Find the holes

[cassandrasdaddy]

point to one compartment? you mean like a fuel tank? the ones that compose most of the wings?

"You can't, they're VERY safe. Hell even the pilot isn't necessary in modern planes, they don't even touch controls to land the damned things unless weather is bad (official policy)."


really? they land em on autopilot? you' re s busy young man at your age to be so informed about flying i only had at most a couple hundred bootleg hours by the time i was 21. albeit some of them solo

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

lucky what airline is it policy to use auto pilot to land?
and before you reply check this out
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1882971/

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

heck they've tagged apaches and black hawks with rpgs. not that accurate or that long range

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"1) you assume turbines to be very delicate.

#2)you assume it's easy to hit an airplane at long distance that is moving faster than cars on the highway, in a very specific component.

#3)you assume that you can get within 2 miles of the airplane in question. Some people are slow, but even they might notice you sneaking around with your 30 pound rifle as tall as you are on an airfield that's pretty lacking in terms of cover and concealment.


Oh yea and #4) it's going to be hard to hit both engines if you are looking at a side profile... And if you're looking head-on that means the distances involved will be even larger, and there's liable to be some problems with air turbulence and such.


1) as someone who has laid his hands on a turbines guts i think thay are fairly sturdy intact. also think a 1/2 inch slug will tear one apart and once you break one blade it beats on all the rest real good. birds do a number on em
as someone who has sen a single round from a 50 tear through a line of metal 50 gallon drums filled with water i'm not concerned it would fail to shred the layers of fan blades in a turbine
2)where i live you get a head on shot fairly close with it coming right at you and the fan blades no daisy see the dimensions for just one series of engines below
3) where i live in the real world we have a park less than 200 yards from the threshold less than a mile from the far end of runway where the planes coming right at you wait til go/no go is past and you don't even have to wait for it to leave the ground
on any given weekend there are hundreds of cars trucks and vans in the lot going in and out all day easy to hide in plain siight
4) hitting it head on is like shooting the front of a sprinter van and turbulence bothers the bigger slug least if you time it for just after its airborne there is a plane fully loaded with fuel aimed at metro area thats about to become the worlds worst glider try google sattelite the north end of national airport in dc and see what the real world looks like.


one of us does indeed "assume" much i don't believe its me. i try to deal with the real world. that might not be available to you yet. don't worry its on its way




Trent 553 53000 10400 5.1 154 97.4 2003 Airbus A340-500
Trent 556 56000 10400 5.4 154 97.4 2002 Airbus A340-600
Trent 600 65000 ~10400 ~6.3 154 97.4 N/A N/A
Trent 768 67500 10550 6.4 154 97.4 1996 Airbus A330-300
Trent 772 71100 10550 6.7 154 97.4 1995 Airbus A330-300, Airbus A330-200
Trent 875 75000 13100 5.7 172 110 1996 Boeing 777-200 (506,000 lb)
Trent 877 77000 13100 5.9 172 110 1996 Boeing 777-200 (545,000 lb)
Trent 884 84000 13100 6.4 172 110 1997 Boeing 777-200 (590,000 lb)
Trent 892 92000 13100 7.0 172 110 1997 Boeing 777-200 (656,000lb), Boeing 777-300 (660,000lb)
Trent 895 95000 ? ? ? ? 2000 Boeing 777-200 (656,000lb), Boeing 777-300 (660,000lb)
Trent 8104 104000 14400 7.2 172 110 N/A N/A
Trent 970[14] 75152 13842 5.4 179 116 2007 Airbus A380-841
Trent 970B[14] 78304 13842 5.6 179 116 TBA Airbus A380-841
Trent 972[14] 76752 13842 5.5 179 116 TBA Airbus A380-842
Trent 972B[14] 80231 13842 5.8 179 116 TBA Airbus A380-842
Trent 977[14] 80781 13842 5.8 179 116 TBA Airbus A380-843F
Trent 977B[14] 83835 13842 6.0 179 116 TBA Airbus A380-844F
Trent 980[14] 84098 13842 6.0 179 116 TBA Airbus A380-941
Trent 1000-A 63800 11924 5.4 160 112 2008 Boeing 787-8
Trent 1000-C 69800 11924 5.9 160 112 2008 Boeing 787-8, Boeing 787-9
Trent 1000-D 69800 11924 5.9 160 112 2008 Boeing 787-8, Boeing 787-9
Trent 1000-E 53200 11924 4.5 160 112 2010 Boeing 787-3
Trent 1000-H 58000 11924 4.9 160 112 2008 Boeing 787-3, Boeing 787-8
Trent 1000-J 73800 11924 6.2 160 112 2010 Boeing 787-9
Trent 1000-K 73800 11924 6.2 160 112 2010 Boeing 787-9
Trent XWB-74 74000 ? ? ? 118 2014 Airbus A350-800 XWB
Trent XWB-83 83000 ? ? ? 118 2013 Airbus A350-900 XWB
Trent XWB-92 92000 ? ? ? 118

 

[siglite]

...

Only on the internet will people be distracted from the willful ignorance and misdirection demonstrated by the media and the BATFE, in order to start talking about detailed locations and effective target components for shooting down commercial aircraft.

*wave*

HI NSA!

 

[Selfdfenz]

If a thread could win a prize for thread drift we're talking blue ribbon material here

Anyway...

The stuff pulled out of the storage locker could have been legit in both character and ownership. We don't know enough from the story to know for a fact that it is/was not. Why did the agents quoted in the story not pose the hypotherical that the weapons were being stockpiled for a terrorist attack? Hmmm? Seems about as logical as the Mexican smuggling angle if no one has been arrested. If no one is ever arrested then a different set of alarms should start going off.

To think that the Mexican drug and/or people smuggling industry, with its unlimited financial, security and transportation resources, has to rely on something as jake-leg as straw buys at Wal-Mart and gun shows for their weaponry is just hilarious. By the same token who could possibly be so stupid as to be the straw buyers!!! Wouldn't it take a cast of thousands and how long could that job last before you got caught? Not long. I have enough respect for BATF+/-E to think that if the same names keep popping up next to the same type of purchases, sooner or later, questions are gonna get asked and nothing will have to be found in a storage shed in El Paso before those wheels start to turn. So much for the "news" story.

Since 90% of this thread seems aimed at what can and can't be done to an aircraft with this or that weapon I'd like to ask the experts here a question. Something I've been wondering about. Suppose you are a bad guy on the ground in Mexico protecting your pot farm or coke factory. Does it really make any diff what kind of weapon you have? 30 cal, 50 cal, SAM...whatever. Once you pop off at the eye-in-the sky don't "they" have a pretty good idea where you and your treasure are located and doesn't that apply wheather you miss the aircraft or shoot the darn thing down?

I'm not saying planes and helos don't get shot at, or even shot down, but shooting them up is an approach so prone to bring on more unpleasantness it seems like it would be the very last thing the average bad guy would want. I'd like to ask another question. In my state our LE has planes looking for pot fields every year and if what I see on TV is fact they do a great job of finding same. Never knew of one to be shot at, let alone shot down. How about you? Does this happen and how much or how often?

My guess is, if those weapons were "actually" headed for Mexico they were not going to be used on aircraft under any circumstances, but more likely one set of bad guys against some other set of bad guys.

Best.

S-

 

[siglite]

How about you? Does this happen and how much or how often?

I have no stats, but I do remember a guy back in the bad ole days (I used to be ... well... not so much the upstanding citizen I am now) who was awaiting trial for opening up on a DEA helo. This guy was not the brightest bulb in the box, because it DID bring the world down on him. The funny/sad part, is that I heard he committed arson while waiting on his attempted murder trial (of a federal agent, I presume), and never saw the light of day again.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Roswell we respect your opinion. But just for kicks go to the scrap-metal yard and pick up some various pieces of metal. Then shoot them. What rifle wouldn't penetrate critical civilian helicopter components? And pretty much every rifle would be handier and quicker handling than a Barret whilst dong so.

Shooting up old cars before sending them to the crusher was a favorite pastime of mine many years ago.

"Pretty Much Any Rifle"?
Guess what, the original argument for the US airforce to adopt the AR15 for base protection was that the .223 was incapable of damaging Aircraft components.
If it weren't for all that smoothly curved skin and structural members in the way you might have a point, but anything that wasn't designed to plow through intervening sheetmetal would end up as fragments or a flattened tumbling slug before reaching those components. .303 MkVII loads I've tested wouldn't even make it through a car door without turning into a shower of lead and copper plated steel fragments.
Plowing through bodywork scrubs off velocity as well.

As for the pilot. If a 30/06 AP round were not deflected enough to miss the pilot completely and the pilot wore no body armor you could take him out, if you knew enough abot the helicopter in question to be able to angle in your shot from the direction you are stuck with.
LEO pilots on drug raids usually wear body armor if their dept head has any sense, and if the agency they work for has the funds it will have ceramic inserts capable of stopping .30 rounds at a distance. Velocity lost in cutting through bodywork will reduce the .30's penetration power.

If any part of an LE chopper will have armor inserts the pilots compartment will. If so its highly unlikely to be rated for anything higher than .30.

A .50BMG can cut through any bodywork and any kevlar inserts rated for .30 and maintain enough energy to shatter transmission cases or aircraft engine blocks or destroy turbine engines.
The Pilot would be gutted like a fish regardless of any possible body armor even after the .50 slug passed through the airframe and .30 rated armor.

A .30 can bring down a chopper, if the gunner knows his stuff and the chopper's drive train and pilot aren't protected and AP ammo is used, but the .50 does a much better job and at ranges that the .30 would be entirely ineffective.

 

[siglite]

Ros, I'm not inclined to buy into the whole "you can't shoot down aircraft with a rifle other than a 50BMG" thing. I think lots of huey pilots from the 60s/70s would probably agree.

I mean, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like you're composing the "findings" section of the "Aircraft Protection Act of 2008," which will no doubt be introduced by Sen. McCarthy as soon as she reads this thread. You know what's good at shooting down aircraft? Stingers. Yeah, a .50 can do it. Yeah, a .30 can do it. But if you want to take down an aircraft, your best bet is to wait for the tone to shift on your seeker head, super-elevate, and let a stinger fly. I'm not trying to bash your posts, or your opinions on this, because I'm not an aircraft mechanic. I've never shot at an aircraft. I never intend to shoot at an aircraft. But it sure sounds like you're trying to make the antis case for them.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Siglite wrote:

Ros, I'm not inclined to buy into the whole "you can't shoot down aircraft with a rifle other than a 50BMG" thing. I think lots of huey pilots from the 60s/70s would probably agree.

In my last post and in other posts I Wrote

A .30 can bring down a chopper, if the gunner knows his stuff and the chopper's drive train and pilot aren't protected and AP ammo is used,

Siglite

I mean, forgive me if I'm wrong here,

You are forgiven, I guess it's too much to expect that you'd have actually read my posts.

I think lots of huey pilots from the 60s/70s would probably agree.

I'd expect most of them would tell you that 12.7mm and 7.62X54 Machinegun fire took down most of those choppers with a few being downed because Nam era flak jackets worn by pilots wouldn't stop anything with more energy than a 9mm at combat ranges, and sometimes not even that. Any beat cop of today is better protected than the best body armor available to chopper pilots during all but the closing days of the Viet Nam war.

 

[2Ais4U]

How Do I Post New Threads!?!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!?

 

[Nolo]

You click the "New Thread" button in the forum menu.
PM someone next time you can't figure something out.

Anyway, 7.62x54R is a magical round. It's more powerful than a .30-06, and for the longest time the Russkis used it in place of where we'd normally use .50 BMG.
Gotta love 54R!

 

[siglite]

A .30 can bring down a chopper, if the gunner knows his stuff and the chopper's drive train and pilot aren't protected and AP ammo is used,

I saw that before Ros. And I should apologize, in reading my own post, it came off a little more caustic than intended. However, despite the fact that you made that statement, you went on at significant length providing arguments to the contrary. And you did not address my concern regarding your opinions providing antis fuel for their FUD fires. What might be useful is if you had actual data on aircraft shot down by small arms OTHER than 50BMGs and 12.7s. It's my understanding that small arms fire has accounted for significant aircraft losses since WWII. Granted, that understanding is general, and not specific. But I think my point remains, that your position, as written in this thread could be used as a preamble (the part where it says "congress finds that...") in a ban of .50BMGs. Of course, they'd screw up the language and ban muzzle loaders too... but, that's another can of worms.

 

[Nolo]

Don't y'all just love THR, where someone apologizes every five seconds?

 

[Roswell 1847]

Hows this

Information on U.S. Army helicopter CH-47A tail number 66-19075
The Army purchased this helicopter 0367
Total flight hours at this point: 00000331
Date: 01/06/1968
Accident case number: 680106081
Unit: 179 ASHC
Number killed in accident = 0 . . Injured = 0 . . Passengers = 0
costing 15454
Source(s) from which the incident was created or updated: Army Aviation Safety Center database.

Crew Members:
AC W3 RN GIDNEY
P W1 RD MILLER


Accident Summary:

Aircraft on approach with sling load lost RPM and settled into ground with major damage


War Story:
The 52d CAB unit history states that this CH-47A crashed in the vicinity of ZB158468. The aircraft was on final approach to a fire base, lost power and settled to the ground with major damage to the aircraft with negative injuries to the crew or passengers. The accident record gives CP Schmidt as the name of the location.

This record was last updated on 06/06/1997




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information on U.S. Army helicopter CH-47A tail number 66-19075
The Army purchased this helicopter 0367
Total flight hours at this point: 00000331
Date: 08/04/1968
Unit: ARADMAC
This was a Combat incident. This helicopter was REPAIRED IN THEATER
This was a Logistics Support mission for Resupply
While Enroute this helicopter was at Level Flight at 0100 feet and 070 knots.
South Vietnam
Helicopter took 2 hits from:
Small Arms/Automatic Weapons; Gun launched non-explosive ballistic projectiles less than 20 mm in size. (7.62MM)
The helicopter was hit in the Bottom
Systems damaged were: HYDRAULIC SYS, ELECTRICAL SYS
The helicopter Continued Flight.
The aircraft continued and accomplished all mission objectives.
Original source(s) and document(s) from which the incident was created or updated: Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center Helicopter database. Also: JSIDR (Joint Services Incident Damage Report. )





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information on U.S. Army helicopter CH-47A tail number 66-19075
The Army purchased this helicopter 0367
Total flight hours at this point: 00000407
Date: 03/24/1969
Unit: 242 ASHC
This was a Combat incident. This helicopter was REPAIRED IN THEATER
for Troop Insertation
While on Landing Zone this helicopter was Landing at 0100 feet and 070 knots.
South Vietnam
Helicopter took 3 hits from:
Small Arms/Automatic Weapons; Gun launched non-explosive ballistic projectiles less than 20 mm in size. (12.7MM, MORTAR)
The helicopter was hit in the Aft area causing Fragmentation Damage.
Systems damaged were: OIL SYS, TRANSMISSION, PERSONNEL, ELECTRICAL SYS, MAIN ROTOR
Casualties = 01 INJ . .
The helicopter Continued Flight. Aircraft is later recovered by any means other than its own power.
The aircraft was diverted prior to accomplishing any mission objectives.
Ultimate forced landing
Original source(s) and document(s) from which the incident was created or updated: Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center Helicopter database. Also: CRAFX, MISC (Miscellaneous. Crash Facts Message. )





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information on U.S. Army helicopter CH-47A tail number 66-19075
The Army purchased this helicopter 0367
Total flight hours at this point: 00000563
Date: 05/14/1969
Unit: 242 ASHC
This was a Combat incident. This helicopter was REPAIRED IN THEATER
This was a Logistics Support mission for Resupply , Sling Loading.
While on Landing Zone this helicopter was Landing at 0150 feet and 080 knots.
South Vietnam
Helicopter took 18 hits from:
Small Arms/Automatic Weapons; Gun launched non-explosive ballistic projectiles less than 20 mm in size. (7.62MM)
The helicopter was hit in the Bottom
Systems damaged were: FUEL SYS, MAIN ROTOR SYS, FLT CONTROLS
The helicopter Continued Flight. unknown.
The aircraft was diverted or delayed after completing some mission objectives.
Ultimate precautionary landing
Original source(s) and document(s) from which the incident was created or updated: Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center Helicopter database. Also: MISC, JSIDR (Miscellaneous. Joint Services Incident Damage Report. )

Denying that the .50 BMG round is effective against Aircraft is not going to help your case.
Pointing out that .30 at least with AP rounds can do the same at much closer ranges only feeds the Gun Grabbers in trying to ban 30/06 and .308 as well.


As the above quotes show "Small Arms" includes Heavy Machineguns of 12.7 (.50 caliber) as well as Battle Rifle caliber Machineguns of .30-7.62.

If like Lucky you want them to believe that just about any rifle can do the job just as easily as the .50 you are really playing into their hands.

 

[siglite]

If like Lucky you want them to believe that just about any rifle can do the job just as easily as the .50 you are really playing into their hands.

I have to ask this then. Are you actually making a case for banning the .50? Because it sure sounds like it to me. And if you are, please disregard all of my previous posts, because I've definitely been laboring under the wrong impression.

 

[Nolo]

Read the thread. He's already said he doesn't. He's being hopelessly truthful.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Are you actually making a case for banning the .50? Because it sure sounds like it to me.

Well I thought I had already made it clear that I'm against feeding the Gun grabbers by making specious arguments that the .50 is less effective than it really is. If you make specious arguments you weaken your case.

I wouldn't mind having a .50 BMG caliber rifle, but I really have no use for one.
If those who really want them for peaceful uses want to make themselves look dishonest or unthinking by ignoring the scientific facts of the .50BMG's power and its historical record as one of the greatest aircraft killers of all time, thats up to them. If they keep it up then when the day comes when I really want to buy .50BMG rifle, I won't be able to because people like lucky have played into the gun grabbers hands.
And if they listen to his "any gun" is as good or better than a .50BMG for downing aircraft argument, Surplus 7.62X54 will no longer be available and neither will the rifles that fire it, and you'll be lucky if you can buy any centerfire ammunition, especially for Military rifles like the Garand.

 

[siglite]

I see. So a .50 ban is acceptable to you because you don't have one. Or at least "more acceptable" than banning the 30-06. I see now where you're coming from.

And if they listen to his "any gun" is as good or better than a .50BMG for downing aircraft argument, Surplus 7.62X54 will no longer be available and neither will the rifles that fire it, and you'll be lucky if you can buy any centerfire ammunition, especially for Military rifles like the Garand.

It seems you're laboring under the delusion that they don't want your 7.62x54R or 30-06, and as such, are willing to concede and portray the .50 is some kind of supergun, and therefore more a more tolerable ban. My (and I believe others) position is that your grandpa's deer rifle is just as deadly, and as such, banning it may as well be banning .338 Lapua. And since we're going there, why not 300 winmag, and .375H&H, because, people don't need elephant guns capable of "destroying tanks" (I know better, you know better, but that doesn't matter) and so on until if we're lucky, we can own a .22LR. If we keep it at a state controlled and regulated shooting club. Under lock and key other than our own.

So go ahead. Feed them anti .50BMG hype and hysteria. Talk about how effective it is against aircraft. While you're at it, perhaps discuss how it's able to kill from miles away. Never mind the skill required to actually hit a target at those distances, or an aircraft in flight with a 30lb rifle.

You claim I'm falling right into their hands by asserting that most centerfire rifle cartridges can do an awful lot of jobs. I assert quite the contrary. That you are falling right into their hands by ceding to incrementalism. Because that is their game. And they are patient. And today's .50 is tomorrows 3006.

 

[Nolo]

I see. So a .50 ban is acceptable to you because you don't have one. Or at least "more acceptable" than banning the 30-06. I see now where you're coming from.

I don't mean to speak for Roswell, but I don't think you get it at all. Roswell doesn't want a .50 ban, he wants people to talk sense and speak the facts and truth, instead of hyperbolizing the issue one way or another.
I would reconsider what you just said.
This has been beaten to death and is off-topic anyway.
I withdraw myself from this argument.
Siglite, I would apologize to Roswell.

 

[siglite]

I don't mean to speak for Roswell, but I don't think you get it at all. Roswell doesn't want a .50 ban, he wants people to talk sense and speak the facts and truth, instead of hyperbolizing the issue one way or another.

Oh, I understand and wholeheartedly agree with this position. And the meat of my question, and my point, is that MY perception is that he's providing arguments for a ban of .50BMG. His response to that was not to refute that, but to continue along the lines of how evil the .50 is. I think I'm out of the discussion at this point too. Ros has not corrected my perception. And if my perception is correct, there's nothing more to discuss, really.

I won't apologize for my perception. I'm just reading what's in front of me. Ros can correct me if he wishes, and I'll accept that at face value.

 

[Roswell 1847]

So go ahead. Feed them anti .50BMG hype and hysteria.

There you go, provng that you'll immediately jump to the conclusion that being honest about the ballistic capabilities of the BMG round will be grounds to ban it.
Also

I see. So a .50 ban is acceptable

Never said anything of the kind.
Remember the vast majority of voters neither have nor are particularly interested in owning .50BMG rifle. Its those votes which would decide the issue. If they believe all .50BMG rifle owners are afraid to even admit to known facts about the effectiveness of the round, you won't get their support when you need it.

are willing to concede and portray the .50 is some kind of supergun, and therefore more a more tolerable ban. My (and I believe others) position is that your grandpa's deer rifle is just as deadly

Thats a ludicrous statement.

A .50 BMG has no magical powers but it dang sure makes huge holes in things at several times the range of any hunting rifle or Battle rifle for that matter.

Never mind the skill required to actually hit a target at those distances, or an aircraft in flight with a 30lb rifle.

Since many US Choppers were hit with weapons less sophisticated than the Barrett and weighing as much or more, and the Barrett M82A2 Bullpup was designed specifically for engaging attack choppers pretending that it can't be done doesn't help your position.
As I've pointed out the same Soft mount used by our Military for steady firing of the Barrett and keeping the sights on target round after round, is available from online stores. Building a monting the equal if not better would be no biggies, considering that converting available US surplus 1919A4 mounts to take numerous foreign MGs is commonplace.
Also M2HB are not only available to criminals, but even the Semi Auto version of the M2HB can still be bought in California of all places because it doesn't fit the narrow wording of their .50 BMG Rifle Ban.

So get real.

If you are that scared of the truth about BMG ballistic capabilities you are as good as claiming that the mere knowledge of the effectiveness of the round is reason enough to Ban it.

Your best option is to accept the facts and find a way to put those to your advantage. Otherwise you can kiss the BMG goodbye as far as civilian ownership goes.

BTW
I don't much care for those who openly misrepresent my posts and their content, and theres been a lot of that on this thread.

 

[Remmi]

Jesus, since when can a .50 take down an airplane? Are we fighting the Red Baron or something? Even low-level air-to-air guns on fighter jets are pushing the 30mm mark in fully-automatic revolver cannons and three-barreled chain-fed Gatling guns. There ain't no man-portable .50 cal that's going to drop the airplane short of a miracle shot that hits the pilot. Good grief.

EDIT: Granted, there's a fair deal of anti-armor penetration in the .50BMG round, but we're talking from a civilian perspective, out in Iraq or Afganistan where we've got low-flying attack choppers and full-use of military mounts and hardware, it's a deadly weapon without question, however I'm seriously doubting someone with jerry-rigged fittings and mounts on a Barret Semi-Auto's going to be able to nail a Boeing unless it's sitting still on the tarmac.

Thus the Red Baron comment, sure you could do some damage to a chopper, or a low-flying biplane or twin-engine deal, but for any serious target that the ATF would be worried about, you'd need something a fair deal larger, or at least with a higher firing rate then any civvie-model Barret .50 is going to be able to shell out. As for low-flying choppers, you could likey do the same damage with a solid hunting rifle and a decent scope, especially the open-canopy style survey choppers.

 

[fireflyfather]

Last time I checked, the .50bmg was designed for taking on light armored vehicles and tricks. The aircraft came later.

Using a round originally designed by Winchester, the .50 BMG round was designed as a response to the German 13 mm anti-tank rifle of World War I and employed in a redesigned and scaled-up M1917 Browning .30 cal. machine gun. It was quickly adapted to the anti-aircraft role.

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun

Was meant to be fired at ground vehicles, THEN they figured out it was effective against aircraft. Get your history right.

 

[Remmi]

True; but we're not talking about an M2 machine gun, we're talking about a single-shot or Semi-auto .50 BMG rifle.

It's the same round, yes, but ROF does have a good weigh in an Anti-armor gun's effectiveness, even against non-armored vehicles. Even in modern warfare, the M2 is fired in short controlled bursts so they get a fairly tight spread on the shot, it's not all ramming into the same place, which for taking on a vehicle would be ideal, since it does up the chance of striking an important component or chewing through the engine-block a fair deal. You'd have to be an absolute EXPERT in modern aeronautics and a DEADEYE shot to do the same with the limited ammo and ROF in a Civve-model barret on any kind of aircraft you'd see flying overhead in america. Again, barring shooting the pilot, but...

I don't know about you; but I don't think I'm a good enough shot to nail a pilot's head when he's cruising at 30,000 feet.