It was probably “left over” from a damaged auto cannon and they mounted it inside a building as a defensive weapon for that site.
Alternatively, they might be using it as a siege weapon.
However, the most likely reason that it is not being put to a more effective tactical use is that it probably started life that way, mounted on an APC, a technical, or a trailer, but was rendered ineffective as an auto cannon when its original mount was damaged. Then someone said, “Hey! Rather than abandoning this beast, let’s lug it over to this building and set it up to fire single shot rounds.”
This sounds right.
“It’s so big that it has to be supported on two tripods” :rolleyes:
Pssst The other tripod is mounting a spotting scope.
Yep, didn’t notice until you mentioned it. The “front tripod” is on the other side of the gun, not attached to it.
At least it wasn’t identified as an AK-47. 
Nm.
OMG :eek: It may be an AK-48 !!!
Side note… Drives me nuts. Every piece of construction equipment is called a ‘Bull Dozer’ Ummm… No. That’s a skid-steer. Um… no that’s a backhoe.
I wonder if the folks in the media every get out of their house.
Relevant charts: Journalists’ Guide to Dog Breeds, Journalists’ Guide to Guns. I’ve seen, but can’t find, the one where every gun’s an AK-47, except the AK. It’s an AR-15. Sigh.
It’s not silenced, that’s just the flash hider. A moderator for a cannon that size would be the size of an oil drum.
The ammunition is apparently 23x152B which would indicate either scavenging off a ZSU-23 or a vehicle like a ZSU-23-4, BTR-94 etc. as suggested or (my guess) MacGuyvering some sort of crude action onto the back of a spare barrel, on the basis that getting an occasional round somewhere in the direction of a target is more useful than trying to club someone with it.
An actual complete working cannon would normally be expected to be show up on the back of a toyota.
As regards the actual ‘article’ linked to - it’s the daily mail, where the level of accuracy and integrity is actually raised by all the adverts and clickbait on the page…
The fact that the Daily Mail refers to it as a “sniper” weapon means nothing.
It’s meant as an anti-armor weapon, obviously.
Or containing plutonium.
“Depleted plutonium.”
I have seen people talk about “uranium depleted” rounds. yep, I have a lot of them. Mostly there is nothing but lead left in them.
So essentially it’s got an anti-personnel trigger?
It’s an 88 magnum. It shoots through schools.
Follow-up story, same paper:
The Free Syrian Army Hell Cannon
Honestly, and sadly, I don’t know where this group is on the who-do-we-bomb-today schedule of alliances. Which is pretty fucked up.
Is this the same weapon in a similar usage (at least according to the goofy juxtaposition)?
A comparable gun would be the Anzio 20mm rifle: http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7ft2j6J4NcY/maxresdefault.jpg
A bit more man-portable than a dismounted antiaircraft gun (if the man is Bruce Banner that is).
This cartoon sums it up: https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0129/64770_cartoon_main.jpg?209
Yikes, parking disputes sure escalate quickly over there!
The only possible use I could conceive for it would be anti-vehicle (as mentioned up-thread, anti-tank rifles from 14mm on up used to be common before tanks got thicker). Unless it’s automatic (meaning there’d need to be a belt or a hopper hooked up to it, neither of which seem to be pictured), it’d be useless against any aircraft in flight (even small civilian planes move at a pretty swift clip, and a lot of people I know have a hard time hitting a stationary target). That’s why anti-aircraft guns in that weight range tend to be rapid-fire (compare to the US military’s M61 Vulcan, a 20mm Gatling-style gun which throws about 6,600 rounds every minute)
I mean, sure, it’d do an ugly number against an individual, but there’d be no good reason to do that. If you had line of sight on them, it’d be easier just to use a regular rifle since it’d be lighter and more controllable.