davlandrum
New member
I once made the mistake of sneaking a glance at an M2 without my kevler on and my head exploded.....
How powerful is .50 bmg, really?
- Thread starter FALacy
- Start date
.50 BMG vs various items.
Bowling ball
Bowling pin
coconut
Propane cylinder
Other stuff... You know... The usual.
Youtube .50BMG irresponsible use...
Bowling ball
Bowling pin
coconut
Propane cylinder
Other stuff... You know... The usual.
Youtube .50BMG irresponsible use...
Katophract
New member
During my first tour in Iraq we saw first hand what the .50 cal does to people. I don't need to see number charts, I've seen it and its gruesome. Yes, it dismembers people and then some. I still prefer the MK 19.
One myths I wanna dispell first:
A .50 BMG is not a laser...it drops...alot. It's used at long range, but that's by knowing the range and having good optics
It's main point is it holds accuracy and alot of power at long range.
Overall though: it has power...alot of power. But not an end-all, mini-nuke.
A hardened piece of railway iron plate (The plate that rails are staked to, then staked to the tie), would only dent with ball ammo, and API ALMOST...went through it. It's ultra-hard 3/4" steel.
It did alot more "punch" than anything else, but it still didn't fully penetrate.
Also: A antelope shot with one didn't hardly notice... .50 caliber hole going in .50 caliber hole going out. Never expanded and the goat took off, ran out of range, stood around about two minutes then tipped over.
That all said, it's fun, and definately packs more "Oomph" (if that ain't a useless term, over-used by gun people
), than even our .338's, .375's,etc.etc.
P.S. Make sure the area won't light on fire, but API is cool due to the flash on impact
A .50 BMG is not a laser...it drops...alot. It's used at long range, but that's by knowing the range and having good optics
It's main point is it holds accuracy and alot of power at long range.Overall though: it has power...alot of power. But not an end-all, mini-nuke.
A hardened piece of railway iron plate (The plate that rails are staked to, then staked to the tie), would only dent with ball ammo, and API ALMOST...went through it. It's ultra-hard 3/4" steel.
It did alot more "punch" than anything else, but it still didn't fully penetrate.
Also: A antelope shot with one didn't hardly notice... .50 caliber hole going in .50 caliber hole going out. Never expanded and the goat took off, ran out of range, stood around about two minutes then tipped over.
That all said, it's fun, and definately packs more "Oomph" (if that ain't a useless term, over-used by gun people
), than even our .338's, .375's,etc.etc.P.S. Make sure the area won't light on fire, but API is cool due to the flash on impact
I think your buddy probably watched one of the myriad of "50 cal Sniper kills Taliban" videos on YouTube, which are really rock-chuck hunting videos.
I tried setting some of those jackwagons straight a couple times, even directed them to the original video "Varmint Safari" with little success.
Like this one. (warning, graphic marmot content).
And it you REALLY want to make yourself dumber, read the YouTube comments.
I tried setting some of those jackwagons straight a couple times, even directed them to the original video "Varmint Safari" with little success.
Like this one. (warning, graphic marmot content).
And it you REALLY want to make yourself dumber, read the YouTube comments.
Fat White Boy
New member
The Viet Cong had a healthy respect for the M2. When Ma Deuce spoke, Charlie listened....
popeyespappy
New member
Mike Irwin said:
While the German artillery was at least as good as if not better than the American during WWII, US forces did have something in the later stages of the war that the Axis did not. That something was the proximity fuse. It was absolutely devastating when used against infantry in open areas. In that situation the proximity fuse was considerably more effective than the impact and timed fuses which had been around for decades prior to its development.
The Germans did indeed fear the American artillery and for good reason.
well try the army LOL just kidding
there was always opportunity in the Army because the m2 was so heavy that soldiers few soldiers wanted the hassle of lugging it in and out of trucks ect...
I was always ready for the crew served weapons specially the m2. I can still hear the chuggachuggachuggga
I will have to disagree with this statement to the same extent that I agree. YES there are some BMG rounds out there with high BCs that top 1.0 perhaps even 1.1 and those BCs might be the highest of any readily available bullet on the general market; BUT considering the size of the bore, those #s don't completely impress me.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I am No expert, but in general the bigger the diameter of a perfect sperical ball of the same density the higher its BC will be. If I apply this line of thought to a .510 bore than I think its not that impressive to get the BCs we see in BMG ammo.
I think perhaps the BCs are limited by the maximum practical weight of the bullets.
I will even theorize further to say that IF a cartridge similar to the 416 barret were to have been invented some 90 or so years ago in place of the 50bmg than by this point we would probably have some custom built rifles out there designed to chamber Very long .416 bullets with weights in the mid 4xx grain range and BCs significantly higher than anything we currently see today.
Please don't misunderstand, I am not trying to knock the 50bmg, I'm a fan. I'm just a little tired, a little drunk (sorry) and I felt like having a short rant about how it seems there is a lack of super high BC bullets available for large bore rifles comparted to the very high (for caliber) BCs that we see in the smaller calibers.
Mike Irwin, I have to disagree...
... the Germans did have significant fear of our artillery, as well as our armor - even though their equipment was superior to ours.
They really feared our trucks and jeeps even more.
The reason they feared our gear was not that it was better, on an individual level - it's that there was so much more of it, and much faster resupply to keep our numeric superiority going strong.
The Germans had better artillery, but couldn't make enough ordnance for it.
The Germans had much better tanks, but couldn't keep them in fuel or spare parts.
The Germans had better aircraft, at first; even later in the war, their planes didn't give up much to the P-51 or P-47. But they couldn't make enough, as the war went on.
And most of their supply lines, once off trains, were run via horse-drawn carts. They simply didn't have enough trucks.
More powerful or better doesn't help if there just isn't enough of it.
The Germans were not awed by the quality of our artillery, but you can read any number of interviews where German officers said they were in awe of the sheer volume of shelling our forces could keep raining down on them.
... the Germans did have significant fear of our artillery, as well as our armor - even though their equipment was superior to ours.
They really feared our trucks and jeeps even more.
The reason they feared our gear was not that it was better, on an individual level - it's that there was so much more of it, and much faster resupply to keep our numeric superiority going strong.
The Germans had better artillery, but couldn't make enough ordnance for it.
The Germans had much better tanks, but couldn't keep them in fuel or spare parts.
The Germans had better aircraft, at first; even later in the war, their planes didn't give up much to the P-51 or P-47. But they couldn't make enough, as the war went on.
And most of their supply lines, once off trains, were run via horse-drawn carts. They simply didn't have enough trucks.
More powerful or better doesn't help if there just isn't enough of it.
The Germans were not awed by the quality of our artillery, but you can read any number of interviews where German officers said they were in awe of the sheer volume of shelling our forces could keep raining down on them.
SadistAssassin
New member
Deepcore is absolutley right!!!! the cavitation caused by the hydrostatic shock is wider than the human body.....
Mike Irwin
Staff
"They really feared our trucks and jeeps even more."
I sincerely doubt the average German combat soldier "feared" our trucks and jeeps because they had little to no ability to kill them. German high command feared the US ability to mass produce weapons of war, but that's not what we're talking about here.
You're missing the point, MLeake.
Of course the Germans feared US artillery, they (just as our troops did) feared ANYTHING we had that could kill them.
What happens, though, is that when an army doesn't have an equivalent weapon to something the enemy has (the M2 for the Americans, the MG42 for the Germans), those items taken on quasimythical characteristics and there's more than a certain amount of dread associated with facing them.
Direct comparisons can't be made, so through rumor and gossip the item starts starts to be imbued with characteristics that it doesn't have, and legend based on fear develops around it.
"Hey Hans, that's an Amerikaner M2! It can shoot through 950 Nazis, and if the bullet passes within 5 feet of you, your head will exploden!"
It is, essentially, a fear of the unfamiliar and the unknown.
"Unless the History Channel is wrong"
Gee, that would NEVER happen!
I sincerely doubt the average German combat soldier "feared" our trucks and jeeps because they had little to no ability to kill them. German high command feared the US ability to mass produce weapons of war, but that's not what we're talking about here.
You're missing the point, MLeake.
Of course the Germans feared US artillery, they (just as our troops did) feared ANYTHING we had that could kill them.
What happens, though, is that when an army doesn't have an equivalent weapon to something the enemy has (the M2 for the Americans, the MG42 for the Germans), those items taken on quasimythical characteristics and there's more than a certain amount of dread associated with facing them.
Direct comparisons can't be made, so through rumor and gossip the item starts starts to be imbued with characteristics that it doesn't have, and legend based on fear develops around it.
"Hey Hans, that's an Amerikaner M2! It can shoot through 950 Nazis, and if the bullet passes within 5 feet of you, your head will exploden!"
It is, essentially, a fear of the unfamiliar and the unknown.
"Unless the History Channel is wrong"
Gee, that would NEVER happen!
A good point that is often overlooked. Our logistics and production capacity brought material where it was needed. The most dangerous Allied aircraft was the C-47, speaking strategically!
But I feel that this:
Is a generalization based on superlatives, not overall ability. Yes, their Panther was better than a Sherman in a one on one duel. Shermans had better overall build quality, and panthers had suspension problem If I recall. Tigers were better than Shermans, but Tigers were so heavy they were defensive weapons used by an Army that was made famous for it's offense. The Mauser was a fine rifle that served well as a main battle rifle. The M1 rifle was a marked improvement for a battle rifle and did the same job better overall. The kubelwagen was a good light command truck; the jeep was better. The MG 42 was a fearsome machine gun. The M2 was it's superior in all but portability. The bf109 was a great design that was actually versatile enough to be re-designed during the war. It was also a pre-war obsolescent design that necessitated that redesign. The FW-190 was a great plane. The Spitfire traded superiority back and forth with it as each was up-revved. By comparison, the P-51 was a better design than the bf109 in almost any category. i suppose that will prompt a "Schmued was a German" comment but I have parried that one easily many times!
Schmued was an American and merely the chief designer. The list goes onSo it really depends on what aspect of the 'thing's' design you're talking about. It rankles a little that it's so accepted that Germany made superior things just because they were German, but it's a common perception. In some things yes, the German item was superior. In other, it was the American item. The Soviets felt that the best thing to ever come from America was the Studebaker truck!
back on topic, I am very curious now about testing one shot from a BMG (and at what range) versus what the US military expects in terms of how many strikes the weapon is expected to make against that same target: do they assume one bullet hits, or three? Ten?
In the aircraft application, the guns were angled inboard slightly to converge the bullet paths, chewing up even an armored aircraft target with multiple hits from multiple guns. Documented instances of P-51s with only one MG firing exist, with the result of a downed bf109. At the same time, the Germans relied on cannon. While it would be foolish for me to suggest that means one BMG does the job of one cannon, it does illustrate the potential of the BMG against an aerial target
This is a pretty interesting discussion
I've never heard such mythical qualities...
... being lent to the M2.
They are kind of fun to shoot, I'll give them that. Although, honestly, I liked the M240G better. Nowhere near as much power, but in my very limited experience (IE a couple fam-fires) I found that it was really nice to be able to look through a peep sight, and put the first round of each burst dead center on target, as opposed to walking the dust or water puffs into the target.
What I do find neat about the M2 is that it's still in common use, despite having been designed by a guy who started designing guns in the 19th century.
Kind of like I thought it was pretty neat that the A4 Skyhawk, which flew into the 80's as a warplane, and early 2000's as a trainer, was designed by Lord Thomas Sopwith, of WWI Flying Camel and Scout fame.
... being lent to the M2.
They are kind of fun to shoot, I'll give them that. Although, honestly, I liked the M240G better. Nowhere near as much power, but in my very limited experience (IE a couple fam-fires) I found that it was really nice to be able to look through a peep sight, and put the first round of each burst dead center on target, as opposed to walking the dust or water puffs into the target.
What I do find neat about the M2 is that it's still in common use, despite having been designed by a guy who started designing guns in the 19th century.
Kind of like I thought it was pretty neat that the A4 Skyhawk, which flew into the 80's as a warplane, and early 2000's as a trainer, was designed by Lord Thomas Sopwith, of WWI Flying Camel and Scout fame.