[Maser]

I have to agree that a full auto is VERY over rated. My first FA gun I shot was a Thompson. It's a very fun gun and easy to control due to the weight of the gun, but thinking about how expensive it would be to have to pay for the ammo myself definately turns me off. I don't need a full auto. I learned how to bump fire at a young age. As far as NFA items/guns go, I am more intrigued by SBSs, SBRs, and suppressors. At least I can afford those as soon as I get out of Cali. Hopefully by the time I'm 21, the 86' ban will be lifted and I can afford a FA.

 

[Maser]

M14 impossible to be accurate on FA (at least for me)

No matter how bad you think you were, I bet I was 100x worse when I first shot one of them bad boys. Sure gave my uncle and his friends a good laugh. My poor poor shoulder.

That said, the civilian "need" for F/A is pretty much non-existent. You would have quite a hard time convincing me, (much less the liberal media and most "sheepeople") of the fact that you "need" a F/A for personal protection or much of anything else for that matter. Even most LEOs have no "need" for F/A. S/A patrol carbine, yes, without question, but not F/A.

It's not a question of what we "need". If I am an upstanding US Citizen and I am not a criminal and I am a law abider, then I should be able to own ANY type of firearm I choose to. We don't "need" fast cars or muscle cars, but rather we choose to own them. Why should guns be any different?

 

[Maser]

The cheapest full auto to shoot is the 9mm. If I had the cash, that is the one I would want. Have you noticed the ammo prices lately. Even 9mm is getting up there.

Actually the cheapest would be a .22LR. Not sure if there really was a market for FA .22LRs prior to 1986, but I do know that back then there were lots of drop-in trigger groups and bolt assemblies for the Ruger 10/22 that were sold and if you're lucky enough to find them parts that are registered as pre-ban, then you can have some serious cheap fun. :twisted: