Quick Question: What is a .50 cal BMG rifle?

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

I am filling out a survey about gun ownership and have been asked about a .50 cal BMG rifle.

Could you please explain to me what this is and what it's used for?

Thank you

[tpaine]

7.62 x 51mm wrote:

If you're ever in southcentral (York) Penna, stop by and I'll take you up to Lewisberry to the 1,000yd range for some .50cal shooting. All FReepers are welcome.

_____________________________________

"The second amendment neither protects nor confers the right of individuals to bear arms outside of a militia."

269 robertpaulsen

______________________________________


You may want to amend your invite to Freepers who defend our 2nd.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "Yes, the right of individuals to bear arms collectively in a militia for the security of a free state are protected from federal infringement."

Pray tell, robertpaulsen, how does an individual KEEP and bear arms collectively?

Please explain what part of the remand of the US Supreme Court in US vs. Miller required militia participation on the part of Miller. (Hint: There was none.)

Please explain what requirements must be met for a person to be a member of the unorganized militia and how frequently such militia meets.

[VOA]

Maybe I've missed it, but "The Long Shot" by Billy Dixon at Adobe Walls needs a mention:

http://www.gunblast.com/BillyDixon_Sharps.htm

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Thanks, this is great.
Also for the URL.

[wasnova]

"Besides a .50 Cal. BMG is there a smaller caliber that is accurate at 1000 yds?"

.30 cal is a standard sniper round, the .308 being standard NATO and the 30-06 (.30, '06) being more versatile; the two are the same cal. Both are accurate at 1,000 yards, but neither are very useful over 1,300 yards. The .50 is a FAR more powerful round.

[VOA]

shoot, while I lean to the legends of Texas (and that other country, the USA!),
I should put in a good word for the "Patricias" of Canada.
When I thanked a Canadian relative for the great performance of their snipers
the response was...typically muted in the Canadian manner!

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/KillingShot_2430Metres.asp

[Aarchaeus]

"over 3,000 yards! Just under a 3 mile shot."

3,000 yards is about 1.7 miles.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Thanks
I have worked overseas with several Canadians and
They were good people.
They were all from the western states, none from the
east.

[Aarchaeus]

"over 3,000 yards! Just under a 3 mile shot."

3,000 yards is about 1.7 miles. It is just under 3 kilometers.

[Aarchaeus]

"liberal congressmen Now commonly referred to as Congresscritters..."

Or more accurately, congressvermin.

[Aarchaeus]

Texas squirrel rifle. We have really big squirrels...

And big jackalopes, too.

[TexasCowboy]

I have a 45.70 Sharps made in Italy that looks almost identical to that rifle.
With no disrepect meant to Billy Dixon, I'd have to agree that his shot of over 1500 yards with his 45.90 was very lucky.

I have to admire the men who could fire these rifles all day every day. They kick like a bay mule!

[IrishCatholic]

Just came onto this thread and it is already swamped. If this is redundant please understand it is not the .50 caliber that is important. It is the mindset that says that the second amendment is limited only to hunting and sporting guns. The principle of the second amendment is to allow firearms that the private citizen can own to resist the invasion or imposition of any foreign power.
Brings to mind the left's effort for our submission of autonomy to the World Court, Kyoto treaty, and other leftist fantasies. It is also one of the reasons for just this type of question. You find that surveys like these are the continuous effort to disarm the population; as it has taken place in Canada, England, and elsewhere. A disarmed population is one that is dependent and compliant.

[VOA]

I have a 45.70 Sharps made in Italy that looks almost identical to that rifle.

The Italians are good with those replica guns.
Somewhere in my folks' garage, I've got a .50cal Hawken replica, made in Italy.

Sounds like Dixon was like most real heroes...understated with a
"just doin' my job" attitude.

[ExSoldier]

"Fixing my tagline"

Yuppers, I did that recently.

[ExSoldier]

"He sees it from a Law Enforcement side, I see it from the homeowner side."

Those two are supposed to be one and the same. A lot of LEO's shoot with my IDPA Club. Every one of them believes that as well (the homeowner and police attitude should be the same). Here's the difference between these cops and others today: All or most of the club members who are LEO's are older and getting ready to retire. Whereas the younger cops on the force today are products of the public schools and this means subjected to the anti-gun mentality and propaganda spread through the educational systems in this country. Same for the soldiers. That's why in the event of a RAT disarmament plan sometime in the future, we're in big trouble, because gunowners will be all alone in the face of NWO tryanny.

[fightu4it]

Hands down, the best weapon going for shooting English sparrows off of bluebird houses. ;^)

[B4Ranch]

Hillary's Lovely Legs admits she is ignorant about .50 caliber weapons, but she is not stupid. The stupid do not attempt to learn.

[supercat]

Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to own a sawed-off shotgun could be infringed precisely because, according to the government, a sawed-off shotgun had no military use.

Actually, the Supreme Court did not find as a matter of fact that a sawed-off shotgun did not have any military use, but rather ruled that, to claim a Second-Amendment defense, the defendants would have to prove that it did. The government decided to offer a plea-bargain for time served to the only surviving co-defendant rather than pursue its case.

Can anyone identify any other cases the government has "won" at the Supreme Court level and then dropped?

[supercat]

More to the point, I think, is that there was no record of any testimony or evidence presented that a sawed-off shotgun had NO military use. The burden would have been on the prosecution.

The Supreme Court did not uphold the conviction of Miller or his co-defendant Layton, because they were never convicted. All it did was rule that the government could put forth a case against them, and that if they wanted to claim Second-Amendment protection they would have to (in the upcoming case) present evidence that a shotgun was militarily useful.

Had the government sought a conviction following U.S. v. Miller, the surviving defendant (Layton) would have had the right to introduce evidence in court that a shotgun was militarily useful. The government basically dropped, the case, however, so Layton had neither the need nor opportunity to present such evidence.