Tired of Bump Stock threads; but have some rate of fire question

[BAM-BAM]

I'm a frugal man of Scottish descent......... OK I'm cheap!!! So un/semi aimed mag dumps are not my thing.......might have done one or two over the past 10 years ..... but only with my 15-22........ and that was done more as a " wonder if it will it jam" test......my teenage boys have done a few

The only uses I can think of for full auto is suppressive fire; to break an ambush or stop a Bonzai charge.... none of which has come up in 40 years in this "Burb of the Burgh".

In fact the times I had the opportunity to fire a full auto AR or sub-machine gun .... the drill was; short 3-5/6 round aimed/controled bursts........ not magazine dumps...........

In fact the Army deleted the Full auto option on the M-16A1 in the 1980s (?) in favor of a three round burst...........................

With a rate of fire of +600 RPM a 210 round combat load (7 magazines) would sustain about 20-30 seconds of automatic fire.......................

How fast can you fire a 30 round mag out of a semi-auto AR-15......how many magazines could you empty in a minute.....(sitting here I'm having a hard time thinking about firing through a 60 or 100 round magazine in sustained rapid semi-auto fire)...................

and how many magazines do you think you could fire semi-auto before you trigger finger gave out??


All that said..... overheating would still be an issue.
According to Wikipedia (so it must be true):
1. The German MG had a theoretical rate of fire of 900- 1200 rpm but and effective rate of about 150rpm.
2. Semi-auto aimed rifle fire is about 40RPM.
3. For the M-4 it quotes an "Army Study Guide" that lists the sustained rate of fire for an M4 at 12-15RPM.

This isn't about having a dozen ARs with 'Bump stocks" to burn through; but I'm guessing unless you have a true machine gun w/ multiple barrels.... the effective sustained rate of fire from a full- auto and a semi-auto rifle may be about the same over 10-15 minute time window.

Thoughts..................................

 

[TomkinsSP]

Since I can pull a trigger much faster than I can acquire targets my Rate of Sustained AIMED Fire would be exactly the same.
In the civilian or law enforcement world I consider (semi ??) unaimed fire to be irresponsible. (And if you do it at the range it is just an expensive hobby which prepares you for nothing. Which I am NOT saying you shouldn't, just I wouldn't.)

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Years ago I was given the opportunity to shoot a full auto mac 10 or something in .45. I pulled the trigger, he gun went Braapppp and jammed (or so I thought). Turns out it was out of ammo Had dumped a 50 round magazine of flying ashtray super defense .45's the guy who handed me the gun was not pleased.
Got no use for full auto-I think people who try to make a semi into a full by using contraptions of any type got more time than money on their hands. I CAN'T afford to shoot full auto. DO I think they ought to ban bump stocks? The libertarian in me says NO. Will it affect me in ANY way if they ban them? No.
Problem will be the wording of the statute as I can forsee banning anything that facilitates faster trigger pull is gonna cover a LOT of unintended things like trigger tuning, etc. These people would positively **** if they saw Jetty Miculek unload an 8 shot S&W as that is as close to full auto as the real thing.
If I could have a prohibited gun, it would be the 3 shot burst Mini 14 that Ruger made years ago. (I like Mini 14's better than AR's ).
BUt quite frankln,unless I win the lottery, I can't afford to shoot full auto-nor can I afford to practice enough to get to Jerry Miculek speeds.

In before thread lock

 

[Keith Brown]

Thoughts......yes...you started another one.

 

[TXSWFAN]

I don't understand why some folks care how fast other people shoot their own ammo. They paid for it, they can discharge it at any rate they see fit. Why do you care?

Why eat Prime beef instead of Spam? After all, you're just building a dookie.

 

[BAM-BAM]

I don't understand why some folks care how fast other people shoot their own ammo. They paid for it, they can discharge it at any rate they see fit. Why do you care?

I don't care how fast folks can shoot up their ammo....

All the posts/ threads and news over the past week raised a question; I didn't have an answer too.......................

I'm just trying to learn and understand what is the "effective sustained rate of fire" from a semi-auto AR ..........................

 

[richardw]

My post is not making a judgement on anyone’s dedire to or act of shooting automatic. If you enjoy it and do it safely, go for it.

The OP’s analysis of the value of automatic fire is generally right on. Recall that auto fire began with th Gatling gun in the Civil War and thereafter. The Machine gun followed in WWI. After that it was all refinements and improving cyclic rate of fire and durability. The value of automatic fire is as the OP cited. It is good for defense against advancing troops in the open field and some other situations. The main offensive use is to lay down suppressing cover fire so others can maneuver from location to location. In the former use the intent is to kill the enemy. In the latter the purpose is to protect others from direct fire.

PersonLly I have no desire to fire an auto anything. I had that experience in Recon for 2years when I carried the M2A1. It was great for clearing rush ans spraying the enemy. As for accuracy, your target best be within ten yards.

However, that is neither here or there. If fast bang band is a joy to you, then go for it.

 

[jlrhiner]

In most cases, full auto fire just increases your misses per minute.

 

[Wyo]

I've used and fired lots of full auto weapons both magazine and belt fed. They're great fun, but that's about it. And I don't own any. Every bullet I've ever fired from an automatic weapon was on someone else's dime. Having said all that, the best example of the effectiveness of full auto fire in a civilian context that I can think of was the North Hollywood bank robbery some years back. You'll recall the bad guys fired something like 4000 rounds at a horde of police officers and even a couple of helicopters. If I recall correctly, there were a total of eight wounded officers and civilians. The only people who got dead were the two guys with the fully automatic weapons. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Rule3]

This should put an end to the topic of "rate of fire"

The Dillon Mini Gun:
M134D gatling machine gun



[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLEGE7k9FD4[/ame]

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

I went through all the expense and trouble to own a full auto MAC-10 in 9mm. I owned it close to 30 years. When I hadn't shot it in 15-20 years, I sold it to the dealer I bought it from. 32 round stick magazines, Cycle rate of 450 to 600 RPM depending on bullet weight! 1 1/2 to 2 seconds to dump a mag. I liked 124 grain, it had a 450+/- cycle rate, I could do 3 shot bursts without jamming. With 115's anything less than 5 rounds created a jam!

In the Revolutionary War a 3 shot burst took a guy almost 50 seconds! In WWI it took about 8 seconds, and WWII with either type of M-1 about 2.5 seconds. I see use of full auto rifles around the world, stick in a loaded mag and charge the first round , raise over your head or extend around the corner and pull the trigger, empting that mag, hit nothing but someone's grandma!

Ivan

 

[richardw]

Ivan the Butcher. You hit the proverbial nail on the head.

 

[amazingflapjack]

Rul3's illustration tells us why there is auto fire-especially when mounted on aircraft or vehicles. And by the way-we had range NCO's that could write their initials with the putrid m-16 on full auto.

 

[cmore]

In most cases, full auto fire just increases your misses per minute.

Yes...but it is fun once in a while.

 

[cmort666]

A bump fire stock is useless... TO ME.

There are LOTS of things of absolutely no use to me, from cable sports channels to religious texts.

You never have and never will see me call for them to be banned.

A lot of people seem to wake up in the morning wondering how they can forcibly control somebody else's life. I'm not one of them.

If I had enough money for full auto, I'd buy an actual machine gun (preferably a Madsen LMG), not a lame imitation. But again, I don't let people dictate how I spend my money nor do I wish to similarly impose my will on others.

 

[JayFramer]

With the big 7.62x51mm battles rifles, full-auto is a waste. Too much recoil and limited magazine capacity and less rounds you can carry to begin with over 5.56mm.

 

[susieqz]

i get it full auto, boring pretty quick.
but a 3 shot burst sounds totally neat.
can that be accurate?
also, how does it compare, as the OP asked?

 

[BB57]

Rates of fire by troops in the field and the impact on logistics has a been a concern with generals for well over a hundred years. There were concerns of that nature when they started converting rifled muskets to use metallic cartridges, and there were concerns again when they started fielding bolt action repeating rifles. For example the M1903 has a magazine disconnect. It's there because the tactical doctrine required the rifle to be employed as a single fed single shot rifle, with the disconnect activated, keeping the 5 rounds in the internal box magazine in reserve for last ditch defensive efforts where the higher rate of fire was necessary.

The British SMLE, with it's larger capacity detachable box magazine and much smoother cock on closing action had a much higher effective rate of fire than the M1903, and in WWII didn't give up all that much to the semi-auto rifles that started to see use.

And the adoption of a semi-auto rifle was something that was debated for decades before it actually happened, due to concerns that it would just result in "wasted" ammunition.

The use of machine guns at the platoon and squad level however was very much a post WWI development. US Army tactical doctrine just prior to and during WWII was for the BAR gunners and machine gunners to pin the enemy in place, and suppress fire to allow our troops to maneuver, while the troops shooting the semi auto Garands actually did the work of breaking the enemy down.

Tactical doctrine really hasn't changed much since WWII - select fire capability has been added to increase a squads ability to suppress enemy fire, and the intermediate cartridges have been adopted to make this practical (from both a shooter and logistics standpoint), but the doctrine uses of full auto fire remain basically the same.

There's some support for the "wasted ammunition" concern when you consider an average of 50,000 rounds were fired for each confirmed kill in Vietnam. On the other hand, it's a lot harder to estimate how many US casualties were prevented due to the suppressive effects of all that "wasted" ammunition. I suspect had we still been using semi-auto only M14s we'd have had a lot more US casualties by the time it was all said and done.

----

When the concern was for sustained fire over along period of time, I was trained to fire six round bursts with the M60 since shorter bursts were more likely to cause a malfunction, and longer burst meant excessive ammo use and more frequent barrel changes. Similarly, short 3 round bursts were considered ideal for the M16A1, and a if the grunt were skilled, he could produce very consistent short bursts. In fact, more consistently than with an A2 where prematurely stopping a 3 round burst means the next burst may be only 1 or 2 rounds, given how the three shot burst function works. The 3 round burst "feature" of the A2 was essentially a mechanical solution for a training/skills/fire discipline deficiency. It was also a change that impaired the ability to put out maximum rates of fire in a "final protective fire" situation.

----

I don't think bump fire stocks should have been approved in the first place given that they simulate full auto fire to the point that the semi-auto versus full-auto becomes a distinction without a difference, and that threatens the status of semi-auto rifles in general.

Banning bump fire stocks however will make no difference.

As it stands a shooter can pull a fat rubber band out of a desk drawer, place it behind the trigger and around the mag well on any of my AR-15s and then use the rubber band to positively reset the trigger against his or her pressed finger and create the same full auto effect as a bump fire stock. All it costs is a rubber band, and all a mass shooter has to do is put the rubber band back in the desk before the police kicked in the door to avoid an added on weapons charge. It's really hard to ban rubber bands, but it's a lot easier to ban semi-auto rifles.

That's the can of worms the bump fire stocks have now not only opened but kicked over. We'll be extremely lucky if bump stocks are all that are banned.

 

[e3mrk]

To Me anything that makes My Rifle fire at a high rate is like just throwing boxes of Ammo out the window.
I would much rather be accurate.

 

[BigBoy99]

To me bump stock are totally worthless. They are obtained by the "wanna-be" machine gun shooters. They either can't afford the real full auto guns or can't pass the background check to legally own one. Nothing more than a toy which is used in the context of "Hold my beer and watch this!"