Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/15/06 01:21 PM, MindControlFun wrote: That means this gun is outlawed. It's not a rifle, and it's nowhere near the same power as a rifle.

It's still going to pierce police body armor.

As far as the .50 caliber rifle, if it is really about $5 per cartridge as stated in an above post, there are only two practical uses for this gun.

1) Military

They need .50 cals.

2) Firearm enthusiasts.

They don't.

That's right. If you're rich and you are a fan of guns, this one might be on your list.

That's fine. But it's stupid. They have no right to a gun.

Fuck the colt 1911A1. It's .45 inches in diamater. That could kill someone. I mean, we might as well void the 2nd amendment.

The second amendment was never intended to give unlimited gun rights, but, naturally, you wouldn't know that.

Ban the .50 cal-particularly .50 cal rifles Why? It's designed to penetrate armor, destroy airplanes and helicopters and kill people from 2000 yards away.

The point is, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Sure, a .50 caliber rifle is powerful, but I'm sure that more powerful guns have been made. And if there is no point where we say enough is enough then we might as well just restrict all gun use.

We restrict machine guns. We can restrict RPGs, ergo, we must restrict .50 cals more than regular rifles, because, at the moment, you can buy one with great ease.

You're still going on about the discredited idea that a civilian gun can pierce armor and "go through 33mm of steel."

Good job.

Since when was this discredited?

According to Barrett Firearms:

They categorize their M82A1 ($7,750) as a "civillian" weapon.

There's a military version available (now called the M107). They're cosmetically identical and fire the same round.

The military has access to specially designed incendiary rounds and "armor-piercing" rounds, but even with the M2 ball round (equivalent to what's available to those who have .50 cals and are civillians), the .50 cal can penetrate 19mm of steel (according to the Federation of American Scientists).

At 7/15/06 04:40 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

There's a military version available (now called the M107). They're cosmetically identical and fire the same round.

Cosmeticaly =/= Functionally, that's like saying a sex change will let you get pregnant.

The military has access to specially designed incendiary rounds and "armor-piercing" rounds, but even with the M2 ball round (equivalent to what's available to those who have .50 cals and are civillians), the .50 cal can penetrate 19mm of steel (according to the Federation of American Scientists).

19 is 33 now?

19mm was the correct number. If you have the SLAP round, then you can penetrate 33mm.

At 7/15/06 04:50 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: 19mm was the correct number. If you have the SLAP round, then you can penetrate 33mm.

SLAP works with the M903 Marine Corps machine gun, at a cost of $7.50 per shot. They are not available to civilians.

At 7/15/06 04:50 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: If you have the SLAP round...

Which no civilians do.

End of story.

w/e you get the general idea. and yes, your right mr. know-it-all its a bacteria not a virus.

At 7/15/06 09:02 PM, ShatteredSkies wrote: w/e you get the general idea. and yes, your right mr. know-it-all its a bacteria not a virus.

Yay facts

At 7/15/06 09:02 PM, ShatteredSkies wrote: w/e you get the general idea. and yes, your right mr. know-it-all its a bacteria not a virus.

if you can bring me a strain of Anthrax virus, I'll let it infect me and kill me.

At 7/15/06 04:24 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: It's still going to pierce police body armor.

I brought my friend's dad's body armor vest to the range that I shoot at. Villa Park VFW post 2801. My gun instructor's son brought in his colt 1911A1, and we shot holes in it. .45 caliber. Should we restrict that also?

They need .50 cals.

If they didn't have them they would adapt, it just makes the job much easier.

They don't.

You're right, but do you NEED a model of an old war bomber? Does that give them the right to restrict you from it?

That's fine. But it's stupid. They have no right to a gun.

Yeah, there's no such thing as a 2nd amendment. It doesn't exist, right?

The second amendment was never intended to give unlimited gun rights, but, naturally, you wouldn't know that.

Obviously not unrestricted or unlimited gun rights, but we don't have that now so that job's already done.

Ban the .50 cal-particularly .50 cal rifles Why? It's designed to penetrate armor, destroy airplanes and helicopters and kill people from 2000 yards away.

You're right. That's what it's designed to do. What is a pistol designed to do? Hunt? I don't think so. Sure, it's less powerful, but it'll still get the job done.

We restrict machine guns. We can restrict RPGs, ergo, we must restrict .50 cals more than regular rifles, because, at the moment, you can buy one with great ease.

Ok, but you cannot buy other guns with ease? I was at my uncle's house in Minnesota for the week of the 4th of july. We wanted to go out shooting. We went into a cabelas, picked out a 20 ga. Mossberg, showed the cashier his FOID, and walked out with the gun. Should we restrict those also becuase you can get them with great ease? To be able to buy a .50 caliber rifle you need a FOID (at least in Illinois), but why should another background check be made? To get the license you had to get one.

At 7/15/06 04:40 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: There's a military version available (now called the M107). They're cosmetically identical and fire the same round.

Cosmetically. That means the inner workings, or action, is slightly different. Obviously, the difference is big enough to categorize the M107 as a military version and not a civilian version.

Someone understands cosmetics.

At 7/14/06 04:48 PM, R2KoRn wrote:

A .30 cal is powerful. A .50 is ridiculously, flesh blowing through powerful.

Just like pretty much every other gun in existence.

No terrorist act has been committed with a .50 cal, but that's unimportant. It's able to shoot through 33mm of steel (even if it's not the AP round) and travel over a mile. It's so dangerous that it should be considered a "destructive device" under the NFA of 1934.

Actually, the .50 ball (that is, non armor-piercing or incendiary) round is not designed in any way shape or form for armor piercing, it is an anti-personnel round.

In fact, the maximum armor piercing potential for the AP round is only 0.75 in (19 mm) at 500 meters, and 0.39 in (10 mm) at 1200 meters.

Sources? Sure:

FM 3-06.11 Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain.
FM 23-65 Browning Machine Gun Caliber .50 HB, M2.
TM 9-1005-239-10 Operator's Manual M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle.
TM 9-1305-201-20&P Organizational Maintenance Manual for Small Arms Ammunition.
TM 43-0001-27 Army Ammunition Data Sheets For Small Caliber Ammunition.
MCWP 3-15.1 Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery.
2005 ARMY PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION Budget Estimate.

"Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network bought 25 Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifles in the late 1980s."

Actually, no.

The rifles were bought by the US government from Barret Manufacturing.

The .50 rifles in question were then given to Afghan freedom fighters by the US government during the Afghan/Soviet conflict. There is no direct connection and none of the rifles have been used in terrorist actions. This fact has been confirmed by both a letter posted on the Barret website in 2001 and by a visit by Dave Kopel to a BATF office in 2001 for an article he wrote for the National Review.

In fact, it is highly unlikely that terrorists would even choose to use a very expensive American made .50 when they could simply go to any black market weapons market in the mid-east and pick up a Russian 12.7mm equivalent for pennies on the dollar.

".50 Caliber Sniper Rifles were designed to attack parked or landing aircraft, armored personnel carriers, rail tank cars, bulk fuel storage, and concrete bunkers."

No.

"It takes 300 rounds to penetrate 2 meters of reinforced concrete at 100
meters.”
-An Infantryman's Guide to Combat in Built-up Area" (MOUT) field manual 90-10-1, Chapter 8, US Army, May 1993

Not to mention that .50 rounds cost $5 each, so that would run the terrorist about $1,500 in ammo. Yeah, real practical.

The terminal velocity of a .50 round (around 6000ft/lbs) is not enough to knock an aircraft out of the sky unless it were to hit some critical compnent such as a fuel line. However, similar damage has been known to be possible using most small-caliber weapons such as AK-47s.

Thank you for posting the only factual post in this discussion.

To all of the people who are claiming that a civilian can't buy a semi auto Barret, and that autos are illegal, please educate yourselves on the current laws.

Automatic weapons made before 1986 are available for purchase by civilians. All one needs to do is file the proper paperwork with the respective state and federal departments. Undergo the exhaustive background check and finger printing process, pay your fee for the tax stamp and you can take home your weapon.

The Barrett rifles made for the military are not more powerful than the civilian version. The base configuration is the same. The difference is in the ammunition. Civilians can buy standard military ball out of Shotgun News for about 2-3 dollars per round. Armor piercing rounds can be bought also, if you file the paperwork with the BATFE. You see armor piercing rounds are classified as a destructive device. Nothing is out of reach if you have the money and file the paperwork.

Hell, you can even have UPS deliver a firearm right to your front door if you have the correct license.

There is a lot of misinformation circulating about firearms on this forum. Especially when you have uninformed minors, and people from other countries, whose only contact with a firearm has been thru either a video game or a movie, commenting about how the laws should be in my (our) country.

ATF FAQS ATF FAQS

*tears*

that was beautiful.

amen to that! I'm getting tired of people who have never held or fired a gun before crying about how dangerous they are and how they should be banned in america, which isn't even possible because of the 9th ammendment. it seems a LOT of liberals love to embark on impossible crusades to do the impossible, because if its not possible, then they can continue fighting forever!

sorry to get off topic, but this is much like the reparations for black people, theres no way in hell that could work, mainly because you cannot be held responsible for what your ancestors did. but of course, this is probably WHY they fought for reparations, because if they DID get what they wanted, then they would have to find another impossible cause to fight for.

Back on topic. I believe we should have mandatory gun safety courses for children, to teach them how dangerous a gun is, and how to use it safely. of course if you don't teach your kids about guns they will be curious should they find one and wind up killing someone. but if you take them to a class at a shooting range, and let them fire it a few times at a target, they will get a feel for the destructive power it has, and will no longer be curious.

At 7/16/06 10:32 AM, DarthTomato wrote:
sorry to get off topic, but this is much like the reparations for black people

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you lose.

At 7/15/06 04:54 PM, The_Pandar wrote:

At 7/15/06 04:50 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: 19mm was the correct number. If you have the SLAP round, then you can penetrate 33mm.

SLAP works with the M903 Marine Corps machine gun, at a cost of $7.50 per shot. They are not available to civilians.

I know that...but the SLAP is also for the military's .50 cal. And do recall, with a ball round, you can penetrate 19mm. 19mm, 33mm, whatever. It is STILL armor piercing without the name "armor piercing."

At 7/16/06 03:30 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 7/15/06 04:54 PM, The_Pandar wrote:

At 7/15/06 04:50 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

19mm, 33mm, whatever.

Bit of a difference there.

This also falls under my constitutional right to bear arms. I have no intention to ever misuse it, or to cause harm to my fellow countrymen. And if any terrorists or army came invading, I could protect the country with it!

I demand my right to purchase Nuclear arms. Just a tactical nuke, nothing too big,

i like your way of thinking...and you sir should be president of america

This pisses me off, for the fact that I own a Barrett M95. I also own an AK-47, M-16A2, M4, AK-74, SVD Dragonuv, and more.

You're a liar. Civilians can't own an AK, M-16, M-4 or any military-issue weapon that is in service right now. Besides, you're 15. You don't own anything. Now stop giving real gun owners a bad name.

A-men!

My 2 main points are as follows. I'm not posting any more than this (on this thread) except for responses.

1. The .50 caliber rifles available today (NOT MUZZLELOADERS, JHMX...) fire ball rounds with the same armor penetration characteristics of the military's M82 and M107 which, compared to the civillian barret M82, are essentially the same weapon.
2. The .50 cal rifles of today were designed, not for hunting or target shooting, but for penetrating armor, destroying parked planes, flying and parked helicopters and long range assassinations. Let's see...

At 7/16/06 04:06 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:
1. The .50 caliber rifles available today (NOT MUZZLELOADERS, JHMX...) fire ball rounds with the same armor penetration characteristics of the military's M82 and M107 which, compared to the civillian barret M82, are essentially the same weapon.

As has been said already, this is not an accurate assumption. And since you made a point of excluding muzzle loaders, which are actually more powerful than the semi-automatics, I'm led to believe that you haven't been paying attention to the discussion at hand.

2. The .50 cal rifles of today were designed, not for hunting or target shooting, but for penetrating armor, destroying parked planes, flying and parked helicopters and long range assassinations. Let's see...

Again, after the mass of information that DarthTomato, myself and R2Korn have provided, you continue on in this discredited line of accusations. I'm still waiting for a single case of a civilian .50 caliber rifle being used in a crime, because according to the records kept by the United States government, there are no recorded cases of such a thing.

1. The .50 caliber rifles available today (NOT MUZZLELOADERS, JHMX...) fire ball rounds with the same armor penetration characteristics of the military's M82 and M107 which, compared to the civillian barret M82, are essentially the same weapon.

The military doesn't use the ball round against armor. The M2 .50 ball round is not rated for anti-armor use, I can't stress this point any more. Therefore, its armor piercing ability, or lack thereof, is completely irrelevant. The military uses high-tech armor piercing rounds for anti-armor applications, not ball rounds.

2. The .50 cal rifles of today were designed, not for hunting or target shooting, but for penetrating armor, destroying parked planes, flying and parked helicopters and long range assassinations. Let's see...

You don't listen, do you?

.50 rifles are in fact designed for target shooting and hunting. Think about it. There have been virtually no crimes ever commited with .50 rifles, yet thousands of them have been sold, therefore, logic would decree that people are using them for hunting, target shooting, and all the other things that people normally use guns for.

.50 weapons are also designed for military uses. However, I fail to see how this has any bearing on this argument, as many other devices that have legitimate civilian uses also have uses for the military. Example? Sure. The M24 sniper rifle in use by the USMC is basically just a glorified Remington 700 hunting rifle.

Here's another good artcle on the subject .50 cal guns are NOT really THAT powerful.

to penetrate tank armor, you need something with a little more bang.

Besides most anti tank rifles were meant to damage the treads anyway, few of them could actually penetrate the actual armor on the tank. and those were rendered obsolete during WW2.
source

and as far as a sniper rifle bringing down a jet? NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. even the best snipers in the world couldn't bring down a jet with a sniper rifle, you would need something pretty mean, like something that can spew ungodly amounts of ammo into the air or a missile platform or even a shoulder mounted missile launcher all of these would require a lot of skill to effectively target and destroy jets.

now a helicopter CAN be shot down with a military grade .50 cal rifle, but to hit a moving helicopter would require a massive amount of skill, unless the helicopter is VERY close.

if you hit a moving helicopter at a range of beyond 150 yards, then you're good, if you even come CLOSE at half a mile, you got military level skill with it.

the weight of these guns makes it extremely hard to hold steady while aiming, you pretty much have to go prone to effectively use it, making spotting a moving aircraft, then determining range, then lining up the shot before you have to shift your body and gun to get a good lineup, to be extremely difficult, unless the craft is heading straight for you.

it would be stupid to hunt a deer with a .50 that would be like shooting gofers with rpg's

At 7/16/06 06:30 PM, ThorKingOfTheVikings wrote: it would be stupid to hunt a deer with a .50 that would be like shooting gofers with rpg's

Someone didn't read the thread.

At 7/16/06 06:30 PM, ThorKingOfTheVikings wrote: it would be stupid to hunt a deer with a .50 that would be like shooting gofers with rpg's

hunting deer with a .50 cal is actually quite common. Thats the size of muzzle loader shots.

hunting a deer with a small gun is actually pretty cruel. Deer are pretty stout animals

a .22 usually just pisses them off.

theres a reason why there is a special shotgun load just for killing deer. it takes a lot of power to kill them.

At 7/16/06 05:22 PM, DarthTomato wrote: Here's another good artcle on the subject .50 cal guns are NOT really THAT powerful.

"The story also quoted a criminal justice scholar who said the rifle wasn't useful for hunting because it would destroy game meat - a claim Barrett Firearms disputes. Bryce Towsley, a Vermont-based gun writer, said that when the .50-caliber rifle is used with the proper bullet, it would not destroy the meat."

Let's see...criminal justice scholar or gun writer...hmm. Hard decision.

to penetrate tank armor, you need something with a little more bang.

Tank armor, maybe. But no one here is talking about TANK armor. I'm talking about M113s, M998s with uparmor and police vehicles, even those such as the Cadillac V-100 used by the LAPD.

and as far as a sniper rifle bringing down a jet?

Never said you could bring down a jet. You could blow up one that's taking off, taxiing, sitting at the gate, fueling on the ground or just sitting there. That's what these rifles were designed to do.

now a helicopter CAN be shot down with a military grade .50 cal rifle

Yah, it can. And that's why these kinds of guns should be banned. Imagine what any smart terrorist could do! Hell, a terrorist who buys an apartment on the washington mall could shoot to the white house.

At 7/16/06 08:32 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 7/16/06 05:22 PM, DarthTomato wrote:

Let's see...criminal justice scholar or gun writer...hmm. Hard decision.

Bet you a dollar the gun writer actually fired the gun at an animal.

to penetrate tank armor, you need something with a little more bang.

Tank armor, maybe. But no one here is talking about TANK armor. I'm talking about M113s, M998s with uparmor and police vehicles, even those such as the Cadillac V-100 used by the LAPD.

Mm, military-grade weapons again.

and as far as a sniper rifle bringing down a jet?

Never said you could bring down a jet. You could blow up one that's taking off, taxiing, sitting at the gate, fueling on the ground or just sitting there. That's what these rifles were designed to do.

Of which there is no recorded event.

now a helicopter CAN be shot down with a military grade .50 cal rifle

Yah, it can. And that's why these kinds of guns should be banned.

Ignore that the military and civilian guns are different.