Find the holes

[Roswell 1847]

The ammo round was conceptualized during WWI by John Browning in response to a requirement for an anti-aircraft weapon. The ammo 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, as were AP rounds for destroying concrete bunkers, structures, and lighter AFVs.

The development of the .50 BMG ammunition 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 ammo round was started before this later German project was completed or even known to the Allied countries.

There were military aircraft long before Tanks appeared on the Battlefield.

First Military Airplane dates to 1909, the First Tank was used in battle in 1915 with the first claim of a Tank design dated at 1912.

http://www.50bmgsupply.com/
Wiki quotes the same as above on its page on the .50 BMG. Wiki is often contradictory.
Several larger caliber Machineguns were developed by the British during WW2 because .303 bullets could not as yet hold a reliable incendiary charge for downing Observation balloons and airships.

going to be able to nail a Boeing

I've never said it would but Cassandrasdad makes a good case for it being capable of taking out the engine of a Boeing on takeoff, which usually results in a crash.
Few Airliners can even maintain alitude with one engine out, and complete loss of power to one engine on takeoff is a major factor in aircrashes.
As C pointed out the intake of modern jet engines are huge.
We have had Jet Turbine manufacturers in or community, not sure if they are still in business. The turbine blades are manufactured seperatly and attached to the hubs. If one breaks off a cascade effect chews the engine to pieces in seconds.

As Combat reports from Nam and Afghanistan have shown hitting a Chopper with ground fire is not that difficult, as Mogadishu proved even a RPG can hit a vital spot if the Chopper is hovering at low altitude.
Some years back a video of a Jihadi firing an RPG from a rooftop at an American Chopper was shown on the News. He was within spitting distance because the Chopper had to get down on the deck to do its job in that city.
Many kills of Soviet Choppers were made possible because the surrounding mountains were often higher than the Chopper could fly with a full load. There are places like that here in Tennessee, in fact I own a piece of one.

I haven't flown as a pilot for more than thirty years but I remember enough about aircraft construction to state with confidence that no civilian aircraft is invulnerable to .50 BMG within its extremly long effective range.
Someone earlier said all aircraft had triple redundancy. The Planes I flew had two magnetos, you tested each during run up by turning the other off, when you did RPM dropped alarmingly, thats the extent of redundancy on most Civilian aircraft. Over confidence in the manufacturer's claims has killed a lot of pilots, that goes for military pilots as well.

I've also put more rounds of more different calibers through more vehicles than the vast majority of the members of this forum likely including a few of the veteran machinegunners.
I know what bullets can and cannot do to a wide variety of alloys, both cast and sheet metals, including high strength magnesium aircraft alloys and stainless steel structural members.

On an individual basis if a young gun owner told me that his .22LR was no more deadly than his BB gun because you could kill a songbird with either, I'd doubt that he had the maturity and intelligence to be trusted to own either. I'd have to figure he was an overgrown child that knew next to nothing about either.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"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."

i don't think you are either i don't think you could see the plane. next school break come on down i can show you a spot where you can tell if the pilot needs a shave on several hundred flights a day and dome targets that are nore than 8 feet high and 12 long

 

[Remmi]

I still say the Barret's hardly classified as a god-awful weapon of plane-killing death by exclusivity; by all these examples you've given, you could do just about any of them with extensive planning and a very wide range of weapons; not just the .50 BMG; hell a errant goose can ruin the turbines on a 747, I imagine you could do the same with a garden-variety rock and a decent fastball.

And the same goes for civvie aircraft, Sure they're vulnerable to the barret, but by your own examples they're vulnerable to my dad's old 45-70 Boar-hunting rifle. I think this is mostly a case of a specific gun be singled-out for something you can do with anything of decently high-caliber.

As far as the Barret's concerned, I'd be less worried about it's anti-vehicular capabilities as much as it's anti-personnl threat in a civilian theatre; you could kill quite a few people with a fair degree of impunity with it's impressive effective range, and be long, long gone by the time anyone got wise to it. Moreover, with it's abilites to punch through an inch or more of tempered steel and chew through military-grade armor; it'd be able to hit targets in cars and cover with nearly the same effectiveness.

Something to think about, in contrast.

 

[Roswell 1847]

they're vulnerable to my dad's old 45-70 Boar-hunting rifle

Would you mind telling us where we can get Armor Piercing Incendiary ammo in 45-70.
And I suppose you can crank out those 45-70s like Lucas McCain. If so does the Pintle mount get in your way?

Mind comparing the velocity and energy figures of the .45-70 with those of the .50 BMG?
How about historical records of the tens of thousands of aircraft destroyed by the 45-70 round.

And again for those who missed it, the Barrett M82A2 was designed specifically for shooting down combat helicopters.

 

[Remmi]

Would you mind telling me where you're going to buy API ammo in America legally?

Because the point was talking legal ownership of hunting-class Barret Rifles being in question due to being called an 'Airplane Killer'.

If your going to cross the boundary into illegal or restricted ammunitions; well damn - let's open the field to RPG launchers, LAW rockets and Stinger missiles. If you can get something illegal; why stop at just API ammo for a wimpy ol' rifle when you can get something high-explosive and laser-guided?

 

[Geo.Az]

The Answer sits on a Desk

FYI You guys should Know Fine swine has the Anti - 50 bill on her desk Just wating for the right time and It will be Soon and Fast as the 1968 Laws
ps..you guys make me sick... you argue & argue:banghead: ...What Get Done ? NOTHING It Is starting to Looking to me that this Fourm Is a CWOT.
ps ... Remmi Please think before you post Know your Laws ...It makes you look like a fool..... Like Me

 

[Remmi]

I've looked into the matter a bit more closely, and I'm willing to admit where I'm wrong, and I apologize.

But I'm a bit appalled at the offering of API ammunitions to the public; I mean... what use EVER would a law-abiding citizen need for something that powerful? The only reason you'd want that would be to kill another person who's behind solid cover, I can't find any other reason; and I doubt any range-owner with a solid grip on his sanity'd let you shoot that at his targets.

While I support the ownership of .50 BMG rifles... do we really need API ammunitons? Are you planning to hunt a bear wearing RCA plating?

 

[siglite]

This thread is a freakin' trainwreck. You've got one making a case to ban a cartridge on speculation and miracle shots. (yes, a 30-06 will WRECK a modern turbofan, but let's focus on the evul fiddy) and another calling for a ban of particular ammunition.

The second amendment is not about bear hunting. In fact, hunting is not mentioned in the BoR at *all*. ARMS are mentioned. Specifically the people's right to keep and bear them.

And what's a CWOT?

By golly, the media and BATFE must be right on the money with this article. Evul terrist 50BMGs and scoped remington 700 sniper rifles! No one has any need or justification for such destructive power capable of such grievous harm at such long ranges!

I'm starting to wonder just how many antis THR has in it's membership.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

someone is not an anti just cause they don't support b/s. i am opposed to b/s no matter which side it comes from.

its funny how opnes perspective grows the further one gets in life experience does that
having someone on your side spew nonsense and the nodding your head to ok doke it associates your position with the bs and does it no good. i would think a man of your convictions would be most aware of that
.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Just had to post this

RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) - Not even Santa Claus is safe as the violent Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro celebrates the Christmas season.


Drug traffickers in a Rio slum opened fire on a helicopter carrying a Santa to a children's party, apparently mistaking it for a police helicopter, police said on Tuesday.

"They thought it was a police operation and started shooting. Luckily, nobody was hurt," a police official said.

The helicopter had to return to its base after the attack. Two bullet holes were found in its fuselage.

Police said the pilot, contracted to take an actor dressed as Santa to the party in the Nova Mare slum, was flying over the neighbouring Vila Joao shantytown when it was fired upon on Sunday.

Santa later returned to Nova Mare by car to distribute Christmas presents.

Most of Rio's 700-plus slums are controlled by drug traffickers and are not regularly patrolled by police, who instead go into the slums in military-style raids, often using helicopters and armoured vehicles.

(Reporting by Andrei Khalip; Editing by Bill Trott)

(CNN) -- A Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department helicopter that crashed Saturday in the yard of an Albuquerque home was brought down by a bullet, Sheriff Darren White said late Tuesday.

At a news conference in New Mexico, White showed pictures of where a bullet penetrated the windshield of the aircraft, known as Metro One, and shattered on a pedal the pilot uses to fly the helicopter.

The inside of the cockpit tested positive for lead fragments, according to forensic tests, and pilot Chris Holland and Deputy Ward Pfefferle suffered shrapnel wounds.

White did not specifically explain how the bullet brought Metro One down Saturday night.

"We intend to use every resource available to track down the coward who is responsible for this sick and twisted act," said White, who credited the experience of the crew for avoiding loss of life.

An incredulous White promised to find the person who opened fire on the helicopter.

"How could someone walk out in the middle of the night and take a gun and fire at a helicopter that's out there trying to protect the public?" he said. "It's a miracle they're alive."

The FBI and Albuquerque police are assisting in the investigation.

Authorities have set up a tip line at 505-980-2496 and also urged anyone with information to call CrimeStoppers at 505-843-STOP.

Gee Lucky you think just any old bullet would take out the pilot. Good thing they make their foot pedals from unobtanium.

I'll get back to this later.

Also as cassandrasdad has pointed out, when you get older your tolerence for BS is at low ebb.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

roswell , we were probably the same once my dad swears it. heck i was socialist till i got my first job

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Hmm, No photos in the article. I guess we're supposed to take their word for what they've captured. To coin a phrase a certain dubious political candidate once said, we must adopt a willing suspension of disbelief here, eh?

I know I'm adopting it.

Woody

 

[Sharps-shooter]

"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."

I could make that shot quite easily-- if I was in the airplane with him. I wouldn't count on someone wingshooting a jet, or even a speeding helicopter, with anything single shot. But if it was stationary, or stationary relative to the shooter, you could probably damage something vital.

Once I was vacationing in this sunny town called Diyarbakir, and some guys from there shot down a helicopter using a big pipe, some ho-made gunpowder, and a length of chain. Crude, but apparently effective.

Regarding the idea that 50. caliber=4 foot 2 inch diameter shell-- that must be why the haul was worth $250,000. Too bad my local wal-mart stopped carrying that sort of thing.

 

[siglite]

What is the point of posting those two articles Ros? What are you trying to say?

http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptHome.nsf/byid/CTON-6FUSRY

Small Arms Fire Threatens Aircraft
01/07/2004

The commander of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment said the biggest threat to Army aviation continues to be small arms fire.

"The number one threat has been since I’ve been an Army aviator...small arms fire," Col. Andrew Milani said, speaking to attendees at an Association of the United States Army symposium and exposition in Crystal City, Va., Jan 6.

(There's more to the article, but you can read it yourself)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_2-88_chpt4.htm

...GRENADA

U.S. forces in Grenada lost two helicopters to ground fire from Cubans at Edgmont military barracks. The Rangers used four UH-60 to conduct an air mobile assault on the Cuban stronghold. The landing zone was tight and surrounded by a high barbed wire fence. In the last wave, one helicopter was hit by small arms fire. The pilot, wounded in the arm and leg, lost control of his aircraft and it tumbled into another UH-60 already on the ground. Several soldiers on the ground were killed by the falling aircraft. [18]

...

As of 1984, the Mujahideen were credited with shooting down close to 300 Soviet helicopters using small arms and anti-tank weapons.

...

You'll note the GSO articles did not specify "heavy machine gun" fire, but "small arms fire."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/August/ArmyHelos.htm

Gautreaux said the Army losses — resulting in five downed aircraft — were the result of small arms fire. However, media reports said at least two of the attacks involved a combination of small arms fire and shoulder-fired missiles.

That article specifically differentiates between heavy machine guns and small arms earlier in the article, specifically noting the effectiveness of heavy machine guns. However, three of the five are credited to "small arms."

From the US Army Air Defense Artillery School, Fort Bliss Texas "SMALL ARMS DEFENSE AGAINST AIR ATTACK" available here:
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/sad.pdf

Successful small arms defense against air attack is an essential element of survival on the battlefield. Knowledge and application of the principles and proper techniques of small arms used in air defense, together with the correct use of passive air defense will help your unit accomplish it's mission. Small arms can be effectively used against air attack. (Figure 1.)

Figure one is a '53 laying on it's side.

It goes on talking about the effectiveness of small arms fire, and the thousands of losses, but does not clearly identify the types of small arms used. It does indicate that volume fire is required, but does not indicate that volume fire is intended to create more damage, but to increase hit probabilities of aircraft. It seems the Army agrees with what many have been saying. It's freakin' hard to hit an airborne bird. Presumably with an M16, let alone a bolt or semi auto .50BMG. In fact, the training materials outright state that every M16, 249, M2, etc... should be utilized in volume fire. It tells you to save your ammo, no matter what you're shooting if it's a one on one thing. It actually uses the phrase "save your ammo." Apparently, the US Army thinks it's a waste of time to shoot at a modern aircraft with an M2 OR an M16. Makes sense to me. Because you're effectively trying to hit a baseball with a badmitten shuttlecock. Good luck with that.

http://www.naval-history.net/F64argaircraftlost.htm lists many aircraft shot down by small arms fire. We're to believe that all of those were 12.7 or 50BMG. Right.

But let's get back to the Army's document for a moment. It lists 3054 aircraft downed by small arms fire in Korea, and South Vietnam. Are we truly to believe that the critical damage on over 3000 aircraft downed by small arms fire was ONLY caused by 12.7mm or larger?

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/march/insurgency.htm

While a number of technologies have been proven successful in deflecting shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles, none exists today that can protect from RPGs or standard rifle rounds, Greer says. “There’s no way to defend from small-arms fire other than visual recognition and maneuvering away from the line of fire.”

Now why is Command Sergeant Major Greer concerned about "standard rifle rounds?" One might reasonably deduce that ... wow, they're a threat to aircraft!

Of the last three helicopters downed in Iraq, one, a Kiowa Warrior reconnaissance aircraft, was shot down by small-arms fire.

Look. This is five minutes of google searching. Ros's implication that the evil BMG is the ONLY US Civilian legal rifle capable of taking down an aircraft is patent absurdity. So how about we focus on the reality that yes, even granpa's deer rifle is a target. And the BATFE and the reporter's quotes in this article are 100% anti-gun fear-mongering trash. For anyone here to grant legitimacy to this article (and especially the anti-aircraft fearmongering) strikes me as ridiculous.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

?

" Look. This is five minutes of google searching. Ros's implication that the evil BMG is the ONLY US Civilian legal rifle capable of taking down an aircraft is patent absurdity. So how about we focus on the reality that yes, even granpa's deer rifle is a target. And the BATFE and the reporter's quotes in this article are 100% anti-gun fear-mongering trash. For anyone here to grant legitimacy to this article (and especially the anti-aircraft fearmongering) strikes me as ridiculous"



hmmm could you point out where he made that allegation? i can't find it

 

[siglite]

There are thousands of dead fighter and bomber crew that bear mute witness to the effectiveness of the .50 BMG round. As I said besides the Barrett and knockoffs there are many M2HB floating around these days.
And there are Vehicle mounts for Barretts and similar weapons that would allow accurate fire on a slow moving aircraft.
I see Medevac choppers near here every week. When moving slowly they'd be easy targets. The .50 has many times the effective range of a .30 and unless the chopper pilot knew he was in someone's sights he would not be taking evasive action.

The article only mentions the effectiveness of the .50 round, not any particular weaponry it was destined for. In this the article is correct, .50 BMg can most certainly knock down aircraft and is well suited for the purpose, perhaps because it was designed for that purpose.

(which another poster already noted, it was not designed for that purpose, but adapted to it, and roswell later conceded)

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.

And here's the post that really set me down this road.

"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.

Ros isn't outright stating it. But the implication is that the .50BMG's sole purpose is knocking aircraft out of the sky.

He illustrates this perfectly here:

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.

But, I honestly don't think you realize they fully intend to band the 30-06 and the 308. Because of course, they can take down aircraft.

Gee Lucky you think just any old bullet would take out the pilot. Good thing they make their foot pedals from unobtanium.

What should one infer from that? That a .50 would've been the ONLY weapon for the job. Or, "If that'd been thu evul fiddy, that bird woulda dropped, yo."

Now Cassondrasdaddy, you are 100% correct. Ros has not outright STATED that. But the implication is laced throughout every single post of his in this thread. There are no technical or factual errors in Ros's posts that I can find. Even after an extensive review prior to posting this. It's clear to me that Ros understands the 50 and the 30 and their respective effects on aircraft. But the totality of his posts reads as if he is drawing up a McCarthy .50 ban right here on THR.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Machine Gun - A general purpose machine gun functions as either a squad light automatic weapon [light machine gun] when mounted on a bipod and fired from the shoulder, or as a sustained fire long-range weapon [heavy machine gun] when mounted on a tripod or light vehicle and provided with an optical sight.

Small arms munitions contain projectiles that are 0.5 inches or less in caliber and no longer than approximately 4 inches. They are fired from various sizes of weapons, such as pistols, carbines, rifles, automatic rifles, shotguns, and machine guns.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/small-arms.htm

Does anyone here believe that Russian Ground attack choppers aren't armored against 7.62 and lighter rounds. Even their rotors are made to withstand multiple hits from 7.62 without serious damage.

Despite Soldier of Fotune articles a Muji with a .303 that will barely penetrate a car door never shot down any Hind Attack Choppers.

As for the article, poorly written and likely innacurate on many counts as it is, it does point out that the Drug Gangs infiltrating across our borders are a serious danger and efforts to prevent them from obtaining sophisticated anti-armor/anti-aircraft weaponry and/or ammunition for use either here or in their campaign to control most of Mexico are important.

As the articles I've posted show shooting at police helicopters and hitting them is becoming more prevelent and easier. Also it points out that granpas thurty thurty ain't got the steam to damage the major components with any but a lucky shot. Even the foot pedals of the one chopper proved sufficient to prevent serious injury to the pilot and neither chopper in those incidents actually crashed or suffered serious damages.

The Nam era shoot down records I was able to find point out that unless a lucky hit is made thre rounds of 12.7 can do the job that nearly twenty hits from 7.62 can do, and as far as I know all Chinese issue ammo used by the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong was steel core, not soft nosed sporting ammo.
I'm pretty sure the only time a 5.56 ever brought down a chopper was in a recent episode of 24 when Jack Bauer managed the feat after firing maybe a hundred rouns from a thirty roud magazine, but thats hollywood for you.

Lucky's assertion that any gun is as good or better for engaging helicopters has been busted by scientific fact and historical records.

As for the pilot being the most vulnerable component of a chopper, remember that human beings have survived multiple hits from 7.62 but few in any have ever survived a single hit from a .50 BMG round much less maintained control of a vehicle of any kind. Only the legendary Suburo Sakai who took a .50 that passed through the belly of his craft his seat his leg, one arm and under his chine and then out the eyesocket is known to have pulled that off and people are still scratching their heads over that one.

A female pilot in Iraq lost both legs when an RPG exploded in the cockpit of her Blackhawk, Her co-pilot brought the craft home safely. Had the round hit a vital mechanical component no amount of piloting skills would have served since helicopters don't glide, and only the lightest can auto rotate to a safe landing. In that case the pilot was less important that a tail rotor or transmission casing.

Five minutes of Googling will serve you better if you know what the words mean.

Quote:
The article only mentions the effectiveness of the .50 round, not any particular weaponry it was destined for. In this the article is correct, .50 BMg can most certainly knock down aircraft and is well suited for the purpose, perhaps because it was designed for that purpose.

(which another poster already noted, it was not designed for that purpose, but adapted to it, and roswell later conceded)

Except it turns out that the timeline of .50 Browning development puts the first tank design two years after Browning started and the first military aircraft one year before he started work on the round.

Repeat

The ammo round was conceptualized during WWI by John Browning in response to a requirement for an anti-aircraft weapon. The ammo 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, as were AP rounds for destroying concrete bunkers, structures, and lighter AFVs.

The development of the .50 BMG ammunition 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 ammo round was started before this later German project was completed or even known to the Allied countries.

Of course the round only went into service after being optimized for use against the more modern military aircraft construction of the 1920's onward.

 

[siglite]

See cassondrasdaddy? That *IS* what he's saying. Ros has like, three aircraft with which he's TRYING to prove that 30 cals don't take down aircraft. Only 50s. (even though he's said the opposite)

Thousands ros. Thousands. Not even counting WWII. And we're talking about military aircraft.

I note you have no retort for Command Sergeant Major Greer.

That's because .30s have, do, and will continue to take down aircraft.

Call Carolyn. She needs you to craft some legislative language.

 

[21H40]

I thought the biggest "?" was that these high speed cartels that can accomplish so much on their own are being forced to arm themselves through Walmart and Gunbroker I kinda figured that Mexico's southern border would accept shipping containers of weapons easier than California's border....

Nevermind whether or not they could put any of it to use... afterall, none of the 42 weapons confiscated offer miracle cures instead of lead infusion

I want to see the next Tom Clancy that shows the bas-add drug runners working out FFL deliveries for their internet purchases from North of Mexico --- boy, thank goodness those 42 are never going to get used against good honest ... well I'll just stop there.

 

[Reddbecca]

The holes are all in the head of that ATF agent and the news reporter that covered this story, and the editor that let it slip through with as many inaccuracies as it has.

 

[Oohrah]

Without control of our boarders, why would guns be a problem. Now
that Mexican truckers can cross and go anywhere and back, is 50 or 100
firearms really a problem? Does anyone recall a Chinese boat caught in
San Francisco, California, with a boatload of fully automatic AKs slated
for US gangs? Chinese 7.62x39 ammo banned to get even, and a warehouse
seized, taken by the truck loads. It had to be returned as it was preban
dated. Wonder where all that ammo went? Were the AKs destroyed?
Let's see, a bayonet lug could be an assult rifle? Hummm. Maybe so
it ammo is outlawed. A firearm without a lug or ammo is a pretty useless tool
I would think.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

lets see on the one hand we have folks who have hands on decades of experience.
and on the other folks in college who know everything

tough choice i think i'll go count my liberty dollars ohh wait i missed that oppurtunity

 

[Roswell 1847]

See cassondrasdaddy? That *IS* what he's saying. Ros has like, three aircraft with which he's TRYING to prove that 30 cals don't take down aircraft. Only 50s. (even though he's said the opposite)

You haven't read or understood enough from any of my posts to have even a glimmering of what I've been saying.
To repeat.
Lucky's assertion that just any old gun can shootdown a chopper, as opposed to just scaring the pilot into landing, is bogus.

Also as I've shown multiple hits from the .30/7.62, at least using steel core or AP, can do the job on older military and most modern police choppers but hits from a .50 can do the job a great deal better.

Soft nosed or lead core ball would be lucky to even wound a pilot whos wearing police body armor, especially after plowing through aircraft skin and structural members. Lead core ball or, a soft nosed bullet, would almost certainly fragment on its way through the aircraft skin and is unlikely to damage even unprotected substantial components.
Even the foot pedal of the one chopper fragmented a lead core round preventing serious injury to the pilot. Worst he got was a few owwwweees from jacket materials, and a hot foot.

Now the rebuttals,like yours mostly to arguments I haven't presented, have attempted to prove that a soft mounted Barrett can't hit a chopper but concede that even the barrio brothers firing wildly with whatever comes to hand can make hits on police choppers.

The article I posted about the military trained enforcers of the drug gangs and their terrorist tactics and their ongoing rebellion against their former employers should give a good explanation why they are lookin to US criminals for supplies of heavy hitting weaponry.
Since those who deal with the wrong gang at the wrong time end up with notes nailed to their severed heads its highly likely that their normal supply channels are less open to them.

Mexican drug gangs have been using heavy armored crew wagons since the seventies. Drug gangs throughout south and Central America are engaging both armored cars and helicopters deployed by police in open combat for control of sections of major cities.

PS
It just occurred to me that Siglite has been using the United Nations definition of small arms rather than the US military designation.
If I were to stoop to his level I might start accusing him of being a stooge of the UN and trying to make arguments for banning .30 rifles and ammunition including sporting ammunition.
But instead I'll just put his comments down to inattention and lack of any experiance with aircraft construction.

 

[siglite]

Lucky's assertion that just any old gun can shootdown a chopper, as opposed to just scaring the pilot into landing, is bogus.

Also as I've shown multiple hits from the .30/7.62, at least using steel core or AP, can do the job on older military and most modern police choppers but hits from a .50 can do the job a great deal better.

I don't know what lucky's assertion is. But as far as my assertions, (that grandad's 3006 can take down a bird), your two comments above are in direct conflict with each other, and ironically are adjacent to one another in your post. In fact, you stated that my assertion that grandad's deer rifle can take down an aircraft is "playing into the antis hands." Yet, here you are saying the same thing. And then calling bull#$% on YOURSELF. Yeah, of course a .50BMG does it better. A .50 does most things better. But my assertion stands, that you've been writing a dissertation on why the .50 should be banned, and grandpas venerable old deer rifle cain't hurt' nuthin'.

I find this intellectually dishonest. And I suspect that it's because you don't care about the fate of the .50 in legislation.

 

[siglite]

It just occurred to me that Siglite has been using the United Nations definition of small arms rather than the US military designation.

This is false, as I have used both the US Army's training documents, and a direct quote from a Command Sergeant Major. You could "stoop" to make your accusation, but it would be a lie. And a transparent one at that.