[Atlas Sneezed]

How about the .50 Beowulf upper...Been reading up on it...looks like fun.

---

Indeed, but although they share a projectile diameter, the 50 Beowolf is a straight-walled cartridge with a blunt projectile, which lods through an AR-15 lower (OAL = .223, single stack to fit), while the 50 BMG is a high-velocity bottle-necked rifle cartridge that shoots a mile.

50 Beowolf 400gr @ 1800 FPS = 2878 FPE @ muzzle
50 BMG 700gr @ 2800 FPS = 12189 FPE

Beeg Deeference! (Though the 50 Beowolf would be nifty slowed down to subsonic and supressed.)

[MD_Willington_1976]

Yep I realise there is a big difference there, but a 50 cal ban would probably take into account ALL 50 cal or higher...even say a .50 or .54 cal Hawkins Black poweder rifle...The worst thing they could do is to start sticking various calibres onto the destructive device list like anything .75 cal or higher, once a .50 cal gets added then they push for .45, .40 etc...then you end up sitting around with a single shot .22 short as the only thing you can own...

Just my $0.02

[supercat]

Indeed, but although they share a projectile diameter, the 50 Beowolf is a straight-walled cartridge with a blunt projectile, which lods through an AR-15 lower (OAL = .223, single stack to fit), while the 50 BMG is a high-velocity bottle-necked rifle cartridge that shoots a mile

Would it be practical to design a bolt-action .50BMG upper for some reasonably-common firearm if the ammunition did not have to feed through the existing lower? I think under current rules an upper which requires a lower to fire is not a "firearm".

I know the Thompson Contenter exists, but I don't know if its stock would really be suitable for use with a .50BMG round. Since rifles like the AR-15 make the stock integral with the upper, it would seem like that might be a better way to go.