4 ms·
In a firefight between two militaries, it is not more dangerous. The danger is that the regular police that only carry sidearms would be seriously outgunned.
by a_p 14y ago
In a firefight between two militaries, it is not more dangerous. The danger is that the regular police that only carry sidearms would be seriously outgunned.
- jff 14y agoNot really. The point is that in fully automatic mode, you can blow through a backpack full of ammunition in about a minute, probably not hitting anything because the continual fire and your efforts to control the gun are throwing the barrel all over the place. Now the cops are standing there, they're pissed, and you're out of ammunition. If you were a typical "crazed killer", this is the point where you'd shoot yourself, but you just sprayed all your bullets down the street.
- a_p 14y agoBump firing the rifle would be inaccurate if the shooter went through the whole clip with one or two pulls. This stock attachment allows for reasonably accurate burst firing. A gunman with an automatic weapon will not necessarily waste all of his ammunition with continuous, inaccurate fire. With very little training, he can learn to burst fire. This capability blurs the line between a military and civilian rifle. There is a video of the stock in action here [1]. It seems to me that someone with limited training would still completely outgun a regular police officer armed only with a pistol. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvLt8-Wf7r0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvLt8-Wf7r0
- jbooth 14y ago... so? If someone is well enough trained to fire controlled bursts, they're probably well enough trained to be just as effective double tapping in semi-auto.