Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aug 15th -> Aug 31st

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Aug 15th -> Aug 31st

    The Fifty-Caliber Sniper Rifle, should it be restricted?

    a. Yes, .50 caliber rifles should be police/military only.

    b. Yes, .50 caliber rifles should be registered weapons just like “assault” and fully automatic rifles

    c. No, anyone that can legally purchase a rifle should be allowed to own one.


    To vote, click here then look on the right hand side.
    Knowledge comes from retaining what is learned,
    Thomas

  • #2
    Well, let's get the ole ball rolling. Treating a BMG .50 as different is understandable for those ignorant of rifles, and other such things. I am an owner of a BFG .50 Serbu and am well aware of the power of the rifle. By far, the most prevelent use of the .50 is for sporting match shooting to and beyond 1000 yards. The large bullets stay supersonic far beyond some of the lighter rounds used in smaller bore rifles, thus making the long range shooting more effective. Only rarely is the .50 used in hunting. Most of the rifles chambered in .50 are somewhat heavy for lugging up into the mountains and horses don't appreciate 30 pound rifles for that matter.

    If a person is legally qualified to own a high power hunting rifle like a .416 Rigby or a .338 Lapua there is no reason he should not be acceptable for NIC check on a .50. In reality, the .22 rimfire rifle is probably more involved in personal injuries than any of the larger caliber rifles. I will agree that the .50 is, like my T Shirt from Serbu says, "More firepower than necessary", or something like that. Taking that into mind, what kind of excitement would a Corvette with only 50 HP be and the drags would be crap if you limited the rails to 100 HP. Come on, we all like to push the envelope of power and some of us are no different about our rifles. Anyone that has ever gone to Knob Creek for the Machine Gun shoot will know the excitement of blowing things up and off within the confines of law and order.

    As to the terrorist having one of these rifles, yes, it is a possibility. Let's see, it is hard to conceal or use as a crutch, the ammo hardly fits in your pocket and some would wonder if you took too many blue pills the night before, and a good ole RPG or a platter charge would be more effective. If a deranged individual decides to kill someone or blow up something, only luck and constant viglance will deter his success.

    Let the .50 exist with all the hundreds of other calibers of rifles existing today. To my knowledge the only people hurt by non military use of the .50 are those that experiment with steel penetration and experience shrap back. This does not count the sore shoulders and joints from recoil or headaches from loud noises taken too lightly. I just love the way that my Serbu cleans off the coffee cups from the benches left and right. It is just a big toy and I like it as much as my bike, my boat, and my .17 HMR Marlin.

    HB
    Today, what goes up does not have to come down!

    Comment


    • #3
      This shouldn't even be a discussion. Bring on the 50.

      Mike

      Comment


      • #4
        Rifles are tools. Tools for recreation, sport or "serious social work" or military application - whatever category you choose, they're still just tools. Restricting .50 BMG rifles would be like restricting carpenters to only a 12 ounce hammer - no 16 ouncers without a permit and Federal regulation of its use.

        Short answer - no restriction other than what's already in place to own a .22 or .308 rifle.
        The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke

        Comment


        • #5
          This is a no brainer,
          It's bad enough restricting the type of firearm that we can get, now they're talking cartridge size? The .50 is very powerful, but for the reasons already stated I don't see it becomeing a major player in criminal/terrorist activities. It would be far easier and inconspicous to go to a sporting goods store and get a good deer rifle.

          Just more paranoia for a uninformed public.

          Sundog
          "It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.'
          --George Patton

          "Speed's fine, but accuracy is final."

          There's no such thing as "unfair advantage."
          11B4HJ3/B4

          Comment


          • #6
            Got to agree with the thread predecessors: This isn't even a valid topic for discussion (absolutely no offence intended to the powers that be), and once a firearm is restricted based on a single attribute, such as cartrige size, the door open for the liberals to start hollering about any other aspect of any other firearm, and we all know where that goes.

            What percentage of gun owners are responsible citizens? Something like 99.999%???? Why on earth would having a BMG 50 change those stats?

            Comment


            • #7
              Got to agree with the thread predecessors: This isn't even a valid topic for discussion (absolutely no offence intended to the powers that be), and once a firearm is restricted based on a single attribute, such as cartrige size, the door open for the liberals to start hollering about any other aspect of any other firearm, and we all know where that goes.[/b]
              So far, the numbers don't agree with you. Its not a slam dunk issue, we just haven't heard form the na sayers.


              No, anyone that can legally purchase a rifle should be allowed to own one. 78.52 % (106)

              Yes, .50 caliber rifles should be registered weapons just like “assault” and fully automatic rifles. 13.33 % (18)

              Yes, .50 caliber rifles should be police/military only. 8.15 % (11)
              Knowledge comes from retaining what is learned,
              Thomas

              Comment


              • #8
                I believe that anyone who can legally purchase a weapon should be able to do so, regardless of caliber or physical attributes (i.e. collapsing/folding stocks, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, etc).
                www.precision-applications.com

                It's knowing that when I get up in the morning and my feet hit the floor, the Devil says, "Shit! He's awake!"

                Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home."

                "There are so many Russians, and our country so small, where will we find room to bury them all?" - anonymous Finnish soldier

                Comment


                • #9
                  Where are all those who voted for the restrictions? I would really like to hear their point of view on the matter. I for one agree 100% with CMShoot.
                  I don't have time to bleed

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    By all means, if you voted please take the time to write a short thread on why you feel the way that you do. I'm always interested in hearing an informed, opposing viewpoint.

                    Remember folks, let's keep it civilized. I want to hear other folks' point of view and don't want to see a lot of verbal attacks.
                    www.precision-applications.com

                    It's knowing that when I get up in the morning and my feet hit the floor, the Devil says, "Shit! He's awake!"

                    Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home."

                    "There are so many Russians, and our country so small, where will we find room to bury them all?" - anonymous Finnish soldier

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It's already been said, but to repeat it, if one can legally purchase said weapon and can afford it, thats the big one lol, then by all means they should be allowed to.

                      Carbon
                      "Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear"
                      Ambrose Redmoon

                      "To the American soldier, whose fidelity, patriotism, and valor have made this land the last best hope of earth."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        If the same logic is applied to other objects in everyday life as is used against the .50 BMG, then a ban on vehicle that can travel over 85 MPH, who needs a vehicle that can travel faster than any posted limit on the nations highways?
                        The proposed bans are becoming a lot of what-ifs. What if a terrorist this.........What if terrorists that.....becoming way too convenient of an excuse.
                        I decided to get a large caliber rifle, and hearing all the debate about the evils of the .50 BMG, I figured to go a little more low profile and went the route of the TRG-42 in .338 LM. After reading the rants of a politician proposing the .50 ban, the article mentioned the .338LM as a purpose built rifle AND that should be banned too.
                        If one is a citizen in good standing then there should be no restriction on the type of firearm they could possess.
                        'The path to enlightenment is littered with the bodies of the ignorant.'- Miyamoto Musashi

                        Accounts of demonstrations by 2nd Expedition gunner, Prussian Army veteran, Louis Zindel's skill:
                        Charles Preuss, August 10, 1843:
                        Shooting buffalo with the howitzer is a cruel but amusing sport.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          There are many 50's already out there, and if a bad guy wants one bad enough, he can get it anyway, with or without prohibitive legislation. So the only people we'd be penalizing would be the legitimate and responsible owners. There are already laws prohibiting handgun/rifle possession in certain areas, or by certain individuals convicted of crimes, but you know what? They get them anyway. They just don't care, nor do they play by society's rules.
                          The argument of terrorist possession of one of these weapons doesn't really hold water either, since they can smuggle in LAW rockets, RPG's, and other shoulder fired rockets when desired. I don't think a bolt action 50 will be the terrorist's weapon of choice for their operations. It will be IED's, truck bombs, or whatever. The most bang for the buck. If they did however decide they wanted a 50, no legislation banning possession of said weapon is going to stop them. We have laws prohibiting the mass killing of innocent civilians too, but they apparently haven't read the rule book. If they want it, they'll get it, and they'll use it.
                          From an LE prospective, the brutal reality is, that a 50 won't really do anything to your body that a 300 Win Mag won't at reasonable ranges. Both will tear through your vest like it's not even there, and leave you wishing you hadn't been. A 50 will just go through the medium sized tree your hiding behind, THEN through your vest.
                          I think it would be rediculous to ban 50 caliber rifles, solely on the premise that "It could fall into the wrong hands". There is a plethera of other items that could fall under the same heading.
                          Why don't we ban cars? Cars kill more Americans annually than any weapon, or any other method extent. For God's sake, if the right car fell into the wrong hands......
                          Just personal opinion here, but I for one feel there are anough gun restrictions/prohibitions/laws in America to cover the problems we face. The problem lies in the lack of appropriate punishment for felons convicted of violent crimes with weapons. No gun pulls it's own trigger, nor arbitrarily kills someone on its own. Yet the "gun" seems to be the evil entity here. The gun itself is no more at fault here, than are the cars on America's highways that kill millions of Americans each year. We should no more ban the 50 caliber than we should ban cars. It's not the car, or the gun, it's the loose nut behind the wheel. Make the operators accountable for their own respective actions, and make the sentence appropriately harsh, befitting the crime itself.
                          I say leave the 50 alone. Yeah, it's a beast with a great amount of horsepower, but then again so is a drunk behind the wheel of a 400 horsepower Mustang driving like a madman through anywhere USA, with my wife and kids on their way home from the store.
                          I wouldn't want to meet the proverbial "Bad Guy" armed with a 50 cal some dark night at work, but in reality it wouldn't matter whether it was a 50, or a 338 LM. Dead is dead. I'm somewhat fortunate, in that should it come to a counter-sniper mission against a bad guy with a 50, I'm equally armed with the same.
                          I believe you can "What-if" these kind of topics to death, but the reality is you aren't going to stop it anyway. Don't take the 50's away from the few law abiding Americans that spent a ton of money to buy one for long range competition, just because some "Tweeker" may get his hands on it. By that logic, and I hate to even say it, all guns should be erraticated everywhere.
                          That won't ever happen (I hope), and SHOULDN'T happen. A lot of Americans died to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights, and I'll fight for them till I'm dead too.
                          Don't let the 50 cal fall victim to the same mindset that caused the assault weapons ban in the first place, and have them be outlawed "Because they're scary".
                          What's next? Elephant guns? Shotguns? Tactical rifles? all handguns?
                          Its just another big bore rifle. Leave it alone.
                          Just my thoughts and ramblings.

                          JB
                          "We stand at the ready at Hell's front door. We are the sharpest, and most potent arrow in the quiver of last resort and upon us hangs the weight of being the final option. When it cannot otherwise be done, we are called. When lives are at stake and the specter of death roams freely, we are put into the fray. We go once more into the breach where others fear to tread. We do what others won't, or can't, and we are allowed no errors. For us mistakes mean death. We must train as if our lives and the lives of others hang in the balance for indeed they truly do. Spend this day and every other seeking perfection in the warrior arts."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I can't add anything that hasn't already been said. What troubles me is that the origin of any ban of 50's would undoubtedly be based on a Hollywood-induced perspective of what these rifles are about, in much the same way Bill "have a cigar" Clinton suceeded in banning "assault weapons".

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think the current laws restricting anything LARGER than a fifty(save for muzzleloaders)is perfectly fine the way it is.Nothing larger is of any real use in sniping or target shooting,and no current technology is producing accurate man portable target weapons for larger calibers.
                              As far as a terrorist or psyco getting ahold of one to do any damage,well I feel that a more realistic scenario would be them getting an assault rifle or standard sized (30 cal) bolt gun where they could carry/conceal more readily and also be more likely to achieve hits on targets.
                              If they wish to inflict 'massive' damage,they will just make a bomb.
                              *Americas original homeland defense,the 2nd amendment*

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X