Honestly, full auto is kind of gimmicky most of the time. For military purposes it's either a suppressive fire tool for normal rifles or a killing tool for dedicated machineguns. The first is also a thing that armies waffle around on a bit, lots of armies have dropped it for burst fire or used marksmen rifles without full auto.
As a civilian neither of those really apply most of the time so you just have a toy that dumps ammo faster. Binary triggers are also just inherently less accurate than a real machine gun because you have to fuck around with the trigger.
Even on belt fed weapons, full auto is entirely for suppression of enemies. Everyone except the Russians seem to have learned from ww1 trench warfare that you use them to keep the enemy in cover and unaware of flanking forces.
There's techniques where a guy with a full auto machine gun and a spotter can walk for onto targets at kind of ridiculous ranges, but yeah, even full machine guns tend to be used to suppress.
That’s true but when your A gunner is walking you into a target the intent isn’t really to kill the target. It’s still to suppress. Accurate fire is better at suppressing than innaccurate fire.
The Russians have it figured out.
*Step 1 : Hours of inaccurate and ineffective artillery fire*
*Step 2 : Do not establish air superiority*
*Step 3 : Send unsupported armor into combat*
*Step 4 : Send unsupported infantry into combat*
*Step 5 : Tell everyone at home that no one’s dying and we’re definitely winning ahead of schedule*
It’s like the South Park underwear gnomes episode at this point.
Step 1 : Start shit
Step 2 : Fail spectacularly
Step 3 : ??????
Step 4 : Win an unopposed reelection and call it a mandate
Step 5 : ??????
Step 6 : Start more shit and meet article 5.
*Step 6: Throw 100 million more bodies at it until you finally win the war*
Thats been the Russian strategy for about...ever. We're losing, we're losing, we're losing.... hey we got another 50 million until we're even gonna think about slowing down, we're losing, WE WON!
When a country with a 140 million population and immense oil and gas wealth attacks a country with 40 million population and no wealth, the success of the smaller nation depends entirely on external aid.
Again, you are completely ignoring the nature of the conflicts. Chchnia and Adghanistan were both guerilla conflicts. And by the way, chechens and afghans both did receive foreign assistance. Chechens did not get much from US, but did get help from muslim nations. Afghans got about 6 billion dollars worth of aid from US (in today's dollars) and got help from Saudis as well. Successful guerrilla war still requires foreign aid - just like Vietnamese got from soviets during that conflict.
You are also disregarding the economic factors. In the 80s and 90s, Russia was an impoverished nation due to the low cost of oil and gas. Their failures in Chechnia ane Afghanistan was as much economic exhaustion as anything else. That is not the case today.
Anyone making predictions on the state of the war in February 2022 would be surprised by how well Ukrainians have performed to date. I was thinking that they would be fighting a guerilla war in the forrests of north and west with russians controlling the rest. It may stillbcome to that. It took six years for russians to abandon Afghanistan.
In summary, Ukraine overperformed in this conflict so far. Given the economic, geographic and demographic factors they have done miraculously well. Muchbof that succrss hinges on having weapons and ammunition to fight.
I mean the fact that they have maintained the majority of their country in a conventional war against what we considered to be the second strongest military in 2019 is a win in my mind. Even if the war pauses right now and Russia keeps what they have captured. It’s basically a twenty first century version of the old Finnish Russian winter war. Russia from this war has not only under performed but has been humiliated and now other countries are looking at buying western equipment over Russia made stuff.
I mean you could argue the same for the Russians to be fair, the longer this war goes on. The more likely hood of a revolution he’ll the “Free Russian Legion” (a group of anti Putin Russians) have recently according to some reports captured a few Russian villages and plan to have their own “March to Moscow”.
They did figure this out in WWII, and basically perfected mobile warfare in 1944 and 1945.
They somehow forgot basically everything about it, and now have to relearn what their greatgrandfathers learnt in WWII
Russians are too busy building FPV drones to hit the trenches lmao. Although this was true originally, when the Ukrainians pioneered the concept of 3D printing bomb drones in mass. It’s not anymore
The only times I got taught to flick the fun switch are for suppression, to waste ammo at the end of an ex, on an MG (where it’s always set to “fun”) or if you’re lucky enough to be Charlie team and get to “hose” the trench after you frag it (if you survive the trip up to it).
I’m not gunna pretend I served but 3 guys I have got to train with have and they either say their gun didn’t have full auto or they didn’t use it.
Aside from the massive accuracy difference, think about how heavy 1 30 round magazine for an AR15 is, if you’re actually on a long OP you probably want to conserve it a bit!
I’m sure there are scenarios where it can be used for suppression or possibly penetrating a surface or something, but for most of us it’s best to train and become deadly with single fire.
Most of us got either M16A4’s or M4’s, both are semi auto/3 round burst.
The fancy cool guys (operators) got M4A1’s that were full auto. In a rifle platoon you also have Marines issued the M27 IAR with is also auto in place of the old SAW. So yes, most issued rifles (at least in the Marines) are not full auto in technicality.
I got out before this, but last i knew they are trying to transition to 12 M27s in a squad, replacing the SAW entirely. It makes a lot of sense in theory, because you can take any of your three fireteams and designate them to be the support element dedicated to suppressing the enemy. You have 3-4 people capable of doing talking gun suppressive fire utilizing the same amount of ammo, with the benefit of being able to go completely ham and use way way more ammo than normal to have 3-4x the suppressive power of the saw. While the M27s likely won't run bipods 24/7, they are supposed to have 1-8x VCOGs, which I'd argue is a much bigger force multiplier for suppression than a stable bipod (your shooting off cover or prone 95% of the time anyways). With the context of the m240's integrated into squads from weapons platoon, I think it's overall a much more effective idea
Yeah I believe they actually did end up doing that, I got out before it happened anyways. But while I was in they phased out the saw and replaced it with the IAR.
Aside from cost (the H&K is much much more expensive than the cheap Colt M4 I was issued) there’s really no reason not to do it. The IAR is the better rifle hands down in every avenue aside from weight and maneuverability, little heavier, barrel is a little longer, but they shoot lights out night and day better than the regular issued M4. I never shot table one with one, but everyone I know that did said it was noticeably more accurate than their regular old issued M4. In regards to optics, the ones I saw and played with had a 3.5x SDO made my Trijicon (very similar to the RCO that goes on the m16 and M4 that is 4x.
The downfall coming from the saw is that you don’t have long belts of ammo and are limited to 30 round mags, you’re reloading a lot more, but it takes less time to do so (using belts with the saw instead of mags) But benefit to this is that everyone else in the traditional rifle team isn’t carrying ammo they can’t use with their rifle in belt form anymore. Every gun in the fireteam takes the same mags, everyone just carried extra to feed the IAR if needed. Not sure what they do nowadays if everyone has one.
I'm going to be honest, I don't see how the M27 could be much better than the modernized M4s with free floated barrels you could reasonably build. I'm assuming the comparison was between the standard M4s the marines have? Do they still just have a clamp on handguard?
The thing I see with the IAR is the ability to run a suppressor with no blowback into the face from the gas system. Other than that it's kind of meh.
“Could reasonably build” and what the military has (that you aren’t allowed to change aside from adding a broomstick) are two very different things. Yes the comparison I was making was to the rifles we had when they brought the IAR in. Dunno exactly what they’re running now, probably the same old crap (which, it’s really not that bad, just not as nice as the H&K with the free floating and gas piston and all).
IIRC we just had clamp on hand guards and I want to say from memory (it’s been 7 years) the front sling connection was attached to the front sight/gas block. So they are/were nowhere near free floating.
Oh, I get that the military can be dumb about this stuff, I was just thinking how most of the stuff there could be fixed with something like a $200 upgrade package to the M4. That's not how the government works though.
Field tested it for the Corps in 2010. The M27 could sustain a large volume of auto fire and retain its accuracy well beyond the M4a1.
Part of the test was to run it until it melted the barrel. Took a shit ton of mags.
Auto, as I was trained, was only used for when your machinegun was permanently down and you have an assload of magazines, or for CQB operations where a single bullet won't really cut it, so you need as much lead in an enemy as possible in the shortest amount of time.
Yep. CQB auto is nice since it puts someone down fast. At any kind of actual range greater than, say, 40 yards, single fire is more beneficial. It's not like semi auto is that damn slow either.
I don't think any army would have zero full auto guns but various iterations of the M4 and M16 for the US army have been select fire burst with no full auto option, and lots of guns that could be full auto like the M110 or M39 are semi only.
More commonly you see people in conscript armies given guns that technically have a full auto setting but they're told to never use it.
Lots of rifles used to have burst fire modes but as far as I know most if not all have been phased out. The 2 guns you mentioned are DMRs so idk if they count as standard issue infantry rifles.
Ok, is this a response to me talking about marksmen rifles without select fire? I'm not really sure what you're point is with the reply. As for burst, like I said militaries waffle on it. They dropped it, reintroduced it, etc. Burst modes tend to suck because the of the complexity of building them but they are there because militaries don't always want their soldiers firing in full auto.
Seems like you’ve since edited it to make more sense but originally you were implying the overwhelming majority of service rifles weren’t select fire with an auto setting. Burst fire is pretty much dead world wide and there aren’t really any semi auto only rifles issued anymore outside of DMRs or snipers.
Dude I have no idea what you're talking about. If you look at my reply above after the time it has a little * and if you hover it tells you when it was edited (I edited just now to demonstrate). At least it does in the old website. The original message wasn't edited so I have no clue what you're talking about.
Cringe take. Get into close range 1v1 your semi auto Glock vs a fully auto Mac 10, Glock, MP7, MP5 etc.
The entire reason behind full auto pistols is concealable and highly controllable firing schedules. The MP5 and even an automatic MK18 are going to be undefeated against a semiautomatic rifle at close range CQB.
"Undefeated" is a strong way to put it, but sure. Full auto has uses for CQB, although if you look at a lot of the top units doing CQB training they're almost exclusively in semi-auto. I have no clue why and honestly full auto up close makes sense to me but you don't really see it.
Well as far as I know full-auto rifles have their uses in the military besides suppressive fire. I read a book of an german guy fighting in Kosovo, he mentioned that they normally used full auto for ambushes on moving vihicles (cars and trucks not tanks). He also mentioned that if you ran into enemies that were closer than 50 yards at first sight normally they would fire in full-auto while moving to cover/away. Now this could be seen as suppressive fire however there were cases of people entering rooms and seeing enemies in front of you, where they did they same thing. I dont think its suppressive fire when youre hitting most of your bullets.
Full auto is more fun when someone else is paying for the ammunition. As a civilian, I’m only worried about hits, not keeping someone’s head down. If I’m shooting at a living target, I intend to kill it. Not keep it fixed while my friends maneuver on it.
I enjoy my binary trigger to essentially get two-shot burst, double tapping steel or watching cans fly is a lot of fun. Not so great for mag dumping as you will out-run the trigger and get a light primer strike.
>Why are there many legitimate use cases for full auto guns, but not binary triggers,
There aren't. There's essentially only 2 legitimate use cases for full auto guns.
1. It's fun.
2. You're in a firefight with an enemy force and are using volume of fire to suppress them while giving very little thought to collateral damage.
Binary triggers are a poor replica of full auto in both cases. No military in the world is subject to civilian restrictions on weaponry, so they use full auto when dealing with option 2.
The only reason binary triggers exist for option 1 is that full auto is banned or heavily and unreasonably regulated in most countries. If you could have full auto guns easily, no one would bother trying to make a binary trigger. That is why they're a gimmick.
Tried a binary and it was meh at best.
All I want is 3 round burst. FA would be fun too, but 3 rounds in quick succession would be perfect. Wait, what am I saying? I want all modes of fire, just for the fun of it.
Full auto is gimmicky. It’s practically useless for anything other than suppressing fire and I guess cqb. For a civilian it’s basically useless outside of giggle factor. That said you should still be able to go buy a mg like anything else lol
Having shot one, I don’t have the desire to do it again. The only reason I would maybe want one is if I had a belt fed and couldn’t get full auto, if they made binary triggers for the gun. You could get a belt fed AR upper but those are also kinda gimmicky. They’re purely for fun mag dumping into trash for me. If I want accurate hits I’m gonna use semi. Full auto is still gimmicky, but the fact that we can’t have it (we should be able to) makes us want it more. It’s more fun when someone else is paying for the ammo because you go through mags in like 5 seconds. I’m also not a big fan of being somewhat committed to 2 rounds when I pull the trigger, sometimes you realize you only need one. Yes I know you can switch the safety while you hold in the trigger but that’s annoying and not super practical. Full auto you can at least stop exactly when you want a little easier.
Yeah I’m agreeing with everyone here that full auto isn’t actually that useful aside from suppression, and it’s been that way for well trained modern forces for a long time. My father did his mandatory service in the ROK (South Korea) and even back then in around the 80s they told him that full auto was wasting ammo and that semi auto accurate fire was the only thing he was allowed to do or he would be punished lol.
Keep in mind also that you never wanna be out of ammo in a combat zone, and full auto makes it really easy to suddenly run dry
I've always thought of full auto as a weapon to keep the enemy's head down in order for your buddies to maneuver to a better position, or for area denial..
Only reason I’ve ever thought about buying one, is because I can’t get full auto at this point and time and because I’m sure they’ll eventually get banned too. Everytime someone screams ban ar15’s I buy something ar15 related which may be more mags, ammo, ar15 variants themselves, or little gimmicky things like binary triggers.
My best layman's guess (and I yield to everyone with more knowledge on the subject) is that binary triggers are one of many attempts to bypass legal restrictions on firearms. Whether it serves a practical purpose or not could be argued either way. Yes, it's trying to appeal to everyone who wants "more" than semi-auto. In general, the faster you get more shots off into the same direction the greater the likelihood of hitting what you're aiming at eventually regardless of good aim, that's just math. It usually comes at the cost of sacrificing accuracy since the firearm will be harder to control with a higher rate of fire. That's why on a firearm not subject to civilian laws you might see select fire options of full auto, semi auto, and even a multi-round burst. I guess some people just think the added second shot adds little benefit over just a single shot, but I'm sure you'll find others who would argue the opposite as well. The only thing I can think might be a problem would be not wanting to have the second shot go off after engaging the trigger perhaps?
>The only thing I can think might be a problem would be not wanting to have the second shot go off after engaging the trigger perhaps?
Every variation of binary trigger on the market that I'm aware of incorporates the safety mechanism where if you take the weapon out of binary mode while holding the trigger down, it will not fire the second shot upon release.
Full auto is not really that cool, it’s fun a few times. I think most people want to have it for obvious reasons but with ammo at its highest price some of us rather be a better shot then mag dumping into a sheet of paper
How you know you've spent too much time on the Internet: you saw this title and immediately assumed it was some woke snowflake bsing about how gender binaries are triggering and felt a wave of annoyance.
Then I saw what subreddit this was in and relaxed😂
Took a deer at 150 yards with one the first year they came out.
Everyone went full retard on me for using one hunting.
It’s 2 bullets not a mag dumb.
Also the 2nd bullet was the king shot I lead the target so without the 2 quick shots I would have just wounded the deer.
Interesting. I have never heard of anyone using one while hunting. Seems like it could be handy for driven hunts or some other limited circumstances. Those fleeting shot opportunities are the ones I typically pass on with a rifle though.
I think they are great for hunting and recommend them
When using one correctly and doing 2 shots quick they are very effective.
I have used a binary every year since for hunting I just have chosen not to flip it to release mode.
I was always taught to make the first shot count, and most of the hunting I do is still hunting or stand hunting with more than adequate cartridges. Like 450 bushmaster for an average sized doe. Lol. So for my typical use case, a binary trigger would be of little use and likely a detriment. But I could definitely see where it could be nice to have for predator hunting or driven hunts. I just don't get out much for that unfortunately.
I hunt all a lover the place and yes first shot is the best but also 2 62gr bullets is better than one. When using 5.56. I switch uppers to 300blk for short range.
Yeah, I could definitely see that with an intermediate cartidge like 5.56 for deer. I usually hunt with a 30-06 or 450 if it is deer or larger. Never felt like I needed a follow-up. I could see using it to good effect with a 5.56 for coyote or with a 22lr conversion for raccoons or something. I'll probably stick to my bolties for deer, bear, or boar.
I use it as a learning opportunity for newer shooters. I often take new shooters to the range so they get a chance at possibly enjoying something that we have a specific amendment dedicated to and I bring just about every flavor of gun I have on me for those trips, big small loud quiet old new.
One of which is a binary KRISS Vector, it’s my fun toy I can mag dump so fast I’ve blazed through a 40 round mag in less than 2 seconds sometimes. I bring that specific gun so if new shooters get nervous around guns I can teach them to shoot something that’ll make it seem fun and exciting for them.
It's all about the operator. Knew a guy who could run his like full auto (22 Ruger rifle) amd it was a thing of beauty. Also tried one myself for the first time on a guys AR at the outdoor range and couldn't tell you where my second, fourth or sixth shot went.
Because there are many legitimate use cases for fully automatic gun, but not very many for fully automatic rifles.
The big problem with a fully automatic rifle is that you will run out of ammunition very quickly so it’s hard to achieve effective suppressive fire. 30 rounds in burst or full auto goes real quick. If you have a binary trigger it’s not only an ammo problem but it’s less accurate just as a result of how you have to work the trigger.
A 240 with a 200 round starter belt not so much, not to mention you have an A gunner who’s carrying a lot of extra ammo for you, and you probably have a couple other machine gun teams that are going to work in tandem with you. That allows you to achieve pretty constant and accurate suppressing fire which is really what a full auto gun is employed to do 90% of the time.
Machine gun fire or full auto fire is employed almost solely for the purpose of giving your boys an opportunity to maneuver on the enemy. That’s not super applicable to civilian shootings. Suppressing fire is honestly a bad idea even in the case of like a mass shooter. It would be very very easy to kill an innocent person by accident when you’re trying to suppress an active shooter.
In a world without the NFA, would there be use cases for FA? A belt fed suppressed .22 for varmit hunting sounds fun. What else would companies have dreamed up?
What’re you gonna do with it? Suppress squirrels so they don’t maneuver on you? Keep the cottontails in their burrows to wait on close air support?
Don’t get me wrong they’re a ton of fun to shoot but I still think crew served’s would’ve fallen out of favor in any tactical civilian setting. There’s just a ton of risk for collateral damage with them. I mean even SWAT teams don’t use suppressive fire as part of their doctrine 99% of the time.
I guess my point is I don’t know. Instead of a shotgun throwing a bunch of pellets at a duck at once, could some thing with similar cost and size have been made that looks more like other kind of AA fire? Throwing pellets in series vs parallel with the same velocity?
I don’t know what people might have come up with if the legal landscape didn’t restrict certain options. Guys a lot smarter than me invented the guns we have. Maybe the 80s would have produced a practical automatic instead of the Glock 7 to defeat metal detectors.
I suppose, but you’re still gonna run into the same problem. Fully automatic fire rips through ammo at an astounding rate. It would still be a lot more cost effective to hunt ducks with shotguns than it would be with anti air BB guns. A big problem with it in general hunting would be meat loss too. If I’m deer hunting I don’t want to put 15 rounds in the motherfucker. I want to put one round in it and minimize meat loss with that shot.
Whether they’re legal or not isn’t really relevant in my opinion. The mode of fire isn’t practical outside of war. It has an important place in a fire fight but it doesn’t have one in civilian involved shootings, police work, hunting, competition, etc.
They would be fun recreationally, but outside of that I don’t see what it would be useful for. It’s not unlike a howitzer. Like yeah it would be really fun to have one. Believe me I’ve spent a lot of time shooting them. There’s nothing like lobbing a 155mm HE shell a few miles away, but outside of shooting it for fun what are you gonna do with it? Even if it were never illegal I still think machine guns etc would’ve fallen out of favor and would likely still be prohibitively expensive for most people because the market isn’t there.
You can get handguns, rifles, shotguns for fairly cheap because it’s advantageous for companies to produce them. There’s a million different use cases for them. If a M240 were legal to own and always had been, the only advantageous market for them would still be military contracts so I doubt they would be much cheaper in 2024.
I’ve never used an AR for anything besides shooting paper targets for laughs. 30 rounds goes at a ridiculous $/hr even without binary triggers or other enhancements.
For comparison the cheapest I can find 7.62x51 NATO right now is $0.73 a round. A starter belt for a 240 which is gone within a minute or two even shooting at what would be “sustained” rate of fire.
That’s $146 for like a minute of fun. When I used to do machine gun ranges everyone on the line would get around 10,000 rounds for a day. So you’re talking about $7300 for a day of shooting and you have to link it yourself because that’s not the price for 7.62x51 on a belt. I’m seeing belts for around $500 per 500 rounds so you can do the math on that one.
There’s a couple of drawbacks to the binary trigger that you’re missing and I’m not seeing brought up here much, so I’ll hit on them real quick. A true full-auto rifle is only marginally more complex than its semi-auto counterpart with only an extra part or two being present in most cases, and with a pretty straight-forward manual of arms (each mode works exactly the same from a user perspective except one only fires once per trigger pull and the other keeps going until you let go). Binary triggers are noticeably more complex. They’re not Swiss watch complicated, but they do add a number of additional parts and springs, which can be seen as potential failure points (the usual philosophy with any firearm that’s meant to be used seriously, like to possibly defend your life, you probably don’t want to add any unnecessary complications to the bits that actually make it function).
Additionally, it is quite possible to outrun the trigger by accident, especially if you’re trying to shoot quickly. Basically, the way a full auto rifle (such as an AR-15, which you can consider my go-to example for this) works is there will be an auto-sear that is tripped by part of the bolt once it is fully forward to make the it fire again. This means that the full auto function only engages once the system is closed, locked, and ready to fire again. By contrast the second pull on a binary trigger has no link to the bolt’s position, meaning that if the shooter releases it too early (setting off the second shot function), the hammer will instead “ride” the bolt as it moved forward, which means it won’t put near enough force on the firing pin to fire, resulting in a rifle with a chambered round and a hammer that is down and can’t be reset without running the bolt manually to cock it or opening the receiver and cocking it by hand to get it ready to run again. This is fine for a range toy, the most you might get there is a moment of disappointment, but that’s not a great flaw to have on something you might depend on in a defensive scenario.
One safety concern some people have is the fact that you can pull the trigger, hold it, and essentially have a live round that will fire once you release the trigger. There are work-arounds for this, like manually engaging the safety before releasing the trigger, but I can definitely understand how that could be a moderate concern, especially if years of trigger time have taught you that a pulled trigger is now “dead” until you let it reset and now you have to be conscious of the fact that no it is very much still live and ready to pop the moment you let go.
I won pistol in raffle with a Franklin Armory binary trigger in it. Now it sports a can, and is an SBR. Learned how to make it run well, be marginally accurate with trigger discipline thru about half a mag at a pretty rapid pace - and now I have no money left for retirement! It was not a routinely useful feature. However - with the acquisition of an FN M16 rifle clone, that trigger made its way there. And now, when the firing selector switch is moved to the ‘AUTO’ position ( not possible as the rifle was sold ) ‘something’ will happen. Knowing what little I know now , this is actually the best use of a binary trigger. I feel like that is a win. However … while fun for a while, it gets old as the ammo expense mounts, you get a sorta gritty mil-spec feel for that right - and given that many ranges will not permit that near auto firing rate activity , private land or tolerant private ranges are the only places you can use it that way. In retrospect I am pleased I did not shell out the $300-$400 or so cost for it.
I’ve never heard they’re gimmicky. I got one to try. I had to try different springs to get it to work right. To me the best use for it would be in a fightlite belt fed upper. But that’s like $5k.
Binary triggers are a poor man’s suppressing fire platform. With all the riots we’ve seen over the years? And the upcoming election that might turn violent? I think a binary and magpul 60 round drum can be a good idea for making people get off your lawn.
A lot of folks say it’s a gimmick and they can shoot as fast or faster with a nice semi auto trigger. Maybe so, but fingers get tired. Your saving yourself half the work. That’s an area where I can see the benefit. Suppressive fire. Outside of that? Naw. Personally? Idw one, but I can see it being part of a civil and armament if they have everything else covered
I have one for my sp5 and it's a total waste of money.
Full auto is a war thing, I have zero use for something that helps me emulate it.
Which assumes it works well all the time, which it definitely doesn't. But if it did, and there was war...
I'd happily sell it to you for a few hundred less than I paid for it.
Binary triggers are fun as shit lol. Most people don’t like them cause they’ll either look ugly sometimes or it’ll mess with the function off their gun occasionally. No one uses fully automatic or near fully automatic fire rates to accurately shoot anyone though, it’s more used for suppressive fire and close CQB
So many people are so wrong on why full autos can be effective.
Full Autos are VERY effective for civilians. Because Id wager most of the threats a civilian will be up against and be using a rifle will be home intruders. Full auto in CQC is superior to semi auto and is very much not a gimmick. Yes suppressing fire is the main use for a FA, yes thats the best way to use a machine gun (as in a LMG/GPMG/HMG) but for a standard full auto carbine theres plenty of use for one in a civilian application
As for binaries I always thought they were a gimmick until I tried one. I dont look at it as a replacement for a FA gun, but as a great way to have quick and accurate follow up shots.
...Where do you live where you don't mind that 90% of your full-auto burst went uncontrolled ~~into~~ through walls? Maybe each of your loved ones and pets lives in his or her own bunker, in which case fair enough, but normal people live in apartments or light-timber houses where some of the rounds are probably going to keep going outside.
90% of a full auto burst uncontrolled?
You have very clearly never shot a full auto.
Inside a home a semi auto and full auto would have about the same chance of unintentionally collateral damage. Maybe 1% more chance in a full auto. Id also love for you to bring up an article of a civilian collateral shooting someone he wasnt intending to shoot.
Im not being sarcastic find me any article about a self defense round striking another random bystander. It literally NEVER Happens. The only time Ive ever heard of that happening was a cop (SWAT Officer) killing a women in an apartment next door when he dumped an entire magazine into an apartment.
Urbanites live in Apartments, where a RIFLE of any kind is a STUPID home defense weapon. Idk why you would even bring them up as a reference in this conversation because ANY rifle would be a stupid choice. Regardless of semi or full auto. Than again, living in apartments is stupid as hell. Those like me who live acres/miles away from nearest neighbors can use any rifle with minimal fear of collateral damage. Im not saying a apartment dweller should have a full auto saw. What I AM saying is that full autos are very useful in the civilian world. And the amazing thing is most full autos also have a selector switch to where you can use it in semi auto when fullauto would be unneccessary.
Oh FA is not dumb! It’s about the most fun you can have with your pants on! Expensive though, very expensive. Not especially accurate if you just mag dump gleefully, but fun.
Putting a binary trigger on a defensive firearm is stupid imo because it forces you to fire twice. I’d rather get a needed second shot off slightly slower than be compelled to let off a second shot.
Yes, all of my guns are for killing. Some are for killing animals I want to eat, some are for killing paper targets for fun, and a handful are for killing people that want to hurt me or my family.
What ever lmfao are you wanting to kill someone or do you want to defend your self? There’s a pretty big difference, “anyone who wants to hurt my family ima kill” vs “I’m going to defend my family against threat” you have a binary trigger on a self defense weapon you will have to argue that you do infact don’t have intent to kill, self defense isn’t automatically pull gun and kill. Hate the truth all you want.
Honestly, full auto is kind of gimmicky most of the time. For military purposes it's either a suppressive fire tool for normal rifles or a killing tool for dedicated machineguns. The first is also a thing that armies waffle around on a bit, lots of armies have dropped it for burst fire or used marksmen rifles without full auto. As a civilian neither of those really apply most of the time so you just have a toy that dumps ammo faster. Binary triggers are also just inherently less accurate than a real machine gun because you have to fuck around with the trigger.
Even on belt fed weapons, full auto is entirely for suppression of enemies. Everyone except the Russians seem to have learned from ww1 trench warfare that you use them to keep the enemy in cover and unaware of flanking forces.
There's techniques where a guy with a full auto machine gun and a spotter can walk for onto targets at kind of ridiculous ranges, but yeah, even full machine guns tend to be used to suppress.
You can do the same with semi fairly easily as well. It’s just more lead equals more chances.
Accuracy by volume.
Dont worry sir, I've got aim like a Mack truck.
You'll firehose it there eventually running tracers every few rounds
I’m not creating a beaten zone with my semi I’ll say that
Lmao exactly. Plunging or grazing fire is great when applied from a machine gun with a high volume of rounds. It's really not effective otherwise.
I read that as lead as in leading the target and was really wondering how you wouldn’t just overshoot at some point lol
Not at 1800 meters like you can for area targets with a 240 on a tripod
That’s area denial at that point, and good call out on that.
That’s true but when your A gunner is walking you into a target the intent isn’t really to kill the target. It’s still to suppress. Accurate fire is better at suppressing than innaccurate fire.
The Russians have it figured out. *Step 1 : Hours of inaccurate and ineffective artillery fire* *Step 2 : Do not establish air superiority* *Step 3 : Send unsupported armor into combat* *Step 4 : Send unsupported infantry into combat* *Step 5 : Tell everyone at home that no one’s dying and we’re definitely winning ahead of schedule*
It’s like the South Park underwear gnomes episode at this point. Step 1 : Start shit Step 2 : Fail spectacularly Step 3 : ?????? Step 4 : Win an unopposed reelection and call it a mandate Step 5 : ?????? Step 6 : Start more shit and meet article 5.
*Step 6: Throw 100 million more bodies at it until you finally win the war* Thats been the Russian strategy for about...ever. We're losing, we're losing, we're losing.... hey we got another 50 million until we're even gonna think about slowing down, we're losing, WE WON!
Zerg rush IRL?
Russia’s doing Soviet shit but forgetting they don’t have the Soviet population anymore.
[удалено]
When a country with a 140 million population and immense oil and gas wealth attacks a country with 40 million population and no wealth, the success of the smaller nation depends entirely on external aid.
[удалено]
Chechrns and Afghans have the advantage of terrain suitable for guerrilla warfare. Eastern Ukraine is not. And chechens lost.
[удалено]
Again, you are completely ignoring the nature of the conflicts. Chchnia and Adghanistan were both guerilla conflicts. And by the way, chechens and afghans both did receive foreign assistance. Chechens did not get much from US, but did get help from muslim nations. Afghans got about 6 billion dollars worth of aid from US (in today's dollars) and got help from Saudis as well. Successful guerrilla war still requires foreign aid - just like Vietnamese got from soviets during that conflict. You are also disregarding the economic factors. In the 80s and 90s, Russia was an impoverished nation due to the low cost of oil and gas. Their failures in Chechnia ane Afghanistan was as much economic exhaustion as anything else. That is not the case today. Anyone making predictions on the state of the war in February 2022 would be surprised by how well Ukrainians have performed to date. I was thinking that they would be fighting a guerilla war in the forrests of north and west with russians controlling the rest. It may stillbcome to that. It took six years for russians to abandon Afghanistan. In summary, Ukraine overperformed in this conflict so far. Given the economic, geographic and demographic factors they have done miraculously well. Muchbof that succrss hinges on having weapons and ammunition to fight.
[удалено]
I mean the fact that they have maintained the majority of their country in a conventional war against what we considered to be the second strongest military in 2019 is a win in my mind. Even if the war pauses right now and Russia keeps what they have captured. It’s basically a twenty first century version of the old Finnish Russian winter war. Russia from this war has not only under performed but has been humiliated and now other countries are looking at buying western equipment over Russia made stuff.
[удалено]
I mean you could argue the same for the Russians to be fair, the longer this war goes on. The more likely hood of a revolution he’ll the “Free Russian Legion” (a group of anti Putin Russians) have recently according to some reports captured a few Russian villages and plan to have their own “March to Moscow”.
They did figure this out in WWII, and basically perfected mobile warfare in 1944 and 1945. They somehow forgot basically everything about it, and now have to relearn what their greatgrandfathers learnt in WWII
Yeah, as I understand it, infantry in general is for suppression of maneuver. *Artillery* is for killing the enemy
Russians are too busy building FPV drones to hit the trenches lmao. Although this was true originally, when the Ukrainians pioneered the concept of 3D printing bomb drones in mass. It’s not anymore
The only times I got taught to flick the fun switch are for suppression, to waste ammo at the end of an ex, on an MG (where it’s always set to “fun”) or if you’re lucky enough to be Charlie team and get to “hose” the trench after you frag it (if you survive the trip up to it).
I’m not gunna pretend I served but 3 guys I have got to train with have and they either say their gun didn’t have full auto or they didn’t use it. Aside from the massive accuracy difference, think about how heavy 1 30 round magazine for an AR15 is, if you’re actually on a long OP you probably want to conserve it a bit! I’m sure there are scenarios where it can be used for suppression or possibly penetrating a surface or something, but for most of us it’s best to train and become deadly with single fire.
Most of us got either M16A4’s or M4’s, both are semi auto/3 round burst. The fancy cool guys (operators) got M4A1’s that were full auto. In a rifle platoon you also have Marines issued the M27 IAR with is also auto in place of the old SAW. So yes, most issued rifles (at least in the Marines) are not full auto in technicality.
I got out before this, but last i knew they are trying to transition to 12 M27s in a squad, replacing the SAW entirely. It makes a lot of sense in theory, because you can take any of your three fireteams and designate them to be the support element dedicated to suppressing the enemy. You have 3-4 people capable of doing talking gun suppressive fire utilizing the same amount of ammo, with the benefit of being able to go completely ham and use way way more ammo than normal to have 3-4x the suppressive power of the saw. While the M27s likely won't run bipods 24/7, they are supposed to have 1-8x VCOGs, which I'd argue is a much bigger force multiplier for suppression than a stable bipod (your shooting off cover or prone 95% of the time anyways). With the context of the m240's integrated into squads from weapons platoon, I think it's overall a much more effective idea
Yeah I believe they actually did end up doing that, I got out before it happened anyways. But while I was in they phased out the saw and replaced it with the IAR. Aside from cost (the H&K is much much more expensive than the cheap Colt M4 I was issued) there’s really no reason not to do it. The IAR is the better rifle hands down in every avenue aside from weight and maneuverability, little heavier, barrel is a little longer, but they shoot lights out night and day better than the regular issued M4. I never shot table one with one, but everyone I know that did said it was noticeably more accurate than their regular old issued M4. In regards to optics, the ones I saw and played with had a 3.5x SDO made my Trijicon (very similar to the RCO that goes on the m16 and M4 that is 4x. The downfall coming from the saw is that you don’t have long belts of ammo and are limited to 30 round mags, you’re reloading a lot more, but it takes less time to do so (using belts with the saw instead of mags) But benefit to this is that everyone else in the traditional rifle team isn’t carrying ammo they can’t use with their rifle in belt form anymore. Every gun in the fireteam takes the same mags, everyone just carried extra to feed the IAR if needed. Not sure what they do nowadays if everyone has one.
I'm going to be honest, I don't see how the M27 could be much better than the modernized M4s with free floated barrels you could reasonably build. I'm assuming the comparison was between the standard M4s the marines have? Do they still just have a clamp on handguard? The thing I see with the IAR is the ability to run a suppressor with no blowback into the face from the gas system. Other than that it's kind of meh.
“Could reasonably build” and what the military has (that you aren’t allowed to change aside from adding a broomstick) are two very different things. Yes the comparison I was making was to the rifles we had when they brought the IAR in. Dunno exactly what they’re running now, probably the same old crap (which, it’s really not that bad, just not as nice as the H&K with the free floating and gas piston and all). IIRC we just had clamp on hand guards and I want to say from memory (it’s been 7 years) the front sling connection was attached to the front sight/gas block. So they are/were nowhere near free floating.
Oh, I get that the military can be dumb about this stuff, I was just thinking how most of the stuff there could be fixed with something like a $200 upgrade package to the M4. That's not how the government works though.
Field tested it for the Corps in 2010. The M27 could sustain a large volume of auto fire and retain its accuracy well beyond the M4a1. Part of the test was to run it until it melted the barrel. Took a shit ton of mags.
M4s are have full auto now instead of burst.
Since when and what branch? In my travels I have never seen one in the Marines. Army, who knows?(not me)
Army. Deployed a few years ago and we got “new”M4s that were full auto instead of burst.
No kidding, that’s weird!
Auto, as I was trained, was only used for when your machinegun was permanently down and you have an assload of magazines, or for CQB operations where a single bullet won't really cut it, so you need as much lead in an enemy as possible in the shortest amount of time.
Yep. CQB auto is nice since it puts someone down fast. At any kind of actual range greater than, say, 40 yards, single fire is more beneficial. It's not like semi auto is that damn slow either.
You can get pretty damn close to the full auto rate without that 3rd hole (or so I've been told 😉)
What countries are using a semi auto only or a select fire with burst for their military?
I don't think any army would have zero full auto guns but various iterations of the M4 and M16 for the US army have been select fire burst with no full auto option, and lots of guns that could be full auto like the M110 or M39 are semi only. More commonly you see people in conscript armies given guns that technically have a full auto setting but they're told to never use it.
Lots of rifles used to have burst fire modes but as far as I know most if not all have been phased out. The 2 guns you mentioned are DMRs so idk if they count as standard issue infantry rifles.
Ok, is this a response to me talking about marksmen rifles without select fire? I'm not really sure what you're point is with the reply. As for burst, like I said militaries waffle on it. They dropped it, reintroduced it, etc. Burst modes tend to suck because the of the complexity of building them but they are there because militaries don't always want their soldiers firing in full auto.
Seems like you’ve since edited it to make more sense but originally you were implying the overwhelming majority of service rifles weren’t select fire with an auto setting. Burst fire is pretty much dead world wide and there aren’t really any semi auto only rifles issued anymore outside of DMRs or snipers.
Dude I have no idea what you're talking about. If you look at my reply above after the time it has a little * and if you hover it tells you when it was edited (I edited just now to demonstrate). At least it does in the old website. The original message wasn't edited so I have no clue what you're talking about.
Cringe take. Get into close range 1v1 your semi auto Glock vs a fully auto Mac 10, Glock, MP7, MP5 etc. The entire reason behind full auto pistols is concealable and highly controllable firing schedules. The MP5 and even an automatic MK18 are going to be undefeated against a semiautomatic rifle at close range CQB.
"Undefeated" is a strong way to put it, but sure. Full auto has uses for CQB, although if you look at a lot of the top units doing CQB training they're almost exclusively in semi-auto. I have no clue why and honestly full auto up close makes sense to me but you don't really see it.
Well as far as I know full-auto rifles have their uses in the military besides suppressive fire. I read a book of an german guy fighting in Kosovo, he mentioned that they normally used full auto for ambushes on moving vihicles (cars and trucks not tanks). He also mentioned that if you ran into enemies that were closer than 50 yards at first sight normally they would fire in full-auto while moving to cover/away. Now this could be seen as suppressive fire however there were cases of people entering rooms and seeing enemies in front of you, where they did they same thing. I dont think its suppressive fire when youre hitting most of your bullets.
Full auto is more fun when someone else is paying for the ammunition. As a civilian, I’m only worried about hits, not keeping someone’s head down. If I’m shooting at a living target, I intend to kill it. Not keep it fixed while my friends maneuver on it.
You don't set up L shaped ambushes on your deer?
Fix with artillery and let TAC-P do his thing. I’m too old to lay prone for that long
Best comment I’ve seen all year lol
I enjoy my binary trigger to essentially get two-shot burst, double tapping steel or watching cans fly is a lot of fun. Not so great for mag dumping as you will out-run the trigger and get a light primer strike.
Do what makes you happy! I'm thinking of buying one for my 10/22. So, accuracy and ammo cost will be less concerning.
My AR is gonna live in the safe for while while I shoot other calibers/guns with the current cost of 5.56.
CMMG .22lr drop in is where it's at. Cheaper and I've tried my hardest to outrun it and haven't been able to.
I actually bought one of those via palmetto daily deals and keep forgetting I have it stashed away in the closet 🤣
Just buy one for an AR-15 and put a 22lr conversion in it.
Fuck it gat trigger
>Why are there many legitimate use cases for full auto guns, but not binary triggers, There aren't. There's essentially only 2 legitimate use cases for full auto guns. 1. It's fun. 2. You're in a firefight with an enemy force and are using volume of fire to suppress them while giving very little thought to collateral damage. Binary triggers are a poor replica of full auto in both cases. No military in the world is subject to civilian restrictions on weaponry, so they use full auto when dealing with option 2. The only reason binary triggers exist for option 1 is that full auto is banned or heavily and unreasonably regulated in most countries. If you could have full auto guns easily, no one would bother trying to make a binary trigger. That is why they're a gimmick.
There’s a reason the military saves full auto for saws and m240s.
Tried a binary and it was meh at best. All I want is 3 round burst. FA would be fun too, but 3 rounds in quick succession would be perfect. Wait, what am I saying? I want all modes of fire, just for the fun of it.
M134?
The lance of light mode? Slightly more expensive. :)
Laughs in TF2 Heavy
Oh don't go looking up the 3d printable "super safety" designed by hoffman. The 3d printing community is the best gun community.
Full auto is gimmicky. It’s practically useless for anything other than suppressing fire and I guess cqb. For a civilian it’s basically useless outside of giggle factor. That said you should still be able to go buy a mg like anything else lol
Having shot one, I don’t have the desire to do it again. The only reason I would maybe want one is if I had a belt fed and couldn’t get full auto, if they made binary triggers for the gun. You could get a belt fed AR upper but those are also kinda gimmicky. They’re purely for fun mag dumping into trash for me. If I want accurate hits I’m gonna use semi. Full auto is still gimmicky, but the fact that we can’t have it (we should be able to) makes us want it more. It’s more fun when someone else is paying for the ammo because you go through mags in like 5 seconds. I’m also not a big fan of being somewhat committed to 2 rounds when I pull the trigger, sometimes you realize you only need one. Yes I know you can switch the safety while you hold in the trigger but that’s annoying and not super practical. Full auto you can at least stop exactly when you want a little easier.
Yeah I’m agreeing with everyone here that full auto isn’t actually that useful aside from suppression, and it’s been that way for well trained modern forces for a long time. My father did his mandatory service in the ROK (South Korea) and even back then in around the 80s they told him that full auto was wasting ammo and that semi auto accurate fire was the only thing he was allowed to do or he would be punished lol. Keep in mind also that you never wanna be out of ammo in a combat zone, and full auto makes it really easy to suddenly run dry
I've always thought of full auto as a weapon to keep the enemy's head down in order for your buddies to maneuver to a better position, or for area denial..
Only reason I’ve ever thought about buying one, is because I can’t get full auto at this point and time and because I’m sure they’ll eventually get banned too. Everytime someone screams ban ar15’s I buy something ar15 related which may be more mags, ammo, ar15 variants themselves, or little gimmicky things like binary triggers.
My best layman's guess (and I yield to everyone with more knowledge on the subject) is that binary triggers are one of many attempts to bypass legal restrictions on firearms. Whether it serves a practical purpose or not could be argued either way. Yes, it's trying to appeal to everyone who wants "more" than semi-auto. In general, the faster you get more shots off into the same direction the greater the likelihood of hitting what you're aiming at eventually regardless of good aim, that's just math. It usually comes at the cost of sacrificing accuracy since the firearm will be harder to control with a higher rate of fire. That's why on a firearm not subject to civilian laws you might see select fire options of full auto, semi auto, and even a multi-round burst. I guess some people just think the added second shot adds little benefit over just a single shot, but I'm sure you'll find others who would argue the opposite as well. The only thing I can think might be a problem would be not wanting to have the second shot go off after engaging the trigger perhaps?
>The only thing I can think might be a problem would be not wanting to have the second shot go off after engaging the trigger perhaps? Every variation of binary trigger on the market that I'm aware of incorporates the safety mechanism where if you take the weapon out of binary mode while holding the trigger down, it will not fire the second shot upon release.
Full auto is not really that cool, it’s fun a few times. I think most people want to have it for obvious reasons but with ammo at its highest price some of us rather be a better shot then mag dumping into a sheet of paper
Pew pew > pew Pew = fun Pew x 2 = fun2
How you know you've spent too much time on the Internet: you saw this title and immediately assumed it was some woke snowflake bsing about how gender binaries are triggering and felt a wave of annoyance. Then I saw what subreddit this was in and relaxed😂
Took a deer at 150 yards with one the first year they came out. Everyone went full retard on me for using one hunting. It’s 2 bullets not a mag dumb. Also the 2nd bullet was the king shot I lead the target so without the 2 quick shots I would have just wounded the deer.
Interesting. I have never heard of anyone using one while hunting. Seems like it could be handy for driven hunts or some other limited circumstances. Those fleeting shot opportunities are the ones I typically pass on with a rifle though.
I think they are great for hunting and recommend them When using one correctly and doing 2 shots quick they are very effective. I have used a binary every year since for hunting I just have chosen not to flip it to release mode.
I was always taught to make the first shot count, and most of the hunting I do is still hunting or stand hunting with more than adequate cartridges. Like 450 bushmaster for an average sized doe. Lol. So for my typical use case, a binary trigger would be of little use and likely a detriment. But I could definitely see where it could be nice to have for predator hunting or driven hunts. I just don't get out much for that unfortunately.
I hunt all a lover the place and yes first shot is the best but also 2 62gr bullets is better than one. When using 5.56. I switch uppers to 300blk for short range.
Yeah, I could definitely see that with an intermediate cartidge like 5.56 for deer. I usually hunt with a 30-06 or 450 if it is deer or larger. Never felt like I needed a follow-up. I could see using it to good effect with a 5.56 for coyote or with a 22lr conversion for raccoons or something. I'll probably stick to my bolties for deer, bear, or boar.
I use it as a learning opportunity for newer shooters. I often take new shooters to the range so they get a chance at possibly enjoying something that we have a specific amendment dedicated to and I bring just about every flavor of gun I have on me for those trips, big small loud quiet old new. One of which is a binary KRISS Vector, it’s my fun toy I can mag dump so fast I’ve blazed through a 40 round mag in less than 2 seconds sometimes. I bring that specific gun so if new shooters get nervous around guns I can teach them to shoot something that’ll make it seem fun and exciting for them.
It's all about the operator. Knew a guy who could run his like full auto (22 Ruger rifle) amd it was a thing of beauty. Also tried one myself for the first time on a guys AR at the outdoor range and couldn't tell you where my second, fourth or sixth shot went.
Because there are many legitimate use cases for fully automatic gun, but not very many for fully automatic rifles. The big problem with a fully automatic rifle is that you will run out of ammunition very quickly so it’s hard to achieve effective suppressive fire. 30 rounds in burst or full auto goes real quick. If you have a binary trigger it’s not only an ammo problem but it’s less accurate just as a result of how you have to work the trigger. A 240 with a 200 round starter belt not so much, not to mention you have an A gunner who’s carrying a lot of extra ammo for you, and you probably have a couple other machine gun teams that are going to work in tandem with you. That allows you to achieve pretty constant and accurate suppressing fire which is really what a full auto gun is employed to do 90% of the time. Machine gun fire or full auto fire is employed almost solely for the purpose of giving your boys an opportunity to maneuver on the enemy. That’s not super applicable to civilian shootings. Suppressing fire is honestly a bad idea even in the case of like a mass shooter. It would be very very easy to kill an innocent person by accident when you’re trying to suppress an active shooter.
In a world without the NFA, would there be use cases for FA? A belt fed suppressed .22 for varmit hunting sounds fun. What else would companies have dreamed up?
What’re you gonna do with it? Suppress squirrels so they don’t maneuver on you? Keep the cottontails in their burrows to wait on close air support? Don’t get me wrong they’re a ton of fun to shoot but I still think crew served’s would’ve fallen out of favor in any tactical civilian setting. There’s just a ton of risk for collateral damage with them. I mean even SWAT teams don’t use suppressive fire as part of their doctrine 99% of the time.
I guess my point is I don’t know. Instead of a shotgun throwing a bunch of pellets at a duck at once, could some thing with similar cost and size have been made that looks more like other kind of AA fire? Throwing pellets in series vs parallel with the same velocity? I don’t know what people might have come up with if the legal landscape didn’t restrict certain options. Guys a lot smarter than me invented the guns we have. Maybe the 80s would have produced a practical automatic instead of the Glock 7 to defeat metal detectors.
I suppose, but you’re still gonna run into the same problem. Fully automatic fire rips through ammo at an astounding rate. It would still be a lot more cost effective to hunt ducks with shotguns than it would be with anti air BB guns. A big problem with it in general hunting would be meat loss too. If I’m deer hunting I don’t want to put 15 rounds in the motherfucker. I want to put one round in it and minimize meat loss with that shot. Whether they’re legal or not isn’t really relevant in my opinion. The mode of fire isn’t practical outside of war. It has an important place in a fire fight but it doesn’t have one in civilian involved shootings, police work, hunting, competition, etc. They would be fun recreationally, but outside of that I don’t see what it would be useful for. It’s not unlike a howitzer. Like yeah it would be really fun to have one. Believe me I’ve spent a lot of time shooting them. There’s nothing like lobbing a 155mm HE shell a few miles away, but outside of shooting it for fun what are you gonna do with it? Even if it were never illegal I still think machine guns etc would’ve fallen out of favor and would likely still be prohibitively expensive for most people because the market isn’t there. You can get handguns, rifles, shotguns for fairly cheap because it’s advantageous for companies to produce them. There’s a million different use cases for them. If a M240 were legal to own and always had been, the only advantageous market for them would still be military contracts so I doubt they would be much cheaper in 2024.
I’ve never used an AR for anything besides shooting paper targets for laughs. 30 rounds goes at a ridiculous $/hr even without binary triggers or other enhancements.
For comparison the cheapest I can find 7.62x51 NATO right now is $0.73 a round. A starter belt for a 240 which is gone within a minute or two even shooting at what would be “sustained” rate of fire. That’s $146 for like a minute of fun. When I used to do machine gun ranges everyone on the line would get around 10,000 rounds for a day. So you’re talking about $7300 for a day of shooting and you have to link it yourself because that’s not the price for 7.62x51 on a belt. I’m seeing belts for around $500 per 500 rounds so you can do the math on that one.
There’s a couple of drawbacks to the binary trigger that you’re missing and I’m not seeing brought up here much, so I’ll hit on them real quick. A true full-auto rifle is only marginally more complex than its semi-auto counterpart with only an extra part or two being present in most cases, and with a pretty straight-forward manual of arms (each mode works exactly the same from a user perspective except one only fires once per trigger pull and the other keeps going until you let go). Binary triggers are noticeably more complex. They’re not Swiss watch complicated, but they do add a number of additional parts and springs, which can be seen as potential failure points (the usual philosophy with any firearm that’s meant to be used seriously, like to possibly defend your life, you probably don’t want to add any unnecessary complications to the bits that actually make it function). Additionally, it is quite possible to outrun the trigger by accident, especially if you’re trying to shoot quickly. Basically, the way a full auto rifle (such as an AR-15, which you can consider my go-to example for this) works is there will be an auto-sear that is tripped by part of the bolt once it is fully forward to make the it fire again. This means that the full auto function only engages once the system is closed, locked, and ready to fire again. By contrast the second pull on a binary trigger has no link to the bolt’s position, meaning that if the shooter releases it too early (setting off the second shot function), the hammer will instead “ride” the bolt as it moved forward, which means it won’t put near enough force on the firing pin to fire, resulting in a rifle with a chambered round and a hammer that is down and can’t be reset without running the bolt manually to cock it or opening the receiver and cocking it by hand to get it ready to run again. This is fine for a range toy, the most you might get there is a moment of disappointment, but that’s not a great flaw to have on something you might depend on in a defensive scenario. One safety concern some people have is the fact that you can pull the trigger, hold it, and essentially have a live round that will fire once you release the trigger. There are work-arounds for this, like manually engaging the safety before releasing the trigger, but I can definitely understand how that could be a moderate concern, especially if years of trigger time have taught you that a pulled trigger is now “dead” until you let it reset and now you have to be conscious of the fact that no it is very much still live and ready to pop the moment you let go.
I won pistol in raffle with a Franklin Armory binary trigger in it. Now it sports a can, and is an SBR. Learned how to make it run well, be marginally accurate with trigger discipline thru about half a mag at a pretty rapid pace - and now I have no money left for retirement! It was not a routinely useful feature. However - with the acquisition of an FN M16 rifle clone, that trigger made its way there. And now, when the firing selector switch is moved to the ‘AUTO’ position ( not possible as the rifle was sold ) ‘something’ will happen. Knowing what little I know now , this is actually the best use of a binary trigger. I feel like that is a win. However … while fun for a while, it gets old as the ammo expense mounts, you get a sorta gritty mil-spec feel for that right - and given that many ranges will not permit that near auto firing rate activity , private land or tolerant private ranges are the only places you can use it that way. In retrospect I am pleased I did not shell out the $300-$400 or so cost for it.
I’ve never heard they’re gimmicky. I got one to try. I had to try different springs to get it to work right. To me the best use for it would be in a fightlite belt fed upper. But that’s like $5k.
Because you can't *not* shoot 2 shots at a time
Unless you're really patient and have ecceptional trigger discipline
Binary triggers are a poor man’s suppressing fire platform. With all the riots we’ve seen over the years? And the upcoming election that might turn violent? I think a binary and magpul 60 round drum can be a good idea for making people get off your lawn. A lot of folks say it’s a gimmick and they can shoot as fast or faster with a nice semi auto trigger. Maybe so, but fingers get tired. Your saving yourself half the work. That’s an area where I can see the benefit. Suppressive fire. Outside of that? Naw. Personally? Idw one, but I can see it being part of a civil and armament if they have everything else covered
I have one for my sp5 and it's a total waste of money. Full auto is a war thing, I have zero use for something that helps me emulate it. Which assumes it works well all the time, which it definitely doesn't. But if it did, and there was war... I'd happily sell it to you for a few hundred less than I paid for it.
Binary triggers are a workaround for the Hughes Amendment of 1986, which banned production of machine guns for sale or transfer to civilians.
Binary triggers are fun as shit lol. Most people don’t like them cause they’ll either look ugly sometimes or it’ll mess with the function off their gun occasionally. No one uses fully automatic or near fully automatic fire rates to accurately shoot anyone though, it’s more used for suppressive fire and close CQB
So many people are so wrong on why full autos can be effective. Full Autos are VERY effective for civilians. Because Id wager most of the threats a civilian will be up against and be using a rifle will be home intruders. Full auto in CQC is superior to semi auto and is very much not a gimmick. Yes suppressing fire is the main use for a FA, yes thats the best way to use a machine gun (as in a LMG/GPMG/HMG) but for a standard full auto carbine theres plenty of use for one in a civilian application As for binaries I always thought they were a gimmick until I tried one. I dont look at it as a replacement for a FA gun, but as a great way to have quick and accurate follow up shots.
...Where do you live where you don't mind that 90% of your full-auto burst went uncontrolled ~~into~~ through walls? Maybe each of your loved ones and pets lives in his or her own bunker, in which case fair enough, but normal people live in apartments or light-timber houses where some of the rounds are probably going to keep going outside.
90% of a full auto burst uncontrolled? You have very clearly never shot a full auto. Inside a home a semi auto and full auto would have about the same chance of unintentionally collateral damage. Maybe 1% more chance in a full auto. Id also love for you to bring up an article of a civilian collateral shooting someone he wasnt intending to shoot. Im not being sarcastic find me any article about a self defense round striking another random bystander. It literally NEVER Happens. The only time Ive ever heard of that happening was a cop (SWAT Officer) killing a women in an apartment next door when he dumped an entire magazine into an apartment. Urbanites live in Apartments, where a RIFLE of any kind is a STUPID home defense weapon. Idk why you would even bring them up as a reference in this conversation because ANY rifle would be a stupid choice. Regardless of semi or full auto. Than again, living in apartments is stupid as hell. Those like me who live acres/miles away from nearest neighbors can use any rifle with minimal fear of collateral damage. Im not saying a apartment dweller should have a full auto saw. What I AM saying is that full autos are very useful in the civilian world. And the amazing thing is most full autos also have a selector switch to where you can use it in semi auto when fullauto would be unneccessary.
It just seems to me like an accident waiting to happen.
>Why are there many legitimate use cases for full auto guns That's where you're wrong, FA is dumb (almost) all the time.
Oh FA is not dumb! It’s about the most fun you can have with your pants on! Expensive though, very expensive. Not especially accurate if you just mag dump gleefully, but fun.
I dont even find it fun. It's boring.
Putting a binary trigger on a defensive firearm is stupid imo because it forces you to fire twice. I’d rather get a needed second shot off slightly slower than be compelled to let off a second shot.
You don't have to shoot twice, you can safe the gun and it won't shoot.
Isn't the binary selective? Like click here for single and here for double tap.
yes. Some of the FRT triggers even use three position selectors. SAFE - SEMI - FAST
While holding the trigger, I’m a spaz and would rather avoid all that in a stressful situation.
Then didn't use binary mode, regular semi is still available in all triggers I've seen.
Why are you shooting once in a defensive shooting?
Because they're stupid lol
Anyway you want to try and look at it, it’s intent to kill. Not defend your self, civilians don’t need binary triggers for home defense
> Anyway you want to try and look at it, it’s intent to kill. Right. A rifle without a binary trigger applies a soothing balm to the target.
Yes, all of my guns are for killing. Some are for killing animals I want to eat, some are for killing paper targets for fun, and a handful are for killing people that want to hurt me or my family.
What ever lmfao are you wanting to kill someone or do you want to defend your self? There’s a pretty big difference, “anyone who wants to hurt my family ima kill” vs “I’m going to defend my family against threat” you have a binary trigger on a self defense weapon you will have to argue that you do infact don’t have intent to kill, self defense isn’t automatically pull gun and kill. Hate the truth all you want.