RW> A full auto HANDGUN would be IMPOSSIBLE to use well.
 RW> If the weight was low enough to make it firable one
BR> I've never used one, so I don't know.  The Glock design
BR> seems to be easier to  shoot well than my Dad's 1911 -
BR> something about barrel placement relative to  hand location 
BR> and torque moment about the axis of the barrel pivot point
You are talking about semi-auto fire, full auto is an
entirely different critter.  One reason you'll find
that most special ops (military) do not fire full auto
at all is the fact that the rds fired to rds on target
is way too big.  These are men who train day in and day
out with their weapons.
BR> or  attach point.  ANYTHING can be learned - but whether
BR> it's worth it I can't say. 
You can't learn to over come the laws of physics.  Each
time the weapon fires you get recoil and muzzle flip.
When that rate of fire reaches a certain point you can
no longer over come the recoil and flip.  At that point
the weapon continues to climb which pulls the rounds
off target.
 RW> BR> seriously doubg  they'd be built if there weren't a
 RW> BR> perceived need, in the form of a market.  Around here, all
 RW> They were designed and produced at the request of the
 RW> pentagon.  Like a lot of weapon designs it was thought
 RW> up by someone who didn't really know what he was doing.
 RW> It was thought that the special ops types could use it.
 RW> Needless to say NOBODY wanted it.
BR> The Swiss cops use it for something - Glock takes its orders
I have never seen where anyone used the full auto
version.
BR> other places than  the Pentagon.  Now Beretta might've done
BR> smething for the Pentagon since they  got the military
BR> business, but I doubt Glock cares much what those domes
BR> want. 
You got to be kidding.  Every arms manufacture in the
world wants a Pentagon contract, the same for most
large Police weapons contract. 
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------