Quote History Quoted:
Of course there's a difference. No doubt that a stock equipped automatic rifle is much easier to shoot than a machine pistol.
My point is that you can't base the effectiveness of a firearm on the inexperienced users' results.
View Quote
It's a cool gun and it looks fun to shoot but the effectiveness as a weapon is going to be hugely degraded by the lack of stability.
What you can do with that pistol at 10 yards, a guy with a Thompson can do at 150 yards.
If a full auto pistol was a good weapon, then no military would have used submachine guns.
Why are security personnel all over the world walking around with UZIs and HKs and M4s and not full auto handguns?
If you take a MAC10 and extend the stock and hold it on the handgrip with both hands, you easily can put all 32 shots onto a milkbottle target at 25 yards.
Try it without the stock, you're lucky if 10 shots hit the target. As soon as you pull the trigger the gun starts climbing and the muzzle jerks up and down violently as the bold slams forward and backward.
Every time I have a discussion like this, people assure me that I'm just a bad shot and that they can shoot a 50 BMG one handed like Robocop.
But then whenever I go to the range, somehow it turns out that I'm the best shot there.
That weird, isn't it?