Banning the .50 Caliber Rifle in Hawaii Sets a Bad Precedent

[beevul]

I am, of course, aware that you are receiving exaggerated and untrue information that is originating from the Violence Policy Center. For many years The VPC has claimed an urgent need to ban powerful rifles by predicting some attack will soon happen that would result in preposterous destruction. Well, as much as they promote the attack idea, they don’t happen, as this is not the type of weapon our enemies are using against us.

VPC’s call for urgent action is in hopes that no time will be spent in factual research that easily reveals the irrationality of these exaggerated claims. All of these tactics have failed to work in Washington, D.C. Now, the VPC’s plan is to continue this deception at the state level.


It is the law. Barrett Firearms Manufacturing cannot sell our products to those who break the law even though the officials responsible may not yet be indicted. Barrett will not support a state or local government that is obviously in violation of the United States Constitution thereby jeopardizing the safety and security of its citizens.

Be aware there are more companies that will respect this position. If Hawaii or any state bans the sale of the .50-caliber rifle, we will immediately stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to that state’s government agencies. We will also welcome all small arms manufacturers to take the same action.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?702a0eeb-6b8b-4f7a-964b-b58930a4cbd3

Hawaii now?

Quite a misguided effort IMO...

[bluerum]

1. Those nene's and mongoose are fearsome.

[Beregond2]

2. So

they are trying to blackmail the state by threatening to not sell to their police departments? Please. Like there wouldn't be plenty of companies willing to grab that market.

[Sanctified]

3. How is this blackmail?

I am confused, a private company ceasing to do business with a government agency because the agency wishes to ban a legal product to the public that the private company produces is not blackmail. No private organization should be forced to supply goods to another organization just because they are the Government.

[bossy22]

4. not many companies

produce what barrett produces- and he has every right to deny sales to HI just like he does California

[Boomer 50]

5. We do the same thing

Amazing how effective it is too. At present count, there are 9 states we don't do business with.

[SteveM]

30. Actually, it's more akin to a boycott, but even this is dubious...

The .50 ban is one of those wild weeds of prohibitionism which still runs up the porch column. The gun-controllers/banners, desperate for a victory, are relying on the far right's foreign policy: Bomb SOMEBODY! I have no problem with someone wishing to boycott this; however, tactically it might not have any measurable effect.

Next will be .49.

[applegrove]

6. You can buy tracer fire and hit an airplane out of the sky with those suckers.

Why would anyone need one is my question.

[Boomer 50]

7. Total BS

I probably have more trigger time on a .50 BMG rifle than 99% of the 50 shooters in the world.

1. A bolt action or semi is not going to be capable of inflicting anywhere near the damage needed to bring a flying plane down. It just isn't going to happen.

2. Hitting a flying target of questionable distance is going to be VERY difficult to begin with. Combine that with a realistic range of about 4000 yards at the outside most, you aren't going to take down an airliner.

3. The size and weight of the .50 rifles make aircraft engagement problematic beyond stupidity.

The gun grabbers deliberately compare a bolt action rifle or a semi auto rifle to the legendary M2 series of heavy machine guns. There is a huge difference between launching a dozen rounds with a precision rifle and a 100 round belt at 600 rounds per minute on a target. The gun grabbers are lying about the capabilities of the .50 rifles in a desperate attempt at scaring the public into supporting restrictions.

First it will be the .50's. Then all "military" calibers. Then high power rifle cartridges of any design, then... You get the idea.

If the gun grabbing zealots have to mislead the public to get support, then their agenda must be questioned.

[applegrove]

9. I saw a report on 60 minutes that made it clear a .50 calibre weapon

could bring down a helicopter. I'm back to my original question: Why would anyone need a gun that big. Thanks for all the details in your answer. We often get that from gungeon NRA types. As if "I am no expert so I shouldn't have an opinion" which is a faulty argument on a "discussion board". Anyway. Tell me why somebody anywhere in the USA needs a 50 Calibre weapon. What would it be used for?

[bossy22]

11. it could

if you just happened to be lucky enough to actually hit one- 60 minutes (like most of the MSM) gets most gun things incorrect. Do you know how hard it is to hit a moving object 5,000 feet up going at about 150 mph....id its almost impossible

There is no need- there should be no need- its mainly used as a target rifle- no other rifle can offer the accuracy a Barrett .50 BMG can offer at stationary targets 1 mile away. In fact the Barrett company has a school for people interested in long range competitive shooting.

[benEzra]

16. Not an airliner, a helicopter (in a hover). A deer rifle can bring down a helicopter, too.

I saw a report on 60 minutes that made it clear a .50 calibre weapon could bring down a helicopter.

Not an airliner, a helicopter (in a hover). A deer rifle can bring down a helicopter, too. Neither can bring down an airliner.

I'm back to my original question: Why would anyone need a gun that big. Thanks for all the details in your answer. We often get that from gungeon NRA types. As if "I am no expert so I shouldn't have an opinion" which is a faulty argument on a "discussion board". Anyway. Tell me why somebody anywhere in the USA needs a 50 Calibre weapon. What would it be used for?

They were developed for, and are used for, long-range target competition.

They are used for the same thing that this rifle is used for:





That's in the UK, FWIW.

A .50 BMG rifle of any description has never been used in a murder in the United States, in the quarter-century they have been on the market.

[RSstoppingby]

26. Awsome

If that is you in the pics, congrats on the fantastic shooting. If not, congrats on finding pics of fantastic shooting.

[benEzra]

29. Not me, but thanks!

The person in the photo is Vince Bottomley, a shooter in the United Kingdom. The rifle is a custom BAT action and Border barrel chambered in 7mm WSM (7mm ~ .270).

Here's the original article:

http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek071.html

More pics:

[Turbo Teg]

18. I don't remember

needing anything having to do with the second amendment. And yeah, 60 minutes is the best place to get all your firearm information, them and CNN. Please take everything they say as utter truth. (sarcasm is hopefully noted)

[Boomer 50]

20. The 60 minutes story was very misleading

They purposely gave information that portrayed an ability of this rifle being able to down an aircraft at any range with a single round. It is simply not true.

With the redundancy systems in modern aircraft, the likelyhood of a single projectile or even a dozen projectiles causing a catastrophic failure of any aircraft in the air, even if the shooter was able to hit it, is so remote that you'd have a better chance of getting hit in the eye by a meteor.

Why does someone need a .50? Well, first of all, there are about 60 different rounds that are half inch in diameter. Everything from the .50 AE all the way up to and beyond the .50 BMG. That doesn't include black powder muzzle loaders. The .50 BMG round travels about 7000 yards. That's it. You aren't going to take down an airplane at 30,000 feet because it's WAY out of range of any ground deployed .50 BMG.

I use mine for extreme long distance competition. I know others who use them for plinking or recreational shooting. I do this as well. There are some people that use them for long range hunting or scientific research, they are used as kiln guns in many places. I use my .50 AE rifle for hunting. It's got an effective range of about 400 yards.

There are also guys and girls out there who like shooting the big .50's because they are recoil junkies.

Simple answer is this. It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of being able to afford to buy something that someone wants. The .50's, ammo and the guns, are not cheap. It's also a point that it's not up to you or I to make the determination that someone must "need" a particular firearm in order to own one.

My personal feeling is this. If law enforcement or the Government has a need for a particular small arm, then there is a demonstrated need by the civilian population to have them according to the "Miller Standard" from US v. Miller 1939.

[Tejas]

28. Applegrove, you're not in Kansas anymore

Look it up, even a lowly .22 can bring down a helicopter.

[BadgerLaw2010]

32. How are you planning on hitting it?

Most rifles will rip through a non-military helicopter or plane. Aircraft are generally built to be light, which means not armored. That doesn't mean the bullet will take the airplane down, but you hardly need a .50 to damage an airplane if you can hit it.

However, shooting at the ranges involved in hitting aircraft is difficult even if they weren't moving at a high rate of speed. When they are moving at a high rate of speed, that's what we call impossible.

[gatts]

37. Explanation.

could bring down a helicopter.

I'm sure it could. Helicopters have been routinely taken down by animals flying into the tail rotor, and I don't see a six foot length of metal being less problematic, no matter what shape it was in.

But if we go back to talking bullets, rather than throwing the rifle itself in, chances are pretty damned low, and get lower the further away you get. For starters, the air currents around a helicopter are a mess at best. Helicopters and planes are also legally required to stay pretty high up once they leave an airport, putting you on the far range of what a human can even perceive. The vulnerable target areas are fairly small -- you can't even rely on taking out the engine, as any helicopter over 500' or moving more than 65kph is capable of landing safely in even a complete engine failure. The useful targets would mostly be the pilot, central connector on the main rotors, or a control line, neither of which are going to be easy to hit. It's possible, but so is taking out a helicopter with a potato 'cannon'. Helicopters have been lost over flying birds or kicked-up rocks. From a risk assessment viewpoint, it'd be more important to ban geese near airports (multiple confirmed kills) than .50 BMGs in general.

You have to remember, while the .50 BMG had military usage against aircraft, it also took an average 20,000 bullets per confirmed down from ground-based machine guns. Those guys had radar and pretty high-end optics on their side. Even if a civilian gun owner could replicate that feat -- not likely, in my experience, what with the lackluster availability of full size long-barrel mounted machine guns today -- we'd be talking more than 100,000 USD average per kill, ignoring the cost of a mounted 50 BMG machine gun. Barret's civilian offerings just aren't going to do it; you'd be lucky to get one shot off in five seconds, and that's leaving your chances of hitting a target somewhere south of vanishingly small. You might as well just buy a Cessna and ram the target.

Why would anyone need a gun that big.

It's rather useful for taking down very large game animals, for one example. The Makah tribe in Washington State use them to kill large game animals, and it's one of the few weapons on a very short list capable of doing so humanely (and even then requires very close range and multiple shots). I think the .577 Tyrannosaur gets used more, but it's highly regulated on a federal level, so for a lot of people the .50 BMG is the next best choice. Bears are another example, an unpleasant but often necessary option. The .50 BMG's not the best option for close range (the guns weigh too much), in which case a powerful (and, ironically enough, wider caliber) shotgun slug is usually used, but getting in close range with a bear is something that's usually not ideal.

But the main use is certainly target shooting, and there are a lot of people that use these guns for such. Civilian marksmanship programs like the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association are a simple and easily verifiable fact, and used to run nation-wide. The .50 BMG's power and ballistics, and the design of guns designed for it, make an ideal long-range target shooter.

You can use other ammunition for this same purpose, of course, but that's the same for any actually unlawful uses of the ammo. There's nothing especially deadly about the .50 BMG that isn't a problem for the .416 Barret, a round with similar kinetic energy and ballistics. If you want to ban that (and everything apparently above .415), you're going to ban the single most successful self-defense chambering in the world, the .45 ACP, and the most popular shotgun shells (12 gauge is equal to .729 caliber). Even that wouldn't stop people from noticing the rather similar .408 Chey Tac.

[bossy22]

13. i dont know if this is true

but one of the guns protected by the clinton gun ban was a .50 BMG rifle

the Gun control lobby has lost alot of ground in the last 10 years- with the inability to pass federal legislation and the introduction of CCW legislation- passing most of the states it was introduced in- they are clammering for any ground they can get. The .50 BMG has been sold legally for over 80 years in this country, and just now it is seen as a problem?


"First it will be the .50's. Then all "military" calibers. Then high power rifle cartridges of any design, then... You get the idea."
in fact many countries do this already- mistakingly believing that military calibres are more powerful than traditional hunting calibres. For example- don't you think that you will need a more powerful bullet to take down a 1,000 lb moose, then to take down a 150 lb human?

In the end, the gun control lobby is losing clout politically- they are desperate

[bossy22]

8. Also....

the military stopped using the .50 BMG round as an anti-aircraft round due to its lack of stopping power.

[applegrove]

10. So even the military has no use for a 50 calibre gun. Good.

[bossy22]

12. as if the weapon had only one single use......

the military has great need for such a weapon- as a long range anti-personal weapon. Barrett is the sole contractor for .50 BMG "sniper rifles" Also the standard machine guns on large vehicles is the M2 Browning .50BMG (the Ma Duece).

and in the stupidity of the law- barrett designed a new cartridge- though not marketed called the .499 Barret- which was a .50BMG that was labeled ".499" to show how stupid the law was.

[bossy22]

14. i don't know if good is the right word to use

by using good it sounds like you believe that they stopped using the .50 cal because it was "too much killing power" but in fact they have replaced it with more powerful 20mm machine cannons....

so to conclude the military believes the .50 cal to be too weak to take out airplanes and relegated it to anti-personal and light vehicles

[benEzra]

17. The military considers the .50 useless for shooting down airplanes, that is.

He said even the military considers the .50 BMG cartridge useless for shooting down airplanes, and that's even out of quad-barrel machineguns shooting restricted explosive/incendiary ammunition, not scoped target rifles shooting civilian-legal ammo.

The military does use .50 BMG machineguns for vehicle defense, and they also issue a limited number of COTS civilian .50 BMG precision rifles for disabling radars, disabling parked airplanes, etc. For the latter purpose, they use special explosive-incendiary rounds ("Raufoss" rounds, Mk 211 Mod 0) that are restricted to military and government use only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211



That's a cutaway of a restricted military/government only Mk 211 Mod 0 round. Those are not available to non-LEO civilians.

Shoulder-fired guided missiles are a credible threat to aircraft. Five-foot-long, 33-lb scoped target rifles just aren't, even if you had access to military-only ammo. You've been had, and badly.

[Boomer 50]

27. The military has many uses of the .50

anti vehicle, anti personnel, very long range sniping, asset removal such as antennae, radar, and other lightly armored targets. Every NATO military uses the M2 machine gun, some variation of a 50 caliber precision rifle, and a 50 caliber anti-vehicle rifle. Some still use .50 spotter rifles on direct fire artillery.

I don't get why people have such a snit over the .50. There are other rounds out there that make the .50 look very, very weak. There is a wildcat 10mm rifle cartridge that is throwing a 450 grain bullet at over 3800 fps. Heck, look at the 20mm x 138b round. Or even the newer 20 x 99mm round. Trust me, the fits the anti's are throwing over the .50 is just plain stupid. There is absolutely no basis for it and there is no justification for banning it. Not to mention that just like the AW ban, it would be ignored by most people.

[BadgerLaw2010]

33. The .50 has many military uses. Shooting at airborne aircraft is not one of them.

It's nowhere near powerful enough to reliably kill aircraft, it does not have sufficient range to hit aircraft and hitting moving targets at those ranges is impossible for a human shooter even if you could move the weapon quickly enough.

[benEzra]

15. I hope that was intended as hyperbole.

You can buy tracer fire and hit an airplane out of the sky with those suckers.

I hope that was intended as parody. You can't "hit an airplane out of the sky with one of those suckers" (assuming you're speaking of an airliner and not a Cessna 172) even if you could somehow use the Force and hit one.

Why would anyone need one is my question.

Long-range target shooting (of stationary targets) is why they were developed, a quarter-century ago. (Barrett wasn't the first, either.) The .50 is generally less susceptible to wind drift than smaller calibers are, although there are now smaller calibers that outperform the .50 (.416 Barrett, .408 Cheytac, and .338 Lapua Magnum come to mind).

[Firethorn]

19. 50BMG already largest by law...

Long-range target shooting (of stationary targets) is why they were developed, a quarter-century ago. (Barrett wasn't the first, either.) The .50 is less susceptible to wind drift than smaller calibers are.

And, as a little trivia point, part of the reason to select the .50BMG was legislative at the time, you see, by law .50cal is the maximum(with some exceptions) for civilian guns before it's considered a 'destructive device' triggering extra taxes, fees, and paperwork. The .50BMG round probably won due to the ease of obtaining manufacturing tools for it.

So when we go on about banning the .50 being incremental, it's because it is. Calibers larger than .50 already come under tighter control. Then it ends up being like other such legislation - sure, .50 is banned, but .499 isn't and .501 isn't(though it's technically a DD, thus costs more).

You want scary rounds, there are SOME rounds that are even larger, such as the .700 Nitro Express. And perfectly legal(it's a hunting caliber). Little factoid: A 12 gauge bore is .729, and is placed in a 'sporting' exemption.

As for those asking why people NEED a .50BMG rifle, I have to ask you: Why do you feel that theres a NEED to ban them? When they haven't been used in a murder in the USA yet, and the only crime committed in the using of one resulted in no personal injury, and by a guy who was impractical or determined enough that he built a tank our of a bulldozer?

[DavidMS]

24. Nope.

The best you could do is a magic BB attack.

The .50 is not a particularly good AA cartridge for anything other than a WWI era wood and canvas biplane.

During the second world war, Germany used roughly 6000 88mm shells per Allied bomber shot down. This was useing crude radar, massive gun batteries and central fire control.

A .50 rifle would be unable to reliably kill an airplane.

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/12214-flak-how-does-truly-work.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_mm_gun

[BadgerLaw2010]

31. Clearly spoken by someone who has never shot a gun.

Hint: The plane. It moves.
Hint 2: The gun. It isn't a machine gun.

[iiibbb]

36. Unlikely

Tracer bullets are for Machine guns. Barretts are bolt action or semi auto. All a tracer is going to do is let you watch your miss.

Knocking a plane out of the sky with a single .50 round would be one hell of a shot.


Now... such a gun could possibly be used for sabotaging a plane already on the ground, but the darn things weigh 30 lbs. It's not exactly something someone is going to easily sneak somewhere.

[Major Hogwash]

21. How many people in Hawaii are upset about this?

I mean seriously, don't the people that live on those islands have the right to pass their own legislation concerning these guns?

[bossy22]

22. not many people care

obviously since the legislation was shot down in committee

its one of those peices of legislation that no one really cares about, have minimal effects, and piss off a good amount of people

since at one point the majority of america wanted the patriot act (by majority i mean around 51-49) does that mean its right to pass it?

[bossy22]

23. also from what i hear

there was a sizable demonstration against this legislation when it was discussed in comittee

the main thing is there is no purpose for this legislation- the .50 BMG is not used in crime, its expensive so its not even appealing to criminals. Its being pushed by the Honolulu PD under a guise that it can easily shoot an airplane out of disguise

i applaud Ronnie Barrett for fighting against this kind of mis-information and the PD should realize that their lies are not without implications.

[HiDemGunOwner]

35. Enough people cared

that the number of those testifying against the legislation far outnumbered the few that were in favor of it. It was interesting to sit and listen to the BS spewed out by HPD...including the "shoot down the airplane" and the "it will vaporize" anything shot with it nonsense.

It was also interesting to see that despite the fact that the bill was held (impending death)after the initial hearing, that it was resurrected and brought up in committee again. Finally, it died when members of the committee boycotted the last hearing, depriving the final vote of the necessary quorum, before it was finally allowed to die.

Our suspicion is that HPD will try again to introduce a similar bill and we plan on fighting that one as well. And, just so Mr. Barrett knows, we appreciated his letter!

[HiDemGunOwner]

34. Not quite sure I understand your statement n/t

[Major Hogwash]

38. Why?

It was written in English.

[HiDemGunOwner]

39. English I understand.

It was the context of your statement: "I mean seriously, don't the people that live on those islands have the right to pass their own legislation concerning these guns?"

Were you trying to say that if people in Hawaii, even if it were a majority, wanted to ban a specific gun it would be OK?

Luckily, the public here were not swayed by the BS spewed by the police about how the gun didn't have any legitimate purpose for anyone except them.

Oh, and thanks for "clarification" it was "really' helpful to a rational, thoughtful discussion about the subject.

[RSstoppingby]

25. I'll bet

that nobody can give one reliable source to a person in the U.S. being murdered with a .50BMG and to all the "whay would you need a gun that big?" crap, do you have any idea how fun they are to shoot? I bet I could take any anti-gun person to the range and convert them to pro-gun within the hour especially if I could borrow my friends .50 to bring along.