Posted on 05/29/2005 11:43:58 PM PDT by John Filson
The .50-caliber rifle, one of the world’s best combat weapons, was invented 22 years ago in Murfreesboro, Tenn., by Ronnie Barrett.
How did he come up with the idea? "I was just a 26-year-old kid, and didn't know any better," he says.
But he knew enough to design a weapon that today is used by the armed forces of 35 different countries. He showed 60 Minutes a semi-automatic 82A1 rifle. "This was the first rifle that I designed, and has been our most popular rifle," he says. "This is the one that the United States Army ordered. Matter of fact, this is a U.S. Army rifle here."
Even though the .50-caliber rifle is a military-grade weapon, federal gun laws treat it like any other hunting rifle, and Barrett can sell the gun to civilians. He says he needs to, because military sales vary widely from year to year.
"If it weren’t for the civilian sales, I wouldn’t be here. There’s a lot of defense contractors that would not be here," says Barrett.
He has sold thousands of .50-caliber rifles to private citizens who, he says, want the guns for target shooting and big game hunting.
But he scoffs at critics who claim that .50-caliber rifles are too dangerous in the hands of civilians. "The .50 has an excellent record. You know, as far as the abuses with .50-caliber rifles, they are so few, if any, that all other calibers ought to aspire to have as good a record as it has," says Barrett. "And it's a long rifle. When you hear people say it’s a criminal’s weapon, this is 5-and-a-half feet tall, or something like that. This is not a weapon that a criminal would use."
It’s not convenience store robberies that worry Tom Diaz, a gun control advocate who was an expert witness in the California campaign to ban the gun.
Diaz says the .50-caliber rifle made by Barrett and other manufacturers is a menace in the hands of terrorists. "This gun is designed and built to smash things up and to set things on fire," says Diaz. "It’s a battlefield weapon. Yet it is sold as freely on the American civilian market as a .22 bolt action rifle."
What's wrong with Barrett's product?
"I'm glad Ronnie Barrett makes his rifle for our military forces. I think it's a great thing on the battlefield," says Diaz. "I just think that there are certain occasions when we say in our society, this product is such a threat to our health and safety, and in this case, our national security, we will not allow it."
But isn’t any gun in the hands of a terrorist a threat?
"Well of course any gun is. But it is a gun that is unparalleled by any other small arm available to civilians," says Diaz. "We control every other kind of weapon of war you can think of – machine guns, plastic explosives, rockets. But this thing has flown under the radar for about 20 years."
Why would you need a weapon this powerful if you're not fighting a war? "It's a target rifle. It's a toy," says Barrett. "It's a high-end adult recreational toy. Any rifle in the hands of a terrorist is a deadly weapon."
But New York City’s Police Commissioner Ray Kelly says the .50-caliber rifle is in a class by itself. He agreed to show 60 Minutes just how powerful the .50 caliber is.
First, a police sharpshooter fired the NYPD’s own .30 caliber sniper rifle at a steel target. Downrange, three football fields away, the three shots from the .30 caliber rifle bounced off the half-inch thick steel.
"You can see it hasn’t penetrated it," says Kelly.
Then the sharpshooter fired three rounds from a Barrett .50-caliber rifle at the same target.
"Went right through," says Kelly. "It is clearly a weapon of war, a round to be used in a wartime situation. It’s appropriate for the military. The effective range is about 2,000 yards. It’s a very formidable weapon."
In other words, if the NYPD’s range had been 20 football fields long, instead of three, the .50-caliber rifle – firing ordinary ammunition -- still would have been devastatingly effective.
"Clearly, it is a very powerful weapon. We saw what it could do as far as going through armor," says Kelly. "It would be a weapon that could do a lot of damage – no question about that."
This is exactly what the FBI learned in 1993 at Waco when Branch Davidians fired a Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle at them.
In response, the FBI deployed Bradley fighting vehicles for protection. But even that wasn’t sufficient, and heavier armor was brought in.
What happened at Waco was one of the arguments made for banning the weapon in California. Other states are now considering a similar ban for fear of potential terrorist attacks.
"If you go through virtually any industrial state, you’ll see right off the highways all kinds of highly toxic and or flammable materials stored in big tanks. These are ideal targets," says Diaz. "The point is you can plan your attack from a longer distance. It’s the combination of range and power."
The standard .50-caliber bullet is four times heavier than the .30-caliber bullet, and 10 times heavier than the M16 bullet.
In addition to the standard .50-caliber bullet, some bullets are designed to pierce armor, some to set things on fire. Those are all legal to buy. But the most devastating .50-caliber bullet is an armor-piercing, incendiary and explosive round sometimes called Raufoss, after the company that makes it.
Barrett says he’s not concerned about Raufoss because it’s illegal. "It's a high-explosive round," he says. "It’s not available commercially. I can’t even buy it."
In fact, 60 Minutes found a number of sites on the Internet that claimed to be selling the explosive Raufoss ammunition. On one site, it witnessed someone making an apparent transaction of the illegal round.
Barrett said he was surprised. "If it is out there and if someone other than our military has it, then it is stolen," he says. "And those people need to be prosecuted. We have laws against that. Passing additional laws, you know, is just a redundancy."
But, according to Diaz, the threat posed by legal ammunition is frightening enough. There are many potential targets, he says, but the most obvious is commercial aviation.
"Do I believe I could shoot an aircraft at altitude? Of course not, but on takeoff and landing, I could take you to places in Washington, D.C., where I’m absolutely certain you could shoot an aircraft with one of these guns," says Diaz.
"Clearly, with the range that it has, and the impact capability that it has, it would put an airliner or an airplane at risk if it hit that plane," adds Kelly.
Could the gun be used by a terrorist to shoot down a commercial airliner?
"It'd be very difficult. It would if it were a tactic that were even remotely possible," says Barrett. "Then our military, who happens to use the rifle, would be training their troops to do such."
But in his sales brochures, Barrett advertises the .50-caliber as a weapon that can take planes down.
"There's some military brochures that we had early on that showed that you could damage aircraft on a runway or Scud missiles and things like that," says Barrett. "Yes, you could if you have a parked target."
But not in the air? "That's correct," says Barrett.
Just this past year, the Rand Corporation released a report identifying 11 potential terrorist scenarios involving Los Angeles International Airport.
In one scenario, “a sniper using a .50-caliber rifle fires at parked and taxiing aircraft.” The report concludes: “We were unable to identify any truly satisfactory solutions” for such an attack.
Diaz told 60 Minutes about other much more specific scenarios in which terrorists might use the weapon, which we chose not to broadcast.
"I consider some of the stuff Tom Diaz lays out irresponsible," says Barrett. "I know a lot of things, but I’m not going to go on the television and tell people what the capabilities of equipment are and possibly give ideas to people."
Is what Diaz is saying accurate? "Yes, it could be. But it also, seeming begging someone to commit this crime. Somebody please commit this crime so I can validate what I’ve been saying so long," says Barrett. "And it’s repeated over and over, and I fear that somebody will answer that call."
Diaz disagrees. "Its kind of a classic gun-industry argument," he says. "First, they deny there’s a problem and then when something happens, they point the finger at people who tried to warn about it and say you guys caused this and you just hoped it would happen."
Federal agencies responsible for preventing terrorist attacks declined to be interviewed about the .50-caliber rifle. But last June, the Department of Homeland Security told the Dallas Morning News, “We remain concerned about any weapon of choice that could potentially be used by a terrorist, including a .50-caliber rifle.”
"Any rifle could be used to engage a target that it might stand a chance of hitting, of course," says Barrett. "You know, you don’t want to shoot any high-speed projectile at an airplane. It’s illegal."
"A terrorist is not concerned about what’s legal or not," says Bradley.
"That’s correct," says Barrett. "And a terrorist is not concerned if you pass, or Tom Diaz passes, another law."
Diaz wants Congress to pass a law requiring, at a minimum, records to be kept of who’s buying .50-caliber rifles.
"The real question here is we do not know who has these terribly destructive rifles," says Diaz. "No one in the United States government knows who has these guns."
"Aren't records kept when a gun is sold," asks Bradley.
"The answer is no," says Diaz.
Under the Brady Bill, centralized sales records of guns used to be kept for 90 days, which enabled the FBI to check the names of gun purchasers against terror watch lists.
A year ago, at Attorney General John Ashcroft’s initiative, Congress reduced the period of record keeping from 90 days to 24 hours. That’s the policy that’s in effect today.
Re: Waco and .50 cal
See #39
LOL Now I think I understand why you can't understand simple concepts. Have fun in orbit! LOL!
Yup, lots of very odd "discrepancies". The Feds were especially upset when the Texas Rangers and state troopers, who the Feds had left cleanup to when it all fell apart and they left in a hurry, came back with carefully catalogued and preserved evidence (what the Feds had left behind, that is). Seems the Feds didn't get *all* of the evidence they were trying to hide to cover up their mistakes and ineptitude.
Koresh said repeatedly that if someone wished to seach the premises, all they had to do was show up peacably with a warrant and they would be allowed in to do what they wanted. ATF/FBI decided to do things fast and violent, and it didn't work out for them. Koresh was wholly insane, but he made a special particular point about not breaking the law.
Yeah, backing off and simply waiting (which most sensible people would do) wouldn't send the message of "if you resist, even if we're breaking the law and violating your rights, too bad, we're the Feds and you should obey us, peon."
Implication.
Your quote: "The purpose of having a deadly weapon is so the police can use deadly force when they have to; this weapon does that job."
No, the purpose of having a deadly weapon is so that the common man might defend himself against either a government gone tyrannical, or a thug gone homicidal, violent, or even larcenous.
This issue isn't about what weapons the police may have, and you know it. They will always have access to nearly any shoulder-fired non-explosive ordnance they want.
Now we see what the craze to ban .50 caliber rifles is about. Even if the guns are not banned, they will try to register all guns -- and not just for 24 hours or 90 days. They will use it as an excuse to make the gun registry permanent. It is obvious who will be on the list and who won't. This is just a move against law-abiding citizens.
"Conventional" ICBMs are also known as ROCKETS and are available on the open market to anyone. So are cruise missiles, also known as UAVs. If you have money, they're both legal and available.
Please read my thesis on this topic.
And the role of the armed citizen?
Did you actually, ah, READ the piece atop this thread? You should try that sometime--the police are referenced in it twice--THAT is what I was talking about.
You look like a fool when you shoot your mouth off and then simply claim I "implied" anything when I was directly referencing material in the original post.
You seem to have a problem with comprehension so I will type this slowly: In the original article, there are references to the police; I was addressing those specifically as to why I believe the police have every right to this rifle.
If you weren't so rude and weird I'd invite you to ASK me about my opinion of the Second Amendment, but paranoid folks like yourself "just know" what people mean and don't need to ask.
Now go away, trollboy, and invent more lies about other people. You'll get no more sympathy for your obvious problems from me.
Referring you to my post above yours.
Actually, you can arm the ground vehicles (provided you have completed the appropriate paperwork and requirements for a class III weapon or weapons) if you're putting a .50 on top or back in the turret. You are not allowed to arm the airplane without special dispensation from the Feds.
I was refering to the police having access to this rifle. You and another poster seem to have missed specific references to the police.
So let's have it.
You didn't read my post--you don't get to ask me after your rudeness, so go away.
I wasn't a tanker, but I worked around them. The lead vehicle appears to be a M60 variant. IIRC, the one on film at Waco had a boom as it started to bash the walls of the burning compound. My guess is that it was an engineer variant or armored recovery vehicle. The first two tracked armored vehicles appear to have pronounced turrets from the rear in this picture.
Ha.
endthematrix, this individual won't answer my question about what his views are about the Second Amendment. Perhaps he will answer you?
Or perhaps he doesn't want to be committed to a conservative position?
I don't think they actually had their main guns mounted, which makes them an odd variant of their own. Put it to you this way - I didn't see any intact MBTs in footage or pictures of the Krispy Kritters incident. I did see the M88 and the engineer variant of the M60, though (can't remember the designation offhand).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.