Posted on 07/18/2005 2:51:33 PM PDT by holymoly
The fight to maintain our rights is a never-ending struggle. We were reminded of this recently when we received a postcard from an organization called the Freedom States Alliance. This is an outfit that uses scare tactics about terrorism to push its anti-gun agenda.
Pictured on the front of the card was a civilian airliner with an illustration of a rifle scope's crosshairs centered to the nose of the plane and the Web site www.50CaliberTerror.com listed across the top. On the back was a listing of why .50 caliber rifles should be banned. The reasons might seem reasonable, but a bit of research shows them to be exaggerated and open to interpretation.
The first claim is that the rifles are "the most lethal weapons available on the civilian market, but are easier to purchase than a handgun." For openers, it might be relatively easy to purchase one of these rifles, but it's not cheap. The most basic, bare-bones, single-shot models will set you back about $1,600. Terrorists can get AK-47s and similar rifles for about $200 each, so it's unlikely they'd opt for the more costly rifle.
It's true that the 4-foot-long "Big 50s" fire the same cartridge as the military's .50 caliber machine gun — the .50 BMG. Those machine guns are effective weapons against many vehicles and hardened targets such as concrete bunkers. That's because those military weapons rely on volume of fire, not the single shot at a time the civilian guns fire. The .50 BMG bullet will travel farther and hit harder than those fired from other rifles, but they're technically no more "lethal" than many other cartridges. As for them being easier to purchase than a handgun, that's because of the hoops a person must jump through to legally purchase a handgun. It's not because of any special privilege large-caliber rifles enjoy.
The next one prompted some research because the military uses .50 caliber machine guns to shoot down aircraft: "powerful enough to shoot down civilian aircraft during takeoff or landing." The post-card photo would have you believe that a single shot hitting an airliner would bring it down; that's not true even in a Hollywood action movie. Unless it hit a fuel or hydraulic line, the odds of a single bullet incapacitating an airliner are infinitesimally small. And in the event of a lucky shot hitting one of those lines, it's very likely the crew would be able to land the plane safely.
The last claim is the most subjective of all: "capable of accurately shooting targets over a mile away, or 2,000 yards." Is such a feat possible? Yes. Using a top-of-the-line .50 caliber rifle, Master Cpl. Arron Perry of the Canadian Armed Forces killed a Taliban soldier from a distance of 1.5 miles in Afghanistan in 2003. Could Perry do it again? With all due respect to his abilities, probably not. Bullets don't fly in a straight line; they scribe an arc before hitting a target. Perry's bullet dropped 146 feet in the 1.5 miles before hitting its target. There are too many variables affecting a bullet's flight over that distance to repeat such a shot. And a .50 caliber rifle isn't necessary for such long-range sniping.
What the ban proponents propose is to get rid of .50 caliber rifles before they can do harm. Although that might seem reasonable, it's not how things should work in a free society. We don't put people in jail because they might commit a crime, we must wait until they actually break the law and are convicted.
Heck, .22 Rimfire has a "range" of a mile - it says so right on the box.
"WARNING Range 1 mile." (FYI: 1 mile = 1760 yards)
I hope I live long enough to see a politician with the stones to stand up and actively seek the repeal of NFA, GCA, and every other stupid gun law on the books.
The gun-grabbers are working overtime to take away our rights. They will be happy to disarm us either overnight or a little at a time. Every gun owner out there needs to join a gun rights organization of some kind. Our enemies are well-organized and well-financed. If we sit around and don't get as militant as they are, they will win.
How way cool is that.
Wish I had an extra grand laying about so I could get one.
The 2a clearly was intended to cover small arms. Take away the 50BMG, then the .338 Lapua will suddenly be too powerful. Pretty soon, we'll find the only acceptable weapons are black powder rifles.
There is a reason the military used full auto machine guns instead of single shot semi-autos (pull the trigger it fires a single shot) to bring down airplanes in WWII.
I recently read that during WWII Americans fired 12,000 rounds for every downed aircraft, and that German records closely paralleled those findings.
Granted these were military aircraft, but they were also using full auto machine guns to try to bring them down.
I guess that liberals extrapolating Kerry's service record would figure a box of .50 caliber in solider Kerry's hands would be the end of a whole bomber attack group.
The point being that the very first federal gun control law, and the only one to be examined by the Supreme Court, was upheld (if it was, opinions vary) on a false basis. That tape would provide iron clad evidence that: "quot; a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" Maybe we need to get an NFA case started on its way to the SC based on a violation of the short barreled shotgun portion of the law. I'm sure the Gunny would be happy to supply the video. :)
Of course a machine gun case would serve as well, plenty of evidence about that can be obtained from most any combat video shot during the ongoing unpleasantness in southwest Asia.
And generally more than one at a time. Although bombers did use singly mounted .50s, most of the kills were by fighters which mounted from 4 to 8 of the big 50s, all firing simultaneously.
Ground troops, or sailors on ships, were very, very rarely able to bring down aircraft, even with quad (4) fifties. .50 caliber machine guns are no longer used in the air to air role, having been replaces by 20mm Gatling type cannons firing explosive rounds with proximity fuses.
Clearly was the shooter vs the firearm.....:o)
I don't have a chart handy and you keep them in your head.
1.5 miles and 146 feet of drop? I was thinking more like 40ft.
Of course the first time I shot a .50BMG my goal was to hit the Earth inside of the range's borders. I didn't want to kill somebody two towns over!!
Ballistics for Hornady .510 dia. (50 cal) 750 gr. A-Max at 2800 Feet per Second
At an Elevation Angle of: 0 degrees. Sight Height 1.5 inches Sight zero 500 metres.
|
Range (metres) |
Velocity (Ft/Sec)
|
Energy (Ft/Lbs)
|
Momentum (Lp-Sec)
|
Drop (inches) |
Bullet Path (inches)
|
Wind Drift (inches)
|
Time of Flight (Seconds)
|
|
0
|
2800.0
|
13,054.0
|
9.32
|
0.0
|
-1.5
|
0
|
0.000000000
|
|
250
|
2564.6
|
10,951.1
|
8.54
|
-17.57
|
19.06
|
0
|
0.306105049
|
|
500
|
2340.9
|
9,124.5
|
7.80
|
-74.76
|
0.0
|
0
|
0.640873963
|
|
750
|
2128.6
|
7,543.9
|
7.09
|
-179.52
|
-66.63
|
0
|
1.008348187
|
|
1000
|
1927.6
|
6,186.8
|
6.42
|
-341.84
|
-190.82
|
0
|
1.413359571
|
|
1250
|
1739.2
|
5,036.2
|
5.79
|
-574.37
|
-385.22
|
0
|
1.861528594
|
|
1500
|
1565.2
|
4,079.3
|
5.21
|
-893.20
|
-665.91
|
0
|
2.359082422
|
Crap.
I love being wrong all of the time!
Thanks!
The Second Amendment clearly was intended to cover "arms", not just small arms. If it meant only a sub-class of arms, our Founders could have said so.
My point was that the 50 bmg would meet this definition, as would full auto's......... I'm not so sure about cannon or cruise missles.
My point was that the 50 bmg would meet this definition, as would full auto's......... I'm not so sure about cannon or cruise missles.
I could be wrong now....don't quote me....remember the last time ya did ........:o)
I understood your point.
My point is that if we play by their rules, we lose.
Do you honestly believe that anti-gunners would classify the .50 as "small". After all, it can bring down an aircraft at 2 miles. Ugly semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips were outlawed by the Feds for ten years and are still illegal in Kalifornia.
There are laws against arms which are too big, too small, too ugly, too easy to handle, too short, hold too many cartridges, are too easy to conceal, consist of too much plastic, etc. Why would the "well-regulated Militia" need such deficient arms, they might ask.
The bottom-line is that the government has no business deciding which arms are suitable to a Militia. That is for the Militia to decide, at the time and place when the decision must be made. When the lives of our neighbors, our loved-ones, and ourselves are on the line, we will know which means are suitable and which are not.
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.