Find the holes

[The Deer Hunter]

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.

 

[Nolo]

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. .

Oh, sure.
Honestly, I didn't find anything that you said that told me that you wanted to ban people from owning .50 Cals.
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.

 

[Nolo]

50-caliber bullets

Technically, all they told me there was that somebody likes blackpowder hunting in Mexico.
I love shredding articles like these.

 

[Nolo]

They might give someone $100 to go into a gun show or a Wal-Mart and buy a few rifles at a time.

They're buying Mosin-Nagants!? Good lord! They must be stopped!
I love this.

 

[Nolo]

Someone was talking about how many M2s were mounted on WWII fighter aircraft. That would be four to eight, depending on the aircraft. Four is more than adequate for a skilled pilot to down another aircraft with. The reason so many .50s were mounted on WWII fighter aircraft is because of the performance of the aircraft, not the weapon.
The aircraft in WWII were flying anywhere from 350-550 miles per hour. That's a lot. They were at about 7,500 feet (10,000 was considered high back then). That's pretty damn high. Let's assume a linear progression of fire, that is head-on from a diving perspective. The largest area you'd be aiming for with your aircraft would be the centerline of the other aircraft. In the studies done in the '60s and '70s with F-5s and other aircraft, the Vulcan 20mm cannon could only get about 7 shots in on the centerline in a pass. That drastically decreased if you moved even a foot off the centerline. The Vulcan does about 6,000 rpm. The M2 does, oh, 900 in aircraft form, I think. Now, the aircraft in WWII were flying much slower than the Mach 1.5 F-5s, but adjusting for ROF, the hit probability was about the same. Hence the large number of guns onboard. This was also before missiles, so guns were the only armament you had.
Anyway, to make a long story short, we aren't talking about 500 mph aircraft. We're talking about 150 mph aircraft. COIN aircraft like the Bird Dog and almost all helicopters short of the Mi-24 Hind are also much more lightly armored than WWII fighters, which had heavier aluminum (especially the F6Fs) and self-sealing fuel tanks. Without self-sealers, a single stray .30 caliber bullet was enough to destroy any aircraft. Which is why the Brits used .303 ammo in their Spitfires and Hurricanes (yes, that .303 ammo, same as the Enfield) because they wanted to carry more ammo and when those aircraft were designed (the mid-'30s, right on the dawn of self-sealers), aircraft were easy prey for that round.
So an M1919A4 is more than adequate for helicopters, much less an M2HB. In fact, I don't think even the Apache is rated for .50 cal. impacts. If you're talking semiauto rifles, the M82 is the medicine for helicopters, able to put 10 rounds of .50 BMG downrange in less than 10 seconds pretty accurately.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Honestly, I didn't find anything that you said that told me that you wanted to ban people from owning .50 Cals.

There yah go.

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.

Pretty much, since even the Bronco would be loitering rather than making high speed passes.
You can watch birds pass the DEA Choppers around here. And when hovering they'd be sitting ducks with plenty of time to target their most vulnerable spots.

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.

Well I see you have gotten the point. The Rock Chucker would be a better tool for the job at closer ranges but the .50 carries its authority further. Plus as I mentioned el Jeffe's limo might well be proof against .30 caliber at a distance but the fifty would have him belly to the sun with his best suit on and no place to go but hell.

In fact, I don't think even the Apache is rated for .50 cal. impacts.

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.

I seriously doubt that its windshield would stop a .50, but if its as thick as the F-16 canopy a .30/06 would bounce off.

To maintain credibility we must admit that the .50 BMG is a highly effective round, otherwise it would not still be our main heavy machinegun round.
Even the newest designs for Automatic Cannons can be fitted with .50 barrels for more mission flexibility.

 

[Lucky]

Roswell 1847

In hindsight I was kind of rude in my post, so sorry about being a little too personal. But in a strictly academic debate, I still disagree, and I'll show you why.

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.

The point of the .50BMG, the reason it's advocates stand behind it's effectiveness in WW2, is that it had a high velocity making it easier to hit moving targets between aircraft. And it penetrated armour. And it was a sufficiently large caliber to allow specialty ammunition like API.

The presence of specialty ammunitions like Raufoss and such are so rare that gun control in any form are irrelevant, because they will have been acquired by criminal means. I think we can all agree that for all intents and purposes, we are talking about simple lead-core ammunition, or AP in some circumstances.

If you take this to be true, then .50BMG does nothing more than punch holes. And ANY rifle, any bullet will do that. True velocity and mass will result in related fragmentation and spalling, but you're talking about a very small side-effect, especially if one can put 100 .30 caliber bullets into a target in the time another would be lucky to put 10 /.50's.

And you are taking range out of the equation - this means that almost EVERY rifle is more suitable to punch holes than a .50BMG, because they are lighter and more compact, have a higher rate of fire, more ammunition capacity, etc. You actually are helping prove that .50BMG rifles are harmless, compared to any other semi-auto rifle in normal or intermediate calibers.

Also since unlike an aerial gunner a gunner on the ground need not be moving its much easier to lead the target.

Good point, I give you credit. However the experience of Korea contradicts this. By the 1950's stabilized gunsights were in use, and coupled with training they made aerial gunnery at least as effective as ground-based AAA, probably more effective. And the US entered the conflict using .50BMG armed aircraft, as well as .50BMG AAA. The aircraft guns were very, and I mean very, quickly found to be undesireable by comparison to their opposition equivalents - and duly phased out. And the ground mounts are remembered, afaik, only for their usefulness in ground-support. And this is all using specialized ammunition - not heavy lead, stuff that has secondary target effects (besides fragmentation and spalling, which I admit already).

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.

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.

Spitfires shot down Bf109s with .303 just like Corsairs shot down Zeros with .50BMG. And those all still used special bullets, which we're not talking about.


[/quote]Can Helicopters be brought down by groundfire, most certainly. Is the .50 round an excellent choice for knocking down a chopper, it was designed for destroying aircraft.[/quote]

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.

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.

Japanese aircraft being less resistent does not make them weak. US fighters were over-built, and good for them. But Japanese fighters were still warplanes. And planes in general are capable of sustaining a whole lot of punishment. Civilian planes are actually at an advantage, if you are talking about simple AP or FMJ ammo. This is because they have more volume and area, but that volume is maximized to fit stuff in, and putting holes in it doesn't matter. Warplanes are leaner and hitting them is more likely to hit something important - but still at that your odds aren't good if you compare critical area to surface area. It's all about where the bullets hit - most places don't matter in the least. Some places matter a whole lot. That's why EXPLOSIVE shells are used against aircraft - so that a hit will have more chance of hitting something critical.

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.

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.

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.

You have to admit it would be an awkward cheek-weld, with the scope not being, shall we say optimized, for AA activities.. And if you overcome this by using specialized ammuniton - the logical thing - then a Barret semi-auto doesn't make much sense. Anything else would make more sense, from an AK with tracer to an M2.

As for special rounds, even target ammo could bust a Huey transmission casing, Its just a magnesium alloy, no incendiary fireball is needed for special effects.
And the news story does not identify the rounds seized, could have been Military ammo stolen from an armory, it happens in real life as well as on CSI Miami. Our Guard Armory has been broken into several times in my memory, and I can remember reading of several armory breakins over the years, sometimes with casualties among the staff. Five finger discount is another source of contraband ammo.

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.

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.

Only advantage it has re: shooting planes is if they're parked and your .30 rifle doesn't have the range to hit them. Seriously, that's all.

Whats so hard to understand about that?

You simply won't get a first-round hit on a moving aircraft at ranges which you couldn't with a .30.

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!)

 

[Roswell 1847]

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.

Doesn't matter if they were manufactured in Belgium or not an Englis manufactured P-35 is still an FN design.
Surplus P-35 Canadian pistols have been sold off in job lots in recent years including a large number of otherwise serviceable pistols demilled for use as training pistols, painted red and the barrel pin replaced by a round pin. I'd considered buyin a few of these myself to rebuild them. The barrel pin hole could be TIG welded and recut and a pistol no longer on the books could be returned to usefulness and untraceable.
As I mentioned Norinco still ships to Canadian dealers and since Contraband includng Asian heroin destined for US streets comes through canadian ports and across the border from there its a strong possiblity that any quantity of selective fire AKs headed to Mexico could have passed through Canada. Norinco was caught shipping selective Fire AKs to Mob connected dealers on two occasions.
Speculation on my part but it fits the pattern of smuggling in recent years.

If you take this to be true, then .50BMG does nothing more than punch holes. And ANY rifle, any bullet will do that.

The .50 punches bigger holes through thicker metal at much longer ranges.
The more damage done by any single round the fewer hits that are needed.
The .50 will bust the transmission case at distances where the .30 has run out of steam.

You have to admit it would be an awkward cheek-weld, with the scope not being, shall we say optimized, for AA activities..

depends on the sighting system you chose. The Vehicle mountings in the quote are Military and they seem to think they are efficient.

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!)

Try mounting six 20mms in the Mustang Wing and calculate how many rounds per gun you can then stuff into the ammo bays.
The Germans and Japanese both found that they couldn't carry much ammo for the 20mm in a lightweight fighter so they kept rifle caliber guns as a back up.
Some 20mm wing mountings required blisters on the wings or seperate pods for the guns.
Only when Aircraft size and available horsepower reached their height were 20mm found suitable options.
German fighters with heavy cannon up to 30mm found them selves outclassed by the Mustang in a gun fight, even though one hit from a 30mm could destroy almost any aircraft. They only carried the 30's because it made knocking out bombers easier.

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.

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.
The M2HB was used both in the air and as a land vehicle mounted gun with anti aircraft use its prime function in both roles.

And you could save even more weight by using an ordinary rifle and cartridges, if you're shooting at unarmoured helicopters.

No weight saving if it takes many more rounds to deal with the target, and

and your .30 rifle doesn't have the range to hit them.

But Japanese fighters were still warplanes. And planes in general are capable of sustaining a whole lot of punishment.

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.

Choppers have only a few vulnerable spots but most of those are directly under the rotor. Put your verticle crosshair on the rotor shaft and the horizontal a foot below the roof and let er ripp. Turbine powered choppers have their major components bunched up there, and piston driven choppers have their most vulnerable drive train components situated there with the engine usually just aft.
Shoot a pilot and his co pilot might get the craft out of there safely. Bust up the drivetrain and they autogyro in if lucky. Hit the hydraulics and they don't get far, probably not out of sight before going down.
A fellow I know was selling his chopper to a guy and a qualified pilot took it up for a test spin, It lost its tail rotor and both men were killed. Jihadis like to shoot at the tail rotor because it can't be armored, its the single most vulnerable part. Recent designs eliminate the tail rotor by using ducted fans and such.

As for Korea

The aircraft guns were very, and I mean very, quickly found to be undesireable by comparison to their opposition equivalents - and duly phased out.

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 Mig used cannons in 37mm and 20 or 23mm MM and found they were lucky to get a hit due to low ROF and arching trajectory. Like the German 30mm the Mig armament was optimized for the bomber destroyer role, at which the Mig excelled, but Fighters don't linger in the gunsights that long.

PS

You simply won't get a first-round hit

Once again no one on this end is even considering single shot .50 BMG rifles.

PPS

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)

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.
The six gun Sabres were the big Mig killers.
Though I remember that John Glenn killed four Migs while flying a four gun Marine Corp Sabre.

 

[Nolo]

Lucky's thinking like an infantryman, not a gunner.

And you are taking range out of the equation

To an infantryman, a .30 cal and a .50 cal might as well have the same range, i.e. long.
To a gunner, they are medium and long. Gunners shoot at longer distances. Think about it this way: you are at point-blank range at 200 yards.
Really. That's just the length of a hallway to a gunner.
The range of the .50 and the greater mass and authority with which it hits is the important thing. The .50 has five times the energy of the .30-06 upon which it is based (check Browning's work, he just scaled up the .30-06 round). The .50 has five times the mass of the .30-06. More mass and more energy means that you will penetrate more and destroy more innards. Where a .30 cal. might bounce off a gearbox even after it penetrated the plating, a .50 will tear up that gearbox, ruining the mechanism, forcing the aircraft from the air. Will a .50 make a helo explode? No. But forcing it from the air is just as good. Then your guys with AKs can go pick off the survivors. My father was an SH-60 pilot for many years. He'll tell you how fragile that aircraft is, and, by helicopter standards, the '60 is a tough beast. You can plaster that sucker with .50s and it will go down. Ten is good enough. A good marksman can lay those ten into the helicopter with no problem. Will .50s take down an F-15? No. Is the Mexican government using F-15s to interdict the drug cartels? No. They're not even using things like the A-10. They're lucky to be using anything that flies. So, yeah, a .50 does the job pretty damn well. And at ranges that the .30 can't.

And planes in general are capable of sustaining a whole lot of punishment.

Planes? Yes.
Helos? No.
I doubt the Mexican government is using many planes. Probably more like police choppers, or planes that are as fragile as choppers.
As my father says, the air wants planes to fly; helicopters had to beat flight out of the air.

Civilian planes are actually at an advantage

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.
Again, we're not talking F-15s, or even F-5s. We're talking stuff like Cessnas and MD500s. Very light, very unarmored, very easy to shoot down.

US fighters were over-built

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.

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.

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.

Well I see you have gotten the point.

Honestly, I think I always had it.

 

[armoredman]

No hysteria, but your deliberate bait and switch to talk about a semi auto rifle, and then use anectodotes of machine gun fire being used to down aircraft.

Is the .50 round an excellent choice for knocking down a chopper, it was designed for destroying aircraft.

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.
BTW, where was this "over the shoulder" Barret made and sold, how many, and who has them. I have never seen one, plans for one, or pictures of one. I have seen many pictures and schematics for the Barret in 20mm, which we peasant types will never be allowed to own, so why the big secrecy over this supposed AA rig? Perhaps you have a link to this firearm?

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.

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?
I think that is the sticking point here, you say that the Barret semi auto rifle is a threat to all helicopters and a bad thing, but the only evidence you show is the effectiveness of .50 BMG ammo when used in a machinegun. OK, any firearm projectile can and has been used against helos in the past. Some were brought down, some were not. 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, fourth, a conspiracy to use this illegally would have be conducted, (uh oh, someone doing illegal things with legal products, like deisel fuel and fertilizer, BAN 'EM ALL!), and fifth, you need a Carlos Hathcock sniper! 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? OK, easy to hit with a scoped rifle at 100 yards, when sitting down not moving in plain view, but now have it moving, hidden behind a metal engine cover, (I wouldn't have the least idea where it would be.), not fast, just a few miles an hour, like you describe. Now hit it. Good luck. Try it sometime with a scoped 22 and a remote control car out on a safe range, sometime.
So, why this visceral hatred of the 50BMG, which has, IIRC, never once been used in a crime in the US? I can't afford one, but sure wouldn't mind having one, just to see how far I could accurately shoot at inoffensive paper targets, like every other single .50 caliber rifle owner in the US today.

 

[mattsb2000]

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.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

So Roswell, are you opposed to civvies being able to own single shot and semi-auto .50BMG rifles?
also - can you provide a link or reference?

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.

 

[cracked butt]

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.

 

[Elza]

Nolo: Hence the large number of guns onboard.

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.

very expensive pistols

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’?

 

[GeezerwithGuns]

Looks like it's time to make a deal with the Mexican Govt:

They take back the illegals

We'll take back the guns

'nuff said.....

 

[davepool]

The mexican government wants us to stem the flow of weapons into their country? It's our gun laws that are the problem? How about the mexican government stem the flow of their masses into our country. Why can't the mexican government solve it's own problems?
Their violent culture is some how Americas fault? Forced home invasions were pretty rare around here 20 years ago, but since our government turned their back on the border it has become more and more prevalent. The Phoenix Police just busted a gang who had been committing armed home invasions for over a year, it seems like that is a popular form of robbery in mexico.....aren't you happy that we have the cheap labor to keep that salad on your plate and our lawns so nicely maintained...how could we have possibly done this with out the illegals and all that they bring with them? Oh, and the AK47 "sophisticated" NOT, reliable? yes; practically indetructible? yes; and only because it is NOT sophiscated. That guy from new york must think thumb tacks are "sophisticated"

 

[Geo.Az]

Look from a differnt Prospective.

Looks like a Snow Job from AP ( Why would they do that - Brainwashing the Sheeple who read It. )
It get all you guys worked up....Think Is out......It works well, a lot of Disinformation, and In ALL - MSM ( Main Stream Media ) Why... what Is there Adgenda ? People Controal. ( Not Guns ) Remember " the Most TRUSTED name in News CNNN - Watch Dalf Ditzler ( the Best Sheep Dip ) Just because you read It or Saw It on T.V. does Not make It TRUE.

You can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think

DISCLAIMER: I do not advocate or condone violence against another human being except in the defense of self, or a third party, or lawfully owned property. I do not advocate or condone any unlawful act against any duly authorized or sitting government within the U.S., or its elected officials, or its agencies, or its personnel. I do advocate replacing bad government with better government through both the ballot box and the jury box. Any misconstruction of my comments are the sole responsibility of the person(s) misinterpreting their meaning and/or intent.

ps ...... Maybe I am wrong ? I sleppted In a Motel 6

 

[Nolo]

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.

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.
We're not saying that .30 can't down an aircraft, we're saying .50 is better enough at it that it warrants purchase by people who happen to have an aircraft problem.
By the way, there is anecdotal evidence of an enemy fighter being downed by a .45 M1911 pistol during WWII. Through the windshield. The luckiest shot a 'chuting pilot could hope for. However, whether this is just fantasy or not has been debated. It's certainly physically possible, it's just highly unlikely.

 

[Pigspitter]

Barrett even designed an over the shoulder version of his semi auto .50 for engaging Soviet Helicopters.

I want to see a picture. And the ATF reminds me of another acronym that enjoyed gun control, the SS.

 

[Roswell 1847]

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.

__________________

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.
The only other detail I remember is that the 10 ga shotgun used had been found abandoned by the shooter in the park after the last shooting.

I'll see if I can dig up some more info on that. Its been a long time and my memory is sketchy at best, it might have been late eighties rather than in the nineties.

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?

Quite a bit larger than that I would think, and of course their are other vital components bunched up around it.
This Schematic of a more modern chopper shows the general layout of the vulnerable components.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kiowa/kiowa6.html
The surface area of the most vulnerable components is rather large, the size of a coffin or larger.

So, why this visceral hatred of the 50BMG,

Ask someone that has this "Visceral hatred" of which you speak.

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.

I'd thought so as well but from other sources.
Wiki, not the best but worth further investigation.

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.

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,

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.
Come to think about it, a friend recently obtained a pintle mount for his rock chucker which would probably work very well for a Barrett with little modification.

As I pointed out from the begining the Barrett is only one option, many M2HB are floating around the third world these days, and lifting one from an armory in exchange for a few kilos might seem a sweet deal to some less intelligent types.

You guys are missing the point, the Point is that the .50 BMG round is capable of taking down all but the best armored military helicopters and fighters. The BMG round from the mid 20's on was optimized for taking out the military aircraft of the day and few aircraft of later decades could withstand more than a few hits of .50 in the power plant or fuel system, and it could damage structual members badly enough for wings to fall off.

Which is another point. Soviet Chopper blades and hopefully the Rotor blades of our more modern Combat choppers , have been strengthened to withstand hits from ground fire.
A thirty cal through a rotor blade might not cause a catastrophic failure of a civilian rotor but the .50 would be highly likely to do so.

Now if you want to combat the gungrabbers on the .50 issue use some realism in your arguments. The .50 round as it exists today was designed or redesigned for the purpose of downing aircraft, to dismiss that fact is unrealistic.

Good points have been raised about the difficulties in hitting a chopper, but historically Choppers have always been highly vulnerable to ground fire, and long before any shoulder launched missiles entered the picture.

As for MG vs Semi-Auto .50 BMG weapons, one of the Barrett's main selling points has always been that he could put more rounds on target in one third the time using aimed semi-auto fire than an M2HB could.

 

[Nolo]

I've seen an M82 go off in rapid fire.
It goes fast. A marksman worth his salt could put those rounds on target.
Ten .50s would be more than enough to down many aircraft.

 

[Lucky]

Roswell I don't think you're arguing in favour of gun control, we're just being geeks and sweating the details.

But Cracked Butt summed it up very nicely:

" 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."

The simple fact is that a semi-auto .50 is at a disadvantage versus ALL other weapons you could use to shoot slow and low aircraft. If you chose a semi or full auto .30 or .223 rifle you could put many more holes in the planes, and at the ranges you'd be likely to hit those bullets would have PLENTY of power to punch through thin light pieces of metal. You wouldn't have only 10 shots, you wouldn't have punishing recoil, you wouldn't have a gun that's too heavy to actually aim off-hand at the sky!

If you chose an M2 it would be better than a semi-auto too! Afaik the biggest problem with using .50's to shoot down planes at long range - and this is from dedicated mounts by people trained to shoot at planes - is that it's so ****ing hard to aim. That's why they use tracer, so they can spot and correct. And the problem that would occur at the 1km+ ranges you're suggesting (where a .50ball would do what a .30 couldn't to a lightweight metal structure) tracers have different trajectories than ball.


Let's step back for a minute and consider, semi-auto rifles in .50BMG are not optimized for shooting moving aircraft. The only time they are better than other rifles is for shooting parked aircraft at long ranges where .30 bullets bite the dirt too soon.

If you are a master criminal or guerrilla of some sort, you could buy a Strela missile or such and shoot down aircraft much more reliably at longer ranges. And M2 in the bed of a pickup would be cool though, but just not as good. And if an M2 isn't good enough, there's no way in hell a semi-auto small-magazine heavy-weight cumbersome rifle could cut it in that role.



And Apaches transmissions are rated to run 30 minutes after all oil has drained out of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib15_IGDO0c

Plus this video shows some gov'ts have considerably more than unarmed junkers at their disposal for use versus cartels.

 

[Nolo]

That's a what, a Tucano light attack aircraft? It's armor ain't good enough to stop a .50, I believe. And it's still not that fast.
(Hahahahahakekekekekekeke!!!!! I hadn't even watched the vid and I knew it was a Tucano! Man, I'm a Navy brat.)
Who says these cartels are using M82s? My guess is they're using M2HBs.

 

[Roswell 1847]

And Apaches transmissions are rated to run 30 minutes after all oil has drained out of them

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?

PS
If a .50 hasn't been used in a crime in the US yet its probably because crack heads haven't figured out how to hold one sideways yet.

In the late 60's or early 70's an armored car robbery involved the use of a Polish WW2 Anti Aircraft machinegun mounted in the back of a van, it was some odd caliber like 16mm. It wasn't fired just used to intimidate the guards into opening up the truck. Quite an impressive setup with belts of ammo on drums strung on rods mounted to the van's interior.
A 40mm Anti Aircraft gun was used to blast open the wall of a Bank in DC at about the same time. It had been stolen from a shipyard only hours beforehand and left at the scene mounted on a flatbed truck.
Hopefully its not that easy to walk off with government property these days.

Sorry I don't keep forty year old news papers except my collection of issues from the day Elvis died.

Now whether a .30 cal is a better choice for knocking down DEA choppers or not is a mute point. The point of the discussion so far is that the .50 BMG is a better round for knocking down aircraft because each round does greater damage. The .50 BMG round as it exists today is optimized for knocking down aircraft. It does little good to say that its better suited for penetrating lightly armored vehicles, since assassination of big wigs is more feared by the varoius governments than loss of DEA agents.

Also though its old news, during the Mayan uprising the Rebells in Mexico were for the most part armed with .303 rifles smuggled from the US and suspected to have been bought cheaply from discount stores, I've seen the photos of the guns in action.
Smuggling weaponry from the US to Mexican rebel groups has been going on for more than a century. In large part because there are so many Mexicans in the US with ties to those rebel groups back home.

If the Cartels could trade dope for guns with Central American countries they would, but down there they already have all the dope they want.

 

[rluening]

RE: Shooting down aircraft

While I agree a well placed .50 will knock down almost anything, I don't think many people understand how difficult it is to make that well placed shot.

The following video (apologies for the poor hosting) was shot at the Cheyenne Wells Machine Gun Shoot this spring. The aircraft is about 3 feet wide, passing at 50 to 100 yards. It's being fired upon by everything from pistols to 2 GE Miniguns...

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=J5WFC6GA

It can be done, but it's not easy.

/rl