[omginternets]

You're being disingenuous by sneaking in the notion of long-burst fire. Your point about mussel climb and automatic fire is akin to saying "if you hold a pistol sideways -- gangsta style -- and repeatedly jerk the trigger, your accuracy will suck". Well duh! Use the thing properly!

Yes, firing from the hip on full rock-n-roll is less accurate than controlled shots from a pistol, though I should think that was both obvious and beside the point.

Carefully controlled shots from an SMG are systematically better-placed than carefully-controlled shots from a pistol. Full stop. Moreover, SMGs are so damn easy to control (again, assuming they're used properly, i.e. with the extensible/foldable/fixed stock) that you can trivially put 3-to-5-round bursts in a human torso at 5 meters. Anybody who can't do that has no business carrying an SMG.

Surely you'll concede than in just about any professional situation, full-auto fire is not used. Full-auto fire is a suppressive technique, and as such it is largely relegated to military action (and not with SMGs, by the way).

It is absolutely absurd to suggest that pistols are more accurate and more controllable than a firearm with a longer barrel and stock.

Absolutely, astoundingly absurd.

[TallGuyShort]

>> You're being disingenuous by sneaking in the notion of long-burst fire.

Not really. Try moving a fire-selector from safe to semi under stress and see how quickly you stop. Then look at the number of shots fired from fully-automatic weapons during police shootings. Then tell me long-burst fire isn't a concern when deciding where they should be deployed.

Curious if you've ever fired a submachine-gun on full-auto? You'll either rise significantly within a few shots or you're applying enough downward pressure to make it very unstable during recoil.

edit: Your edits to the above post seem to be repeating themselves and adding italics. Maybe I'll just concede the argument so you can stop hyperventilating at your keyboard. Calm down, seriously, for your own health.

[omginternets]

>Calm down, seriously, for your own health.

I'm perfectly calm. Please don't be condescending. I'm being insistant because you seem intent on missing the point, which is the following:

1) Single, controlled shots from pistols are less accurate than their equivalents fired from SMGs with stocks

2) Yes, automatic fire decreases accuracy. Don't use automatic fire where accuracy is a concern.

To claim otherwise is, again, absurd.

[TallGuyShort]

>> over-penetration would actually be pretty low on my list of concerns about a submachine gun.

That's what I said. I haven't argued with #1 at all, in fact I've specifically agreed with it. #2 would be my biggest concern in deciding when to deploy fully-automatic weapons to routine law-enforcement. It's a common (and increasingly so) thing in the US to do is to issue semi-automatic only rifles to police officers for their patrol vehicles. In London you'll see a number of police officers at various high-risk locations carrying MP5s, slung while on guard. If I'm not mistaken, they are select-fire.

So in deciding which firearm I would issue for which deployment, what I'm saying is that my list of concerns about a submachine gun or similar firearm, whether or not the situation and the training level of the officers is appropriate for the potential of fully-automatic fire is far higher on my list of concerns than over-penetration. If you miss the target, everything is over-penetration.

I don't see how that's "absolutely absurd". I don't think data is available on how well officers manipulate safety switches under stress, but the rate at which even moderately trained personnel blow through all their rounds without hitting anything, military or SWAT, is astounding. So yes, don't use automatic fire if you don't need it. The reality is not so simple, IMO.