It wasn’t so much through as it was around a thunderstorm. Still, a very impressive light show they had going on there. I’m sure flying around in a fuel tanker in lightning has got to make you a bit worried.

The ability to penetrate is a function of sectional density (projectile weight divided by cross-sectional area). SD is why a .22 can penetrate some bullet-proof vests while a .45 cannot. And why a 250 lb SDB can penetrate a hardened aircraft shelter and 1000 lb GBU-16 or GBU-32 cannot. SD makes sabot tank gun rounds work too.

SD of the .50 BMG is 0.383, much above the .30 at around .270. These numbers are a moot as they assume all other factors are equal. The amount of propellent behind the .50 BMG dwarfs that of the .30 cal. It is for that reason that .22’s don’t have the same punch as larger .cal with similar SD;s.

The reason the BMG is more of a threat to aircraft is the range at which it can reach a target. The effective range of the .50 is 7400 yds while the .30 cal is less than 2000 yds.

The .50 BMG is a weapon that has little practical use in the hands of a civilian but it’s destructive power greatly exceeds that every other weapon out there.

Remember your physics lessons.

Airplanes are not armored. Any bullet, even a tiny 223, will pass completely through an airplane and any type of bullet expends pretty much the same energy while penetrating the airplane. All the excess energy of a bigger bullet is lost once the bullet passes through.

I remember mine but apparently you’ve made up your own. Cars are not armored so will all bullets pass right through them too? Any bullet will pass through an airplane? That’s about the biggest amount of BS I’ve seen posted in a long time.

Just for the record, bigger the bullet the more energy required to penetrate. What’s easier to push through a piece of paper a pin or a pencil? Now those smaller bullets are packing less punch (less mass at a lower velocity) too. F=Ma

Don’t believe me about the .50 damaging an aircraft? Here’s a quote from Barrett regarding their M82A1

This revolutionary .50 caliber semi-automatic rifle allows sophisticated targets to be destroyed or disabled by a single soldier. Armored personnel carriers, radar dishes, communications vehicles, aircraft and area denial submunitions are all vulnerable to the quick strike capability of the Barrett 82A1.

Here’s from the US Army manual for the gun:

It is their ability to shoot through all but the heaviest shielding material, and their devastating effects, that make them valuable psychological weapons.

You also seemed to miss the point about civilian aircraft not being armored. For that reason they are susceptible to being damaged by a bullet.
___________

I always find it a bit humorous that when among other gun enthusiasts that gun owners will boast and brag about the capabilities of their guns. If they are ever forced to defend their weapons of choice they aren’t nearly as interested such claims of destruction. For example, here’s a guy showing that he punched some holes in 1″ steel with his .50BMG. Yup, that’s wouldn’t do a darn thing to a complex machine like an airplane.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=117053

It’s destructive power against airplanes and the like is no greater than a 6.5mm, 30 caliber hunting rifle, which will also shoot to 1000+ yards with great effectiveness.

Velocity Energy
.50 BMG ~3000 fps ~14,000 ft-lbf
.30-06 ~2900 fps ~2,900 ft-lbf
6.5 mm ~2700 fps ~1,800 ft-lbf

Really? The .50 BMG cartridge is no more destructive than other hunting rifle cartridges?

Most rifles can be accurate at 1000 yards but how many ft-lbs of force would a .30 cal round have left after traveling those 3000 ft? How many would the .50 cal have left?

It wasn’t impossible for a US WWII fighter to bring down a Japanese fighter with only one shot thanks to the lack of armor plating and self-sealing fuel tanks. How well protected are modern civil aircraft?

I’m just curious if you don’t see any difference between the capabilities of say the .22LR and .45.

That makes the fact that the .50BMG is one of the current anti-gun lobby major targets. Despite the reality that there is not a single recorded case of one being used for a murder.

I think the case against .50BMG weapons has less to with what they have done and more to do with what they are capable of. There are a few types of weapons that sit at the extremes of the weapon spectrum and the .50BMG is one of those. Are these extreme weapons needed? How many owners can actually use the weapon at it’s intentional range? If no one can shoot a gun at it’s 1 mile range limit than why are we selling guns capable of that?

Personally I can see allowing examples of historic weapons to be operational, (ie historical BMG’s) for preservation sake. But why do modern examples need to be distributed? You can’t hunt with it unless you want beef McNuggets for dinner and target shooting at such extreme distances is just about impossible due to a lack of land access for the average Joe.

That weapon is one of, if not the only , guns that is a threat to aircraft. Not just it’s range but the destructive force it would unleash on an aircraft. The run of the mill hunting rifle is of little concern.

Hunting rifles and are bit different than highpower pistols and even submachineguns that are common in US civil markets. There is no reasonable use for them in civil markets.

First off it’s pretty safe to say that machineguns are not common in the US no matter what your news or MTV may portray. The cost alone keeps most folks from buying them as most fully automatic weapons start at about $10,000 and go up quickly from there. Even if you had the money availability is the next hurdle. The last hurdle is dealing with the government when purchasing a fully automatic weapon. Definitely not a quick process.

Hunting rifles are a lot different than pistols. Hunting rifles are a lot more powerful than even the largest caliber handgun. One would be hard pressed to shoot someone or something beyond 100 yards with a handgun while any rifle is deadly accurate out to 1000 or more feet (some out to 1000 yards). Just look at your average rifle casing compared to a handgun casing. The rifle casing is carrying a lot more powder.

I always find it odd that “hunting” rifles get little attention when it comes to the gun control issue. Pound for pound they are a lot more deadly (in range and power) than say shotguns or handguns.

Just curious Ren, have you ever shot a gun?

Per Person?

Um, that is what “per capita” means.

How do you line people up and ritually slaughter them (as alleged) with a club, sling-shot or even a can of gasoline. It’s much easier to kill more people, more quickly with a gun in your hand than any other weapon bar let’s say one of Dubya’s WMD’s

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

5000 pounds of fertilizer and fuel killed 168 and not a single gun was used.

Mass murder is not a spontaneous act, it’s well planned and executed. The murderer has his choice of weapon and a lack of guns wouldn’t prevent any future event, it would only change the method.

I think the stats show that more guns = more gun related deaths. What those against guns like to imply is that without guns there would be less killings/murders, as if the murder only took place as a result of a gun being available. It’s moot comparison unless you could determine from each perpetrator if they only killed because they had a gun.

I’m definitely for gun control. Control of who can buy a gun and control of what guns are available. For your average Joe citizen such control issues would never impact their ability to obtain a firearm. There definitely is a fragment of society that should not have access to firearms. I think there still a few legal avenues that let the trouble makers buy firearms (ie gun shows). I would like to see the NRA be a bit more proactive, rather than defensive, when it comes to gun control. Would it kill them to initiate programs to insure that good folks are the only ones buying guns?