Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Page Armory » 50 Cal
Posted: 3/7/2009 7:35:40 PM EDT
I have a M82A1CQ, and I have to say I'm sort of disappointed with it. It is a 3-5 MOA gun no matter what ammo is used. I understand the longer ones aren't generally much better, so my question is this:

What good are they in warfare? Especially the shorter ones like this gun? They're not accurate enough to be used as a sniper weapon, and because of the poor accuracy a shooter would have to be uncomfortably close if he wanted to participate in some anti-materiel/infrastructure wrecking. I guess I just don't see the point. Are they used to stop vehicles at TCPs or that kind of thing?

I understand the USCG uses the CQ for heliborne anti-boat shooting. I would think you'd want better accuracy for this kind of thing.

NOTE: this in no way detracts from the grins and giggles factor of shooting one, nor do I think they should be restricted in any way.
Link Posted: 3/7/2009 8:33:06 PM EDT
Sorry to hear that you Barret is shooting so poorly.

You have nothing to loose by putting another scope on it and see if it shoots better.
Link Posted: 3/8/2009 5:31:10 AM EDT
There's alot you can do with it, but it depends on the/your mission needs.
When you have a vehicle full of troops rolling up on your ass, the need will become quite clear.
There's a big difference having them dismount 1K out or 50 YDS out.

Keep it!


Link Posted: 3/8/2009 6:17:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2009 6:21:27 AM EDT by SOC]
Lots of things the enemy considers cover becomes concealment.

Take a look at Anzio Ironworks they offer services for the 82A1/M107 to make it more accurate.

I'd also call Barret and see if they have advice.

They may tell you to send your rifle in
Link Posted: 3/8/2009 6:45:10 AM EDT
Hm. What kind of accuracy have you guys who have used them in the field seen?
Link Posted: 3/9/2009 1:16:50 AM EDT
I got to put a few rnds through a friends CQ and we were nailing a 12" steel plate at 675yds with ease. I'd say check to make sure your rings and everything is nice and tight and then if that's the case, try a different/better optic. If you still get no dice then call Barrett and I'm sure they're have some input.

CMS
Link Posted: 3/9/2009 6:30:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By greenlight762:
I have a M82A1CQ, and I have to say I'm sort of disappointed with it. It is a 3-5 MOA gun no matter what ammo is used. I understand the longer ones aren't generally much better, so my question is this:

What good are they in warfare? Especially the shorter ones like this gun? They're not accurate enough to be used as a sniper weapon, and because of the poor accuracy a shooter would have to be uncomfortably close if he wanted to participate in some anti-materiel/infrastructure wrecking. I guess I just don't see the point. Are they used to stop vehicles at TCPs or that kind of thing?

I understand the USCG uses the CQ for heliborne anti-boat shooting. I would think you'd want better accuracy for this kind of thing.

NOTE: this in no way detracts from the grins and giggles factor of shooting one, nor do I think they should be restricted in any way.


What scope and mount are you using? How did you mount the scope? Did you lap the rings? Did you torque the cap screws and crossbolts? The 3 MOA doesn't surprise me. Everyone knows M82's aren't that accurate, although occaisionally some of them will shoot MOA or a gnats ass better. But 5 MOA sucks and you should be able to do better.

Detail your setup more fully. Also, let us know what ammo you have shot thus far and details of any handloads.

-David
Edgewood, NM
Link Posted: 3/10/2009 9:52:26 AM EDT
I helped a guy zero his new 82CQB once...got him on target at 565 yards. The groupings weren't great, but it was doing so-so...he offers to let me shoot, so I drop down on the rifle. Go to adjust the scope a few clicks, and realized the entire scope mount was free floating, and I could lift it up and down almost half an inch

Got it all torqued down and locktited, and things went much more smoothly. Apparently the dealer had told him that it was a feature designed to keep the scope (Leupold, included in the Barrett package) from being destroyed by recoil. Once he realized he'd been lied to the guy was pretty pissed off.
Link Posted: 3/10/2009 1:46:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/11/2009 4:41:48 PM EDT
my cq is hitting milk jugs at 800 yards and cans of shaving cream 400 with imi ball.
Link Posted: 3/12/2009 4:50:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/12/2009 5:21:27 AM EDT
Probably the scope and mount. Guy still hasn't said what he's running. Most of these wild accuracy problems are scope and mount problems or ammo problems. In this case, it appears not to be the ammo.

-David
Edgewood, NM
Link Posted: 3/12/2009 9:46:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By greenlight762:
I have a M82A1CQ, and I have to say I'm sort of disappointed with it. It is a 3-5 MOA gun no matter what ammo is used. I understand the longer ones aren't generally much better, so my question is this:

What good are they in warfare? Especially the shorter ones like this gun? They're not accurate enough to be used as a sniper weapon, and because of the poor accuracy a shooter would have to be uncomfortably close if he wanted to participate in some anti-materiel/infrastructure wrecking. I guess I just don't see the point. Are they used to stop vehicles at TCPs or that kind of thing?

I understand the USCG uses the CQ for heliborne anti-boat shooting. I would think you'd want better accuracy for this kind of thing.

NOTE: this in no way detracts from the grins and giggles factor of shooting one, nor do I think they should be restricted in any way.


To take out Vehicles ( Motor ) !!!
Link Posted: 3/12/2009 3:32:17 PM EDT
Ya, i have a long m82 and it shoots about 1-2 moa with no problem. Like everyone else said, check your optics and mount. BMG chambered guns, even semi's are really hard on that stuff. There is a reason why barretts come with leupold mark 4's and really burly rings from the factory. If you skimp on optics or mounts, then your gun will shoot crappy.

CJG
Link Posted: 3/12/2009 6:47:33 PM EDT
Not to be a wise-ass, but how much experience do you have shooting 50's or even high recoil firearms? Shooting the fifty is a little different from other weapons, in that any poor/ bad shooting habits you have will be magnified greatly.Position, hold, trigger control are SO important, much more than other weapons.Not saying you don't know what you're doing....just sort of asking....
Link Posted: 3/15/2009 6:29:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 50cal:
Originally Posted By WesJanson:
I helped a guy zero his new 82CQB once...got him on target at 565 yards. The groupings weren't great, but it was doing so-so...he offers to let me shoot, so I drop down on the rifle. Go to adjust the scope a few clicks, and realized the entire scope mount was free floating, and I could lift it up and down almost half an inch

Got it all torqued down and locktited, and things went much more smoothly. Apparently the dealer had told him that it was a feature designed to keep the scope (Leupold, included in the Barrett package) from being destroyed by recoil. Once he realized he'd been lied to the guy was pretty pissed off.


Wow.


Not the worse thing I've ever heard a dealer tell someone.
Link Posted: 3/15/2009 6:32:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By greenlight762:
I have a M82A1CQ, and I have to say I'm sort of disappointed with it. It is a 3-5 MOA gun no matter what ammo is used. I understand the longer ones aren't generally much better, so my question is this:

What good are they in warfare? Especially the shorter ones like this gun? They're not accurate enough to be used as a sniper weapon, and because of the poor accuracy a shooter would have to be uncomfortably close if he wanted to participate in some anti-materiel/infrastructure wrecking. I guess I just don't see the point. Are they used to stop vehicles at TCPs or that kind of thing?

I understand the USCG uses the CQ for heliborne anti-boat shooting. I would think you'd want better accuracy for this kind of thing.

NOTE: this in no way detracts from the grins and giggles factor of shooting one, nor do I think they should be restricted in any way.


I'm starting to wonder if this guy even has a Barrett. The last sentence of his post sounds a bit anti-gun trollish. And if he really was having lots of problems with his gun, wouldn't he reply with details in a week's time?

Sounds like he may be an anti-gunner in disguise....the second paragraph sounds that way and then the last sentence brings it home.

What do ya'll think?

-David
Edgewood, NM

Link Posted: 3/25/2009 6:39:50 AM EDT
I have shot my M82CQ and at 100yards it shoots 2MOA or better with crap ammo.
Link Posted: 3/26/2009 12:21:54 PM EDT
when your aiming at an APC or tank it is accurate enough.

An APC is about 30' long.

lets say the gun shoots a horrible 5 MOA.

at 2000 yards 5 MOA is around 9'.

assuming the round has enough energy left to penetrate, it would still be effective with an M82 that has been used and abused.



Link Posted: 3/27/2009 7:05:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2009 7:05:52 PM EDT by nmmi9100]
Originally Posted By Leon82:
when your aiming at an APC or tank it is accurate enough.

An APC is about 30' long.

lets say the gun shoots a horrible 5 MOA.

at 2000 yards 5 MOA is around 9'.

assuming the round has enough energy left to penetrate, it would still be effective with an M82 that has been used and abused.


Apparently you dont know much about 50's either. A 50 BMG round WILL NOT PENETRATE an APC (now IFV) or a Tank. It was designed to penetrate WWI tanks and the round was obsolete before WWII for that purpose. I hate to sound like i'm picking on you but the media keeps spouting that 50 BMG will take out a tank or IFV and unless they were built in WWI, that's simply untrue. Folks that talk about APC (IFV) or Tank penetration with 50 BMG perpetuate this bullshit.

-David
Edgewood, NM
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 6:44:30 AM EDT
Its marketed to the military as an anti-material weapon for the destruction of vehicles and equipment.

A tank may have been a bad example but my point was for what the military uses it for it is accurate enough.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:20:02 PM EDT
Yes, vehicles. Jeeps, pickup trucks, etc. Equipment: missile guidance systems, radar control boxes, etc. NOT TANKS, NOT APCs, NOT IFVs.

These common mis-statements do a disservice to us all.

-David
Edgewood, NM
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 5:10:43 PM EDT
Not a tag
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 9:29:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By nmmi9100:
Yes, vehicles. Jeeps, pickup trucks, etc. Equipment: missile guidance systems, radar control boxes, etc. NOT TANKS, NOT APCs, NOT IFVs.

These common mis-statements do a disservice to us all.

-David
Edgewood, NM


One Caveat to that, it all depends on the armor package of the vehicle. An M113 (which is an APC) is considered a thin skinned vehicle, it's armor will only defeat 7.62mm rounds, and the M113A adds a spall liner, so you'll still get penetration from .50BMG depending on range and the round used.

Tanks are a definite no go for .50's you may get some optics (if you know the system) but the armor's to think, and besides they never hunt alone.

IFV's again, you may get the optics but the modern up armor packages have sufficently hardened them from all but cannon rounds or tank main gun rounds.

Just to reiterate what David said, the .50BMG in the military role (assuming its not an M2) was designed for anti-material missions, i.e. engaging light vehicles, missles, people, equipment etc..

You can engage light APC's, BUT if you do IMHO your out of your mind, unless its a last ditch effort, if you know anything about armor, they don't hunt alone, and you may get a round or two off, but at the end of the day, there in an armored and armed pillbox, and you've got nothing but your ACU's to protect you.
Page Armory » 50 Cal
Top Top