The Deer Hunter
Member
You see a lot of firearms seized in New York, but not that sophisticated type of weapon,’’ he said. ``You don’t see AK-47s.
The AK-47.
The gun.
The legend.
The most sophisticated weapon of all.
You see a lot of firearms seized in New York, but not that sophisticated type of weapon,’’ he said. ``You don’t see AK-47s.
Oh, sure.Right you are, I was thinking of the Soviet 12.7 which is closer to the US .50 BMG.
At least you are contributing something to the discussion.
There seems to be a bit of hysteria when .50 BMG and Aircraft are mentioned, both from the press and from some who think the BMG is incapable of being used for harm. .
Technically, all they told me there was that somebody likes blackpowder hunting in Mexico.50-caliber bullets
They're buying Mosin-Nagants!? Good lord! They must be stopped!They might give someone $100 to go into a gun show or a Wal-Mart and buy a few rifles at a time.
There yah go.Honestly, I didn't find anything that you said that told me that you wanted to ban people from owning .50 Cals.
Pretty much, since even the Bronco would be loitering rather than making high speed passes.Correct me if I'm wrong, you were just stating that it's effective against the sort of aircraft you would see in a COIN operation, like a UH-1 Huey or an MD500 or an OV-10 Bronco.
And .50 caliber, in an automatic cannon, is very effective against these aircraft. Even in a semiauto rifle it's effective with accurate shots. .45 ACP, which someone else mentioned, would not be effective at all; it doesn't have nearly enough velocity to penetrate aircraft aluminum at the sort of ranges you need.
.30-06 could do the job, but I'd still prefer the .50.
Just checked, the Apache is supposed to be proof against the Soviet 12.7 but requires extra Kevlar pads behind the armor to stop that round.In fact, I don't think even the Apache is rated for .50 cal. impacts.
Roswell 1847 said:High performance Aircraft in dogfights at speeds of 400 MPH or better with the whole sky out there to manuver in are not the question.
Slow moving low alitude civilian police and DEA helicopters are the possible targets and no mention of single shot weapons was made in the news article or in my posts.
Roswell 1847 said:Also since unlike an aerial gunner a gunner on the ground need not be moving its much easier to lead the target.
Afaik the pilot, as mentioned by a previous poster, is the most vulnerable part of the system. But that point is almost moot when you accept that spotting and adjusting fire would be necessary to hit a moving helicopter, and you can simply do it faster with a .30.Roswell 1847 said:The most common cause of a chopper going down is busting up the transmission case where power is supplied to the rotor or damge to the tail rotor or the power train leading to it.
A .30 can down one at 100 yards easily, and further with luck. A 50 can knock one down at several times the maximum effective range of a .30.
US Fighters of WW2 were very resistent to battle damage, but japanese aircraft were not, they were no more sturdy than civilian aircraft and less sturdy than some civilian aircraft built for rough field operations. Yet even the flimsyest Jap fighter was more resistent to gunfire than all but a few civilian helicopters.
If you're using a .50 as vehicle mounted, it's ammo that will make up that weight savings. And you could save even more weight by using an ordinary rifle and cartridges, if you're shooting at unarmoured helicopters.The Barrett M82A1 is finding increasing acceptance as a vehicle-mounted weapon, especially air-transportable vehicles where weight is important. Compared to the 39kg .50-calibre M2 machine gun, the M82A1 at 13.6kg (30Ib) is available at less than half the weight.
Cottage industries in building Technicals have sprung up all over South America and Mexico. A vehicle mounted Barrett would be plenty against a slow moving low flying chopper, and M2HB are available to those with cash and connections.
The fact that the pistols are ID'ed as FN leads me to suspect that the point of origin for the entire shipment was Canada.
It seems that tried and true arguments against the gun grabbers asertions about single shot target .50 rifles have blinded you guys to the realities of the possible uses of the .50 BMG in the wrong hands.
You simply won't get a first-round hit on a moving aircraft at ranges which you couldn't with a .30.Whats so hard to understand about that?
Doesn't matter if they were manufactured in Belgium or not an Englis manufactured P-35 is still an FN design.Quote:
The fact that the pistols are ID'ed as FN leads me to suspect that the point of origin for the entire shipment was Canada.
Were the magazines pinned to 10? And I'm reasonably certain our HPs didn't come from Belgium.
The .50 punches bigger holes through thicker metal at much longer ranges.If you take this to be true, then .50BMG does nothing more than punch holes. And ANY rifle, any bullet will do that.
depends on the sighting system you chose. The Vehicle mountings in the quote are Military and they seem to think they are efficient.You have to admit it would be an awkward cheek-weld, with the scope not being, shall we say optimized, for AA activities..
Try mounting six 20mms in the Mustang Wing and calculate how many rounds per gun you can then stuff into the ammo bays.And for more great info on the reason the .50 was the stable of US aircraft in WW2 check out the site I linked - it wasn't ROF issues (that's solved by just mounting more guns - which is evidenced by mounting half a dozen heavy M2s!)
The .50 round as it exists today was a redesign of the original round in the 20's and optimized for anti aircraft use. The early Watercooled .50 was also redesigned as an aircooled gun for Aerial use with the Watercooled guns remaining in service on board ships. Faster rate of fire for aircraft use was a major part of the redesign.I do belive you are factually incorrect here. My understanding is that the .50BMG was designed for anti-armour applications, of course adapted from a German cartridge, and for a period of time was the US ARMY's main anti-tank weapon.
No weight saving if it takes many more rounds to deal with the target, andAnd you could save even more weight by using an ordinary rifle and cartridges, if you're shooting at unarmoured helicopters.
and your .30 rifle doesn't have the range to hit them.
The Japanese gave up both armor and self sealing fuel tanks to save on weight and increase range. Their main tanks were in the wing roots and a hit there would light them up quick, usually exploding vaporised fuel and tearing the wings off. Later designs were more sturdy but they never had the available engine power to allow much added weight.But Japanese fighters were still warplanes. And planes in general are capable of sustaining a whole lot of punishment.
The Six fifties built up a ten to one kill ratio, the later Sabres with four 20mms didn't best that by much if any.The aircraft guns were very, and I mean very, quickly found to be undesireable by comparison to their opposition equivalents - and duly phased out.
Once again no one on this end is even considering single shot .50 BMG rifles.You simply won't get a first-round hit
The F-86H was the four 20mm armed Sabre, as I mentioned earlier a Fighter bomber or dive Bomber platform was better able to carry multiple 20mm mountings with a significant round count pergun.YF-86H
Extensively redesigned fighter-bomber model with deeper fuselage, uprated engine, longer wings and power-boosted tailplane, two built as North American model NA-187
F-86H
Production model, 473 built, with Low Altitude Bombing System (LABS) and provision for nuclear weapon, North American model NA-187 (F-86H-1 and H-5 blocks) and NA-203 (F-86H-10 block)
To an infantryman, a .30 cal and a .50 cal might as well have the same range, i.e. long.And you are taking range out of the equation
Planes? Yes.And planes in general are capable of sustaining a whole lot of punishment.
No they're not. They're a bigger target. Where a bullet would hit air on a military aircraft, it actually does damage on a civvie aircraft.Civilian planes are actually at an advantage
I know a couple of veterans who would argue with that statement. And the Zeros were warplanes. Just like the AK is a rifle. They were warplanes--but they were built with a very different operational concept in mind. Like the AK, that was built to be essentially a better submachine gun, the Zero was built to give people Hell and then get shot and die. The Japanese were like that. They had a sense of... death. They expected, almost wanted to die. The Zero is one of the most curious warcraft because of that, and is in no way representative of WWII aircraft in general. The Zero had '30s armor (that is to say, none) with '40s performance. This made it pretty damn scary at the beginning of the war, screaming in like Hellions at speeds no aircraft should be capable of, but by the end of the war, it was a pretty lackluster vehicle.US fighters were over-built
The .50 Browning was designed for anti-vehicular applications. It was conceived for anti-tank use, yes, but it was rapidly redesigned for anti-vehicle applications, including aircraft.I do belive you are factually incorrect here. My understanding is that the .50BMG was designed for anti-armour applications, of course adapted from a German cartridge, and for a period of time was the US ARMY's main anti-tank weapon.
Honestly, I think I always had it.Well I see you have gotten the point.
John Browning designed the M2HB/50BMG as an anti infantry weapon for WWI. It was so good they used it in many other applications. It IS .50 Browning Machine Gun ammo.Is the .50 round an excellent choice for knocking down a chopper, it was designed for destroying aircraft.
Well done to your Pop, and thank him for being part of the greatest generation. But you proved my point, not yours. "Short burst"is machine gun, not semi auto rifle. Also, when did we talk about 20mm?Quote=armoredman:
Certainly the 50 BMG downed many planes - when fired from either fighter plane wing mounts or bomber defensive positions during the Second World War. Not from a single shot rifle. [/ quote]
And quite a few were knocked out of the sky by a short burst from a ground gun position. A friend's father got a german Bomber like that in North Africa, and Pop knocked the bark off a Meatball in the pacific with a short burst from his 20mm mount.
MachIVshooter said:The Mexican government has called on the United States to stop the flow of guns into the country, he said, but America’s firearms laws make it hard to stop gun running.
Tell you what.........we will, just as soon as they stop the flow of Mexicans into the US.
Otherwise, pound #&*%ing sand. The more of them kill each other below the border, the fewer come up here illegally and commit crimes against US citizens.
In California in the 90's a nutcase with a Ten Gauge took out several ultra light patrol craft over city parks injuring several police pilots.
Another reason for multiple guns: they were aimed in pairs to different points of convergence to give a better cone of fire. IIRC, the middle pair was set on sight with the outer shooting ahead and the inner shooting behind. Although I believe that the pilots could request that they be set to his personal preference.Nolo: Hence the large number of guns onboard.
First they complained about cheap ‘Saturday night specials’ being the scourge of mankind. Now they are complaining about expensive pistols. I guess I’m safe because all of mine are ‘mid priced’?very expensive pistols
Would you say the same about .45 ACP and .25 ACP on a human being? Certainly .25 ACP can kill a human. Just like .30 can down an aircraft. Would .25 ACP be my first choice for a goblin? Hells no.If you can hit a plane with a .50BMG, you can hit it with a .30 and take it out as well. The .50 has a longer range, but once your outside the efective range of a .30, you have almost zero chance of making effective hits on a moving target.
I want to see a picture. And the ATF reminds me of another acronym that enjoyed gun control, the SS.Barrett even designed an over the shoulder version of his semi auto .50 for engaging Soviet Helicopters.
Wish I could and probably could if I could remember more details of that shooting spree. It was part of an article on using kevlar panels to armor ultralight aircraft used to patrol parks. Perhaps in one of my aviation magazines or a Popular mechanics.can you provide a link or reference?
Quote:
In California in the 90's a nutcase with a Ten Gauge took out several ultra light patrol craft over city parks injuring several police pilots.
__________________
Quite a bit larger than that I would think, and of course their are other vital components bunched up around it.You mentioned the transmission of a UH1, (not in use by very many anymore, but OK, good for the sake of argument), how big is this target? 1 foot by 2 feet?
Ask someone that has this "Visceral hatred" of which you speak.So, why this visceral hatred of the 50BMG,
I'd thought so as well but from other sources.John Browning designed the M2HB/50BMG as an anti infantry weapon for WWI. It was so good they used it in many other applications. It IS .50 Browning Machine Gun ammo.
History
The round was conceptualized during World War I by John Browning in response to a requirement for an anti-aircraft weapon. The round itself is based on a scaled-up .30-06 Springfield design, and the machine gun was based on a scaled-up M1919/M1917 design that Browning had initially developed around 1900 (but which was not adopted by the U.S. military until 1917, hence the model designation). The new heavy machine gun, the Browning M2 .50 caliber machine gun, was used heavily in aircraft, especially during World War II, though its airborne use is limited to helicopters at present. It was and still is used on the ground as well, both vehicle mounted, in fixed fortifications, and on occasion carried by infantry. The incendiary rounds were especially effective against aircraft, and the AP rounds were excellent for destroying concrete bunkers, structures, and lighter AFVs.
The development of the .50 round is sometimes confused with the German 13.2 mm TuF, which was developed by Germany for an anti-tank rifle to combat British tanks during WWI. However, the development of the U.S. .50 round was started before this later German project was completed or even known to the Allied countries.
In use by thirty countries so far, and not beyond the price range of a drug cartel. As pointed out both Military Vehicle mountings and "Technical" Mountings on otherwise civilian vehicles are common enough for guns much larger than the Barrett.A heavy, semi auto 10 round rifle, which is first off, limited production, second, very very expensive, third, a pintle mount would have to be hand made,
" If you can hit a plane with a .50BMG, you can hit it with a .30 and take it out as well. The .50 has a longer range, but once your outside the efective range of a .30, you have almost zero chance of making effective hits on a moving target."
How long are they rated to run if half the teeth are broken off the gears and chunks of the casing the size of fingers are spread throughout the mechanism, and granulated magnesium alloy by the handfuls is mixed with remaining oil?And Apaches transmissions are rated to run 30 minutes after all oil has drained out of them