Via Fark
Armor-piercing bullets can penetrate a tank armor — or shoot a plane down
Interesting, however, I do have a somewhat hard time believing a rifle bullet can penetrate a modern tank’s armor
Well, first of all, if you can hit a plane with that thing, you’re good. And shooting a plane is unlikely to take it down anyway. I’ve no doubt it can pentrate tank armor - in some spots, against some tanks, some of the time. But what will tat do? You probably won’t hit anything.
But seriously, no one goes out and commits crimes with weapons like that. Why would you? Criminals are looking for small, concealable weapons. If you want to bring down a plane, there are better choices. If you want to bring down a tank, there are better choices.
Two questions-
Why is it so powerful relative to other guns?
The Old Iraqi tanks are all gone . What does the US Army currently use it for?
In other news, THE GOOD CITIZEN has learned that ammonium nitrate farm fertilizer can be bought by children old enough to haul a fifty pound bag to the register. Combined with ingredients that can be bought at any gas station serving Big Rigs, a bomb strong enough to blow up the White House or Capitol building can be made. Farm supply store clerks have been warned not to sell large quantities of this potentially devastating substance to people that have “the look” but there is no way to stop them from accumulating several thousand pounds by buying bags over time. Gas stations refuse to screen their customers at all. Efforts at on-site background checks have been proposed.
Please write your Congressman and tell him/her that you are opposed to modern farm fertilizer and you have always said that organic was the way to go.
Next up: How to burn down a building by polishing the concave surface of a SODA CAN with a CANDY BAR and harnessing sun rays. It really works folks and someone could use it on your house.
I was thinking from a sniping point of view more along the lines of, "When you want ot send the very best… "
I don’t know which of the thousands of pictures of terrorist with single shot, bolt action, 30 pound rifles in their hands we should use here…
astro: the article you linked to is riddled with so many inaccuracies that I hardly know where to begin.
First of all, even a .50 rifle or machinegun with AP bullets is going to do little more than annoy an actual tank. I can tell simply from the way the article is written that the author does NOT know the difference between a Tank and an Armored Fighting Vehicle. All Tanks are AFVs; not all AFVs are Tanks. An up-armored HUMVEE is an AFV, and 7.62mm AP will go through some aspect of the vehicle (.50 cal is approx 12.7mm; 7.62mm is approx. .30 cal).
Then there’s the whole “shoulder fired” thingy. While I suppose that there are people of Swarzeneggerarian physique and strength who might be able to truly fire the .50 cal rifle from the unsupported shoulder, the article clearly states that these weapons are typically fired from the shoulder with bipod support. That means the shooter is prone, on the ground, with the bipod extended and planted firmly in the dirt.
The M-60 machinegun, and the Belgian MAG light machinegun, are also fired in this configuration. The M-2 .50 cal machinegun is fired only from a heavy tripod or some sort of vehicle or fixed mount.
Here’s the real Straight Dope on Armor Piercing Ammunition. See if you can spot the inconsistencies in the article you linked to with the law as it’s been on the books since 1994.
As far as “reputable sources” go, the article cites a member of the Violence Policy Center, the “think-tank” of the Brady Bunch, who have been known to “exaggerate” and engage in histrionic hyperbole when they don’t have a single fact to stand upon.
And the “terrorism expert” obviously has never hunted in Africa, where big game rifle calibers typically start in the mid-to-high 40s; anything less is largely ineffective and liable to only hurt the animal, and endanger the hunter. While killing an elephant is probably not a good thing, pissing one off with a “plink gun” (what the average North American hunting rifle would be considered on an African Big Game safari) is just plain idiotic, as Mr. Elephant is rarely your friend to begin with, but he’s definitley your nemesis once you’ve made him angry with your puny rifle.
Any bullet with sufficient kinetic energy will penetrate Body and Light Vehicle armor to some degree or another (most rifle bullets have KE to spare, and the .50 has more than most), but that doesn’t make it an true “Armor Piercing” bullet.
In short: Both the author and the “critics” he cites are largely full of shit.
And I’m a supporter of gun control…
Assuming this article was correct, which apparently it isn’t, but assuming it was:
Would this be the gun that gun advocates would finally agree should not be allowed for sale to every yahoo, psycho, or terrorist?
Or would banning such a weapon infringe on the right to bear arms?
Guns don’t kill people, only idiots with legally free access to guns kill.
This gun is powerful because it uses a large round with lots of powder behind it. The bullet it uses is more than twice as wide as the bullets used in the M-16, for example.
Secondly, while this is a powerful gun, against a real tank it won’t do much. The US Army uses it to shoot light vehicals (think putting a round through the engine block of a pickup with Ak-47 & RPG’s sitting in the back) and the occasional indivual insurgent at long ranges.
They make this in my town.
This guy’s cousin runs the best auto repair shop in the city.
Adjudicated yahoos and psychos are already prevented from owning ANY gun.
Depends on whether or not you think there is such a right. This isn’t GD, so I won’t go there, and neither should anyone else. We’ve been down that road too many times.
No one (except yahoos, psychopaths, and terrorists) think that yahoos, psychopaths, or terrorists should have access to firearms, and in the U.S., the NICS system is designed to help weed them out at the point-of-sale. Like most databases, it gets more complete with time.
Personally, I’m less concerned anout yahoos, psychopaths, and terroists desiring such a weapon, because it is:
A. Expensive to buy, and feed;
B. Extremely heavy and unwieldy;
C. Non-concealable (unless you’re the Jolly Green Giant).
This makes it extremely unattractive (in spite of its damage potential) to all but the most hardcore shooting enthusiasts, who tend NOT to be yahoos, psychopaths, ot terrorists; just folks with disposable income who like to hear a loud noise and to punch great big holes in paper targets far away from them.
Can it potentially do a lot of harm in the wrong hands? Sure. Look what 19 terrorists did on September 11, 2001, with a bunch of friggin’ boxknives.
So can a .357 magnum revolver, and small as I am, I can easily conceal one, and several speed loaders, on my body as I stroll into the local mall. Or school. Or police station.
Which is precisely why handguns are (and should be) more heavily regulated than weapons which are technicaly more powerful in terms of delivered KE, and perhaps rate-of-fire.
Two words. RoboCop.
Well, since brevity is the soul of wit, I have one word: Hollywood.
Well… in theory, a good enough shot can put a bullet through the TC’s cupola of an Eastern-block tank, thus immobolizing it (since according to Western doctrine, the kind of people who crew Soviet-designed tanks have neither the discipline nor the skill to operate without a commander). Not my first choice for an AT weapon, needless to say, but it might work in a pinch.
But the Golden BB theorem holds true for almost any caliber. A well enough placed shot with a regular 'ol hunting rifle could possibly jam a control surface on a fighter jet and cause it to crash.
Which brings me to Point #2: How the Bloody Hell would the rifleman manage to hit the plan in flight, unless it was flying straight towards him at a pretty slow speed? Granted, that sounds an awful lot like an airliner on final approach…
True, but there are degrees of Golden-BBhood. An 0.5" has a better chance of doing the job than a 7.62mm sniper rifle, and a worse chance than a TOW-2 or a Javelin, although none of them are guaranteed to kill. All weapons try to go for a weak spot - there are precious few caliberss that can punch through the front of an MBT. It’s about playing the odds.
Do they say things like “they’re coming to take away our guns”?
Pot, kettle, black.
This was the only part of the article that bothered me. ( a gun control advocate)
Well the power has been exaggerated but the idea that criminals don’t have enough money to buy one is not true either. Drug dealers have plenty of money and they will investing in a good gun. Perhaps use this for protection of a drug lab or something like that.
The ‘Tommy’ gun was a gun built for the military but they didnt’ want them. They almost went out of business till the mobsters started using them.