And you thought .50 was big?

Saltbitch · Post by **Saltbitch** » September 14th, 2004, 5:05 pm

Nice body; bad body positioning.

BadMuther · Post by **BadMuther** » September 14th, 2004, 5:08 pm

Where did you get that pic? My future ex-wife!

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » September 14th, 2004, 5:11 pm

http://www.mitchellsales.com/rifles/blackarrow/

Even CA defeated a .50 ban.

http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendl ... E_ID=27391

FireFinder · Post by **FireFinder** » September 14th, 2004, 5:27 pm

Ranger Spartan wrote:
Even CA defeated a .50 ban.

http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendl ... E_ID=27391

It appears that the Governator has signed THIS BILL into law according to the article below.

Rifle ban signed by governor
The measure restricts the sale of powerful BMG weapons and bullets in the state.
By Margaret Talev -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday signed into law a gun control measure restricting the sale and ownership of a powerful rifle critics said might be used by terrorists.

His signature on AB 50, by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, came hours after the Republican-led Congress allowed the nation's assault weapons ban to expire, and as Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry used the lapsed ban to attack President Bush on the campaign trail.

Bush had promised to sign an extension of the federal measure banning 19 military-style assault weapons if it came before him, but supporters of the ban said the president did nothing to encourage Congress to extend it.

The California measure adds .50-caliber BMG rifles to the state's list of so-called assault weapons and bans the sale of .50 BMG ammunition. Those who already own the rifles would be required to register with the state.

Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is on record as a gun control advocate although he had not publicly taken an early position on Koretz's measure.

The governor did not elaborate on why he signed the bill or on the timing of his signature, and his press office declined to comment.

Law enforcement officials had pushed for strict regulation of the military-grade rifles, saying that, because they can hit targets more than a mile away with precision, they could pose a threat in the hands of terrorists aiming at airplanes or oil refineries.

Gun rights advocates said the rifles were used by enthusiasts for target practice and have never been used to commit crimes in the state.

Runner · Post by **Runner** » September 16th, 2004, 9:10 am

How do they manage to keep the kick the same for the non-suppressed and the suppressed? Is it because of that Barrett muzzle break that cuts down on kick?

Ranger2 · Post by **Ranger2** » September 16th, 2004, 9:18 am

The Secret Service is scared to death of the Barrett. They had to start thinking about all buildings down the street from the White House when that came out. If you are ever there it is quite obvious why they would be worried. There are many shooting positions for a rifle that can reach out and touch someone.

When I was DC last it was for the march for the black beret rally there. I went with 5 guys from 1st Batt and we walked up to the fence there. Out stepped a Secret Service agent with full tactical gear plus MP5 who just followed us around the perimeter. He pretty much came out of nowhere and we never did figure out where he came from.

Ranger2

Runner · Post by **Runner** » September 17th, 2004, 7:53 am

Ohh, alright, Thanks Ranger Terry Welshan.

hobbit · Post by **hobbit** » December 9th, 2004, 8:55 pm

Of course the real important thing to consider here is that it's "cost effective". I used to hate it when that pesky accountant came around while we were loading our rucks for a five day camping trip out in the A Shau. "OK Sweetnam," he'd bark in consternation, "you know you're only allowed one pack of Red Man per mission!"

"Drat!" I'd mumble. "There I go gettin' caught being cost innefective again."

"You know what they're gonna do with us when we get back to the World? They're gonna try all the new drugs on us before they try them on labratory rats just so they can keep the animal rights crowd happy." --Ranger Mad Dog Krause, 1970

hobbit · Post by **hobbit** » December 10th, 2004, 11:46 am

Alright you young whippersnappers, tell me, what application would this thing have? Assassination, right? I can't think of any practical tactical application. It's too damn heavy to be humped very far, and if you carried 20 rounds, somebody else would have to hump half your normal ruck for you. Does the army still have the M72 LAW? Wouldn't that be a better choice against light armor for a small infantry unit, or even a small team? When, where, and why would a Ranger unit use this thing?

mipuke · Post by **mipuke** » December 30th, 2004, 9:10 pm

I know the recoil of my old Phalanx CIWS 20mm Gatling gun and I would not want to be the one to try to shoulder fire this rifle

Plus a box of a 100 rounds of the 20mm was 86 lbs. So the 25mm is got to be about 100+ lbs.