak the hell out as quickly as possible.]
Since I didn’t remember the exact number of rounds per minute, and didn’t feel arsed to bother looking it up, I guesstimated some number out of my ass for conversational sake. I suppose next time I will bother to look up a data point that is of absolutely no use or interest to me. :rolleyes:
And I still don’t need anything that I need to be changing magazines on every 5 seconds of shooting or so. I guess I am a bad gun nut :o
