Lets officially establish the sporting use of the .50 BMG

[TXAZ]

When an old cigar chomping sage was asked about why he still shot .50, he replied that
He liked the matches and people
It was a great conversation starter
He could easily afford it
He liked the comrodry of .50 shooters
It truly pis*ed off his left-wing anti-gun neighbor when he would work on it on his front porch or shoot it from his back porch

 

[darkgael]

Well, not the .50 BMG cartridge but the .50 BMG bullet.....loaded into a .50 Gov’t case. The barrel is from SSK and the gun is a T/C Encore. It will make a hole as big as an expanded smaller caliber.
Pete

 

[USNRet93]

So, Don, tell us the details of all the rights you'd surrender to 'compromise' with the folks that want to take ALL your guns?


Larry

From the peanut gallery..'they want to take all our guns', riles up people on both sides of the argument but it accomplishes little. There are GOP people that are for some 'common sense' gun regs and some DEMs who are squarely in the gun rights camp. BUT making it a 'us vs them', and by yelling, 'they are gonna take all our guns', helps little, IMHO. BTW-how would they 'take all our guns'? Nobody knows who has what and where, gun wise. I have 2 myself that there is no record of..one a family member gift and one bought in 1973 from a neighbor.

 

[Lohman446]

Tree's that don't bend in the wind, break in the wind!

I get your point but IF we are going to approach the matter of "common sense" gun regulations which no one seems to know exactly what that means it is in our best interest to not approach it in a way that forces us to "prove" a "legitimate sporting use" of each and every weapon or group of weapons we wish to defend. Once we give up the argument and allow the argument to force us to prove a "legitimate sporting use" (whatever that is) we shift the onerous to ourselves.

When curtailing rights, particularly those rights held within the bill of rights, the onerous of showing cause and necessity for the validity of doing so MUST stay fully on the camp of those wishing to curtail those rights.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I recommend the current edition of SWAT magazine for a column about 'common usage' and the perils of that phrase. It is supposed to argue for gun rights but is a double edged sword. I might discuss it in L and CR later.

 

[Mk VII]

We here are currently fending off a Bill to ban all .50"s and similar - not because they have been used in crime - they never have been - not because they are selling very well - only 129 in the country - but just "because". Risk-assessment policy making they are calling it. Not 'evidence-based', as if there was any evidence you can be sure they would have produced some.

 

[laytonj1]

BTW-how would they 'take all our guns'?

They could start by banning possession of all firearms. Then you get to decide if it's worth the risk of felony jail time if you ever caught with one you tried to hide.

Jim

 

[RC20]

I looked at the second amendment. I don't see the words hunting or sporting in it. Once we give into the "need" to justify it we have already conceded our strongest argument.

Well there was that pesky word Militia in there though was there not?

And if my poor judicial skills are correct, States can decide for themselves. Some go one way and some go the other.

Now woe be it unto me to contest a ruling that splits an infinitive and parses out one from another when its a whole.

I mean that Citizens Dis-United was as brilliant as pretzel reason as I can remember by anyone, let alone claimed orientalists (ie if is doing it its original, it if them doing it they activists) . Dang, shades of Dred Scott.

So all our rights go down a slippery slope and we hold onto that one? Hmmm

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I think some of y'all are getting bent out of shape for no reason. What Rachen is implying isn't some sort of justification outside of the 2nd Amendment, but I think Rachen and others realize that those firearms that don't have a loyalist following are apt to be sacrificed to the anti-gunners, given up by our own "protectors" of gun rights in a compromise to try to hold on to other things. Think NFA '86. Think of all the folks that are "pro gun" that consider that to be "gun control we can live with." Was that in the 2nd Amendment?

If .50 BMG had more sporting purposes in which more people participated, it would have a more loyalist following that would be more apt to try to protect it in the future, not just from anti-gunners, but from feel good gun owners that make stupid claims like Zumbo did when he tried to deep six MSRs. I understand he had a come-to-Jesus chat with Ted Nugent and has since repented (which would have nothing to do with trying to gain back all the sponsors who abandoned him, right?), but this is something we continually have to fight.

Now, I see a lot of logistical issues with bringing the .50 BMG into more "sporting" uses. I happen to be an owner. It won't be every little gun club that can or will want to adopt .50 BMG matches, for example. Even so, where is the fault in trying to bring the caliber forward?

 

[RC20]

I hoped I made clear I have no issues with it, not something I can afford or even interested in, but ............

I just think its always going to be niche with people who have the money it requires and interest. The two don't go together too often.

 

[zxcvbob]

It makes me sad that on a gun forum, there are people that can't wait to throw our rights away. They are eager for a platform they have no interest in to be banned just to appease the banners, as if they will stop after banning one.

 

[Rachen]

What Rachen is implying isn't some sort of justification outside of the 2nd Amendment, but I think Rachen and others realize that those firearms that don't have a loyalist following are apt to be sacrificed to the anti-gunners,

Yep, that was the intent of the post and calls for discussion. While it is obvious that currently, we are not really facing a "state of emergency" to "rescue" the .50 BMG from being banned, (they are still legal in most places), but the chance of them being singled out again and again is quite strong, based on the fact that they had been singled out before.

What inspired this post was just from reading up on the state of football and NFL-related items from the previous two years, and it was clear that there were several attempts made by suburban moms to outright end the playing of football, not just the kiddie versions but the big leagues too. While these voices represented a minority within the larger body of voices calling for ending peewee leagues and reforming the NFL, the extremist voices were still strong and had Twitter/FBook platforms to make them even louder.

From that, I saw that even American FOOTBALL, one of the most watched and most venerated sporting events in the world, can be a target of single-issue crusaders seeking to alter/dilute and even ban it. When it comes to guns, it presents an even more daunting challenge: More people are trying to find as many excuses as possible to ban guns than football. The owners of Browning X-Bolts and traditional Rem 700s might be able to hold out the longest in a protracted "demonization" campaign against guns. Traditional hunting rifles in the minds of antis seem to be just ornaments or toys. Even semi-autos and evil black rifles can hold their own based on the amount of followers they have. However, there are some fringe regions in the gun community that may be the most vulnerable, and if the antis want to launch a well-organized campaign to "chip away" the 2A, they can very well start chipping away at the fringes first.

The main point is that people WILL try to challenge the "necessity of the .50 BMG in the sporting world". And if we were to give the plain, general-purpose answer "oh, we use that to shoot ducks and hunt deer", it would just cause raised eyebrows: "You serious right?".

BUT............The .50 BMG has plenty of uses in the civilian and sporting world, other than that it is just plain fun to shoot these darn things. I compiled a little list of what actual emergencies and life-threatening scenarios that a .50 BMG can be called on to solve.

Oh and BTW, I just came back browsing through HUBEL's "SHOTGUN FROM HELL" thread and I am still in a state of complete awe. Looks like there is a lot more sporting uses of the big old .50 than I initially thought!

 

[Rachen]

It makes me sad that on a gun forum, there are people that can't wait to throw our rights away. They are eager for a platform they have no interest in to be banned just to appease the banners, as if they will stop after banning one.

Oh no, trust me friend, we ain't gonna appease anyone

The reason for the creation of this discussion is that in the future if someone wants to ask: "Dayum, that is one HUGE rifle, it looks like a cannon. What the heck do you even use it for?" We are going to have plenty of legit and reasonable answers to that.

 

[TXAZ]

We here are currently fending off a Bill to ban all .50"s and similar - not because they have been used in crime - they never have been - not because they are selling very well - only 129 in the country - but just "because". Risk-assessment policy making they are calling it. Not 'evidence-based', as if there was any evidence you can be sure they would have produced some.

Where did you get the "129" number of BMG rifles, or is that referring to something else?

 

[CalmerThanYou]

If one were to ask the above stated question, it would be an excellent opportunity to engage and enlighten them of the increasingly popular sport of LR and ELR shooting.

They may then not be so uninformed of potential use of the gun and the merits of the sport. No need to be scared unless you re paper or steel.

 

[oldmanFCSA]

50BMG as a Sporting Round

I haven't been on this Forum for a long time, but glad to see the 50BMG question discussed here as a "Sporting Round" as described by the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association of which I have been a member since 2006, hence the FCSA on the end of my Username.

To me the Sporting Use is shooting small groups on paper at 1000 yard competitions. I've shot 4", 5", 6", all the way up to 72" 5-shot groups all on paper. A rifle I built and later sold to a good friend was used to shoot the small group at the FCSA World Match in Raton NM NRA Whittington Center - 2.4375" 5-shot group at 1000 yards (he also shot a 56" group the next day).

We 50BMG shooters are always on the forefront of the anti-gun legislation because they don't understand our Sport.

My highly modified AR-50 weighs in at 49.76 pounds - not easily man-portable for a disabled shooter. Fortunately many FCSA Members will help those of us with physical needs knowing that we compete to further ourselves and enjoy the camaraderie with other shooters.

I read all posts above this one and most everyone has a valid concern or reason the 50BMG doesn't fit their needs, but please don't shoot down our passion for this Sport.

Thank you ,

The Oldman or on here OldmanFCSA

( Note: Health issues sometimes affect my expression of thoughts in a positive manner = Sorry.)

 

[oldmanFCSA]

Where did you get the "129" number of BMG rifles, or is that referring to something else?

I believe the 129 was for 50's in Great Britain, The FCSA has an organization their helping their need - the British shooters attend our World events every year and are great to talk to.

 

[TXAZ]

Thanks for clarifying Oldman!

 

[USNRet93]

They could start by banning possession of all firearms. Then you get to decide if it's worth the risk of felony jail time if you ever caught with one you tried to hide.

Jim

Who's 'they'?
2nd amendment, particularly after the Heller ruling, makes that pretty much impossible. Add to that the 'procedure' for changing or eliminating a constitutional amendment.

(1) Both houses propose an amendment with a two-thirds vote, and three-fourths of the state legislatures approve.

Not trying to lecture but 'take away all my guns', is a 'sky is faling' shout, IMHO.

 

[DT Guy]

From the peanut gallery..'they want to take all our guns', riles up people on both sides of the argument but it accomplishes little. There are GOP people that are for some 'common sense' gun regs and some DEMs who are squarely in the gun rights camp. BUT making it a 'us vs them', and by yelling, 'they are gonna take all our guns', helps little, IMHO. BTW-how would they 'take all our guns'? Nobody knows who has what and where, gun wise. I have 2 myself that there is no record of..one a family member gift and one bought in 1973 from a neighbor.

Actually, they (at least some Leftists) DO want to take our guns away:

Forced confiscation of 'assault weapons'

Ban all handgus: Jan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative from Illinois

“I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….”

A variety of handgun, 'assault weapon' and other bans:
Pete Stark, U.S. Representative from California

“If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.” 9

William Clay, U.S. Representative from Missouri

” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”

Joseph Biden, Vice President of the United States

“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

John Chafee, Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island

“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!”

Major Owens, U.S. Representative from New York

“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”

Bobby Rush, U.S. Representative from Illinois

“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”

So explain again how calls to ban guns aren't real? Because to anyone paying even a modicum of attention, that's exactly what the Democrats ultimate aim is.

So I'll repeat the original question; what rights to YOU suggest we surrender to these people in the interest of 'compromise'? The 50 BMG? 'Assault' weapons? Handguns? Provide some details to your proposed compromises of our rights, please.

Larry