NYPD purchasing 50BMG rifles

[BillyGman]

I heard on the news today, that New York city's finest will be purchasing three Barrett 50 BMG rifles (just like mine!) which will be kept in three of their helicopters for anti-terrorist force. What I found amusing is how the news report mentioned that "planes can be shot out of the air with these rifles, and targets can be hit up to a mile away"......

With a 747 jet possibly being used as a missle, it would be traveling at 300-500 MPH, and therefore would cover a one mile distance in about 5-10 seconds. I think that would make it close to impossible to take it down before it hit it's intended target, with a 50 caliber rifle. If they had a 50 cal machine gun,or a 20 MM cannon, then they would have a fighting chance. 50BMG caliber rifles are very effective for other police endeavors such as stopping a car or truck since a 50 BMG round can easily be put through en engine block (be it iron or aluminum).But I think that big planes would be a much more difficult target. Not more difficult to hit, but more difficult to stop.

[Rider90]

I can see it now..."Helicopter Hovering Over NYC Blowing Up Rats" :cool:

[mtnh]

Did anyone else see the monster garage eposide where they were building a small car for their vertically-challenged aid? The project failed to be finished on time, so they took it out to the desert and outfitted it with explosives and a jug of gas.

Jesse then set up what I believe was a 50 cal rifle and shot the project from a safe distance, resulting in a huge fireball explosion. Maybe the NYPD watches Monster Garage. :gunfire:

[jfclancy]

"planes can be shot out of the air with these rifles, and targets can be hit up to a mile away"......

With a 747 jet possibly being used as a missle, it would be traveling at 300-500 MPH, and therefore would cover a one mile distance in about 5-10 seconds.

Well A 747 a mile away IS going to hit its target, A missle or vulcan 20mm
maybe would have a chance, Vulcan bieng a multi barrell 20 gattling gun.
Simply too much inertia for a fifty but a piper cub peaking in windows....

Joe Clancy :beer: :beer: :beer:

[Rob1559]

They need this....

[usafsniper]

Another example of just how un-informed most journalist are and how they'll put the most outrageous statements in to draw attention to their article. I've been a military sniper for six years now and we definitely do not train to shoot flying jets out of the air with 50BMG's. It's hard enough to lug even a ".50-Light" several kilometers for a non-moving hard target interdiction, much less try to maneuver one to track a plane in flight.

[rayjay]

Unfortunately we will get hit again by a plane if the terrorists choose to do it again. Look at what happens everytime a plane goes into the no fly zone in DC. The response is a cluster *%^k. No one at any level is going to authorize shooting down a civilian airliner until they are sure of its intentions. At that point its too late.

[Breadfan]

Such an event may result in a downed plane without external influences, unless they really plan around it, most people on the plan would figure out it may be used in a repeat of 9/11 and would probably work to bring it down from the inside. (Like in PA on 9/11)

Well, maybe just give the pilots the 50BMG's and put them through training - problem solved.

[Mad4Macs]

I heard on the news today, that New York city's finest will be purchasing three Barrett 50 BMG rifles

Does this mean I shouldn't poke a finger in an officers back and yell "Stick 'em up!"?

:lol:

[BillyGman]

Another example of just how un-informed most journalist are and how they'll put the most outrageous statements in to draw attention to their article. I've been a military sniper for six years now and we definitely do not train to shoot flying jets out of the air with 50BMG's. Thanks very much for your trained and professional opinion on this. I really appreciate that. If I had to serve in the armed forces, or chose to serve when I was younger, like you have, then I think that I would like to do what you are trained to do. Ofcoursre I'm sure that's easier said than done.

[BillyGman]

They need this....


<HR style="COLOR: #dddddd" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->

They need this....
<!-- / message --><!-- attachments -->
<FIELDSET class=fieldset><LEGEND>Attached Thumbnails</LEGEND>http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=74 43&stc=1&thumb=1 (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=74 43)


</FIELDSET>

You got that right Robby. That would be more like it. :up:

[marauder307]

I've handled a few .50s in my time as well...using one to take down a 747 would be like shooting a BB at an elephant...probably would have no effect.

Now, my fellow Coasties DO have a few helos outfitted with BMGs and they use 'em for taking down go-fasts, but that's different. The range between the shooter and the target in those situations is 200 ft or less, the sighting mechanisms are gyro-stabilized laser type, and the target is a LOT smaller than a 747.

The previous comments on modern news journalists are absolutely correct.
Even when they try to get it right, they still get it wrong.... :bs:

[rocknrod]

They need this....I believe we had those mounted on the bow (under the flight deck) on the USS Essex, one on each side. Those are fun units.
I'm not talking about the R2D2.

[BillyGman]

I believe we had those mounted on the bow (under the flight deck) on the USS Essex, one on each side. Those are fun units.
I'm not talking about the R2D2.Yeah, the minigun is what Luke Skywalker should've had mounted on his aircraft. ;)

[Mad1]

I've handled a few .50s in my time as well...using one to take down a 747 would be like shooting a BB at an elephant...probably would have no effect.

The previous comments on modern news journalists are absolutely correct. Even when they try to get it right, they still get it wrong.... :bs:

With a little research (read: Google), I found what probably started this "shooting down a jet liner" thread, which once inside the archived copy is often repeated by every following reporter without question.

The source appears to be the back and forth "pissing" by advocates of both sides (The Violence Policy Center=against 50. cal. and The Fifty Caliber Institute=Pro 50 cal.)


Although VPC has never argued that shooting down a jetliner in flight at altitude is possible, it has pointed out consistently the fact widely claimed by 50 caliber manufacturers themselves along with expert snipers that aircraft of all types—jet, piston, and helicopter—are indisputably vulnerable to 50 caliber anti-armor rifle fire at many points other than flight at altitude, including while fully loaded with fuel and passengers at a terminal, and during taxiing, take off, and landing.

Here's the "study" (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A//www.vpc.org/graphics/birdhuntingstudy.PDF&ei=Uj0PQ5eLBbqOiAGiwsyfCg) put out by the VPC that details the threat to aviation. It mostly stems from someone shooting planes on the tarmac or taxiways. (Where they are either not moving or upon shortly after takeoff.)

The reality is that it is possible to do damage to an airliner, but it isn't as sexy as saying "shooting down," which implies a whole extra level of devastation and loss of life. Like others have pointed, stopping a plane in flight with a rifle is practically impossible.

Mad1
Jeremy

[BillyGman]

I hear ya Jeremy. I guess you have to consider the source. The Violence Policy center is known for skewing facts and taking things out of context. I once went on their website last year, and it became very obvious to me that they know close to nothing about firearms, therfore having very limited knowledge of them, and likely no experience with them, they're going to get their facts wrong concerning them, since they cannot speak from experience concerning their use.

I started this thread as a result of a news report that I heard on the New York radio news station yesterday. :)

[woaface]

If you saw a helicopter in the sky and was able to shoot acurately (at whatever distance) at the rotor that connects to the blades, then you could take it out of the sky.

But they aren't planes...

[Rob1559]

Isn't the R2D2 called Phalanx? I believe it is radar controlled and basically it throws out a "wall" of rounds intercept an incoming object. Am I right or wrong?

[BillyGman]

Isn't the R2D2 called Phalanx? I believe it is radar controlled and basically it throws out a "wall" of rounds intercept an incoming object. Am I right or wrong?:confused: ???????...........

[BillyGman]

If you saw a helicopter in the sky and was able to shoot acurately (at whatever distance) at the rotor that connects to the blades, then you could take it out of the sky.

. If it's one of ours, that might not be that easy. The rotor hubs on ours are made of titanium, and they're shot peened too. Not impossible to take down, but very durable. One of our copters took 50 rifle rounds in Grenada and kept on flying away. :)

The parts that are most vulnerable as well as critical to flight are the blades. But because of the speeds they're rotating at, it might not be too easy to hit them with a rifle unless it was fully automatic.

[rocknrod]

Isn't the R2D2 called Phalanx? I believe it is radar controlled and basically it throws out a "wall" of rounds intercept an incoming object. Am I right or wrong?You ARE correct. (Wheres the cigar smiley)
It tracks the target. It tracks the rounds. It supposed to ensure the two meet.
Uses depleted uranium at times too.

[CBT]

You ARE correct. (Wheres the cigar smiley)
It tracks the target. It tracks the rounds. It supposed to ensure the two meet.
Uses depleted uranium at times too.And they are loud loud loud. Did I mention they are LOUD? Phalanx, also know as CIWS (close in weapons system) was developed by the Brits, we improved upon it. Round of beers for them.:beer: