Author
Message
eodinert
Offline
Posts: 1924
Feedback: 0% (0)
Posted: 10/15/2012 7:55:25 AM
So, I had an idea the other day, and I'm pretty sure it's a horrible idea... but I am intrigued by it. If anyone has any experience with this, please jump in.

I'm thinking about getting a Barrett model 99, and cutting the barrel back to about 16.5 inches, or just in front of the receiver, whichever is longer, and putting a suppressor on it. The intended usage of this rifle would be making big holes in things out to maybe 400 yards, and making me giggle. I would like the rifle to be as light as possible, and still be very shootable.

Has anybody chopped the barrel on an M99 before? Is it possible to pull the barrel out of the receiver to chuck it in a lathe? How short can you go on a 50 before you screw your can up? Suppressor recommendations for .50 cal? Anybody done this before?

Anything else I need to know before spending $10K screwing up a perfectly good gun?

DrewColt
Stamp Collector
Offline
Posts: 832
Feedback: 100% (54)
Link To This Post
Posted: 10/15/2012 11:45:17 AM
I have limited experience with .50's, but here are a couple of observations:

At only 400 yards, I suppose it would do the job. However, I think it would lose a lot of velocity going to 16", and in turn it's long range capabilities (which is where that rifle and cartridge really shine).

Light weight and very shootable are mutually exclusive with .50BMG The weight cuts down on the felt recoil.

I have no clue about baffle erosion from that short of a barrel on a suppressed .50BMG. I would assume it would become an issue, as they usually use fairly long barrels (read; it's still burning powder/gaining velocity at 16"). This is just my best guess, I'm not positive.




Maybe a .458 socom could fit the bill? They are good out of 16" barrels, can be suppressed effectively, have subsonic loads, packs a punch (although only a fraction of .50BMG), cheaper to build and shoot, recoil is similar to a 12ga slug.

Of course, you are free to build what you want with your money. You said it was kinda for shits and giggles, and it would be fun. Just consider the effectiveness of the lower velocity, and that the long range crowd would likely not be there for resale purposes.
ApplesAndLace
Offline
Posts: 78
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 10/15/2012 8:53:43 PM
Originally Posted By DrewColt:
. . .

I have no clue about baffle erosion from that short of a barrel on a suppressed .50BMG. I would assume it would become an issue, as they usually use fairly long barrels (read; it's still burning powder/gaining velocity at 16"). This is just my best guess, I'm not positive.


. . .


I assume no one would warranty a suppressor for that short of a barrel on a 50. That's just plain dumb––-probably only get 1/2 of a burn in 16". I would think that it would absolutely destroy a can.

But, it's the OP's money.
eodinert
Offline
Posts: 1925
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 10/16/2012 2:40:33 AM
Barrett makes a 20 inch rifle they put their can on, so we're only talking about 3 1/2 inch difference. AWC did return my email, and they said nothing shorter than 20 inches. 20 inches on a Barrett 99 would still be pretty short.
SidewinderCustoms
Offline
Posts: 87
Feedback: 100% (22)
Link To This Post
Posted: 10/16/2012 10:53:39 AM
one of the local guys did a build w/ a .50 beowulf AR w/ a .50 can and it was pretty sick. I think 400 yds would be a strech for the .50 beowulf but it would be better than chopping a perfectly good barret up and a heck of a lot cheaper...