Does your gun range ban .50 BMG?

[Frank Ettin]

...A typical load from a .50 (647 gr. bullet at 2,910 fps) will travel about 6,600 yards. A typical load from a .308 (168 gr. bullet at 2650 fps) will travel about 5,000 yards. The difference is less than a mile. This is a specious argument at best....

Well for one thing "less than a mile" (in this case about 0.90 mile) can be the difference between vacant land and someone's breakfast table.

I can always tell when I've won an argument. Others start name calling instead of sticking to the facts. ...

I didn't call you names. I said that you were ignorant about our range. That is a fact. You don't know anything about our range or what we went through to design and build it.

Among other things, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that I wrote that we designed our range with the help of an NRA recommended consultant, that we did an aerial survey of our property and the surrounding area, that some of our members are engineers and understand design and construction, and that one of our members has special expertise in dirt moving and grading and understands the construction of berms.

So have you ever visited our range? Studied our terrain? Examined the slippage characteristics of our berms and the hillside against which they are built? Are you professionally qualified to render an opinion regarding these things? If not, then indeed it is another fact that we know more about our range then you do. And then it is also a fact that we are more qualified to decide how to run our range than you are.

...I have no problem with such a limitation if there's a reasonable motive not to allow them. But I don't think that "noise, muzzle blast and bullets shooting too far" are reasonable....

That's too bad, because I think a lot of people disagree. And if range management thinks that "noise, muzzle blast and bullets shooting too far" are good reasons not to allow .50 BMG, I guess you're out of luck.

 

[SomeDude]

I know you can't shoot em at the staffed ranges run by the Missouri Conservation Dept. I stopped going to those anyway because the guys running the range are...well, that's for another thread.

 

[JohnBT]

"Yes, I know the difference between private property and government control. But the concept is the same, "We don't like certain guns so we're going to ban them." "

It's not that they don't like them, they're too big for the range or the neigborhood. Or too noisy.

You appear to be incapable of understanding the difference between private individuals or groups saying, "Not in my house" and the government saying "Not anywhere, they are completely banned."

If I say you can't sing at my house (because the baby is sleeping or I don't like noise) I have not banned singing - you can go elsewhere. If the government bans singing everywhere, well, it's banned. See the difference? I think you do, you just don't care.

Or are you simply blurring the lines of the discussion and tossing about odds and ends of facts because you really don't have a logical line of reasoning here? Really, you aren't making much sense the way you are going on and on about this.

John

 

[Acera]

bigger hammer wrote:

This is just more of the sensationalism and hysterics we've come to expect from the mass media. I'd not have expected to see it here; but here it is.

I agree completely and might add that includes those people who, do not have a .50 BMG, never shot a .50 BMG, and believe that their meager understanding of physics makes them an expert in what the .50 BMG can do. They rant about their beliefs and don't expend the effort to go find out what the truth really is, or have any faith in the opinions of those who have said experience.

 

[Deanimator]

Does your gun range ban .50 BMG?

It does, but then so do most 50' indoor pistol ranges...

 

[Redheadedstranger]

Getting upset that a range bans the use of certain calibers/firearms/shooting stances/etc. is about like getting upset about the Homeowners Association rules for your neighborhood or subdivision (how tall your fence can be, what color your shingles must be, etc). You knew the rules when you chose to live there and agreed to abide by them. If you do not like them, you should have made a better choice. If do not have a range in your area that caters to your needs, open one.....or move. Not catering to your specific needs or desires does not infringe upon your rights.

That being said, I will not live in an area with an HOA. Also, if one or a group of .50 BMG shooters showed up at the range, I would be one of those that stood around and watched in amazement (and probably a little jealously). It is not about infringing upon your right to bear arms. It is a matter private ownership rights.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I don't think a very serious argument can be made for "it tears up the berms too much".

A good and real and fair argument IS used by some ranges that ban them along the lines of "at some point, some time, some one WILL miss the berm, and over she goes. A .50 goes 4 miles, with a heavy destructive bullet, whereas the other rounds go about 2 miles, with ligher bullets. There's nothing for 2 miles back behind, but there's a neighborhood 3.5 miles behind, so we can't take that chance." Simple math / physics. I'm sure that the liability insurance carriers have certain rules & tests as well which they place upon the ranges. You can self-insure, but that's risky.

Should have made this a poll thread.

 

[Ranb]

What is more likely to go over the berm? Someone rapid firing a pistol or small rifle in a standing position or a 30 pound rifle sitting on the bench? I have heard of only one person being injured by a 50 cal in the USA. How many other firearms can boast of this record?

Ranb

 

[Acera]

I can't find it by the search feature, but there was a video on here about testing the berm damage with a 50, and if remember it was not significant. Hopefully someone remembers where it is and posts it.

One range I shoot at will not allow them, they even had to close the 200 yard portion because of bullets on houses.

For those ranges that use the argument that it travels too far. I can only see the justification in the range limitations if that is the 50 is the only bullet that can reach the houses. So if you have houses 2/3 mile behind the berm, then basically everything shot out there can reach them, the 50 ban looses it's credibility.

I think that generally 50 shooters are more interested in precision shooting and less on "self defense tactics" type of shooting we see at a lot of ranges. This means that they will be more concerned with each single shot's placement. They are expensive rounds, and most of the guns out there are single shot which is more designed toward precision shooting (not just banging away). When you spend that kind of money on a target rifle, you generally, in my experience, place great emphasis on each shot.

But on the other hand, it's their range so they can do what they want. But the 50 shooters at least ought to be heard, with a reasonable discussion with the owner.

 

[Justin]

I have shot at or been a member at ranges that were not only limited to rimfire only firearms, but limited you to only shooting using International or NRA competition rules.

I have shot on ranges that prohibit the use of steel targets.

I have shot on ranges that prohibit the use of full-auto firearms or .50 BMG.

In some cases, I agreed with these rules, in some I didn't. In all cases, I was made aware of the rules and agreed to abide by them. If a range's rules are egregious or unfair, then it seems to me that the thing to do is to take it up with the board in charge of that range.

Getting all red-faced and accusing people you've never even met in real life of being anti-gun is frankly ridiculous and counterproductive.

 

[Noban]

I see nothing wrong with prohibiting .50 BMG at a range, so long as it's not for political reasons. Range maintenance used to be a bear after the hammering the target stands and berms took after a .50 shoot at our range. Plus, it caused other shooters to pack up early due to the thunder.

If you want to shoot a .50 BMG then seek out a range that will accomodate you, or get your own property. If it's not political, then it's not about the 2nd amendment. It's just business.

 

[TAB]

A local one did, until they rebuilt the end of the range to handle the blast/ noise. as to not hurt/ bother other shooters.

if your in the lane next to a guy shooting a 50 bmg and are in line of the muzzle blast, you are going to at the very least get a hot blast.

Now they will only let you shoot one sitting or prone... why?, if you go over the burm bad things will happen. Oh yeah they also limit shot size to 7.5s why? you will be hitting cars on a major road if you use something bigger.

But they are anti gun right? They would let me shoot my fully auto M2 at a 45 degree angle while sping 360 degrees... damn anti gun gun ranges.

 

[Sheldon J]

I have my own gun range so no....

 

[maskedman504]

They wouldn't let me shoot my fully auto M2 at a 45 degree angle while spinning 360 degrees... damn anti gun gun ranges.

Sigged!

 

[22lr]

Well you have to ban them, I mean we cant run around playing with tacti-cool ARs and AK training for the SHTF and have a range that's a little noisy. *ya that's sarcasm if you couldn't tell*.

Guns go boom, and big guns make a big boom. The only legit issue is a range that doesnt have a berm that can take .50s (maybe a pistol range or something would have a berm that thin), in which case they need to ban all high power rifles.

 

[RioShooter]

Ban them?

My range has one for rent; $25.00 plus $5.00/round.

 

[Jim Watson]

Our range does not allow .50 BMG (.416 Barrett, or .408 Cheyenne) because
1. We are in the city limits between the downtown area and a medium high end residential area. Common calibers do not draw noise complaints but monster magnums do.
2. We are concerned about chewing through or tearing down our berm. We don't have the budget for range improvements or repairs to support superheavy plinking. Wish we did, along with enough distance to give them a real workout, but we don't.

 

[Jaybird78]

B a n n e d

Yep, the membership board banned the .50BMG last year or the year before.

They claim it's the liability if one gets "lose" of the range. I find it all wishy washy BS in my opinion. What would happen if someone let a 30-06 or 308 lose? What if the two adjacent property owners each bought .50 BMGs and they let some off, would our club get the blame? I don't even own one but I did get to shoot one a few times (at said range) before they banned it. :banghead:

 

[jojo200517]

Our range at work bans them, of course most pistol only ranges tend to. We don't allow any rifles of any caliber (yes not even .22). We also don't allow people to fire .44 mag or .50 AE at our steel plates, but you can shoot at paper targets all ya want. Don't shoot at trash unless you clean it up.

We also prohibit use of shot above 7.5 for shotguns. Its not that we don't wanna hear the louder bang of the 00 buck its that it goes way to far and is simply dangerous for other shooters along with the employees.

Its about the safety not about being anti gun or a-holes.

As for the local rifle range in my town I'm not sure if they would allow it or not. It's a 100 yard range and you shoot thru culvert pipes at the targets so its pretty much impossible to shoot over the backstop. I have to agree with the guy that said he would be more of a bother to the guy with the .50 BMG than he would to me. If I seen one i'd be drooling all over wanting the guy to say "hey you wanna put a couple down range". I get plenty of drooling looks shooting my AK-47 there and I try my best to go to the far end so the brass (or rather cheap steel cases) will kick out and not smack someone 10 feet away in the head. If people seem interested I'll let them fire off a few shots with it to see if they like it.

 

[VPLthrneck]

The one I go to doesn't allow .50BMG's or shotguns, although being that their primary business is as a gunstore and gunsmithing they'll gladly sell them to you. The first due to safety issues and also the max distance is 200 yards. I have heard them give recommendations of places to go for people that want to try shots at greater than 200 yards.
They've banned shotguns due to inconsiderate shooters.
This is a "public" range in as much as any one can use it if you pay the owners their $10 usage fee. However, if you buy a gun from them the use of the range is free.

 

[bigger hammer]

I used to use the Kokohead range often until I moved away from Hawaii in 1999. I heard that the 50 bmg was banned after some clown tried to shoot a rock at the top of the crater.

Punishing everyone for the stupidity of one is just dumb no matter who does it. The appropriate response to this, if in fact it's why the .50 was banned from this range, would have been to simply ban the bozo that did this. Instead administrators punish the innocent along with the guilty. This is the anti-gun argument all over. It's why we had (some still do) the AWB. It's a good example of punishing the inanimate object for the action of the bozo that improperly used it.

So how long will it be until the city or the club decides that everything but the 22 rimfire poses a threat to anything outside of the crater? I hope it is a long time.

Me too but some clubs have already taken the first steps.

Remember the lesson of the UK and Oz. their bans were incremental. First only "bad guns" were removed. Soon all guns were gone and the UK is now working on sharp objects.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

...A typical load from a .50 (647 gr. bullet at 2,910 fps) will travel about 6,600 yards. A typical load from a .308 (168 gr. bullet at 2650 fps) will travel about 5,000 yards. The difference is less than a mile. This is a specious argument at best....

Well for one thing "less than a mile" (in this case about 0.90 mile) can be the difference between vacant land and someone's breakfast table.

If the proper location for the range has been selected the difference wouldn't make a tinker's damn. Based on your comments at your range, with all the expertise that you claim went into the design, it wasn't done.

ALSO if the range was designed properly it would be impossible for such an elevation of a muzzle to release a round at that angle. AGAIN I'm surprised that this wasn't considered.


Earlier I wrote,

...I have no problem with such a limitation if there's a reasonable motive not to allow them. But I don't think that "noise, muzzle blast and bullets shooting too far" are reasonable....

That's too bad, because I think a lot of people disagree. And if range management thinks that "noise, muzzle blast and bullets shooting too far" are good reasons not to allow .50 BMG, I guess you're out of luck.

I vote with my feet in such cases. I'll take my business elsewhere. Your club will never see a dime from those who know the truth. There are ways to ensure that the problem you describe, shooting too far, noise etc. can be handled. Your club, in true antigunners fashion, has chosen not to make them. Quite a few ranges have taken these steps. You folks have decided not to. ANOTHER case of the duck hunter not standing up for the "black rifle crowd."

Too bad that you don't recognize this for what it really is. Too bad that you've decided to give the antigunners more ammunition to use against us all. The newscaster says, "The .50 cal is so DANGEROUS that several rifle ranges, that permit all other rifles to be used, have BANNED them." And the gullible, unknowing public eats it up. Thanks again.

BTW you seem to keep forgetting to answer the OP's second question and my add-on to it.

… does it also ban ".416 Barrett", or did Barrett provide a loophole for you at the range, by making the .416?"

So those of you who have ranges who ban the .50; do you also ban the .416? How about the .408 Chey Tac? How about the .338 Lapua? Those are all "loud" and have lots of muzzle blast. Are they banned too? Is there some gray area?

Is the .50 the only "problem caliber" or are there more?

Doing some calculations shows that the .408 Chey Tac with a 419 Gr bullet at a MV of 2,900 fps can travel over 8,100 yds! That's ALMOST A MILE FURTHER THAN THE .50. That's almost TWO MILES further than the .308.

The .338 Lapua with a 250 gr bullet traveling at 3,000 fps can travel over 8,200 yards. ALSO ALMOST A MILE FURTHER THAN THE .50. AGAIN that's almost TWO MILES further than the .308.

Let's looks at a not uncommon hunting round, the .300 win mag. With a 190 gr bullet at 3,250 fps it can travel 5,500 yards, almost a third of a mile further than the .308. Are they banned? How about the wildcat versions of this cartridge, the 300 Rem. SA Ultra Mag., the 300 WSM VS. 300 Hawk, and the 300 RCM? Are they banned too; or is it just the .50?

In spite of being asked SEVERAL TIMES about several of these guns, you've not said a word about them. I guess the thought of those rounds crashing through someone's "breakfast table" (your scenario) hasn't occurred to you or those at your range, even with all that claimed expertise.

Curious methinks. Or could it be that for you folks, like for the antigunners, the facts really make no difference? "The .50 is an easy target so let's hit that one."

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

Yes, I know the difference between private property and government control. But the concept is the same, "We don't like certain guns so we're going to ban them.

It's not that they don't like them, they're too big for the range or the neigborhood. Or too noisy.

As to the "they're too big for the range" either the range is poorly designed or poorly located. One range I shoot at is in in a downtown heavily populated area, yet they manage to accommodate .50's. As for the "too noisy" that's just a copout and a weak one at that. There are those who think that .22's are "too noisy" but their real agenda is to eliminate them and all guns as well. Or they're in the "duck hunter who won't defend another type of gun" mode. (With apologies to duck hunters who have the proper mentality [we're in this together] everywhere).

You appear to be incapable of understanding the difference between private individuals or groups saying, "Not in my house" and the government saying "Not anywhere, they are completely banned."

You're not paying attention if you got this from my writing. I'll refer you back to post #68.

If I say you can't sing at my house (because the baby is sleeping or I don't like noise) I have not banned singing - you can go elsewhere. If the government bans singing everywhere, well, it's banned. See the difference? I think you do, you just don't care.

I both see AND care. If I didn't care, I'd not be writing these posts.

 

[bigger hammer]

Acera quotes me,

This is just more of the sensationalism and hysterics we've come to expect from the mass media. I'd not have expected to see it here; but here it is.

I agree completely and might add that includes those people who, do not have a .50 BMG, never shot a .50 BMG, and believe that their meager understanding of physics makes them an expert in what the .50 BMG can do. They rant about their beliefs and don't expend the effort to go find out what the truth really is, or have any faith in the opinions of those who have said experience.

Hear hear Acera. Thanks for seeing this for what it really is, a rather complete lack of knowledge couched in the same kind of terms that the anti's use.

 

[bigger hammer]

Getting upset that a range bans the use of certain calibers/firearms/shooting stances/etc. …

I don't see anyone "getting upset." I’m just pointing out that such a mentality is similar to that of those who oppose the ownership of firearms.

if one or a group of .50 BMG shooters showed up at the range, I would be one of those that stood around and watched in amazement (and probably a little jealously).

I'd betcha a dollar that if you asked, they'd let you fire a round or two. Then if finances allowed, you'd probably be looking to buy one yourself.

It is not about infringing upon your right to bear arms. It is a matter private ownership rights.

As I've said a few times, I know. AGAIN I'm just pointing out how the mentality that allows for such bans is similar to the thought process of the anti's. AND if you look at it carefully, it's akin to those who wanted separate schools for blacks in the 50's. It was for their own good because they just couldn't compete on an equal plain. Here it's groundless bigotry, just as with the anti's who conveniently overlook the fact that there are rifles and ammunition that shoot even further but not a word has been said about banning them. "The .50 is an easy target so let's go there first."