Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Guy Points Anti-Aircraft Gun out of window... get noticed.
- Thread starter MrMacMan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Really?
If I remember correctly, David Koresh also had a Browning .50 caliber machine gun - one that he acquired legally too. That was one of the reasons that the FBI/ATF were very cautious, even with their light armored vehicles.
A heavy caliber like that will pierce almost all armor, except for the heavy duty stuff like a tank.
LethalWolfe said:
If I remember correctly, David Koresh also had a Browning .50 caliber machine gun - one that he acquired legally too. That was one of the reasons that the FBI/ATF were very cautious, even with their light armored vehicles.
A heavy caliber like that will pierce almost all armor, except for the heavy duty stuff like a tank.
If you legally own a machine gun (or, among othe things, a silencer) you had to jump thru a lot of hoops to get it. Including a background check from the FBI and permission from local law enforcement (chief of local law enforcement must sign off on your application).
A synopsis of the National Firearms Act can be found here link
Lethal
A synopsis of the National Firearms Act can be found here link
Lethal
how thick steel can the . 50 pierce with new amunition ?
are they already at 40mm ? (i remmeber we were told something like 35mm but of course that's the austrian ones
)
are they already at 40mm ? (i remmeber we were told something like 35mm but of course that's the austrian ones
)
If a .50 caliber bullet hits you, you die most likely.
During WWII, the primary gun carried by aircraft was a .50 caliber machine gun. Usually about 6 or so to a plane. Some had 20mm cannons, which were bullets than when they hit would make a small explosion.
The P-51 Mustang had 6 .50 caliber machine guns on it. A Japanese Zero, due to the small amount of armor on their wings, could be destroyed in one shot if the bullet hit close to where the wing and the fuselage met. The wing would fold back and then rip off the aircraft. An Me-109 could be destroyed in relatively few hits, if the bullets hit near the "wing root," where the wing meets the aircraft.
A B-17 had 8 .50 caliber guns on it, but I am not sure.
The M2, the machine gun used on the Abrams main battle tank today, is a modified version of the M2 machine gun used on the B-17s.
Also worthy to note: the IDF "Desert Eagle" is a .50 caliber pistol. The bullets are different than a machine gun bullet, but they still have a huge amount of punch in them.
Tank shells are 120mm, btw. Artillery goes up to I think 210mm. Some WWII era battleships had 16 inch guns!
During WWII, the primary gun carried by aircraft was a .50 caliber machine gun. Usually about 6 or so to a plane. Some had 20mm cannons, which were bullets than when they hit would make a small explosion.
The P-51 Mustang had 6 .50 caliber machine guns on it. A Japanese Zero, due to the small amount of armor on their wings, could be destroyed in one shot if the bullet hit close to where the wing and the fuselage met. The wing would fold back and then rip off the aircraft. An Me-109 could be destroyed in relatively few hits, if the bullets hit near the "wing root," where the wing meets the aircraft.
A B-17 had 8 .50 caliber guns on it, but I am not sure.
The M2, the machine gun used on the Abrams main battle tank today, is a modified version of the M2 machine gun used on the B-17s.
Also worthy to note: the IDF "Desert Eagle" is a .50 caliber pistol. The bullets are different than a machine gun bullet, but they still have a huge amount of punch in them.
Tank shells are 120mm, btw. Artillery goes up to I think 210mm. Some WWII era battleships had 16 inch guns!
Oh please, it was a small town Oregon TV news program reporting, it hasn't been picked up the any major news orginzations.sushi said:
Okay, fine, just saying that is what some of these guns are used for... as the articles states, I'm no war buff.
I sure do, you can get even BIGGER bullets to blast away Federal Officals with!
Horray!
Alright, gun collectors don't need ammunition... and they also don't keep the guns in working order... and ready to fire...
This is the type of stuff that no one needs, no one. Gun Control or Not, who the hell besides an army platoon needs such a massive gun?
--MrMacMan
Mr. Anderson said:
that's just not right - and why have a loaded gun pointing out a window?!?!?
Glad he was stupid enough to get noticed before he actually used them - that gun would have ripped apart a car if he'd felt inclined to use it....
D
Yeah, but... most of that is just casing and powder!! Nothing to see here, move along people...
Yup, but all that powder still equals a huge bullet, one, if hitting you, has a very very high chance of you coming out dead.jared_kipe said:
Because... I think no one needs these type of guns unless there was a warm and the large majority of people who do own these type of guns are either paranoid persons, people out to start a cult, or people who want to kill and harm others.ddtlm said:
i have actually used such a weapon seven years ago when i was in the army. that thing is not a toy, but without a proper (and heavy!) stand the weapon itself is pretty harmless.
MrMacman said:
Actually, in my view, citizens should own some big guns. Government is not perfect, and is run by a fair number of power hungry individuals. Our government has extreme firepower, and if we ever get to the place as a nation for which the second amendment was written, then I sure hope some responsible citizens have the firepower to put up a solid resistance.
Edit: Interestingly, I am not a member of the NRA or Michigan Militia, and the only guns I own are .177 cal air rifle (bb gun) and a double barrel rubber band gun.
Say what?!MrMacman said:
Many folks who collect guns keep them in working order and occasionally test fire them.
BTW, I have friends with up to 50 cal who do just this. If you have received the proper training, this is not a big deal and is safe.
Sushi
Me!MrMacman said:
Why are you trying to impune on my freedoms to legally own a gun that I desire to have.
Guns to not kill. People do. In the right hands, we have seen where a relatively minor device such as a box cutter can kill. What happens if someone kills with a fork...outlaw all forks. Or how about a drunk driver who kills with a car. Will all cars be outlawed? Of course not.
Responsible gun owners take car of their weapons, respect what they can do and ensure that they are safely locked up/secured. Safeguard these freedoms and heavily punish those who break the rules.
Sushi
sushi said:
WMDs don't kill either. People do.
The point is, WMDs make it easier/quicker to kill lots of people than with conventional weaponry; similarly guns make it easier/quicker to kill than with blades or impact weapons etc.
Somebody above said that guy wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed or some such; I don't know about sharp, but I'm definitely agreeing with the "tool" part!
There's such a mass of misinformation out there about firearms legislation it is nearly impossible to discuss the subject with any success, which makes it unfair to the average citizen caught between bloodthirsy lobbyists on both sides of the gun control debate.
Personally, I agree with sushi and Lethal as far as gun laws go - do we think as a society that we are too stupid and untrustworthy to be able to own firearms? I'm not that misanthropic. This guy in the article is a scumbag; We could ban everything down to pea shooters and the black market would still be happy to take his drug money in exchange for some heavy weaponry. I HIGHLY doubt that the majority of his (or indeed most criminals') arsenal was acquired through legal channels.
That gun in the article definitely looks like an M2 .50 BMG. LOL since when was the M2 an anti-aircraft piece? Maybe if you're shooting at a Cessna...
I have seen "transferable" (legal to buy) M2s for sale on the internet before. Impact Guns occaisionally has one for sale. The thing about owning "NFA" (guns that are fully auto, among other things) firearms is that the amount of red tape involved is extremely prohibitive. You need a Class 3 FFL (federal firearms license), and believe me, getting one isn't like getting a library card!
In short, our friend in the article is a criminal who acquires narcotics and firearms in a highly illegal manner.
There's such a mass of misinformation out there about firearms legislation it is nearly impossible to discuss the subject with any success, which makes it unfair to the average citizen caught between bloodthirsy lobbyists on both sides of the gun control debate.
Personally, I agree with sushi and Lethal as far as gun laws go - do we think as a society that we are too stupid and untrustworthy to be able to own firearms? I'm not that misanthropic. This guy in the article is a scumbag; We could ban everything down to pea shooters and the black market would still be happy to take his drug money in exchange for some heavy weaponry. I HIGHLY doubt that the majority of his (or indeed most criminals') arsenal was acquired through legal channels.
That gun in the article definitely looks like an M2 .50 BMG. LOL since when was the M2 an anti-aircraft piece? Maybe if you're shooting at a Cessna...
I have seen "transferable" (legal to buy) M2s for sale on the internet before. Impact Guns occaisionally has one for sale. The thing about owning "NFA" (guns that are fully auto, among other things) firearms is that the amount of red tape involved is extremely prohibitive. You need a Class 3 FFL (federal firearms license), and believe me, getting one isn't like getting a library card!
In short, our friend in the article is a criminal who acquires narcotics and firearms in a highly illegal manner.
Lord Blackadder said:
Since WWII. And actually, the M2 does quite a bit of damage to a helicopter. Helicopters fly. Therefore the M2 is an anti-aircraft gun. I really would not want anyone with one of those unless they knew what they were doing. And that guy did not. One bullet (called the "Golden BB") can hit an oil line, penetrate an engine, smash a cockpit canopy. Guess what? You don't survive when a jet engine seizes up. It explodes! Boom! If that cockpit canopy is blasted to pieces by a single bullet and suddenly you are getting pummeled by 120 mph, heck, even 500 mph winds, you really would not be happy.
And the above poster who said that without the proper stand the gun is useless... not quite true. Maybe for real heavy firepower that is to be brought against a few soldiers. But against a Volvo, even a random spray of fire is plenty to kill, maim, and destroy.
Mechcozmo said:
That's a seriously broad definition there. A weapon that can be used against something that flies is an anti-aircraft weapon? There are a number of small arms that could do damage to certain types of aircraft but I think it would be inaccurate to label them as "anti-aircraft" weapons. For a more geeky example, I could use an eMac as a server but that doesn't mean an eMac is a server.
Referring to that machine gun only as an anti-aircraft weapon implies that it was purpose built to shoot down enemy aircraft. And when most people think of enemy aircraft they think of fighter jets and bombers. So Joe Sixpack probably thinks this dude had enough fire power to readily take down F-16s or freakin' stealth bombers.
The news article only referred to it as an "anti-aircraft" weapon which is ignorant and/or sensationalistic. Would it have been that difficult for the reporter to say something like the M2 is a multi-purpose machine gun used for X, Y, and Z instead of just solely referring to it as an anti-aircraft gun?
Lethal
Here Here, Lethal!
It wouldn't have been hard for the reporter to call a local National Guard unit for some info, or even do a careful google search. Ignorance requires less work, though.
Mechcozmo: The M2 is not really an anti-aircraft weapon. Against today's aircraft it is too small a caliber with too low of a muzzle velocity. Of course, low and slow civilian aircraft could be shot down with such a weapon (hence the facecious remark anout the Cessna). Its true that the M2 was mounted in Allied bombers during WWII, but in that case the weapons were up in the air, closer to the enemy planes. from the ground you need a bigger gun like the famous German 88mm Flak gun. Today 20mm cannon are sometimes used, but generally the way to do things today is with missiles. The M2 is used generally against soft or lighty armored targets, such as infantry or trucks and unarmed helicopters, and people shooting out of windows in Baghdad. Make no mistake, it's a BIG gun and makes BIG holes, it's just not an anti-aircraft gun.
Firing a .50BMG without a tripod or mount Jesse Ventura-style is physically impossible; you'd be on your butt after the first shot, even if you could support it's 80+ pound weight, which is unlikely given the way you need to hold it due to the trigger arrangement.
M2 specs/roles
It wouldn't have been hard for the reporter to call a local National Guard unit for some info, or even do a careful google search. Ignorance requires less work, though.
Mechcozmo: The M2 is not really an anti-aircraft weapon. Against today's aircraft it is too small a caliber with too low of a muzzle velocity. Of course, low and slow civilian aircraft could be shot down with such a weapon (hence the facecious remark anout the Cessna). Its true that the M2 was mounted in Allied bombers during WWII, but in that case the weapons were up in the air, closer to the enemy planes. from the ground you need a bigger gun like the famous German 88mm Flak gun. Today 20mm cannon are sometimes used, but generally the way to do things today is with missiles. The M2 is used generally against soft or lighty armored targets, such as infantry or trucks and unarmed helicopters, and people shooting out of windows in Baghdad. Make no mistake, it's a BIG gun and makes BIG holes, it's just not an anti-aircraft gun.
Firing a .50BMG without a tripod or mount Jesse Ventura-style is physically impossible; you'd be on your butt after the first shot, even if you could support it's 80+ pound weight, which is unlikely given the way you need to hold it due to the trigger arrangement.
M2 specs/roles
homerjward said:
Can anyone advise me how to block comments from specific people from showing up? This guy annoys the **** outta me.
