Can .50 Cal bullets travel 5 miles?

It's possibly....but after hitting a dirt mound? Seems a bit farfetched, but it's a big ass bullet probably.

He should have shot at a mountain face.

 

Could the bullet have have ricocheted off something and gone airborne for 5 miles? It is possible.

Military firing range safety is an area of my expertise. Army firing range safety is governed by Army Regulation 383-63 and DA Pam 385-63.

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/p385_63.pdf

Go to the link. You are looking ar DA Pam 385-63. Look at Figure B-1, page 173 of DA Pam 385-63. You are interested in distance X for ground fired direct fire weapons: This is the maximum range. Got to page 175 and look at .50 caliber ball in the left hand column. Distance X is listed as 6,500 meters. This does not equate to five miles.

Warning to .50 caliber shooters: The .50 caliber ball projectile will penetrate 152 inches of packed earth.

Did the police use the ground mileage to the firing range from the point of impact?

 

That's 152 centimeters

 

Thanks. Something did not sound right when i wrote it.

 

6,500 meters = 3.10 miles

 

Well a ban on .50 I wouldn't really dislike...I mean for civilian use it's basically useless and to damn dangerous as a gun.

 

Many hobbyists use it for long distance shooting.

 

The .50 isn't the long range record holder on the block anymore. Are you going to ban the likes of the .416 Barrett and the .408 Cheytac as well? Then are you going to start looking into the .338 Lapua's and all the Ultra Magnum cartridges?

I would suggest visiting someplace like the Penn 1,000 Yard Benchrest Folks and see how they feel about banning a long range weapon. Granted none of them are using a .50 for their benchrest competitions, but they were established in something like 1967 and they have had hundreds of .50 cal comps there in years past.

Start banning one weapon because you don't feel it has a civilian application and you have broken the damn. That is why we don't have access to military grade hardware anymore as granted under 2A. People didn't feel it was "needed" by the civilian populace....

 

Just how dangerous is "too damn dangerous"? A 12 ga slug at 10 ft is pretty damn dangerous. Beware the slippery slope. If we can be convinced that a .50 BMG is too damn dangerous then we will end up with red ryder BB-guns. Oh, but those "could put an eye out!".

 

No, not possible... It did. Forensics concluded today it was one of his bullets that pierced through the top of the travel home and hit that lady. Because the shooter was honest & responcible enough to come forward on his own, neither the victim nor the police will file charges.

 

Well, I am glad that he isn't being charged, but you can bet the next time the discussion comes up about "Dangerous Military Weapons in the Hands of Civilians" this case will be front and center.

I appreciate the guy was honest and came forward, but I want to kick him square in the sack for shooting a "berm" with a .50 Cal rifle. You have to know what that damn thing can do! Check your friggin backstop and make sure you can actually hit it.

Reminds me of that video of those clowns shooting a steel plate at something like 200 yards and the plate comes straight back down the flight path and just about takes the guys head off. 200 Yards! The damn round isn't even stable yet at 200 yards....

 

Eh well a .50 no matter what is impractical for civilian use IMO.

I wouldn't fight a ban and I wouldn't accept a ban. I would be indifferent to that weapon.

But you raise a good point that it just leads to more banning since small arm rifles can travel much farther.

 

Jiro - Now you have me truly curious. I mean no disrespect to your position, but if you feel the .50BMG isn't practical for civilian use, I can respect that.

But, is it that you personally see no NEED for the weapon? Or you think no one should have the weapon regardless of their view of it's use?

I'm merely curious to the thought process behind the statement....

Thanks,

JD

 

What do you need a FAL, G3, SKS or AR for? There are many that feel that there is no use for these weapons in civilian hands.

I just hope you understand what you're doing to yourself with your current train of thought. I can't own an FAL, G3 or SKS in California because many saw things the same way you do.

 

I see no need for the weapon for me.

Don't get angry guys other people can have them but personally I think they are stupid guns. So I'm indifferent to the weapon. More likely though now that I think about it I retarct that statement...I'd probably fight that kind of law. Would put a wave for more bannings....kinda like what happened with full auto weapons.

I'd rather have a Mosin or some other smaller arm rifle like a Scout...m-14 etc though when it comes to sniper rifles.

Just a personal opinion.

And Matt. Calm down. I'm not like those fat heads. I'd like to own at least one of those rifles for SHTF situations. I've settled on getting an AK instead...easier to manage.

 

No, that's cool. I wasn't mad. I was just curious. I always like to know when a gun owner of brand/model/design X wouldn't want me personally to be able to purchase brand/model/design Y.

I personally see no real need for the Glock pistol series in my world, but I wouldn't stop someone else from buying one and shooting the hell out of it if that is what they wanted.

Personally, I would love to have both a .408 Cheytac AND a .416 Barrett - for no other reason than of what "I COULD DO" with them if the Space Zombies ever show up.

 

I'm calm, I'm just trying to put things in perspective for you. We may quickly be coming upon trying times for the sports we enjoy and we can't let defeat come from within.