Author Topic: Anyone here ever fire anything like this monster? (Read 1241 times)

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 17, 2007, 08:19:26 AM »

Home Defense?

How the hell they gonna get that thing in a double-wide?

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #16 on:** May 17, 2007, 08:22:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
Yeah, I saw it there as well. It looks pretty impressive up close.

Will you be going to the fall shoot? Maybe run into you if so. When I'm able to go I always camp the weekend.

We hope to. Depends on how it works out between my schedules. I'll have to look and see if we're racing that weekend. The only other thing would be hunting season. Sometimes they do the shoot on the same weekend as one of those stupid short deer seasons.

How'd you like the mud this year? We came in Saturday afternoon and parked down in the hole. Sunk like a rock.

VOR · « **Reply #17 on:** May 17, 2007, 08:34:29 AM »

Yeah it was a bad weather event all around. I parked Thurs afternoon and didn't move until Sunday so it wasn't so bad for me, but there were ALOT of people stuck and miserable.

I did manage to almost fill my shopping list tho and came away with some nifty stuff.

One thing about the Creek: even in bad weather, it's still alot of fun.

FiLtH · « **Reply #18 on:** May 17, 2007, 08:35:42 AM »

It looks like something from the Battle of Hoth. Imagine carrying that around a battlefield?

LancerVT · « **Reply #19 on:** May 17, 2007, 10:09:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
The ULTIMATE hunting weapon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=792WRxXXr7U

Take'em one herd at a time!

Indeed. There was nothing left of that tank.

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 17, 2007, 12:10:34 PM »

How would you like to carry that thing around on a patrol through thick brush, with a full load of ammo to boot?

The japanese had a 20mm semi-auto AT rifle during WWII. It took 4 men to carry it with slings, because it weight almost 200 pounds. No thanks.

Is that thing firing HE or API rounds? If it takes the same ammo as an 20mm Vulcan, It probably does. That would make it a LE/Military only weapon. Unless, you could get it as a Military collector, But that might be hard to do.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #21 on:** May 17, 2007, 12:37:01 PM »

I've fired a 155mm naval artillery cannon, that makes this thing look really puny.

BaDkaRmA158Th · « **Reply #22 on:** May 17, 2007, 12:59:38 PM »

Using DU rounds that 20mm could punch thru anything.
Useing modern tracking/range finding equipment its possible "some day" to use rifle's "cannons" like these to down aircraft.

I like the future.

Odee · « **Reply #23 on:** May 17, 2007, 01:34:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Using DU rounds that 20mm could punch thru anything.
Useing modern tracking/range finding equipment its possible "some day" to use rifle's "cannons" like these to down aircraft.

I like the future.

Why wait for the future when you can already do it yesterday? DHS and FAA nightmare is someone with a Barret on a rooftop, shooting down airliners on final.

Yeah, real sporting event that is, huh?

Halo · « **Reply #24 on:** May 17, 2007, 02:11:53 PM »

I really like guns, but that's nuts. Any caliber that can be HE or incendiary has a hard time passing any test of reasonable use or possession.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #25 on:** May 17, 2007, 06:17:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Odee
Why wait for the future when you can already do it yesterday? DHS and FAA nightmare is someone with a Barret on a rooftop, shooting down airliners on final.

Yeah, real sporting event that is, huh?

None of the Barret rifles have large capacity magazines, nor do the copies. Got ANY idea how hard it is to bring down an airliner with 3-5 50BMG rounds? Got ANY idea how many much easier and more reliable methods exist?

VOR · « **Reply #26 on:** May 17, 2007, 06:52:23 PM »

Geez, some people sound nervous like it's actually legal to own HE ammo for that thing or something. You sound like a bunch of Feinsteins.

It's called a "destructive device".

tedrbr · « **Reply #27 on:** May 17, 2007, 06:59:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
The size of these sniper rifles are getting a little ridiculous. For less weight and size you could get an anti-tank guided missile launcher.

But the ammo load for the Payload guns is whole a lot cheaper than the guided missiles cost per round. Many are also semi auto with 4 to 6 round mags for follow on shots. For many situations, big bore sniper rifles have their uses and are more flexible.

Using a Javelin to take out a mud brick building in Iraq is expensive (been done, many times, and I'm sure some bean counters reamed out some COs for letting it happen too). Tanks not always available or nearby. Shooting a dozen rounds of 25mm will get the job done pretty well at a fraction of the cost of the Javelin.

Barrett XM109 25mm semi auto for example:
http://www.bellum.nu/armoury/BXM109.html

When you care enough to send the very best.

Seagoon · « **Reply #28 on:** May 18, 2007, 08:35:31 AM »

Hi Halo,

Quote

Originally posted by Halo
I really like guns, but that's nuts. Any caliber that can be HE or incendiary has a hard time passing any test of reasonable use or possession.

Just a brief thought. I'm not sure where this idea that the 2nd Ammendment is about "sporting guns" came from. The use of the word militia indicates incontrovertibly that the right is to keep and own military guns for the common defense against enemies foreign (and in the case of tryannical governments) domestic. The founders intention was that the people would always have access to the kind of weapons that the average soldier in the Continental Army carried, especially as they weren't wild about the idea of a standing army (which tended to be used for the kinds of things they are currently used for in South America and Africa).

In any event, my guess is that the second ammendment as we have known it will probably end up passing away in this century for any number of reasons. It is incompatible with socialism, we are too far into the cycle of trying to trade liberty for safety and we are no longer the kind of "moral or religious people" (to quote John Adams*) that the Constitution was designed for and thus less and less willing or able to govern ourselves. I know that the vast majority of board members won't agree with him, but what he said about the consequences of not exercising self-control are demonstrably true, as founder Robert Winthrop put it: "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the word of God or by the strong arm of man: either by the Bible or by the bayonet." Or if you prefer Franklin: "
nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."[/i]

- SEAGOON

* "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #29 on:** May 18, 2007, 10:31:09 AM »

I guess, Seagoon, what you are saying is, that the constitution is...outdated, for lack of a better word.

I agreed with everything in your post. Demographically, technologically, This is not the U.S. of 230 years ago. Technology and culture in the U.S. have changed dramatically. Also, population has surged to the point where it strains our economy. We have many factors which make it difficult to be the kind of Americans that the founding fathers' were. But, I think that the same things which prompted the 2nd to be included in the constitution are looming even darker in the background. Threat's to U.S. citizens' are as real today as they were in 1776. They just don't take the same form. Anyway, I figure that if the 2nd did'nt get canned during the Civil War, it never will.