Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by leadcounsel, May 31, 2008.
What makes them 10 times as expensive as your standard hunting rifle?
Limited market, expensive ammo. A .50 BMG rifle isn't a hunting rifle either.
Not on most North American game, that is...
Limited production is the biggest reason.
Now wait a minute...
The 30-06 wasn't a "hunting round" and neither was the bolt action rifle that fired it.
The only thing needed to make a "non-hunting" round or rifle into a "hunting" round or rifle is to hunt with it.
Don't really see a reason to use it to hunt with anyway. If you are going after big game you are better off with the .338 lapua anyway.
The .50 really isn't all that accurate. But sure is fun to shoot.
Reason? There's really no reason in using black powder firearms now that we have all our current remchester .308s on the market. But I figure variety is the spice of life.
Now I'm not saying it'd be the most efficient way of putting (some) meat on the table, but that doesn't exclude it from what can be used.
I hear ya brother. Never said it shouldn't be used.
I just prefer to spend my money on efficient and accurate rifles.
But some people get a rush out of the big bore.
Most of us don;t want to pack a 50BMG around while out hunting, and anything light enough to carry while hunting would doubtless be brutal to shoot.
.50 BMG is fine for hunting if you want it to be. If you're bored, look on youtube for "50 BMG prairie dog hunt." (Not condoning it, but did LOL)
And 50 BMG can be very accurate with quality rifles and match quality ammo. There is nothing inherently inaccurate in the cartridge.
Of course, I'm not likely to get around to getting a 50 myself unless I do it just because they might be banned. Apart from that, I don't have a use for one. But if I lived out west and could find places to shoot 1000yds or more, I might feel differently.
Yeah that is a hotloaded .270 with frangable rounds. You can visit his site here
Some of those vids have also been pirated and called Afghan snipers. Last I heard he is seeking legal issue with them.
Plus, the amount of material that makes up the gun is enormous. Ever picked one up?
.50 caliber bullets are one of the most stable around, thats why when they built the X-1 (first plane to break the sound barrior) they modeled the fuselage after a .50 caliber bullet
LOL. The M82A1A holds 2.5MOA. The AS50 holds 2MOA. The Sako TRG (or US nonem MK13 MOD) is a sub MOA rifle. This is what I am talking about brother.
Both the .416 and .338 are more stable in air than the .50. Honestly the only two reasons we are still using the SASR is the fact that we have so many, and it has better effects on material than both the .416 and .338.
The .50 is nothing super special.
Hell do they even mane VLD bullets for the .50?
Both of which you mentioned are autoloaders , the Sako TRG is a bolt gun. You're comparing apples to oranges my friend. The bolt .50 cals can shoot sub MOA like the, McMillan TAC-50, Barrett M99.... Even some of the best rounds shoot over MOA when fired from auto loaders, that shows the nature of the gun, not the nature of the bullet. The longest sniper kill on record was done with a TAC-50 at 2430m Id say that shows the .50 cal IS all that accurate
"Both of which you mentioned are autoloaders , the Sako TRG is a bolt gun. You're comparing apples to oranges my friend. The bolt .50 cals can shoot sub MOA like the, McMillan TAC-50, Barrett M99.... Even some of the best rounds shoot over MOA when fired from auto loaders, that shows the nature of the gun, not the nature of the bullet. The longest sniper kill on record was done with a TAC-50 at 2430m Id say that shows the .50 cal IS all that accurate"
I would like to see a sub moa .50. I really would, even the TAC-50 is +MOA.
How many rounds did The Cannuks fire before they were on target? Yeah thats right three, 3, THREE. Impressive none the less. But still. How many did Hathcock fire from a M2 before he was on target? TWO!
The Brit SOF guys are crediting kills out to 2200 with .338 Lapua Mag from a loader. None have been confirmed as of yet. But still You can not argue that the externals of the .338 exceed .50.
Now lets talk about this from a military perspective. Engaging multiple targets at range. What would you rather have? A round that has a better ballistic coeffecient regardless or one that does not?
The .50 has its place, and will never go away for anti material. But long range accuracy belongs to the .338.
I am getting a tag along on a shoot Monday. I will let you know how it goes.
Visit the FCSA website and look at the results for matches.
Don't forget to do a little research on Carlos Hathcock and his use of a scoped MA Deuce and its accuracy out past 1000 yds.
Hard to hit anything past a 1000 yds with a turd thrower.
And unlike just about all other rifle designs 50cal rifles have to be designed from the ground up to fire 50bmg and that's pretty much the only cartridge they work well with.
You don't get the price of scale that you do with a rem 700 that can be chambered for everything from 17rem to 458 win mag
And trust me I have researched him. Your point?
Now that's funny.. FTH's!!!!
I am not saying that the .50 is better than .338 or .416 All I am said is that .50 is accurate, C-D-P said he didnt think it was all that accurate. Im not trying to argue as to it being better than anything else, just stating that it is accurate. And do some research, there are sub MOA .50 cal bolt guns. TAC-50 is citied in many places as being gauranteed to shoot .5 MOA with proper ammo(though I have not seen this on their website) You can agrue all day about what makes .416 and .338 "better" but it doesnt change the fact that .50 is still accurate
I hear ya brother. I do.
I guess we have to define accurate.
For example. Ramadi Iraq a year and change ago. EOD came out to do a det on an IED (we use MK211MOD0 for this sometimes). Set back 300m. Set up and had to fire on her five times before he hit her. This was a Russian 107mm round. So she was not all that small.
This guy was good. Real good.
Same guy a few months later was rolling with a MK13 MOD and dropped a guy at 1900m on the first shot.
Can she be accurate? Sure why not? Are most of the platforms accurate? Not so much.
I have seen platforms chambered in 7.62x51 advertised as being -.3 MOA. They were not.
Give me enough push behind a .22 and I can sling her to 1800m.
We use her because she is a frigging train and hurts when you are hit with her. Not because she is accurate.
I tend to agree with C-D-P. The .50 that I fired, (Barrett M99), wasn't all that accurate. I fired a 3 MOA group with it and I'm reasonably sure that wasn't due to flinch. Now that was with only one variety of ammo, (Barrett), so maybe with a different variety or a handload it would do much better. Having experienced the concussion however, I wouldn't want to be the one to work up a handload.
One thing I've got to say for the platform though; it was amazingly steady. 50's weigh a LOT, so when you've got one on a bench with a bipod, rear sandbag and a 24x scope, you can pretty much hold it dead on the bullseye with no movement at all. I don't remember noticing any movement from my heartbeat, and I had a somewhat firm grasp on it.
Feel free to call me Eric.
The AR50 goes for around $2600...maybe 5x the 'normal' rifle price. And, it weighs 32lbs...again about 5x 'normal'. Maybe they price them by the lb?
Oh, just about ANY AR50 will shoot sub MOA with decent ammo. All day long. As was said, military platforms tend to be less accurate than a civvy range queen will be.
Separate names with a comma.