Toadfish Monastery

In most real world situations the difference between a good semi-automatic and a fully automatic is small to nonexistent. I'd even think one would have a higher hit rate with the former. We are talking about shots per second in both cases. And even in the military many armies have completely disabled the rock-n-roll option and limit their infantry soldiers to semi-automatic and 3-round burst. Few amok runners use (or would chose) LMGs to lay suppressive fire.

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on September 06, 2012, 11:25:35 PM
The thing is that getting a semi-auto is relatively easy and converting it to fully auto is quite easy.

Really?  I've no idea one way or another, but I was told getting the conversion parts was difficult--and apt to get you a visit from the ATF.  

Not that I wanted to, mind-- I had an opportunity to shoot a 40cal carbine (semi-auto) as if it was a full-auto gun-- that is, pull the trigger as fast as you can, basically simulating a full-auto.

I did not enjoy the experience commiserate with the expense and the tedious time it took to load the magazine.... not to mention, policing up all the spent casings afterward.  And that was only about 50 rounds or so.

I cannot imagine the hassle of dealing with a full-auto machine on a routine basis, unless I was filthy rich enough to have a flunky do the scut-work.

Even in First Person shooting-style video games?  I tend to avoid the full-auto type of weapons in favor of the slow-fire-but-more-effective types....

...

I suppose that's just me, over-thinking it again.

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on September 06, 2012, 11:25:35 PM
As with lasers, the overwhelming majority of users aren't out there causing mayhem with them, but it only takes one pointing at a plane, or worse, to the public of a completely full movie theater.

Yes, lasers are more Geeky than guns, and most of the idiots who like to pretend that having a gun makes them somehow... "cool" or "powerful", don't see lasers as having the same effect.

Which, when I think about that, is a fantastically good thing.



The potential for mayhem with a modestly powerful laser is many times higher than the most powerful automatic gun (than can be carried by hand, of course).

I won't mention here, some of the ideas I've seen/read about, that a modestly dangerous laser could do at a great distance... (for the sake of sanity if nothing else).

But what the majority of people do not realize, that to get a laser to shine visibly in the air?  Requires a great deal of forethought beforehand:  you must fill up the air with dust and/or moisture-particles, or that beam is 100% invisible.

In short, there would be zero way of detecting where the beam came from, if it were a 1/2 mile away (for example), and shone into a crowded-something (outdoors).

Makes me wonder how many political assassinations have been committed using one of these things, but the event was put down to something else... due to them not being able to realize the real cause:  an infra-red laser beam from a mile away...

... meh.

As I said, it's a good thing the laser is seen as a Geeky toy by the majority of Machismo-types.



_________________________

Edit:

Quote from: Swatopluk on September 06, 2012, 11:54:29 PM
In most real world situations the difference between a good semi-automatic and a fully automatic is small to nonexistent. I'd even think one would have a higher hit rate with the former. We are talking about shots per second in both cases. And even in the military many armies have completely disabled the rock-n-roll option and limit their infantry soldiers to semi-automatic and 3-round burst. Few amok runners use (or would chose) LMGs to lay suppressive fire.

Very astute observation.

To complement Swato's point, it is terribly impractical for a soldier to be hauling large amounts of ammo. The rambo types only happen in movies because no rational spec-ops would do so, nor would they keep their jobs (or heads) for a long time.

OTOH gangs, thugs, warlords, and otherwise criminals, do like automatics not for sound military reasons, but for intimidation, be it submachine guns to full size assault weapons.

It's almost impossible to keep a handheld weapon on full auto on target. The first three shots may hit, the rest tend to go into the ceiling or the blue sky.
That's the reason behind the three round burst. Multiple hits are usually the result of extremly close range (where one could use the weapon as a club as well).
The infamous Tommy gun had to be fitted with an upward vent in later models because the rise of the muzzle was so extreme that mafia hit jobs even at close range failed. I have read that the Ingram Mac-10 (at times very popular because easily to hide) is practically useless without stock and silencer (the latter only for its weight that helps reducing the muzzle rise).

Quote from: Swatopluk on September 08, 2012, 05:27:39 PM
It's almost impossible to keep a handheld weapon on full auto on target. The first three shots may hit, the rest tend to go into the ceiling or the blue sky.
That's the reason behind the three round burst. Multiple hits are usually the result of extremly close range (where one could use the weapon as a club as well).
The infamous Tommy gun had to be fitted with an upward vent in later models because the rise of the muzzle was so extreme that mafia hit jobs even at close range failed. I have read that the Ingram Mac-10 (at times very popular because easily to hide) is practically useless without stock and silencer (the latter only for its weight that helps reducing the muzzle rise).

And?  The silencer is too often used as a grip by the off-hand, and being farther from the pivot-point (the other hand) provides more leverage than holding the gun itself, allowing a more effective attempt at keeping it muzzle-level.   Of course, by the 2nd or 3rd clip, it'll become hot enough to burn the idiot-user foolish enough to hold it... but no professional soldier would take it that far anyhow, unless he/she was only firing for effect (see next).

But as pointed out, full-auto is pretty useless at killing someone, but has been proven to be quite effective as a psychological weapon-- the sound of full-auto can (and does) strike fear in humans who know what it means.

The German MG-42 was especially effective in demoralizing allied soldiers through its distinctive sound (like a buzz saw, which may be the reason that the thing came to be known as the Hitler-Saw). If reports are true more than once a single German soldier was able to significantly delay an allied infantry attack by simply letting the voice of his MG be heard. The Americans put effort and money into countering this effect including producing training fillms (possibly rigged) that allegedly showed that the thing was not better than or even inferior to US machine guns. The fact that the US tried to copy it (with moderate success) and that Germany still uses it in only slightly modified form* seems to belie that. Highly effective if used properly but an unbelievable waster of ammo. I wonder, if somebody at the time came up with the idea to use tape recordings instead of the real thing (recorded rattling of tanks was used successfully on several occasions).

*The MG-42 as used in the field was decelerated  to 1200 rds/min from the 1800 of the original model (still the barrel has to be changed after 250 shots of rapid fire). The modified post-war model reduced the cadence even further.

When you say 250 shots of rapid fire, do you mean bullets or bursts of firing, and if the latter, exactly how many bullets/how long do you need to qualify as a shot? Big difference there.

In essence, if you keep the trigger pulled and the MG fires without interruption, the barrel should be replaced after 250 shots. I know there were rules for slower fire but I have no numbers available. The barrels were not necessarily 'shot out' but in acute danger of bursting or melting. One risk the MG-42 did not have but other MGs had was overheating of the breech leading to selfignition of ammo (result: continued fire even after releasing the trigger or explosion whith breech open). Every German MG came with asbestos mittens and the barrel of the MG-42 could be replaced in a few seconds using them (other MGs often had to cool completely down before the exchange could be done). Curious detail: In WW1 hidden MG positions were often detected through the clouds of steam hovering above them (those MGs were water cooled and the coolant quickly boiled under heavy use).

So 250 single shots in rapid fire mode. Gotcha. I'd heard of the water-cooled guns. Urine was also used.

Modern versions can tolerate a bit more due to better metallurgy (and it takes a bit longer due to reduced cadence). But if it comes to that you have done something wrong anyway (or the situation is hopeless  )

With the possible strength and heat resistance of modern steel used in aircraft turbines, I would imagine that a modern machine gun could take a fair bit of a beating before giving up, although I suppose it may make a weapon far too expensive to make if it were using that form of steel, not to mention far heavier.

The US used stellite coating inside the barrels of the M60. Allegedly that kept the barrel from bursting even when white hot. But then the barrel strength got reduced to save weight and the advantage was essentially lost.

More and more heavy duty pieces on automatic weapons are made of titanium, reducing weight and improving durability, plus the cost of Ti has been coming down, although still only used in top of the line models employed by special forces.

Titanium has a low but non-zero probability to ignite and burn away

Quote from: Swatopluk on September 11, 2012, 09:14:49 AM
Titanium has a low but non-zero probability to ignite and burn away

TG some topic drift. It was beginning to feel like LibraLabrat was back !