grumpyMSG wrote:gunderwood wrote:The accuracy on the semis isn't all that either. Sufficient for anti-material, but less than ideal for anti-personnel or target shooting. Can't suppress them either.
Allow me to point out the obvoius, "YOU"RE SHOOTING A FREAKIN' .50", the bullet is a half inch in diameter. A short rifle is four feet long. You can supress it, then it's about five and a half feet long and has some stomp to it too, because you removed the muzzle brake. It was intended to be shot at long range and the bullet shows up before the sound gets there...
You posted that reply to my noting that the accuracy of the M82/M107 isn't all that hot. I replied with:
gunderwood wrote:MOA is independent of bullet size. It makes no difference is you are shooting a .17 cal or a .50 cal. Proper measurement of your rifles MOA removes that as a variable.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and went with the least insulting of the interpretations. Let's break this down.
The M82/107 isn't all that accurate (me), "YOU"RE SHOOTING A FREAKIN' .50" (you) could mean:
1. You don't understand what accuracy means and how its typically measured (MOA) such that it's independent of bullet size...thus, it being a freaking .5" doesn't mean anything.
2. You very poorly communicated that the gyroscopic instabilities, which exist for all bullets to some degree or another but are easier to see with a 50BMG, cause a phenomena which may make short range MOA > medium range MOA. The lay mans description is the bullet "goes to sleep." Tighter twist rates may help this issue, but they just exacerbate long range spin drift and bullet uniformity problem.
3. You don't understand marksmanship. You have to hit a target for it to matter. A .22lr through the eye is much better than a .50BMG miss. I don't own a M82/107, but I did a lot of research on them before buying the bolt and have talked with people who do. 2MOA is a very good shooting M82/107! Most are worse than that with some claiming as bad as 4MOA with surplus.
Did I miss something about "SHOOTING A FREAKIN' .50" which makes accuracy irrelevant?
grumpyMSG wrote:(.50 of an inch is one half of an inch, am I some how not getting that right?)
Technically? No, it is .510" bore and military surplus can be several hundredths over that. You need to resize them with a .5095" sizing die or else risk excessive pressures in anything besides a crew served weapon.
grumpyMSG wrote:A short rifle is four feet long (From Barrett's own spec sheet, a short barreled M82A1 is 48 inches, that is about 4 feet isn't it?). You can suppress it, then it's about five and a half feet long(this one I just guessed at, I had no particular suppressor in mind,
Except length has nothing to do with why the military tests failed or why the manufacturers tell you not to do it. Of course a threaded barrel could take a QD or suppressor, but that doesn't make it any better of an idea than if I loaded up a 50BMG case with pistol powder does it?
The M82/107 was not designed to be suppressed and as such it exhibits significant issues when it is...to the point of being dangerous.
grumpyMSG wrote:I just looked AAC's Cyclops is 12.65" long, I was off by approximately 5.35 inches) and has some stomp to it too, because you removed the muzzle brake
Except in that case you don't remove the brake. Only the cheap suppressors for big bores (which is more than 50BMG) use a threaded on design. The problem is that with out a brake the recoil is approaching or exceeds generally recognized safe levels of recoil. A threaded design practically means the rifle can not be shot safely without the suppressor. The AAC can slips over the brake. If you had bothered to read the military presentation I linked too you would have noticed that they specifically note that QD is a requirement. Presumably so that the weapon system could be fired without it.
They also note that the brake, when suppressed, is not the determining factor for recoil. Expansion tank designs showed little to no change in recoil, but those which attempted to shift the frequency did increase the recoil. IMHO, the best cans for a 50BMG increase recoil a bit, but are not unsafe and split the difference. I.e. as much frequency shifting as possible with safe recoil levels.
grumpyMSG wrote:gunderwood wrote:You also don't seem to understand the tactical advantages or use of suppressors on precision rifles or you wouldn't have made such a silly comment about the bullet arriving before the sound. That's always the case with a round which travels supersonic. Duh
, So I got the stating of the obvious right there, I guess. You and I probably just don't see eye to eye on the tactical advantage/ disadvantage of suppressors in all cases. I think I have been around long enough and seen and heard enough outbound ammo and some going the other way to be able to comment on using suppressors
That's note my opinion, that's straight from military training manuals. Diomed gets it right with his post concerning long range military suppressor usage. Sound is important, but it's pretty far down the list. Flash reduction (NV is a b*tch), ground signature,
operator hearing tend to be more important.
Except I own such things and most of info is from studying after action reports and talking to those who actually used it in the field. Like most spec junkies, you focus on the wrong thing because your only looking at a spec sheets. Specs are important, but only when applied to the right questions. It's like arguing that your car is faster than mine because the EPA says you get better highway mileage...the spec isn't wrong, but your understanding of its importance is.
Semi-auto .50BMGs should be suppressed (for now) not because of length, but because of safety.
The primary benefits of suppressing a 50BMG is not so a target 1mile away doesn't hear you, but so that your reduce your signature in other ways and so that you reduce hearing loss of the operator.
grumpyMSG wrote:There is no practical reason to put a 20 inch barrel on a .50 BMG rifle, but if you want one, have at it til your heart is content.
Again, utter fail at the tactical reasons for why such a beast exists.
Those short barreled guns were built at special request of the military! Things have changed since the 1900s.
The military was finding that they were engaging cars (presumably with IEDs) and personnel behind cover (e.g. concrete blocks) at short ranges in Iraq (i.e. in the city) rather frequently. It is more of a fire support/marksman mission than traditional sniping...but that is exactly what the Barrett is good at. The shorter barrels and overall length (they did try out some M99s with a 25" barrel IIRC) were to facility vehicle entry/exit and indoor shooting. Sure, it makes the muzzle blast incredible, but that's a small price to pay for the other tactical advantages.
grumpyMSG wrote:On the other hand owning a 57 inch long rifle and sticking a suppressor that is slightly more than a foot long would yield a rifle that is five feet nine inches long, not exactly what you want to use to sneak up on somebody. Even if you went with one of the Model 95 Bull-pup bolt guns you are still looking at a 45 inches plus a foot for a length of four feet nine inches and 28 1/2 pounds can included. I don't even see that as a practical rifle for a stalk. But if I use the rifle as the long range weapon it was intended to be, you don't need to conduct the stalk.
Why are you stuck on length? Oh wait, you still think we primarily use these as traditional sniper platforms. Either talk to someone who has used them in the sandbox or read the after action reports, then come talk to me.
grumpyMSG wrote:At a long range, terrain, vegetation, buildings and weather conditions will help mask and conceal the location the fire is coming from. I just think putting a suppressor on a .50 BMG is a waste of time, but it is your money and you can spend it any way you like...
Still failing. Read what Diomed and I have posted. Go read some after action reports. Talk to some actual operators. There are lots of very good reasons to suppress a 50BMG for civilian and military users alike...
they just have nothing to do with what you're talking about.
