Could I take down a T. rex with my Beretta 9mm pistol?

[Capitalist Carter]

The newer 50 caliber sniper rifles, exemplified by the Barrett light 50 is likely the best choice. Since its introduction in 1982 several competitors have made similar models. The light 50 would allow Jeramie Powers to first engage the T. Rex at about 2000 meters.

[Una Persson]

Link to the column: The Straight Dope: Could I take down a T. rex. with my Beretta 9mm pistol?

[Lumpy]

On this board we've discussed the question of T.Rex shooting several times. To give just one link (which in turn links to still earlier discussions of the topic): http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=604673

The .50 Barrett is certainly powerful but has the perhaps literally fatal drawback of not being designed to be freely wielded; it has to be deployed and fired from a prone position like a light machine gun or small artillary. Heavy game rifles or classic bwana elephant guns would be better.

[Clothahump]

Perhaps a 12 gauge pistol?

Or not.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Perhaps a 12 gauge pistol?

That's cool and funny.

[Billy Rubin]

There's actually a round made for this, the .577 Tyrannosaur made by A-square in the Dakotas. A lot of people have seen the videos of people shooting the 577 Trex, where they drop the rifle. Those people are not dropping it because of recoil, at least not primarily. They are dropping it because the inertia of the bullet tries to keep it going in a straight line, while the rifling tries to impart a spin. The gun is literally wrenched from your hand. Personal experience speaks.

A large double like a Holland and Holland in 500 or 577 Nitro has a lot of recoil, but the big doubles have a lot of weight to help counteract the recoil.

Having hunted cape buffalo with big bore rifles, I can tell you, there is never too much gun. Where more dangerous game is concerned, there is no such thing as too much practice.

At the end of the day, though, WDM Bell killed more than a thousand elephants with a 275 Rigby. Humongous balls can apparently fill in for humonghous rifles. Of course elephant skulls are soft and in places thin compared to T-rex skulls.

[Una Persson]

According to Templar's T. Rx. calculation, the .577 Tyrannosaur scores between a 148 to 165, depending on the load.

[SCSimmons]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Perhaps a 12 gauge pistol?

Or not.

I'm thinking the effective range on that thing is way shorter than the closest I'd want to get to a rampaging T-Rex.

You get one shot. Don't miss.

[DSYoungEsq]

I'm disappointed with the quality of the article. There is no reference to supporting evidence, such as a comparison of T. rex physiology to large mammals for which we do have some notion of what it takes to kill. There is no discussion of current paleontological thought on things like the speed of a T. rex (assuming that it is fast because that's what sci fi movies and tv shows assume to make it look horribly dangerous doesn't seem like very helpful analysis). Usually, Uncle Cecil and his helpful minions are much more analytical.

[ZenBeam]

This is the second column in a row with that style of writing. Hope it's not going to be this style going forward.

[Maserschmidt]

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq

I'm disappointed with the quality of the article. There is no reference to supporting evidence, such as a comparison of T. rex physiology to large mammals for which we do have some notion of what it takes to kill. There is no discussion of current paleontological thought on things like the speed of a T. rex (assuming that it is fast because that's what sci fi movies and tv shows assume to make it look horribly dangerous doesn't seem like very helpful analysis). Usually, Uncle Cecil and his helpful minions are much more analytical.

After all the cutesy filler the column actually says very little.

[Rickymouse]

No you can't take down a T-Rex with a Baretta 9mm. There aren't any T-Rex's around to shoot unless you shoot at the right rocks. Maybe it's make a piece of the fossil fall down.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Maserschmidt

After all the cutesy filler the column actually says very little.

The column answers the question: "Could you kill a T. rex with a Beretta 9mm or a 12-gauge shotgun", and the answer is "no." The column by definition is speculative due to the fact that there are no living T. rex's to use, and there is a lot which is not well understood about their anatomy and physiology, despite people trying to do things like make 3D models of thei heads and simulate tensile and compressive stresses. For example, researchers are uncertain about the purpose of the gastralia, which are bony rib-like structures which seem to protect the abdomen on the front side. They are not found in all specimens, and are often missing from mounted skeletons in museums (Sue has them, but not mounted). They may be related to similar structures found in terrapins, or may have been something completely unrelated.

Quite a lot of research was done on the known and speculative anatomy of the head and vital organ areas of the T. rex, and again it was found that in some cases there is a lot of speculation. We have this image that we know a lot about dinosaurs because of their frequent use as a plot device in fiction and because of their frequent appearance in science programs, but the truth is a lot is unknown about them.

There was an idea about going into the fine details of ballistics and firearms for this column. Cecil, Ed, and I felt like that was the wrong direction to go to address the question for the average column reader. We did this in mind that it would not satisfy some readers, but there you go.

[Crazyhorse]

If someone had a 9mm and a 12 guage shotgun and could be teleported back in time they could demonstrate their magical powers by killing a few random things in front of witnesses. Word would spread and they would quickly become a warlord emperor, feared and awed by all. Then they could recruit a few hundred local cave dwellers to attack the T Rex with pointed sticks, or face the wrath of the thunder maker warlord emperor who would not be pleased if they refused. They would eventually kill the T Rex. The 9mm wins.

[Taomist]

Anyone else suspect the question came because of the t.v. series Terra Nova? I was late to the viewing party, just having watched the first episode last night, so I read the column first. This had me checking out all the guns they were using, and determining that the technology is apparantly going to improve quite a bit in the next 30 or so years!

So perhaps the answer should have been "Not yet".

[gonzomax]

http://www.google.com/search?q=t+rex...2&ved=0CEcQsAQ
T Rexes are huge. i suppose they could take a lot of damage before you could kill one. They were 40 feet long and could look in a window third story of a building.

[Lumpy]

I think at a minimum you'd want One of these
firing These.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

I think at a minimum you'd want One of these
firing These.

I don't know if I have the exact weapon, and IMDB is down right now, but I think Michael Gross' character is firing an 8-gauge shotgun with slugs (T. Rx. value of 98 at best, which would not be sufficient for an adult T. rex, according to Templar). However, I've also seen sources claim it was supposed to be a 4-bore, which definitely is T. rex capable, also according to Templar (T. Rx. value of 116 to 342, depending on loading).

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Perhaps a 12 gauge pistol?

Looks like the revolver from Roger Rabbit.

I'll see your 12 gauge pistol and raise you a three shot pistol.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Looks like the revolver from Roger Rabbit.

I'll see your 12 gauge pistol and raise you a three shot pistol.

How about a belt-fed 1911?

[Fear Itself]

I wonder if a neck shot would be more lethal than a chest shot. Take out major arteries to the brain, or the spinal cord, or trachea, it will go down.

[signal11]

Originally Posted by Billy Rubin

There's actually a round made for this, the .577 Tyrannosaur made by A-square in the Dakotas. A lot of people have seen the videos of people shooting the 577 Trex, where they drop the rifle. Those people are not dropping it because of recoil, at least not primarily. They are dropping it because the inertia of the bullet tries to keep it going in a straight line, while the rifling tries to impart a spin. The gun is literally wrenched from your hand. Personal experience speaks.

A large double like a Holland and Holland in 500 or 577 Nitro has a lot of recoil, but the big doubles have a lot of weight to help counteract the recoil.

Having hunted cape buffalo with big bore rifles, I can tell you, there is never too much gun. Where more dangerous game is concerned, there is no such thing as too much practice.

I'm not a hunter, but I have spent a lot of time in Africa and know and have my own ideas about firearms. Volume of fire can make up for a lot.

How many rounds in your magazine for Big 5 rifles? (What were your guides carrying in case you missed?)

I think a 12-ga with a long mag loaded with newer specialty slugs = a lot more lead in the target. 7+1 pump slugs vs 4 shots from a bolt action elephant gun.

Is the t-rex charging?

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

I don't know if I have the exact weapon, and IMDB is down right now, but I think Michael Gross' character is firing an 8-gauge shotgun with slugs (T. Rx. value of 98 at best, which would not be sufficient for an adult T. rex, according to Templar). However, I've also seen sources claim it was supposed to be a 4-bore, which definitely is T. rex capable, also according to Templar (T. Rx. value of 116 to 342, depending on loading).

The actual gun filmed is indeed an 8-gauge, though I don't know if "in story" it's supposed to be bigger.

[Billy Rubin]

I'm not a hunter, but I have spent a lot of time in Africa and know and have my own ideas about firearms.

I AM a hunter. Hunting dangerous game means counting on one shot. As often as not, that's what you get, and no more.

Professional hunters commonly carry double rifles, predominantly to allow them to get a second shot almost instantaneously with very little re-acquisition of the target. This is still the case and has ever been so. Close to a cape, or really anything that big, you don't take chances. A double also reduces recoil, because the extra mass of the rifle will counter the mass of the projectile better. That's why the 4 bore nitro is such a strange choice, and why I take what templar says with about a pound of salt; you can swing around a 577 or a 700 nitro fairly well, but any 4 bore(nitro) that was heavy enough to prevent it's recoil from being fatal would be impossible to swing around adequately to hit a fast moving animal (They were designed to shoot elephants that were mostly standing still)

I had backs with me all the time, none of the guides were armed but our group took turns backing. I would not hunt with backs whose nerve and shooting skills I didn't trust.

Volume of fire can make up for a lot.

So, how about if we shoot it with fifty million BB's?

Penetration and shock damage to vital organs, or severe damage to the nervous system is what matters. Everything else is throwing spitballs at Gojira

I think a 12-ga with a long mag loaded with newer specialty slugs = a lot more lead in the target.

You mean more lead on the ground. A 12 gauge slug would bounce off the skin of a trex. A 12 gauge slug will bounce off the ribcage of a cape buffalo. there isn't enough power to do any harm, and to get the 12 gauge slug to be powerful enough it would turn the firearm into a grenade. If you beef it up to handle the power you have- a big game rifle of large caliber.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I'll see your 12 gauge pistol and raise you a three shot pistol.

Cool, I always wanted the "dead-least" pistol ever.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Irishman

Cool, I always wanted the "dead-least" pistol ever.

You call that a gun? That's not a gun. This is a gun.

Now who wants some lizard chili?

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

You call that a gun? That's not a gun. This is a gun.

Now who wants some lizard chili?

THAT bad boy looks like it would take out a T-Rex!

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

THAT bad boy looks like it would take out a T-Rex!

That's a WW2-era 20mm antimaterial gun- "gun" as in man-portable artillery piece. God help you if your first shot misses, you'll never line up a second.

As I said in one of the previous threads, you don't want to have to hose your target down with lead as it's charging you, but you do want at least a second shot right away. Pretty much Billy Rubin's advice.

[Irishman]

But it's the "dead-least"! Who wouldn't want the "dead-least"?

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by Irishman

But it's the "dead-least"! Who wouldn't want the "dead-least"?

Hey, when you pack an 18-shooter, people tend to overlook spelling errors!

Originally Posted by Lumpy

That's a WW2-era 20mm antimaterial gun- "gun" as in man-portable artillery piece. God help you if your first shot misses, you'll never line up a second.

As I said in one of the previous threads, you don't want to have to hose your target down with lead as it's charging you, but you do want at least a second shot right away. Pretty much Billy Rubin's advice.

Actually standing up to 40 feet tall and having a head larger than some automobiles today, I think in a clear area you could get quite a few shots off since you could see him clearly several miles away and some of the guns were talking about have very long range. The column doesn't delve into questions like that but chances are you would get way more than one shot in this hypothetical exercise. If you used a little common sense and started your attack from atop a high hill with a long distance for him to run you could make up for lack of stopping power with unlimited ammo and a lot of enthusiasm.

[gamerunknown]

More importantly, how much LSD does it take for a T-Rex to attack you from a few miles away while you're on a hill anyway?

[Musicat]

How about a Tommy gun loaded with dum-dums?

[John W. Kennedy]

No, standard .50 cartridges don't produce enough energy. I suppose a tommygun could eventually do enough damage to cause a T rex to bleed out, but you’d be spaghetti sauce before it actually fell down.

[eastcheap]

Originally Posted by John W. Kennedy

No, standard .50 cartridges don't produce enough energy.

The .50 BMG far outclasses most any other commonly available cartridge (except, perhaps, the "California" round developed by Barrett). It certainly leaves the .460 Weatherby, mentioned in the article, in the dust.

As for the 4-bore "Nitro" mentioned, I'm not convinced such a thing ever existed. There were certainly 2- and 4-bore blackpowder cartridges, and they were pretty impressive, but they still fired big, slowish round balls or stubby conicals. If any were loaded with smokeless powder, I'd expect performance no better than with BP, and possibly worse.

In terms of kinetic energy at the muzzle (for what little that's worth), .50 BMG is comparable to a 2-bore elephant gun. That's assuming that the 2-bore muzzle velocities and bullet weights I've seen published are accurate (I'm skeptical).

I'd still prefer the faster, more streamlined bullet, thanks all the same.

In fact, if we're going to go exotic, why not just lug an M18 recoilless rifle? As a bonus, if anything is trying to sneak up from behind, you can take it out simultaneously.

[eastcheap]

Whoops, were we talking Thompson SMGs? Those were mostly chambered in .45 ACP and, yeah, not with any large, dangerous game, living or long extinct.

[Billy Rubin]

As for the 4-bore "Nitro" mentioned, I'm not convinced such a thing ever existed.

Not only do they exist, but many are still in use. I've never shot a 4 bore but I have shot 8 bore in black powder and nitro. There is an appreciable difference, let me assure you.

the 50 BMG has a lot of reach out and touch someone, hence it's use in long distance sniper work. At those long distances, though, the energy required to penetrate the hide and ribcage of a large predator drops off dramatically. Still fine for humans, not so good on trex. At short distances, the 50 BMG is not a good dangerous game round. No spire point projectile is going to be a good big game cartridge anyway, as time and experience has proven that the solid bronze or brass projectiles with a wide meplat are required to cause sufficient trauma for a quick kill.

"I'd still prefer the faster, more streamlined bullet, thanks all the same."

An excellent recipe for being dead. In many parts of Africa you are regulated as to what ammunition you can use, the alternative being a lot of would be big game hunters relying on their trusty semiautomatics and large bore military rifles (Designed to kill 6' tall thin skinned bipeds) being sent home in body bags.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by eastcheap

Whoops, were we talking Thompson SMGs? Those were mostly chambered in .45 ACP and, yeah, not with any large, dangerous game, living or long extinct.

Yeah, my mistake.

[eastcheap]

Originally Posted by Billy Rubin

Not only do they exist, but many are still in use. I've never shot a 4 bore but I have shot 8 bore in black powder and nitro. There is an appreciable difference, let me assure you.

Be that as it may, you're not going to get a 1/4-pound ball moving very fast without damaging either yourself or the gun (or rifle, as the case may be).

BTW, if you have links to specifications for monster-bore nitro cartridges, I'd love to have them.

At short distances, the 50 BMG is not a good dangerous game round. No spire point projectile is going to be a good big game cartridge anyway, as time and experience has proven that the solid bronze or brass projectiles with a wide meplat are required to cause sufficient trauma for a quick kill.

That's a matter of choosing the right bullet. I never suggested that GI Ball, or even AP, would be appropriate, though the HE penetrators issued to snipers for shooting folks behind walls might be worth a look.

There's a lot of territory to explore between "spire point" and "flying pumpkin."

Of course, knowing as little about theropod anatomy as we do, it's all wild speculation at best. Frankly, between my ignorance and the critter's size, I'm going to want something that reliably gets inside its chest and explodes (not expand, not fragment, but explode) -- just to be on the safe side. Nothing on the (Western) civilian market will do that.

...big game hunters relying on their trusty semiautomatics and large bore military rifles

Anything larger than .303 would be unsporting, wouldn't you know, old chap.

(I've no wish to pick on anyone in particular. The American alternative would be, "My .30-06'll kill anything, dagnabbit.")

[Measure for Measure]

I have very little experience hunting dinosaurs (ok, ok or anything else for that matter), so apologies for my ignorance... But if I was going up against 42 foot long critter with 12 inch teeth, I'd want some armor between me and it. Tanks are fine, but I'd also want mobile firepower. Would the M113 armored personnel carrier serve these purposes? It typically packs a .50 caliber Browning machine gun. The gun reportedly is used against lightly armored autos and boats, as well as low flying aircraft. It's mounted on a turret and looks movable. And if Dino gets uncomfortably close, just duck into the M113 and wait for him to bleed out. Antitank weapons are also possible. Or is there a better setup? True, a jet aircraft, battleship or bomb shelter would probably be safer, though they would afford fewer sightseeing opportunities.

[Una Persson]

The column does say:

Why stop at rifles? interjected Little Ed. Why not bazookas, or rocket-propelled grenades?

Now Ed, Una remonstrated. The hallmark of the Straight Dope is practicality. Notwithstanding the need for T. rex preparedness, one doesn't want to alarm the populace. Even in Texas, if you're walking around with a Schwarzenegger-style six-barrel minigun, people are going to look askance.

Essentially there are a million ways to kill a T. rex. Grenades, cyanide gas bombs, flamethrowers, an A-10 Warthog, the USS Missouri...we wanted to try to limit it to weapons which could be legally carried and used by an erstwhile Elmer J. Fudd without requiring military training or other unusual munitions.

[TSBG]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

...we wanted to try to limit it to weapons which could be legally carried and used by an erstwhile Elmer J. Fudd without requiring military training or other unusual munitions.

That makes sense. The line is drawn between anything used to hunt game in the real world, and anything not--eg, a recoilless rifle.


Also, "erstwhile" means "former." I think you wanted "would-be" or "sometime."

ETA: It just occurred to me that helicopters are sometimes used to hunt game; that would make the whole thing rather easier. It's harder to shoot from a moving platform, but there's no chance the T. Rex is going to close with you while you reload.

[Billy Rubin]

"Be that as it may, you're not going to get a 1/4-pound ball moving very fast without damaging either yourself or the gun (or rifle, as the case may be)."

The 1/4 pound ball doesn't have to move very fast to do a good deal of damage. Which would you rather be hit by, a nerf ball thrown at 50 mph, or a shotput thrown at 50 mph?

"BTW, if you have links to specifications for monster-bore nitro cartridges, I'd love to have them."

There is some discussion of this in many of the books about shooting dangerous game, but the reason there isn't a lot of published data is that large caliber bore guns are almost invariably bespoke, and are loaded to the specifications of the owner. If you want to know the load data, you break open the rifle and look at the engraving on the water table. On this page you can see an example of this about halfway down.

"That's a matter of choosing the right bullet. I never suggested that GI Ball, or even AP, would be appropriate, though the HE penetrators issued to snipers for shooting folks behind walls might be worth a look."

Indeed, it is a matter of choosing the correct bullet and the correct firearm. I've shot a lot of 50 bmg, in single shot, bolt action, semi and full auto, and not one of them was meant to be carried by a man into a hunting situation and shoulder fired at a moving target. If you're talking about sniping, from any distance by the time the projectile from a 50 cal arrives at the trex it will have lost enough of its oomph that it will be of very little use. The 50 bmg was designed, as I have said before, to take down a soft skinned biped around 6' tall; pressing it into service for big game hunting is impractical. You specifically stated

"I'd still prefer the faster, more streamlined bullet, thanks all the same."

Streamlining is something that specifically refers to spire point bullets, no wide meplat bullet can be considered "Streamlined", and streamlined bullets are never indicated for dangerous game.

" Frankly, between my ignorance and the critter's size, I'm going to want something that reliably gets inside its chest and explodes (not expand, not fragment, but explode"

This is also impractical and unnecesary. Exploding projectiles were experimented with in big game hunting years ago, and discarded as impractical and potentially downright dangerous. Read "After Big Game in Central Africa" by Edoard Foa for a description of the explosive projectile and how it worked (or didn't, for that matter)

The OP specifically refers to the ability of an individual to take down a large predator with a handgun, and the discussion has centered around the weapons that might be practically carried to do so; the 50 bmg does not fit that bill, and won't. Bore rifles might, but would be ridiculously heavy to carry, almost as bad as a 50 cal but at least possible to swing around in a dangerous situation. Famously Col. Richard Meinertzhagen began elephant hunting with large bore rifles and switched to light doubles simply because of the horrendously punishing recoil. As has been stated a fast boltie or a medium double in one of the large calibers like 577 trex or 600 overkill would be the most suitable, especially if equipped with a good solid projectile with a wide meplat and a good sectional density.

While this will always only be a theoretical exercise there are plenty of things we know. In B.H Newman's book "Stance and gait in the flesh-eating dinosaur Tyrannosaurus" he posits that the skeletal structure is such that the animal would move with it's spine nearly horizontal, and one headed toward you would present a very small vital target indeed; you'd have to hit an area the size of a dinner plate, IF the rex wasn't holding it's head down.

A side shot would present a better target, assuming you could get to the side; the ribs (From the fossil record) were a relatively thin framework, unlike, say, ungulates in which the ribs often nearly touch. A heavy, short projectile with a wide flat nose (Meplat) at moderate veliocities is the best fit.

[riu33b]

What I think most folks are forgetting is, that once you've bagged this T-Rex on the bike path, you are going to want to taxidermy this puppy. Sure, it is all well and good that you've managed to save your own skin, but dude, you've probably just bagged the one and only surviving T-Rex in the world, and you are going to want to be able to at least save the head for your den's wall! Who's going to believe you if you don't have the proof. Let's limit the amount of collateral damage to the T-Rex by not going with the RPGs or too large a caliber firearm.

:-)

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by riu33b

What I think most folks are forgetting is, that once you've bagged this T-Rex on the bike path, you are going to want to taxidermy this puppy. Sure, it is all well and good that you've managed to save your own skin, but dude, you've probably just bagged the one and only surviving T-Rex in the world, and you are going to want to be able to at least save the head for your den's wall! Who's going to believe you if you don't have the proof. Let's limit the amount of collateral damage to the T-Rex by not going with the RPGs or too large a caliber firearm.

:-)

The point of this thread is that too large a caliber is unlikely to be a problem.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by TSBG

That makes sense. The line is drawn between anything used to hunt game in the real world, and anything not--eg, a recoilless rifle.


Also, "erstwhile" means "former." I think you wanted "would-be" or "sometime."

ETA: It just occurred to me that helicopters are sometimes used to hunt game; that would make the whole thing rather easier. It's harder to shoot from a moving platform, but there's no chance the T. Rex is going to close with you while you reload.

I guess he'd be erstwhile after meeting the T. rex...

[eastcheap]

Originally Posted by Billy Rubin

The 1/4 pound ball doesn't have to move very fast to do a good deal of damage. Which would you rather be hit by, a nerf ball thrown at 50 mph, or a shotput thrown at 50 mph?

The comparison is specious. A slightly, but only slightly, better comparison would be between a 16-lb shot put at 50 mph versus, say, a 12-oz Nerf football at 300 mph.

That assumes a 1/4-lb projectile at 1400 fps which, I admit, is conservative. I've seen references to 2-bores making ~1500 fps with a heavier bullet, so 1800 fps with a 4-bore (rough energetic parity against a 650-grain .50 BMG load) might not be unreasonable. Then, you're talking about a 231 mph football.

It's still silly. You simply can't compare a squishy low-density Nerf ball to an iron shot put. Make it a 12-oz plumb bob moving toward you pointy end first at 200-300 mph and you get a little closer to the mark, so to speak.

On this page you can see an example of this about halfway down.

The only reference to a 4-bore "nitro" cartridge I could find there was someone wondering when someone might make such a thing.

The 50 bmg was designed, as I have said before, to take down a soft skinned biped around 6' tall

That's the second time you've made that rather bizarre claim.

Sure, "take down" a soft-skinned biped...a long way away...after passing through light armor, aircraft fuselages, etc.

The notion of specifically and deliberately shooting people with the .50 BMG is recent, and it's only because the rifle/ammo combinations are so accurate (and potent) at very long ranges. Even at 2500 yards or so, the terminal results are...impressive.

The OP specifically refers to the ability of an individual to take down a large predator with a handgun, and the discussion has centered around the weapons that might be practically carried to do so; the 50 bmg does not fit that bill, and won't.

I don't believe I ever advocated the use of heavy .50 BMG target rifles afield. My original post was purely technical and based on a misunderstanding at that.

Now, could a relatively lightweight .50 BMG sporting rifle be devised? Probably, though I'd expect it to kick like an SOB, even with a good brake (and accuracy is anyone's guess). How would it perform compared a big-bore blackpowder gun? That's open to debate, and it's a debate I've neither the resources, nor the interest, to pursue.

[gonzomax]

The latest info is T Rex was about 30 percent heavier than was previously thought.
We need a bigger gun.

[penumbrage]

Elephant and cape buffalo regularly manage to kill experienced hunters armed with (and backed up by) some of the most powerful big game rifles available.
But we’re not talking about large peaceful herbivores whose idea of a good day is rich grazing near clean water with no predators about (humans do qualify).
We're talking about a truly massive carnivorous dinosaur, twice the height of a bull elephant and seven times the weight of a cape buffalo, whose idea of a good day is to run down, kill and eat meat (humans do qualify).
Saying a conventional big game rifle is sufficient for T. Rex is like saying your 30-30 worked great on that 10 point buck, it should handle a black rhino just fine.
Carry whatever you feel is appropriate for betting your life on being able to kill (not annoy, irritate, aggravate, anger or enrage) an animal that could eat you, your gun bearer and most of your guide in a single bite.
If my life depended on killing a T. Rex with just civilian firepower, the 800gr 50BMG load (at about twice the muzzle energy of the 4-Bore and 10 times the effective range) would be my first choice.
In the quasi-military category, I agree with eastcheap on the effectiveness of explosive rounds and point out that Norwegian high explosive 50BMG rounds (Raufoss Mk 211) are rare and expensive but they show up for sale here from time to time.
The development of several lightweight, man portable anti-material/anti-personnel 50BMG sniper rifles in the past few decades, ranging from the 29 lb semi-automatic 10 shot Barrett M82A1 to the 13.5 lb bolt action 5 shot Anzio (all with about the recoil of a 12 Ga. shotgun firing slugs), limits any serious consideration of a 22 lb 4-Bore (usually carried as a last resort ‘reserve’ gun due to very limited range, marginal accuracy and 200 foot pounds of recoil!) to only the most dedicated masochists.

[Billy Rubin]

The only reference to a 4-bore "nitro" cartridge I could find there was someone wondering when someone might make such a thing.

Possibly the biggest lack of reading comprehension I have witnessed here in a long time. let me reprint the section in question that you may understand.

"If you want to know the load data, you break open the rifle and look at the engraving on the water table. On this page you can see an example of this about halfway down. " The point of the link was a demonstration of how bespoke rifles carried their load data with them, and it was not commonly published. Do try and keep up.

"That's the second time you've made that rather bizarre claim."

No. It's the second time I have repeated a demonstrable fact. The 50 BMG, based on a scaled up 30-06 round, is predominantly antipersonnel, and was designed by John Browning as an antipersonnel round. The armor piercing ammunition was developed later, the initial and still primary use for the round was the Ma Deuce (m2hb) which is an antipersonnel weapon. In every event, the target was a human being, and not a large carnivore. End of that question.

[gamerunknown]

Possibly the biggest lack of reading comprehension I have witnessed here in a long time... Do try and keep up.

I have no real interest in the topic at hand, but was that really necessary?