Nathanael_Greene
Member
Fer cryin' out loud--birds can bring down an airliner.
Does that mean that pigeon-breeders are a threat to safety?
Does that mean that pigeon-breeders are a threat to safety?
Doesn't this make your blood boil?
- Thread starter enkindler
- Start date
- Status
carterbeauford
member
you don't have to lead at all if you use heat seeking bullets.
I sent a half polite email to Ceasefire Washington, no response.
DoubleTapDrew
Member
[Feinstein]I'm not saying we should ban ALL birds, just large caliber assault birds. I mean who really NEEDS an assault bird anyway? We aren't trying to take away your sporting birds like Chucker, Ducks, and Quail.[/Feinstein]
Carl N. Brown
Member
.50 caliber rifle as an anti-aircraft weapon
When my uncle was in the national guard in the 1950s
he showed me a .50 caliber antiaircraft set-up:
two M2 (Maw Deuce) machineguns on a twin mount
with 250 round belts each in bins, optical sights with a
analog computer for range and lead, mounted on a
half-track truck.
That was for dealing against single engine aircraft
(ground attack or helicopter) and the most you could
count on was forcing them to keep their distance
or spoil their aim if they came in for an attack.
The idea of a .50 caliber rifle--even a ten shot semi-auto--
as an anti-aircarft weapon capable of downing airliners
is totally what was he smoking stuff?
When my uncle was in the national guard in the 1950s
he showed me a .50 caliber antiaircraft set-up:
two M2 (Maw Deuce) machineguns on a twin mount
with 250 round belts each in bins, optical sights with a
analog computer for range and lead, mounted on a
half-track truck.
That was for dealing against single engine aircraft
(ground attack or helicopter) and the most you could
count on was forcing them to keep their distance
or spoil their aim if they came in for an attack.
The idea of a .50 caliber rifle--even a ten shot semi-auto--
as an anti-aircarft weapon capable of downing airliners
is totally what was he smoking stuff?
DoubleTapDrew
Member
The Constitution, filled with certain herbs.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
The M16 halftrack's gun turret mounted four .50s. Tuned to perfection, the solenoid controlled guns could each fire some 600 rounds per minute. Generally, you only fired two at a time in the traditional "Fire a burst of six" mode. Each ammo can held two 105-round belts, IIRC; I'm dredging from some fifty years back. The loaders controlled which two guns were firing.
The maximum tracking speed for a crossing target was 200 mph.
But woe betide any aircraft approaching head-on. Shame on 'em.
So some guy sitting a quarter mile off the end of a runway with a semi-auto .50 could probably create serious problems: If he didn't care about escaping. But a guy who doesn't care about escaping can do all manner of horribles with a heckuva lot less than a .50. Hinckley comes to mind, for instance...
Art
The maximum tracking speed for a crossing target was 200 mph.
But woe betide any aircraft approaching head-on. Shame on 'em.
So some guy sitting a quarter mile off the end of a runway with a semi-auto .50 could probably create serious problems: If he didn't care about escaping. But a guy who doesn't care about escaping can do all manner of horribles with a heckuva lot less than a .50. Hinckley comes to mind, for instance...
Art
The more thing change....
A friend has a quote on his wall,
"If you don't read the paper, then you are uninformed."
"If you do read the paper, then you are misinformed"
Mark Twain
As far as bringing doen an airliner, shooting into the cockpit during take off or landing with any gun has a good chance of bringing down the plane. Bipod mounted 30+lb guns with high power optics are a VERY POOR choice for tracking a rapidly moving target. Even if Henry Bowman did do it.
A friend has a quote on his wall,
"If you don't read the paper, then you are uninformed."
"If you do read the paper, then you are misinformed"
Mark Twain
As far as bringing doen an airliner, shooting into the cockpit during take off or landing with any gun has a good chance of bringing down the plane. Bipod mounted 30+lb guns with high power optics are a VERY POOR choice for tracking a rapidly moving target. Even if Henry Bowman did do it.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Actually, when the plane is on its takeoff roll, hitting a target in the cockpit is essentially impossible because the range is changing so fast. I ran the numbers a while back, and from a realistic distance, to catch the plane before rotation, you're looking at the required holdover changing by more than 5 FEET every second, and if you guess the range wrong by 50-100 yards at any given instant, you miss.
Get a ballistic calculator and run the numbers, from a realistic distance (not sitting on the runway), and you'll see what I mean. Time-of-flight and trajectory issues mess you up.
If you have a machinegun with tracers and can walk a stream of fire into the target or put up a wall of lead, that's one thing. A scoped rifle? Quite another.
Get a ballistic calculator and run the numbers, from a realistic distance (not sitting on the runway), and you'll see what I mean. Time-of-flight and trajectory issues mess you up.
If you have a machinegun with tracers and can walk a stream of fire into the target or put up a wall of lead, that's one thing. A scoped rifle? Quite another.
Prince Yamato
Member
First: Who fires a bolt action rifle at an airplane?
Second: All those extra plants will do is increase allergins.
Second: All those extra plants will do is increase allergins.
Just like in convincing juries, convincing the public is not about truth, it is about what the uninformed can be made to believe. People feel vulnerable now to airline terror, if you have an anti BMG goal that is the best way to get it accomplished. The truth I imagine has more to do with it being a semi auto or single shot weapon (costing around $8,000) that is huge, heavy, bulky, etc that has no legit anti-gun argument. It is legal per ATF caliber guidlines and has a slow rate of fire. How can you ban such a thing and why would you want to? Play into fears. Why ? because it is truly formidable in mass and presents a threat to government trying to rule from a central authority trying to impose an absolute rule. It also sets a precedent for legaly banning weapons that fit into no pre existing 'evil' catagory like 'assault weapon'
What governments that have disarmed people in the past due is start with powerful semi auto, getting around to 'concealable' and creating a ton of legal paperwork that clearly documents who has what in the meantime through registration or fees, requirements that are state verified, etc
Things like CCW records and hunting licenses could effectively create a database on many arms. You create 'assault weapon' bans, 'saturday night special' bans etc for those too difficult to track. Of course that requires asking those that already have them to register so you know who they are, so they can avoid becoming a criminal and facing serious prosecution and continue owning thier weapon of course
Then you slowly reduce the power of the allowable firearms so that eventualy most are ineffective against high level body armor. At which point you are free to go door to door in 'buyback' programs and those wishing to oppose can't do anything about it. Your handgun or 00buck (ballistic equal to what? a .380? a .22?) would just bounce of the body armor while they return fire with highly effective weaponry your not professional enough to own. Think its unbelievable? Great Britain did it, Canada is doing it, Australia is doing it, and the United Nations is trying to urge world based small arms (guns) control.
What governments that have disarmed people in the past due is start with powerful semi auto, getting around to 'concealable' and creating a ton of legal paperwork that clearly documents who has what in the meantime through registration or fees, requirements that are state verified, etc
Things like CCW records and hunting licenses could effectively create a database on many arms. You create 'assault weapon' bans, 'saturday night special' bans etc for those too difficult to track. Of course that requires asking those that already have them to register so you know who they are, so they can avoid becoming a criminal and facing serious prosecution and continue owning thier weapon of course
Then you slowly reduce the power of the allowable firearms so that eventualy most are ineffective against high level body armor. At which point you are free to go door to door in 'buyback' programs and those wishing to oppose can't do anything about it. Your handgun or 00buck (ballistic equal to what? a .380? a .22?) would just bounce of the body armor while they return fire with highly effective weaponry your not professional enough to own. Think its unbelievable? Great Britain did it, Canada is doing it, Australia is doing it, and the United Nations is trying to urge world based small arms (guns) control.
DAM! I missed where he said the plan had to be at cruising altitude and speed.
There is a hell of a big difference in the plans of WW11 and a modern airliner. First place most of the WW11 aircraft were non pressurized, second place they were not jet engines turning at very high RPM. Secondly, there was a hell of a lot of them that did not come back with holes in um tooo.
There is a hell of a big difference in the plans of WW11 and a modern airliner. First place most of the WW11 aircraft were non pressurized, second place they were not jet engines turning at very high RPM. Secondly, there was a hell of a lot of them that did not come back with holes in um tooo.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Pressurization is irrelevant. A jetliner isn't pressurized much at sea level, and you can't shoot one at cruising altitude--but even if you could, a half-inch hole in the fuselage won't do anything but make a whistling noise. The plane won't pop like a balloon.
DoubleTapDrew
Member
In the movies a single gunshot will cause massive depressurization and people start getting sucked out of the plane.
I was listening to a radio talk show and a boeing engineer called in (the topic was air marshalls). He said the compressors in those things can easily make up for a dozen or more .45 caliber holes in the fuselage and while the oxygen masks will pop down from the ceiling they won't decompress. How a gun with a mile effective range will hit (let alone shoot down) a plane flying 6 miles up is beyond me.
Been reading the thread.
I do shoot at 1,000 yards as well as 1 mile with a 50 cal. It also takes the bullet close to 2 seconds or so to get to 1,000 yards and a count to almost 5 at a mile.
I could never hope to get enough view in my nightforce scope to be able to lead something that is moving as fast as a volklswagon beetle let alone an airplane.
Ain't the movies grand where 007 can use a walther .380 and make a fatal hit at any distance and speed? Man I need some of that MOJO when I shoot matches.
Record fire at Quantico the 21 and 22 was 6 3/4" off of a rest and sandbags at a 6' staionary target! Although I did have 3 shots in a 1 1/2" group till the target frame jammed.
Folks the truth is the first casulity when dealing with a fanatic. Makes you wonder why they are so afraid of us having weapons?
5.56
I do shoot at 1,000 yards as well as 1 mile with a 50 cal. It also takes the bullet close to 2 seconds or so to get to 1,000 yards and a count to almost 5 at a mile.
I could never hope to get enough view in my nightforce scope to be able to lead something that is moving as fast as a volklswagon beetle let alone an airplane.
Ain't the movies grand where 007 can use a walther .380 and make a fatal hit at any distance and speed? Man I need some of that MOJO when I shoot matches.
Record fire at Quantico the 21 and 22 was 6 3/4" off of a rest and sandbags at a 6' staionary target! Although I did have 3 shots in a 1 1/2" group till the target frame jammed.
Folks the truth is the first casulity when dealing with a fanatic. Makes you wonder why they are so afraid of us having weapons?
5.56
Maybe the guy really did mean titanium bullets. People buy .50 cals for it's looks and to impress other people. Titanium is anodized to all sorts of colors. What better way to add bling to an already bad-ass gun? Gold highlights might work, but blue, green, and red bullets are just so cool. And then you can brag about how expensive the bullets are for your expensive rifle.
Axman
Member
Gee, I wonder how a slightly smaller caliber would fare in the same situation? Let's use the .460 Weatherby as an example. That's one sizable rifle and the last .460 WB I fired nearly tore my shoulder off from the recoil. I would compare it to a 12 ga shotgun. If it's the evil .50 calibers that they are worried about why not something like a .460 WB or even a muzzleloader in .50+ caliber?
Hmm, where can I get me some of them "titanium bullets", preferably coated in teflon and sprayed with WD-40?
Hmm, where can I get me some of them "titanium bullets", preferably coated in teflon and sprayed with WD-40?
DoubleTapDrew
Member
HUSH!!! We don't want the antis to know that spraying a bullet with WD-40 will allow it to shoot through 6 M1A tanks before it even slows down!
What would a .50 cal bullet made out of titanium weigh? 160 gr?
- Status
