• BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Plus it’s not like fully automatic is really all that useful, as the military can attest.

    They don’t even use full auto on the standard issue rifles - at most there’s a burst option, because full auto is inaccurate.

    Full auto, because it’s inaccurate, is mostly useful for suppressive fire. I’ve shot full auto 7mm and 223. 7mm is just spray and pray, 223 slightly more controllable, but still you’d have to be an exceptional operator to be accurate. The recoil of 7mm for a single round is staggering, let alone full auto.

    So the question then becomes - if they want to prevent full auto conversion (something of questionable usability), why?

    Oh, that’s right. It’s about surveillance and control.

    • unmagical
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If your goal is to dump as many mags as possible into a crowd then your aim and recoil don’t matter that much.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      mostly useful for suppressive fire

      I think the concern is about a shooter firing into a dense crowd (like the Las Vegas attack) which is generally an application that would not come up during military use.

    • Gerudo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      While I agree that it’s completely impractical for accuracy, there have been many crimes committed with a switch and 30 round mags. It’s not accurate, but it will 100% be an efficient killing device in a crowd. Which has happened.