CNN trashing .50 BMG's right NOW!


PDA






orangeninja
August 26, 2005, 08:47 PM
CNN is running a .50 cal as the “PERFECT” terror weapon review right now. One of the things they show as it’s possible use is shooting down an airliner.

Lets examine the hard facts:

A Boeing 727, which is used in their demonstration; has a cruising speed of 570-605 MPH. It cruises at 30,000 to 40,000 feet. There are 5280 ft. in a mile. Thus to shoot down an airborne cruising airliner, or even “CRIPPLE” it as CNN says is possible, the would be terrorist has to:

Fire a “hit” at a target approximately 5.68 to 7.58 miles away and the target is traveling at 570 to 605 MPH.

They also pointed out that you could hit the plane at the airport either landing or taking off or as it taxied or sat…to which I say, “so what?” The cabin will not loose pressure as it would at 30,000 feet and all the pilot has to do is swing the plane around or bring it back down. The likelihood of a 727 being “shot down” even within a 1000 feet of being near the plane is probably hovering at around a 0%. As for the chances of a dumb ass hauling around a 4 to 6 foot long rifle that holds 1 to 5 rounds and avoiding detection by police, surveillance cameras and security, probably greater than 1%.

To be quite honest it would be easier for a terrorist to build a bomb using fertilizer and diesel fuel…so I guess we should outlaw gas and cow ????? too.

Just the facts Mama.

Alduro…………out.

If you enjoyed reading about "CNN trashing .50 BMG's right NOW!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
afasano
August 26, 2005, 09:10 PM
The first problem with that is, any bullet begins to slow down as soon as it goes out of the barrel. so how can it catch up with an airliner ; :barf: Let's not get too technical with these people.

fgr39
August 26, 2005, 09:11 PM
I guess they had to counter Shooting Gallery. They just covered long range competitions using the fifty and showing that it is a sporting round.

mustanger98
August 26, 2005, 09:15 PM
I guess they had to counter Shooting Gallery.

Yeah, they probably beleived what Micheal Bane said about soaking a .224" HPBT in a solution of sugar water and tequila for six months and harvesting the big ones. :scrutiny: :neener: :neener:

miko
August 26, 2005, 09:17 PM
Imagine a spotter next to a sniper and another spotter on the side of the flight path equipped with theodolites.
With such a setup it can be ensured that the sniper is shooting at the plane travelling head-on (no lead involved) at altitude no more than 500 yards and distance no more than one mile when the plane is at a peviously pre-determined spot at precisely known velocity. The velocity of the plane adds to the velocity of the bullet at the time of impact.

The shooting can be done at night, with muzzle flash easily concealed from the pilots, from a vehicle.

miko

FPrice
August 26, 2005, 09:22 PM
CNN is running a .50 cal as the “PERFECT” terror weapon review right now. One of the things they show as it’s possible use is shooting down an airliner.

There is another thread here about the NYPD acquiring .50 BMGs. Is CNN suggesting that the NYPD is a terrorist organization?

Taurus 66
August 26, 2005, 09:25 PM
The media should turn their sights to shoulder fired AAWs, but even more important than the weapon is its user. Ban 50 BMG?? How about banning terrorists?! Get Alakhshmed, Muhammad Mullahhaha and Alyktu Rubitupandown out of the country alreay!! They're nothing but trouble.

NeveraVictimAgain
August 26, 2005, 09:29 PM
What is "Shooting Gallery"? If it's a TV show, when is it broadcast and on what network please?

mustanger98
August 26, 2005, 09:31 PM
Shooting Gallery is on the Outdoor Channel- Dishnetwork channel 153. It was on tonight at 7:30, I think, and it'll be re-run a couple of times over the weekend and other times late at night.

hillbilly
August 26, 2005, 09:33 PM
I'm SHOCKED!!!!

You mean folks still actually watch CNN shows???????????

That's incredible.

hillbilly

danny
August 26, 2005, 11:18 PM
I was in the Navy years ago before it went all missle. Our 3" and 5" guns could shoot down a plane at cruising altitudes but it took some fairly sophisticated radar to lock on and computers to calculate where the plane would be when the projectile got up there. Factored in target speed, wind, air density, and lots of other variables (27 in all). Even then, we sometimes would miss. The idea of a terrorist hitting one with a shoulder-fired rifle is ridiculous. He may as well throw rocks for all the good it would do.

scott.cr
August 26, 2005, 11:58 PM
The whole problem with this thread is that you're "examining the facts." Mainstream media will never examine the facts.

One of the greatest lines of journalists is: "If it bleeds, it leads." It's the absolute truth as far as pro journalists go. They don't care about fact, just sensationalism.

Right now I'm enrolled in a local university in their journalism program. Yes I am (actually, was) a professional journalist. I have to tell you, journalists are pompous and they love the fact that they can sway a nation.

I had the hugest argument with my Jou 101 prof when he was all proud that what the media says can topple a U.S. President. My angle was that we were supposed to observe and report. His angle was how powerful the media is.

mustanger98
August 27, 2005, 12:25 AM
I had the hugest argument with my Jou 101 prof when he was all proud that what the media says can topple a U.S. President. My angle was that we were supposed to observe and report. His angle was how powerful the media is.

Some people just habitually ask the wrong question- "can we" instead of "should we."

odysseus
August 27, 2005, 02:35 AM
Watching it now... so far it's full of hype, paranoia, and hidden facts. It's definetely anti-gun.

They call the .50 a "mini artillary shell" perfect for terrorists.

Man...I need a shovel. :barf:

Double Naught Spy
August 27, 2005, 11:23 AM
The CNN segment has been on before.

FYI alduro, posting to the forum isn't the same thing as instant messaging. I looked and CNN isn't showing this segment right now. Why? Because your right now when posted is now ancient history. Your time sensitive post is sort of like the telegram that arrived hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor that warned of the inbound attackers.

RnR
August 27, 2005, 01:04 PM
With Congress in recess, the <names witheld> probably think there is a greater chance to inject this kind of nonsensical reportage directly into the nervous systems of the elect few. The critters that work on the Hill likely don't get to watch much of the vast wasteland of TV "news" when in session.

Might the anti's be trying to cut out the middle-person and go straight for the legislative juglar? Perhaps...

MudPuppy
August 27, 2005, 05:07 PM
While the whole 50BMG BS about being the "perfect terrorist gun" is just that, its also misleading on our part to say that the bad guys would be taking shots at the airliners while their at cruising altitudes. I mean seriously, if you were a bad guy, is that how you'd emply the weapon agains that target??

I mean, stinger anti-aircraft missiles won't do the job under those circumstances, right?

While I'm not going to go in the various ways that terrorists could be efficient (I'm sure most folks here are smart enough to figure out would work, the terrorists most certainly do--as proven with the last airliners knocked down with box-cutters, not to mention some cheap and easily mfg'ed bombs on buses in london, or trains in spain.), I find it ridiculous that the hype with the 50 is where it is.

CARRY'IN
August 27, 2005, 05:25 PM
Imagine a spotter next to a sniper and another spotter on the side of the flight path equipped with theodolites.
With such a setup it can be ensured that the sniper is shooting at the plane travelling head-on (no lead involved) at altitude no more than 500 yards and distance no more than one mile when the plane is at a peviously pre-determined spot at precisely known velocity. The velocity of the plane adds to the velocity of the bullet at the time of impact.

The shooting can be done at night, with muzzle flash easily concealed from the pilots, from a vehicle.

miko

I will go with Miko- it is possible to get hits on takeoff or landing if the plane is coming directly at you or away from you. And you could fire from inside a van, using it as a giant flash suppressor. Still hard to knock an airliner down though. Have to do alot of damage unless you are using an indendiary and are lucky enough to blow up a fuel tank. 50 is a great anti-helicopter weapon though. Helo's are easy to knock down. The 50 is an "anti-material" weapon and could be used for terrorist purposes but so can alot of things. I would say keep track of the weapons- perhaps enroll the shooters in a kind of swiss model "national militia." It's the only chance we have of holding on to them. Dont mean to sound anti 50 but the first time someone gets assassinated or a terrorist uses one here- they will be taken out of the hands of citizens. It's a sure thing.

orangeninja
August 28, 2005, 04:26 PM
Double Naught Spy

"The CNN segment has been on before.

FYI alduro, posting to the forum isn't the same thing as instant messaging. I looked and CNN isn't showing this segment right now. Why? Because your right now when posted is now ancient history. Your time sensitive post is sort of like the telegram that arrived hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor that warned of the inbound attackers."


Yeah...thanks for explaining how a message board works. Really. Notice the time and date on the top of my post....yeah...all those funny numbers? Yeah, that's when the show was on in case you would like to reference the material or better yet, since CNN broadcasts in cycles, wait for them to show it again in 4 hours.

So my appologies to Double Naught and all others who ran with all urgency to the television without checking the time and date of the post. :rolleyes:

WarMachine
August 28, 2005, 08:34 PM
I just cannot understand how people can live their lives believing this biased garbage. I encounter these kinda issues all the time since some people I know are relatively anti-gun, and say that guns should ONLY be used by military, police, or for defense. Since I use my guns for sport primarily they say I am just wasting my time and money and that I should put that money towards stuff I acutally need... :barf:

I would like to see them to only spend their time doing stuff that is absolutely necessary to their survival with no time spent on luxuries or fun :cuss:

Woah, I'm getting a little off-topic here. Rant mode OFF...

Tylden
August 28, 2005, 08:44 PM
All I can say is I would have a real hard time hitting a deer moving at 10 mph at a range of 600 yards.....there would be absolutely no way in h*ll to hit a plane moving at 600 mph at a range of 30,000 feet. I think my chances of winning the lottery twice in one week would be a safer bet. :banghead:

WarMachine
August 28, 2005, 10:30 PM
Yea, winning the lottery twice in one week, while being mauled by Big-Foot, during a solar eclipse, on the date of 06/06/06 at 3:08PM :rolleyes:

MudPuppy
August 29, 2005, 10:37 AM
Tylden, is that the shot you would take with the rifle if you were a terrorist? Or would you line up in the flight path on take off or landing--aircraft straight at you at a speed of less that 250?

Someone here could do the math--a 700 meter shot, compensating for drop, increasing/decreasing speed and altitude of the aircraft. I still think its crap, but if our response to the 50 cal "threat" is "oh, a plane flies 5 miles up at 650 mph" the antigunners will make us look like fools or liars.

benEzra
August 29, 2005, 11:54 AM
I will go with Miko- it is possible to get hits on takeoff or landing if the plane is coming directly at you or away from you. And you could fire from inside a van, using it as a giant flash suppressor. Still hard to knock an airliner down though. Have to do alot of damage unless you are using an indendiary and are lucky enough to blow up a fuel tank. 50 is a great anti-helicopter weapon though. Helo's are easy to knock down. The 50 is an "anti-material" weapon and could be used for terrorist purposes but so can alot of things. I would say keep track of the weapons- perhaps enroll the shooters in a kind of swiss model "national militia." It's the only chance we have of holding on to them. Dont mean to sound anti 50 but the first time someone gets assassinated or a terrorist uses one here- they will be taken out of the hands of citizens. It's a sure thing.
Actually, it's a LOT harder than you think, even if the plane is on the GROUND and coming straight at the shooter, as on takeoff.

I ran this little scenario in a discussion with an anti about the supposed grave danger .50's pose to airplanes. He granted that a half-inch bullet isn't going to do diddly squat to an airliner, but argued that taking out both pilots or hitting both engine cores on takeoff would cause a crash. I ran the numbers, as follows:

"Let's explore that scenario a bit. You pretty much have to have a straight frontal shot so you don't have to lead the plane by 100 feet, so that means your hypothetical sniper will be set up at the departure end of the runway. Using his ultra-sniper camoflage skills, we'll assume he's only, say, 200 yards from the departure end. But to hit a pilot, he'd have to hit the plane before it starts to rotate, because once the nose lifts putting a round into the cockpit would be extremely difficult due to obstruction (both visual and ballistic) by the nose angle. So your hypothetical terrorist sniper would probably be looking at an 1800-yard shot, given runway distances and such.

That's right at the maximum effective range of the .50 as given by the U.S. military. Let's run some numbers on a hypothetical 1800-yard frontal shot on an airliner on its takeoff roll, to see if it's a realistic scenario.

The trajectory table below is from from http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/ballistics/traj/traj.html. These are from a calculation I had previously run on a target five feet off the ground, but the numbers would be very close for a target 15 feet off the ground. So:

.50 BMG

Bullet: 750-grain Barnes, ballistic coefficient 1.07
Muzzle Velocity: 2800 feet/sec
Downrange Wind: 0
Crosswind: 3 mph
Temperature: 59.6 °F
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 in Hg
Relative Humidity: 0.0%
Altitude: Sea Level
Zero: 1800 yards
Target Height: 5 feet off ground

Elevation: 62.952 moa

Range.....Velocity.....Energy.......Drop
(yards)...(ft/sec)....(ft-lbs)....(inches)
...0.......2803.0.....13083.2.......-3.0
.200.......2629.0.....11509.6......119.6
.400.......2462.1.....10094.3......222.0
.600.......2301.9......8824.1......301.4
.800.......2147.8......7682.0......354.6
1000.......1999.1......6655.3......377.5
1200.......1857.0......5742.6......365.6
1400.......1722.1......4938.4......313.3
1600.......1594.7......4234.8......214.1
1700.......1534.2......3919.5......144.4
1750.......1504.8......3770.8......104.1
1800.......1476.0......3627.9.......60.0
1850.......1447.8......3490.7.......11.9
1900.......1420.3......3359.4......-40.4
1950.......1393.6......3233.9......-97.0
2000.......1367.5......3114.2.....-158.0

Target is moving toward the shooter at a speed of, let's say, 150 mph, or 220 feet per second. That's 73 yards per second. The target is roughly 4 feet high seated. The bullet at that distance is dropping roughly 4 feet per 50 yards. So the shooter would have to estimate the range to the airplane within 50 yards, when the airplane is moving at 73 yards per second, to even have a chance of hitting one pilot. That is an impossible shot even for a highly trained military sniper.

To hit the second pilot--we'll allow the hypothetical shooter two seconds to settle in from recoil and acquire a second sight picture. The still-accelerating airplane has moved another 150 yards toward the shooter, changing the bullet point of impact by 12.5 feet, but there's no time to readjust the scope so the shooter needs 12.5 feet of holdover, and still has to guesstimate the range to within 50 yards or so on a target moving 73 yards per second. A shot even more impossible than the first.

SO, I think we can say that long-distance shots on small, fast-moving targets are essentially IMPOSSIBLE with a .50 BMG rifle, even from straight ahead. If you had a .50 machine gun on a pedestal mount, and tracer ammunition so you could just walk the stream into the target (like the old .50 AA guns on WW2 battleships), maybe you'd get a hit. But not with a sniper rifle.

There's a reason why even the special forces use the .50 for disabling parked airplanes. Shoulder-fired missiles are a credible threat to airliners in the vicinity of an airport, but .50 BMG target rifles just aren't."

If you enjoyed reading about "CNN trashing .50 BMG's right NOW!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!