Last night before heading to bed my wife and I were talking about full-auto handguns. She felt they would be a great weapon in a zombie apocalypse and I strongly disagreed. This morning I read an article in Guns&Ammo by Patrick Sweeney relating to full-auto handguns, and his experience with them lines up with what my thoughts on them have always been; they would be fun to shoot every now and again as a novelty, but they are not a practical weapon to have (especially during a zombie apocalypse scenario, yes, he stated that specifically).
I love shooting guns, and shooting any firearm that has full-auto capabilities is even more fun, but there comes a point in every shooter’s life when they start to ask some tough questions. These questions will range from “Should I purchase bullets or lunch?” all the way to “Does a full-auto handgun make sense when a submachine gun has so many more positive attributes?”
My opinion of full-auto handguns, or machine pistols, is that they were designed for a very specific situation or condition, but most of the time a submachine gun would still be a better choice. The one positive that machine pistols have is that they look like most other pistols, which in turn means people in general won’t freak out when they see police or security carrying them.
The benefits of a submachine gun on the other hand far outweigh the “mundane” factor. As they were designed for full-auto fire, submachine guns usually have some way of bracing the weapon to better deal with recoil. Usually this is a stock of some sort but sometimes it’s a forward grip. This in turn makes them easier to be accurate with. Unless the point is suppression fire, hitting a target with more bullets is always a better than missing with more bullets.
Perhaps I’m getting old, but if I were given a choice of legally owning, or even just firing a full-auto pistol or a submachine gun, hands down I would go with the submachine gun. What are other people’s thoughts on this issue?