He means a magazine. A clip looks like this:
Posted on 09/20/2005 10:59:19 AM PDT by freepatriot32
If I gave you $7,000 to spend on whatever you wanted, what would you buy? Seven thousand dollars may not be a huge sum of money, but it is still a significant chunk of change. I mean, you could buy a car, pay your room and board at EMU for the year, or have 70% of the buy-in for the World Series of Poker main event. The list is almost endless, but there is one item in particular that really struck me as surprising when I learned that my gift money could purchase it. It is the Barrett M82A1 sniper rifle, and for the fairly modest amount of seven grand, you could take one home today.
To those of you unfamiliar with the M82A1, as I was, my saying that it could be purchased for that price may not strike you as startling or worrisome. Upon researching this firearm further, my opinion rapidly changed. Just looking at the weapon, totally ignorant of its capabilities, I could tell that this was no peashooter. It looks like a modern-day cannon, but with a comfortable pistol grip slapped on the bottom. Thanks to war movies and an uncle who's a card carrying NRA member, I have seen and fired my fair share of weaponry, but never had I even seen a firearm as intimidating as this one.
Reading the gun's specs proved to be more than intimidating; it was downright scary. According to the product's website, the M82A1 "easily fires the largest commercially available cartridge in the world, the .50 caliber." The weapon doesn't just fire .50 caliber cartridges like a few other weapons, but does so with ease. What sets it apart from other .50 caliber rifles is the fact that it is not bolt action, but semiautomatic with a ten round clip. Instead of having to manually discharge the empty cartridge then load the next, you can snap off ten shots as fast as you can pull the trigger. Ten rounds at a buck from any .50 caliber rifle will leave hunters with very little to mount. I also learned that the gun has an effective range of over 2,000 yards. Hunters generally shoot at targets 150-200 yards away, so accuracy over ten times that distance is understandable, right? No, it really isn't, especially with a weapon so powerful. Unless the gun was designed for hunters planning on shooting game from over a mile away and then walking 15 minutes to go retrieve it, this weapon could not have been made for hunting.
Sure enough, the M82A1 was not created for civilian gamesmen. It was designed for use in the military and in law enforcement, both of which herald the M107 as the premier big bore rifle (the M82A1 is the civilian version). Used by the United States armed forces as well as over 40 others worldwide, the weapon has won several awards and Barrett has yet to have a contract not renewed due to the military being unsatisfied. What makes the gun so loved by armies across the globe? Not only does it boast incredible range and extremely destructive ammunition (standard rounds can go through brick walls); it has minimal recoil and is extremely easy to fire. With the recoil of a 12-gauge shotgun if fired from the shoulder and considerably less when fired from the stock bipod, it is very easy for a soldier with little practice or training to become very proficient with the weapon. This reason for praise quickly becomes cause for alarm if the gun falls into the wrong hands.
Now that I knew how effective the weapon was, I looked up what its applications are. Due to their gratuitous power, these guns are used to attack stationary or landing aircraft, tanks, armored personnel carriers and concrete bunkers. They are very rarely used on single enemy combatants, just as I rarely swat flies with a baseball bat. Like a rocket launcher with a tighter shot pattern, these rifles destroy enemy aircraft and tanks cleaner, faster and from farther away.
I think I have established the fact that the Barrett M82A1 is any target's worst nightmare, but now I think we all need to look at why I can get one of these easier than I could get a handgun. There is absolutely no reason why a civilian would need to own this weapon, yet background checks are looser on this gun than on a handgun because the M82A1 falls under the category of "hunting rifle" (Honestly, who are they kidding?). The amount of havoc that can be caused by this weapon if it found its way into the wrong hands is off the charts. Pedestrians would have to worry the least; the rounds can go through motor vehicles, walls or aircraft shells from over a mile away. Whether it be terrorism or just criminal use, no one would be safe. Another feature of the weapon that should get the thing banned is its ease of use. With minimal training, anyone could become extremely accurate with this weapon, endangering everyone within a mile radius.
Despite my firm agreement with the Second Amendment, there are specific cases where the right to bear certain arms is significantly more dangerous than what may happen if one could not. This is one of those cases. The Barrett M82A1 .50 caliber rifle, as well as all other semiautomatic .50 caliber rifles, has no place in society. They are not effective hunting weapons, and anyone could defend themselves more than effectively with a less powerful gun. This weapon is extremely dangerous and not worth the risk.
Why do weaselly anklebiters always have to include these hypocritical disclaimers? Pardon me, everyone, and cover your ears for a second:
HEY IDIOT! IT SAYS "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!" GOT THAT??
Ahh, that's better. Who says only liberals get to "feel good about themselves"?
"Thugs buy cheap guns"
So true..if you really want your blood to boil you should look up on the net about how many of those firearms from the so called "gun buyback programs" ended right back out on the street.
There is absolutely no reason why a civilian would need to own this weapon,
Why is it that bedwetting crybaby liberals like this a$$ alsways state that they believe in the second amendment, and then every additional word out of they lying mouths is in total disagreement with the 2nd amend? They must think that we gun and freedom loving primitives in flyover country are too stupid to see the contradiction.
The edu address on the end of the bedwetters email address tells me that he really thinks the world of himself, but isn't quite ready to actually face reality.
He may be right about typical range a hunter might shoot for large game like deer. Years ago I went long-range deer hunting and the minimum engagement range was 600 yards. We were basically firing from the face of one mountain over to the face of the next. One of the weapons that we were using, a bolt-action .50 cal, was theoretically accurate out to 1200 yards.
I'd like to point out that the shooter isn't aren't necessarily "sighted-in" for the engagement range. You really need at least 1 spotter to help you correct your fire. This is analagous to "walking fire" onto the target, except that the correction can generally be made after the first shot.
Also, these weapons are heavy. The weight is partially to help absorb recoil -- it's basic physics. You really can't fire them from the shoulder, nor would you want to hump one through the woods. Basically, I wouldn't be too worried about a sniper using a weapon like the Barrett when there are so many easier/less expensive weapons to select from in smaller calibers.
I think I read that the Barrett has been purchased on a limited basis by the US Army. It hasn't been formally adopted yet.
He means a magazine. A clip looks like this:
"I have just inherited a little money looking at a new socom m1a, new 1911 (springfield armory) and a .45 Long Colt Ruger Vaquero."
That SOCOM is a SWEEEEET piece. The scout scope rail gets a little hot with prolonged shooting but your aimpoint should handle it just fine. Been schlepping an SA loaded for about three years now. Goes bang every time and puts em where I want em. Nice batch of toys.
good on ya!
Top sends
This Adam Slingwein could use a little education which his NRA uncle appears to have neglected to provide. He would not get 50BMG rounds for $1 apiece, unless old military surplus. Precision rounds for Barrett would cost significantly more (he could get them, say, by disassembly, then size and weight standardization, then precision reassembly of the military ammo, or by de novo reloading). Then there is a minor problem with training: 2000 yards shooting ranges exist, but are far between, and so to properly master the Barrett he would have to spend significantly more than the cost of the rifle - add at least few more grand for ammo and transportation to and from the range.
He meant magazine, or detachable box magazine. The clip is actually the device that holds 8 rounds of .30-06 ammunition for an M1 Garand..... or did someone already answer that one?!
Cheers,
Law enforcement? THAT is what he should be outraged over, not a citizen having fun at the range. Just what is a law enforcement person going to do with a .50 cal rifle? Think about it.
Bingo!
If I could afford one, I'd buy it just as a conversation piece, and piss off one of my antigun neighbors.
Meanwhile I'll stick with my 30-06 that I bought when I was a college kid.
I agree. When the talking points of an argument need to be supported my the miraculous or the statistically unlikely, the proponent shoots holes in his own argument. The ballistical physics and human dynamics needed to solve for the target solution to shoot down a airliner with a Barrett .50BMG is beyond ridiculous. Winning the lottery is more likely than downing an airliner with a .50cal.
"He means a magazine. A clip looks like this"
I know..but thank you anyway.
Or those little strippers we load up the SKS's with.
I'm sorry the big bad gun scared you so much. I hope this helps.
Now go find your woobie and suck your thumb somewhere.
Why is this little girl named Adam?
The problem is the gun grabbers are using the .50 to start the basis for another AWB..will you stand for that again?
My e-mail to Adam:
Adam,
After reading your article, 'Military guns too accessible to public?', I found some of your points a bit odd. First, how do you determine what is 'too accessible'? It would seem to me that $7000 for a rifle is very inaccessible to the public. For under $1000 I imagine that a single individual could purchase enough fertilizer, diesel fuel, and rent a U-haul truck and do more damage with it than, a single individual armed with this rifle. Wouldn't that be a more worthy subject to write about?
Second, you seem to be all over the map with your article, much like John Kerry was with his campaign. You start by informing the readers that you are ignorant of firearms, then claim to have fired your share of guns. What exactly was your source of firearms knowledge? Your uncle, 'War movies'? By war movies do you mean Bowling for Columbine? (From reading your article, I would agree with you that you do not know what you are talking about.) Much of what you say seems to be based solely on the gun's appearance. You should know that a Ruger 'Mini-14', a .22 caliber 'plinking' rifle can also have modifications made that leave it looking just as intimidating as the BMG.
As far as your views on the second amendment are concerned, may I ask you what the phrase 'Shall not be infringed' means to you. Furthermore, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
Also, when someone says what people 'should, and should not have' based on need, if you hold that true for firearms, hold it true for everything. I personally do not need a pair of skis, not to mention the five pairs that I own. Nor do any of us really need much of what we own. That, my friend, is the great thing about America. We can choose for ourselves what is best for us.
I would also wager that this firearm, intimidating as it may be, has been used in fewer than 5 crimes in the US. Feel free to challenge me on that.
Yours,
Proud_yank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.