Would you be interested in fully automatic if the price was the same?

[ATM]

Of course. There's simply no down side to having another fire selection option when you feel like using it.

 

[.452browning]

I'm late to the party, but is this a serious question? Absolutely I would want a select fire weapon over semi-auto. 2-3 shot burst is a plus.

 

[jd4320t]

Wow...surprised to see some answered no.

 

[MTC]

Without question and if we had something like my Federal Collector's License it would come to pass.

Just had to get in that plug now, didn't ya?

SMGs would be far more popular than [STRIKE]18K[/strike] M240Bs.

Strike 'cause with the elimination of 18 USC 922(o) they would no longer be whatever astronomical sum they are now. (Yes, I know it wasn't listed as a precondition in the OP.) As for which platform would be more popular ... that would be something to see.

I would think those with transferrable FA guns wouldn't want the ban lift as the $100,000 They spent on $10,000 worth of old 1980s guns would be worthless instead of steadily increasing in value.

Seen this type of post before, by people supposing to know what others' motivations are, without knowing what they're talking about. This needs put to rest.
First of all, they didn't necessarily spend 100k, and though their collections may have appreciated in value to somewhere close or even beyond that, most are very much interested in the RKBA, and would jump at the chance to own more at close to the actual cost of manufacture.

Should not speak for anyone else, but I don't care if the appreciated value of whatever I own is wiped out, especially if it means once and for all crushing the communist conspiracy to take away our right to keep and bear arms. That means a right: you don't need permission -- from anyone, for anything. And that means arms: at the very least, all infantry small arms.

Of course. There's simply no down side to having another fire selection option when you feel like using it.

Yes, O Great One. <gong sound>

 

[Ruffnek]

I'm honestly shocked that there were any "no" answers on this one,at least I know who to call when they give them to the citizens en masse.

 

[churchmouse]

It was, for a short time, then it got old. Wasn't as rewarding as getting good groups. Just my .

Never fired an M4 but played with XM177 and M16A1. The former was more fun to shoot.

I agree. But as with anything that is insanely fun to run.....everything in moderation.
I am referring to a time that ammo (.223) was $200 a thousand rds. of military ball.
So many these days are on a much tighter budget with the economic situation that even owning a .45 ACP is beyond reach. .22 and 9 mm for the lower expense to operate.

 

[Robjps]

People seem very confused there is no drawback. You don't have to fire it in full auto unless you wish to. Its simply another option.

 

[A10WEAPONSGUY]

is a full auto more accurate...nope
is a full auto more fun...ohhh yeah! sign me up for two whenever the prices level off!

 

[Faine]

I'm thinking about how instead of hearing about ND's in the news we'd get to hear about NDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD's in the news. All the same I can't see a down side to it, natural selection will ensure the safety of us all. Right?

 

[TheEngineer]

Uh...yeah!!

 

[BigWagon]

I would love to have a full auto 22

 

[BehindBlueI's]

No. Even with abundant, affordable ammo. Why does one want less accuracy?

Think of firing from a retention position. You are giving up accuracy, so why do you ever want to do it?

Think of point shooting. You are giving up accuracy, so why do you ever want to do it?

Fully auto vs a single shot is like many other decisions, it depends on range, weapon, training level, circumstances, etc. Sometimes group size isn't what matters most at that particular moment.

 

[rvb]

not in all cases... for an AR for competition use, probably not (though in that case, I could just simply not use the extra hole in the receiver!). For a glock for concealed carry, no. For a fun gun to have or a SHTF rifle, you betcha.

-rvb

 

[Gabriel]

No.

I had an MP5 issued to me for a while and it didn't really do anything for me. It had the Navy trigger, though, and I liked the three round burst.

Mostly full auto just resulted in wasting ammunition and I only used it once or twice.

 

[Tanfodude]

Think of firing from a retention position. You are giving up accuracy, so why do you ever want to do it?

Think of point shooting. You are giving up accuracy, so why do you ever want to do it?

Fully auto vs a single shot is like many other decisions, it depends on range, weapon, training level, circumstances, etc. Sometimes group size isn't what matters most at that particular moment.

That's where 3 round burst comes in, more control, less spread. I might prefer that also for cover fire. You're right, it all depends on the things that you mentioned.

 

[eldirector]

Well, of course! The only thing keeping me from owning a full-auto is availability and cost. The tax stamp and government-induced high prices are the only impediments.

I'd love to have a selector for pew..... pew, pew, pew,...... lotsa pew, and no pew.

Certainly beats the "pew - no pew" switch I have now.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Hmmm... Gonna have to get back to you. Tough question.

 

[kiddchaos]

What's the next poll? Car or Tank, Cessna or Jetfighter?

 

[Killion]

I would definitely take an F-22 for the price of a Cessna 172. Thank you

 

[walleyepw]

We should be able to own selective fire, fully auto, suppressors and such as was given us the right in the 2nd amendment. But sadly we have let laws come into being and take away our rights granted by the constitution.
Would I like to have a selective fire weapon, YES. I do not believe that we should have to register them or buy a tax stamp, NO. Do I need one, no not currently but I should not have to have Government intervention concerning them.
Given the current prices of ammo, I wouldn't run through multiple magazines.