5 ms·

The irony being is that the gun community acts just as irrational and certainly impractical. Even as a non-gun owner, I know what gun I'd rather have for self d

The irony being is that the gun community acts just as irrational and certainly impractical. Even as a non-gun owner, I know what gun I'd rather have for self defence than these guys. :) Does a 50cal really seem like a sport rifle? The inventor goes on towards the end of this video to suggest it's useful for personal self-defence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3usocws0E&t=0m42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3usocws0E&t=0m42s Here's an example of a guy who has 1.5M subscribers explaining how he'd protect himself answering the door in the middle of the night with a completely impractical close range weapon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiWhFTfUCg&t=3m33s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiWhFTfUCg&t=3m33s

gnu8 10y ago
Those youtubers are just jerking off. A .50 caliber rifle is just a big expensive dangerous toy. No one is going to commit a shooting spree with one. It's not practical. Regulating them only impacts people who like loud bangs and will never hurt anyone.
- xorgar831 10y ago
  That's the point, that same impractical rational gets applied everywhere. Even in cases where people get hurt.
- Scramblejams 10y ago
  My congresscritter a while back put out a statement supporting the 50 BMG ban in California, because she wanted "these dangerous weapons off our streets." I emailed her, asking how many of these weapons, exactly, she'd happened to find on our streets! I figure, they're so rare and expensive, if I could walk outside and trip over one, I might as well go out and pick one up that'd been left in the nearby hedges! She didn't respond. :-( Tangent: It made me wonder what the longest distance criminal shot in American history is. Anybody got any ideas?
  - rdl 10y ago
    Do you mean "criminal shot by police/civilians", or shooting-by-criminals? Pure negligent shootings which happen to damage property or injure/kill people happen at range all the time, and the shooter is by definition a criminal. Celebratory fire, particularly at a 30-45 degree angle, is going to have serious range, even if inaccurate, and is guaranteed to hit something. Most of the fear of .50 was anti-armor, not so much pure range. The "DC Beltway sniper" fucktards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks) were under 200m shots, but that's still solidly rifle distance. Famously, Charles Whitman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman) had many shots resulting in injury or murder at 400-500m. He was firing from a tower, and high angle shooting rewards flat trajectory even more than the distance itself would indicate. JFK was 81m, also well outside handgun range. I suspect there are a reasonably large number of 50-200m range shootings with rifles (there are very few shootings with rifles overall, but when they do happen); that's easily house-to-driveway-end in a lot of places.
hga 10y ago
"Does a 50cal really seem like a sport rifle?" People who have a chance to fly over fly-over country might look down and ask themselves what the possible utility there is to rifles that can shoot that far. It also hits very hard, it's an anti-material round, and that has its own utility, for, you know, non-sporting purposes (no Cape Buffalo in the US, fortunately). As for sport, long distance shooting including serious competitions is a thing. Your basic medium-big game hunting round is capable of, say, 800-1000 yard use, .338 Lapua Magnum gets you at least half again that distance, beyond that you need something like .50 BMG.
- rdl 10y ago
  Actually with the right ammo .338 and .50 are pretty similar for precision long-range fire. The difference is the .50 has anti-materiel/anti-armor capability at many ranges; the .338 is just anti-personnel. (Source: Sako TRG-42 .338 Lapua Magnum owner. Would own a .50bmg rifle, but California, and not yet rich enough to keep it fed either.)
  - hga 10y ago
    Right you are, and I'm ashamed I forgot that the longest recorded sniper kill was with .338 Lapua Magnum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills as were another couple beyond the generic "1,500 yards" range it's said to have. (And if I had a place to shoot it, I'd like have a TRG-42 as well.)
    - rdl 10y ago
      For pure sporting use, if I had an 800-1000yd range less than 2.5h away from me (sigh), I'd probably build/buy a Palma rifle in .308, at least as long as my eyesight supported it.
      - hga 10y ago
        What not neck that down to 6.5 mm, which I've heard works a lot better at those distances. Ah, and, yeah, the eyesight is also getting to be an issue for me, I should be in bifocals but am putting that off as long as I can get away with it (I don't drive).
jboggan 10y ago
Have you ever shot the rifle in the latter video (Kel-Tec Sub 2000)? It's actually very lightweight, ergonomic, and favored in my experience by women and those of smaller stature as opposed to say, a handgun. Everyone I've ever trained to shoot that rifle have had a very easy time hitting what they are aiming at and more importantly not hitting what they are not aiming at. Why do you think it is completely impractical?
- xorgar831 10y ago
  Because a rifle isn't practical for close targets. A handgun is much better suited for that.
  - jboggan 10y ago
    I could refer you to an endless list of professional doorkickers who would strongly disagree. At most the lead man in an entry team would have a pistol solely because it is impossible to hold a ballistic shield and aim a rifle at the same time; but every other man in the stack would have a carbine or shotgun.
  - hga 10y ago
    That's very debatable. Under stress, people are much more accurate with long guns. On the other hand, they have terrible weapons retention properties, as I've e.g. demonstrated to my taller and fitter nephew about the time he graduated from high school, quickly ripping my shotgun out of his grasp by gaining a longer lever arm by grasping it outside his grasp. And without injuring him, but an adversary wouldn't be as gentle, especially after gaining the weapon. This is what the all too common recommendation of a shotgun for home defense hinges on. And in more than a few states that highly restrict handgun ownership, a shotgun is much more practical, which is what I did when I lived in Massachusetts, the first gun I ever purchased.
  - Pinckney 10y ago
    A rifle, particularly a short carbine like a Sub 2000, is eminently practical for close range. They're faster to aim accurately and are more likely to incapacitate a target with the first shot. The only exception is perhaps at ranges of < 1m where you're grappling with an assailant, in which case a snub-nosed revolver is probably the ideal choice. But that's not really a typical scenario, and I'd wager sight lines in your home are generally > 1m. Consider that soldiers use carbines, or occasionally shotguns, when clearing rooms, not handguns.
RUG3Y 10y ago
It's seriously fun to shoot at a target a mile away and hit it with one of this rifles. The people that I know who own these types of guns also own many, many other guns. The .50 cal is more like a sports car, it's really fun to shoot, very expensive to own, etc.

gnu8 10y ago

Those youtubers are just jerking off. A .50 caliber rifle is just a big expensive dangerous toy. No one is going to commit a shooting spree with one. It's not practical. Regulating them only impacts people who like loud bangs and will never hurt anyone.

xorgar831 10y ago
That's the point, that same impractical rational gets applied everywhere. Even in cases where people get hurt.
Scramblejams 10y ago
My congresscritter a while back put out a statement supporting the 50 BMG ban in California, because she wanted "these dangerous weapons off our streets." I emailed her, asking how many of these weapons, exactly, she'd happened to find on our streets! I figure, they're so rare and expensive, if I could walk outside and trip over one, I might as well go out and pick one up that'd been left in the nearby hedges! She didn't respond. :-( Tangent: It made me wonder what the longest distance criminal shot in American history is. Anybody got any ideas?
- rdl 10y ago
  Do you mean "criminal shot by police/civilians", or shooting-by-criminals? Pure negligent shootings which happen to damage property or injure/kill people happen at range all the time, and the shooter is by definition a criminal. Celebratory fire, particularly at a 30-45 degree angle, is going to have serious range, even if inaccurate, and is guaranteed to hit something. Most of the fear of .50 was anti-armor, not so much pure range. The "DC Beltway sniper" fucktards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks) were under 200m shots, but that's still solidly rifle distance. Famously, Charles Whitman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman) had many shots resulting in injury or murder at 400-500m. He was firing from a tower, and high angle shooting rewards flat trajectory even more than the distance itself would indicate. JFK was 81m, also well outside handgun range. I suspect there are a reasonably large number of 50-200m range shootings with rifles (there are very few shootings with rifles overall, but when they do happen); that's easily house-to-driveway-end in a lot of places.

hga 10y ago

"Does a 50cal really seem like a sport rifle?" People who have a chance to fly over fly-over country might look down and ask themselves what the possible utility there is to rifles that can shoot that far. It also hits very hard, it's an anti-material round, and that has its own utility, for, you know, non-sporting purposes (no Cape Buffalo in the US, fortunately). As for sport, long distance shooting including serious competitions is a thing. Your basic medium-big game hunting round is capable of, say, 800-1000 yard use, .338 Lapua Magnum gets you at least half again that distance, beyond that you need something like .50 BMG.

rdl 10y ago
Actually with the right ammo .338 and .50 are pretty similar for precision long-range fire. The difference is the .50 has anti-materiel/anti-armor capability at many ranges; the .338 is just anti-personnel. (Source: Sako TRG-42 .338 Lapua Magnum owner. Would own a .50bmg rifle, but California, and not yet rich enough to keep it fed either.)
- hga 10y ago
  Right you are, and I'm ashamed I forgot that the longest recorded sniper kill was with .338 Lapua Magnum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills as were another couple beyond the generic "1,500 yards" range it's said to have. (And if I had a place to shoot it, I'd like have a TRG-42 as well.)
  - rdl 10y ago
    For pure sporting use, if I had an 800-1000yd range less than 2.5h away from me (sigh), I'd probably build/buy a Palma rifle in .308, at least as long as my eyesight supported it.
    - hga 10y ago
      What not neck that down to 6.5 mm, which I've heard works a lot better at those distances. Ah, and, yeah, the eyesight is also getting to be an issue for me, I should be in bifocals but am putting that off as long as I can get away with it (I don't drive).

jboggan 10y ago

Have you ever shot the rifle in the latter video (Kel-Tec Sub 2000)? It's actually very lightweight, ergonomic, and favored in my experience by women and those of smaller stature as opposed to say, a handgun. Everyone I've ever trained to shoot that rifle have had a very easy time hitting what they are aiming at and more importantly not hitting what they are not aiming at. Why do you think it is completely impractical?

xorgar831 10y ago
Because a rifle isn't practical for close targets. A handgun is much better suited for that.
- jboggan 10y ago
  I could refer you to an endless list of professional doorkickers who would strongly disagree. At most the lead man in an entry team would have a pistol solely because it is impossible to hold a ballistic shield and aim a rifle at the same time; but every other man in the stack would have a carbine or shotgun.
- hga 10y ago
  That's very debatable. Under stress, people are much more accurate with long guns. On the other hand, they have terrible weapons retention properties, as I've e.g. demonstrated to my taller and fitter nephew about the time he graduated from high school, quickly ripping my shotgun out of his grasp by gaining a longer lever arm by grasping it outside his grasp. And without injuring him, but an adversary wouldn't be as gentle, especially after gaining the weapon. This is what the all too common recommendation of a shotgun for home defense hinges on. And in more than a few states that highly restrict handgun ownership, a shotgun is much more practical, which is what I did when I lived in Massachusetts, the first gun I ever purchased.
- Pinckney 10y ago
  A rifle, particularly a short carbine like a Sub 2000, is eminently practical for close range. They're faster to aim accurately and are more likely to incapacitate a target with the first shot. The only exception is perhaps at ranges of < 1m where you're grappling with an assailant, in which case a snub-nosed revolver is probably the ideal choice. But that's not really a typical scenario, and I'd wager sight lines in your home are generally > 1m. Consider that soldiers use carbines, or occasionally shotguns, when clearing rooms, not handguns.

RUG3Y 10y ago

It's seriously fun to shoot at a target a mile away and hit it with one of this rifles. The people that I know who own these types of guns also own many, many other guns. The .50 cal is more like a sports car, it's really fun to shoot, very expensive to own, etc.