[ARCHIVED THREAD] - .50 bmg (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/22/2004 7:10:27 AM EDT
| anybody here have a stats or pics of what a .50 is capable of. and please no pics of people shot with .50 sniper rifles. |
I sure hope regular civilians can't purchase AP ammo for a .50, I'm all for gun rights but what does somebody need with something that would punch through an armored car |
The folks who freed us from England had access to all the latest military equipment. That's why. |
It ain't about "need." I had a feeling this would end up here. 
|
Then you fall into the category of gun rights for Hunters and Target shooters only. It's not a big stretch from your position to say 'Why does someone need a .50 BMG at all"..."Why does someone need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds" "Why does someone need a semi automatic pistol, when revolvers which are safer and less attractive to criminals exist?" "Why should WE allow civilians to have access to semi automatic rifles that spray bullets from the hip?" Would you treat the 1st in the same way? "I'm all for freedom of the press, but we've got to keep the commies from printing their newsletters!" To truely cherish the freedoms you have, you must acknowledge and tolerate the risks inherent in freedom. |
Dear GOD. That word needs to be BANNED from the English language! |
Dont make me beat you with a 2X4 wrapped in a copy of the constitution. YES we CAN get AP ammo for the 50 BMG, now go wet yourself. |
I can tell you for sure they put a helluva hole in your household budget. It's nearly fatal.  The Violence Policy Center claims they can do all sorts of things that defy the known properties of physics. It's just a rifle cartridge that makes half inch holes. That's it. No more, no less. You should be checking out what can be done with a box cutter. Those things are DANGEROUS!! 
|
I don't need a lecture a simple yes or no would apply 
|
NO but an RPG can do it in one |
|
I'm sorry, but you do need a lecture. I used to be just like you "reasonable restrictions" and all that bullshit. if all I do is punch holes in engine blocks at events with bulletfest, why do u care that I own uranium-tipped, tank-busting, genuine, imitation, satalite-tracking, nuclear glaser death ammunition? Living in a free country doesnt mean u can pick and choose what u like and dont like about what others do. As long as it doesnt hurt you, anyone can do/own/say whatever the HELL they want. So untill u and thoes like you understand this lesson, I am gonna own the nastiest, most offensive and scary weapons out there AND THERE IS NOT A DAMN THING U CAN DO ABOUT IT |
I sure as helll hope you let the NRA do all the pro-gun talking for you. Do the words slippery slope mean anything to you? Do some research on 50 cals, and you'll see that they've never been used in any crime IIRC. |
Actually, its been used in like 1 crime where a cop lost it. Fancy that "Only cops and mil types should have guns" |
|
destroty an SUV what do you mean by destroy? you can mechanically destroy (break) a operating engine with most pistol rounds if you hit it in the right place. Crack a cylinder wall and damage a pistol or bend a rod or bearing and the engine beats itself to death. You can stab the battery with an ice pick and destroy it. Hit the distributor cap with a hammer, most gas tanks are thin steel or plastic so if you stab them with a Phillips screw driver or hit them with any round you get a dangerous gas leak and one spark will burn the car up. Sorry they don’t explode without a lot of help. You can break a cinder block with a hammer. Any rifle round will do it. The .50BMG was designed to destroy WWI light tank armor. It works well on light targets like cars, airplanes and people. But so does just about anything else. |
You're thinking of "legally registered machine guns." 
|
|
i think what your asking is what will a .50BMG round do that most other rounds won't? shoot at distance. 1500 yds plus. penetrate moderately thick mild steel or super thin armor. why have one? they are fun to shoot, because it's a free country and if i can't have one the country won't be free. |
Rparr, You say you are all for gunrights, but in the same breath, you begin the tired arguments regarding need. Well, I'll accomodate you and we can talk about this issue for as long as we both can keep a civil keyboard. I'll start.... First off, realize that all guns are created to kill. Not all guns are used for killing, but do not forget what their primary design is. Interestingly, there are several other tools that were also specifically designed for killing and even more tools have been modified from their original design in order to be more efficient killing tools. But we are discussing guns here and as we have determined what guns are really designed for, let's move on to specifics in the USA. As a matter of course, most every family in the Colonies had at least one gun and maybe more. These guns were to provide food via hunting and to provide for a family's safety from attack from rival colonists, Indians,and even wild animals. As it turned out, another use of these guns was to fight in an organized war of Independence from a tyrannical government. This war was successful and led to these United States. The Colonists' willingness to fight for Independence and the guns used were of great importance to the framers of the Constitution, represented by the 2nd Ammendment. As the framers had many items to address in the Bill of Rights, it is significant that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was second only to the right to free speech and the freedom of religion. The framers, evidenced in the Federalist Papers, were allied in favor of providing the citizenry a final freedom to be used if the remaining freedoms had been eroded. This freedom was based in the ability of the citizens to force a tyrannical government to accede to the demands of it's citizens in the event that all peaceful ends have been exhausted. Quite a bleak proposition isn't it? The framers give us an ability to be armed in the event a revolution is needed....scary, I know. BUT, the framers were some really smart guys and knew that outright rebellion would not be needed, that the knowledge of those in power that the citizenry is armed would be enough to keep the government in line. This realization of implied power has worked well to keep those in power in line...until now. Not many of today's gun owners are in favor of complete unrestricted access to ANY weapon by ANY person....and here is where the slippery slope begins. Once you begin to place restrictions on a Consitutionally protected right many questions come up. Who do we allow to get a gun? Who do we keep from having one? What agency will be in charge of regulation? Will there be Federal regulation or State regulation? Do the cities have a say? What about the Constitution's power to give all of us the rights? Who will decide these questions? The answer to the last is of course the US Government.....but wait a minute, those are the same people the framers were worried about and caused the real reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place!?!? We should give them the ability to restrict a God-given right protected by the Constitution? Basic laws of human nature indicate that the first thing any human secures is their safety and this is no different for members (elected and otherwise) of our Federal Government. as the second Amendment is seen by some politicians as a hurdle to their plans, they want them all to be removed from the hands of the populace. Their main tactic in this removal is known as 'incrementalism' or the gradual degradation of the 2nd Amendment. |
|
(continued)... This tactic is seen by new laws that are 'make sense' in nature and taken by themselves are not easily argued against. First of these is the National Firearms Act of 1934, a law designed to make sure that ordinary citizens did not own fully automatic machine guns without paying a $200 tax for the previledge and at that time, $200 was a prohibitive amount. Now lets look at what the law has done since; there has been exactly one homicide committed with a machine gun....a great success you might say, untold thousands saved from being gunned down by this law...until you realize that there were very, very few homicides with automatic weapons before the law. BTW, that one homicide after the law was in effect was committed by an off-duty police officer....an individual exempted from the provisions of the 1934 NFA. BUT the US Government put out the hue and cry that these machine guns were killing everyone and the law was passed and the incremental erosion of our 2nd Amendment rights began. Since the '34 NFA was passed, there have been over 20,000 Federal, State, and local laws passed to 'control guns'. Cities with some of the most restrive gun laws are easy to find....they have the highest murder rates and the highest rates of armed violent crime....decades after the passage of the restrictive gun laws. Conversely the states with Concealed Carry Laws have seen a DECREASE in violent crime. Kind of makes you think. Do some research and come to your own conclusions. |
|
I brought a piece of 3/4" mild steel to a shoot and had the .50BMG owners shoot it up for me. With ball ammo it left a dent that was only about 1/8" deep and 3/4"wide. Nothing that made a contour deviation on the backside. Not a whole lot more than my AR did. With Armor Piercing ammo it punched through leaving about 5/8" hole on the front side and 3/4" on the back Hope this helps.. |
I am sorry, but your position appears to be incorrect. "[The 2nd Amendment is] subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." -bush administration stance on the right to keep and bear arms contained in legal briefs filed with the supreme court, may 2002. Peace be with you. |
Since when do I EVER give a shit what they say? Hmmmmm? Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Well, u may have a few more in other locations. That statement is just an opinion just like me saying u r an arrogant subset of a member's over active imagination who does nothing but stir shit up. Lemmie give you some advice, if I want your opinion, I'll ask for it. Oh but wait, you DONT have an opinion of your own, u just parrot what the left says. Silly me, having opinions of your own requires intelligence, my mistake. Now go clean your 10/22 before it jams. |
Go back to the forum you came from! |
|
I've cleaned a 2" thick mild steel plate with an API round out of mine...tee-hee. I think a properly placed shot could disable an SUV in one shot. Engine block, tranny, rear end...game over. However, I only own my guns for "sporting perposes", and shooting someones vehicle from 2 miles (VPC's number, not mine) isn't very sporting. You know, last time I read the Bill of Rights I didn't even notice an age limit, let alone a provision allowing a city to ban any gun they wanted. There was a time in this nation where the Supreme Court ruled Black people couldn't vote...their rulings always seem to be a bit politically motivated. |
|
Banning anything just to keep it away from criminals in senseless. It punishes far more law-abiding people than it does criminals. I don't care why anybody wants anything. You couldn't pay me enough to go to the trouble of keeping an eye on my neighbor. If he makes a big enough problem for me to notice, I'll call 911 and go back to surfing the net. This is America and as long as you aren't hurting anybody or their property, feel free to amuse yourself blowing enormous holes in whatever you want. I wonder, why does Imbroglio school other members with other people's words? It's like he never states his own position, rather he uses other peoples words, who have the guts to take a position, to attack the position of people on this site who also have the guts to take a position. It just seems kinda chickenshit. He doesn't make a contribution to this thread other than to "correct" people. He keeps schooling people and this isn't a class room. You wanna school people, get a teaching certificate and teach a class we're interested in. IMO, one of two people are going to be president of this country, Bush or Kerry. Bush is a far better choice for fans of the black rifle than Kerry. |
|
Guys, Imbroglio is what you call a Devil's advocate. He wants people to think. Sometimes it gets annoying. he is so far beyond a troll, but in a good way. These boards would be less without him. TXL BTW Imbro, thanks for the advice, I bought the Grundig YB400 from radio trash $149. |
Would this be a good example of “killing the messenger”? |