Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Page Armory » 50 Cal
Posted: 1/18/2006 2:25:51 PM EDT
Ya gotta love Ronnie! He decided to screw Kalifornia and make a M99 in .416. It's called the .416 Barrett and the rifle is the M99-416. I wonder if he necked down a .50 BMG to .416 but I can't seem to find any pics. If anyone finds any pics of the round, please post!
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 2:26:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 3:17:48 PM EDT
Sounds like it's more a proprietary substitute for the proprietary .408CT...

Since it's not a .50 caliber, it doesn't 'screw Kalifornia' laws in the least...
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 3:58:46 PM EDT
Now California will probably ban .416's. Maybe then they will realize that the ultimate goal is the ban of all firearms.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 4:04:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 4:07:00 PM EDT
Yeah, I read an ad about that... it's going to be higher velocity, but I don't know about the power behind it. I think he should have just done a .499, though, either way, CA blows.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 4:14:52 PM EDT
Nothing in CA law prohibits a .50 caliber--the BMG cartridge is the only one effected.

My solution would probably be a .50 Peacekeeper or FASCAP.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 4:48:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 5:09:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 50cal:
They were working on it when I left. It is a 50 BMG case necked down to take a proprietary 416 bullet with about a 400g weight. The weight was pretty close to that, I don't exactly remember.

Prepare to pay out the wazoo for a proprietary bullet and case. Remember the 408 CheyTac?

They would be better off following the 50 DTC line like the other manufacturers.



I have to agree, this is definitely a "Look what I alsmost stepped in" scenario. Another way to look at this is California sticking it to Ronnie Barrett, making him create an expensive workaround that no one will buy because there's no source of ammo to run through it. Who is going to manufacture the .416 Ronnie Round? Barrett? Sole source? How much will these be per round? And when they discontinue the rifle and cartridge 6 months later due to lack of demand, it'll be Ronnie sticking it to Californians.

California banning the .50 BMG is what got Californians interested in the .50 BMG, Ronnie's real product. Those that wanted .50s bought them before the ban, they're taken care of already. What's the market for this? The boat-missers didn't buy .50s probably because of cost, so how exactly is this going to fill a market void?
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 5:31:34 PM EDT
I'd rather run a .338 Lapua anyway, after careful research.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 6:43:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/18/2006 6:51:36 PM EDT by ChrisGene]

Originally Posted By Homeinvader:

Originally Posted By 50cal:
They were working on it when I left. It is a 50 BMG case necked down to take a proprietary 416 bullet with about a 400g weight. The weight was pretty close to that, I don't exactly remember.

Prepare to pay out the wazoo for a proprietary bullet and case. Remember the 408 CheyTac?

They would be better off following the 50 DTC line like the other manufacturers.



I have to agree, this is definitely a "Look what I alsmost stepped in" scenario. Another way to look at this is California sticking it to Ronnie Barrett, making him create an expensive workaround that no one will buy because there's no source of ammo to run through it. Who is going to manufacture the .416 Ronnie Round? Barrett? Sole source? How much will these be per round? And when they discontinue the rifle and cartridge 6 months later due to lack of demand, it'll be Ronnie sticking it to Californians.

California banning the .50 BMG is what got Californians interested in the .50 BMG, Ronnie's real product. Those that wanted .50s bought them before the ban, they're taken care of already. What's the market for this? The boat-missers didn't buy .50s probably because of cost, so how exactly is this going to fill a market void?



I don't think the purpose of developing the .416 Barrett was to replace the .50 in California. It is actually a different round that serves a different purpose. It uses a high BC bullet at a high velocity that shoots like a laser beam. It will get to 2000m much faster than the .50 wich means hit probability on smaller targets is better than the .50. It absolutely positively SMOKES the .338LM, so it is not competing with that either.

It is really a different cartridge not a competitor or replacement for the .50. If Barrett wanted to just achieve .50BMG performance it would have been a lot easier than developing a new cartridge.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 9:36:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/18/2006 9:40:46 PM EDT by uglygun]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I'd rather run a .338 Lapua anyway, after careful research.



That's where they need to go, make a line of 338 chamberings similar to their 50BMG offerings. M99, M95, and M82.


I realise the reason for the Barrett 40 cal round. I also remember a lot of the claims that CheyTac used to make in the early days and how much grief they got over those claims, I still have yet to see the majority of their claims verified.

The 408CheyTac round has real potential potential but most people have given up hope at trying to obtain advertised results with things like Lost River Ballistics bullets, fouling problems out the wazzoo from some accounts when trying to push to those velocities.


And there is always the fact that the CheyTac match rounds were almost always compared to mil spec gov't. rounds with terrible BC values. Put a 50BMG match bullet like the 750AMAX or 800grn BoreRider into the mix and supposedly the gap wasn't nearly as impressive.


If the Barrett intent was to make a new long range armor punch, pushing a stream lined 40cal bullet to higher velocities could probably do it. But then there's the question of logistics and supporting such a firearm in the field.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 6:14:00 AM EDT
Don't forget that this thing will be a barrel burner also, the .50 BMG is already overbore. Now imagine how overbore it's going to be necked down to .40 Cal. Not to mention that you'll either have to fire form all your own brass or buy loaded ammo from Barrett.

Sorry, no thanks! Should stick with the .50 DTC as it uses all the same components as the .50 BMG with minimal fire forming of the case.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 6:46:15 AM EDT
Perhaps the 14.5x114 could have been an idea with Barrett unless the law in Kali says nothin over .510 in diameter. It'n not a DD classified round and loaded ammo is around. 1,100 gr projos going 3,000 feet per second are wonderful although hard on the barrell.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:40:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tazaroo:
Perhaps the 14.5x114 could have been an idea with Barrett unless the law in Kali says nothin over .510 in diameter. It'n not a DD classified round and loaded ammo is around. 1,100 gr projos going 3,000 feet per second are wonderful although hard on the barrell.



Or the SSK 14.5x99.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 7:58:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 1:15:26 PM EDT by npd233]

Originally Posted By Tazaroo:
Ya gotta love Ronnie! He decided to screw Kalifornia and make a M99 in .416. It's called the .416 Barrett and the rifle is the M99-416. I wonder if he necked down a .50 BMG to .416 but I can't seem to find any pics. If anyone finds any pics of the round, please post!



I'd heard a rumor about that not too long ago, also.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:55:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Tazaroo:
Perhaps the 14.5x114 could have been an idea with Barrett unless the law in Kali says nothin over .510 in diameter. It'n not a DD classified round and loaded ammo is around. 1,100 gr projos going 3,000 feet per second are wonderful although hard on the barrell.



Or the SSK 14.5x99.



I don't think either of those would work in CA.
While the state didn't ban the .50bmg cartridge, it did ban any gun that can CHAMBER the .50bmg cartridge. That would be the downfall for either 14.5mm chambers...

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:04:40 AM EDT
The 14.5 would be a .56 caliber (?) and the case is 114mm vs the 99mm of the .50BMG case. No way can a .50 BMG be chambered in a 14.5 without bouncing around in the chamber.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:40:05 AM EDT
yep, the law doesn't say anything about being shootable or safe.... just that if you can put a .50bmg cartridge in it, it's no longer legal...

This was recently tested by the DOJ at a gunshow when they tried to shove a BMG case into a DTC chambered rifle... they failed, but they were determined!
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 12:39:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 7:10:17 PM EDT by ChrisGene]

Originally Posted By MrBen:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Tazaroo:
Perhaps the 14.5x114 could have been an idea with Barrett unless the law in Kali says nothin over .510 in diameter. It'n not a DD classified round and loaded ammo is around. 1,100 gr projos going 3,000 feet per second are wonderful although hard on the barrell.



Or the SSK 14.5x99.



I don't think either of those would work in CA.
While the state didn't ban the .50bmg cartridge, it did ban any gun that can CHAMBER the .50bmg cartridge. That would be the downfall for either 14.5mm chambers...




Anything over a .50 rifled bore is a "destructive device" anyway, so it does not matter if it is legal in CA or not.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 12:45:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ChrisGene:

Originally Posted By MrBen:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Tazaroo:
Perhaps the 14.5x114 could have been an idea with Barrett unless the law in Kali says nothin over .510 in diameter. It'n not a DD classified round and loaded ammo is around. 1,100 gr projos going 3,000 feet per second are wonderful although hard on the barrell.



Or the SSK 14.5x99.



I don't think either of those would work in CA.
While the state didn't ban the .50bmg cartridge, it did ban any gun that can CHAMBER the .50bmg cartridge. That would be the downfall for either 14.5mm chambers...




Anything over a .50 rifled bore is a "destructive device" anyway, so it does not matter if it is legal in CA or not.



Exceptions are made for certain large bore weapons, like African game rifle and.....the 14.5x99. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 12:50:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrBen:
yep, the law doesn't say anything about being shootable or safe.... just that if you can put a .50bmg cartridge in it, it's no longer legal...

This was recently tested by the DOJ at a gunshow when they tried to shove a BMG case into a DTC chambered rifle... they failed, but they were determined!



I bet they looked like a couple of monkeys fucking a football.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 1:08:05 PM EDT
Ronnie B is an American Hero, I can't afford a 50bmg but i still would like to do something to help him....
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 3:06:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ChrisGene:

Originally Posted By MrBen:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Tazaroo:
Perhaps the 14.5x114 could have been an idea with Barrett unless the law in Kali says nothin over .510 in diameter. It'n not a DD classified round and loaded ammo is around. 1,100 gr projos going 3,000 feet per second are wonderful although hard on the barrell.



Or the SSK 14.5x99.



I don't think either of those would work in CA.
While the state didn't ban the .50bmg cartridge, it did ban any gun that can CHAMBER the .50bmg cartridge. That would be the downfall for either 14.5mm chambers...




Anything over a .50 rifled bore is a "destructive device" anyway, so it does not matter if it is legal in CA or not.



Sorry Chris but you are wrong. The 14.5 is way legal and you can get the rounds. Matter of fact, Ohio Ordnance has them for sale for $30 a round. As long as it has a "sporting purpose" per ATF, it can be used.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 1:15:14 AM EDT
When Barrett can reliably stock their own .50 BMG headstamp round I might think this is more than total BS. And...f CA. Any a-hole that remains deserves to be disarmed and humiliated. They have given us Boxer and Fineswine and a boatload of liberal a-holes in the Congress. Grow a pair and get the frick out.

Pandering to CA is a disgusting waste of R and D.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 2:39:09 AM EDT
Atleast he's putting his money where his mouth is. Thats more than any other firearm manufacture! Would be nice to see other manufactures, and dealers take it on the chin, and not sell to these states and agencies that violate our rights.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 2:43:25 AM EDT
dammit you beat me!
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=429211

I didn't realize why they had changed caliber. I mean the numbers were good, but not that much better. Then I saw the ad and realized what an idiot I was. The irony is that now the populace is going ot have a better space-shuttle-destroying-round than the popo in CA.

and oh yeah, lets not forget the guys got a gorgeous.... oh nevermind. damn shiksappeal!
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 5:32:00 PM EDT
Well, this is just like making rifle barrels be 16 inches....without registering it. If you think about it, fools running around with legal 16 in barrels have a more effective rifle than the PoPo running around with shorter barreled ar's. Just a thought.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 8:58:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I'd rather run a .338 Lapua anyway, after careful research.



Barrett had a model 98 at the 1998 SHOT Show in .338 Lapua. It was a semi-automatic rifle. To the best of my knowledge they never produced it though.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 11:29:24 PM EDT


They ought to rename it the ".416 Terminator" round.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 1:10:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ShadowOne:
img65.imageshack.us/img65/9312/barrett994163et.jpg

They ought to rename it the ".416 Terminator" round.



With lawsuits like they are these days they might wind up getting sued by someone in Hollywood!
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 10:04:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ChrisGene:
Anything over a .50 rifled bore is a "destructive device" anyway, so it does not matter if it is legal in CA or not.



interesting, so why did i not have to pay a tax stamp for my .64 caliber muzzleloader? matter of fact, it came right to my door without so much as an FFL needed.

bore size is not the only factor.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 10:20:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ChrisGene:
Anything over a .50 rifled bore is a "destructive device" anyway, so it does not matter if it is legal in CA or not.



Not true. Rounds over .50 that are used in sporting weapons are exempted. 12 gauge shotguns are a perfect example. Almost all are not DDs, except for Street Sweepers and USAS-12s.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 10:25:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/7/2006 10:26:33 AM EDT by bvmjethead]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Nothing in CA law prohibits a .50 caliber--the BMG cartridge is the only one effected.

My solution would probably be a .50 Peacekeeper or FASCAP.





FASCAP ?

F
A
S
C
A
P

F*­ck
All
Stupid
California
A**hole<­BR>Polititians

Is that it?

What did I win?


ETA: God forgive me.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 5:57:25 AM EDT


-Foxxz
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 7:02:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/9/2006 7:05:15 AM EDT by edpmedic]

Barrett had a model 98 at the 1998 SHOT Show in .338 Lapua. It was a semi-automatic rifle. To the best of my knowledge they never produced it though.



Now that I would buy...Trouble is shooting a 338LM Semi will Eat the barrel up.


interesting, so why did i not have to pay a tax stamp for my .64 caliber muzzleloader


Because Black-Powder guns are classified differently
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 3:11:55 PM EDT


interesting, so why did i not have to pay a tax stamp for my .64 caliber muzzleloader


Because Black-Powder guns are classified differently



forgive me for getting off topic form the original intent of this thread, but I'm just waiting for some enterprising gun grabber to try and classify 12 and 20 ga. rifled slug guns as destructive devices.
Page Armory » 50 Cal
Top Top