Mayor Bloomberg

[regulator 0]

Let me quote what this idiot said in this video.

"but that doesn't mean you have an assault weapon. That doesnt mean you have a rifle thats advertised to bring down a commercial airliner at a mile and a half. Or bullets that are designed to go through bullet proof vests"

It's vividly clear this guy doesnt know anything about firearms.

So now assault weapons can take down a 747 from a mile and a half out?

That's news to me.

Ive mentioned many times in the past my father is an LEO. Every two years their body armor gets replaced and the older ones that arent used anymore get thrown away. We got two of these vests and initiated a test firing several different caliber weapons into this vest. We fired several handgun caliber rounds into the vest and they were stopped as advertised. Then we shot it with a M1 Carbine, which shoots a 30 caliber round. Which many know isnt very powerful of a round. Even in FMJ vareities all of them penetrated the vest. These vests are NOT BULLET PROOF. They will stop most handgun rounds and some low powered rifle rounds...like a 22LR. But if this is someone advocating for stripping americans 2nd amendment rights and he obviously doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about shouldn't he have someone on his staff to educate him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVXx-NejsK8

[billvon 2,396]

>So now assault weapons can take down a 747 from a mile and a half out?
>That's news to me.

The Browning M2 was designed as (in part) an antiaircraft weapon. It has an effective range of 1.2 miles and a maximum range of 4 miles. A little history:

"The development of a large-caliber heavy machine gun in USA was initiated in 1918, at the direct request of General Pershing, the commander of the US expeditionary corps in Europe. He requested a heavy gun capable of destroying military aircraft and ground targets such as tanks and armored cars. . . .

In the year 1930 US Army adopted a slightly modified .50caliber M1921A1 machine gun, and further work on this gun concentrated on the development of a universal weapon suitable for most roles. The key design changes were made by Dr. Samuel G. Green, who redesigned the basic receiver so it could be used in conjunction with either water-cooled or air-cooled barrels, encased in a water jacket or short perforated sleeve respectively. He also developed a switchable left or right side belt-feeding unit. The US Army adopted the new, improved fifty-caliber machine gun as the M2, in a water-cooled anti-aircraft version, an air-cooled ground mount version and as an aircraft weapon."

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

>So now assault weapons can take down a 747 from a mile and a half out?
>That's news to me.

The Browning M2 was designed as (in part) an antiaircraft weapon. It has an effective range of 1.2 miles and a maximum range of 4 miles. A little history:

"The development of a large-caliber heavy machine gun in USA was initiated in 1918, at the direct request of General Pershing, the commander of the US expeditionary corps in Europe. He requested a heavy gun capable of destroying military aircraft and ground targets such as tanks and armored cars. . . .

In the year 1930 US Army adopted a slightly modified .50caliber M1921A1 machine gun, and further work on this gun concentrated on the development of a universal weapon suitable for most roles. The key design changes were made by Dr. Samuel G. Green, who redesigned the basic receiver so it could be used in conjunction with either water-cooled or air-cooled barrels, encased in a water jacket or short perforated sleeve respectively. He also developed a switchable left or right side belt-feeding unit. The US Army adopted the new, improved fifty-caliber machine gun as the M2, in a water-cooled anti-aircraft version, an air-cooled ground mount version and as an aircraft weapon."

And how many people have or want M2's?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[regulator 0]

The Browning M2 was designed as (in part) an antiaircraft weapon. It has an effective range of 1.2 miles and a maximum range of 4 miles.

And this would also be a class 3 weapon.

http://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc?set=02


Just because it can send a projectile that far doesnt mean someone can hit anything with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning

Check out the link from wiki in regards to an M2.

Show me on there where you can mount optics.

[Airgump 1]

http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/M2_Browning

Quote

Combat usage

The M2 .50 Browning machine gun is used for various roles:

A medium infantry support weapon
When doubled it is used as an anti-aircraft gun in some ships, or on the ground. In these cases a pair of one left-handed and one right-handed feeds are used. In some cases four to six guns are mounted on the turret.
Primary or secondary weapon on an armored fighting vehicle
Primary or secondary weapon on a naval patrol boat
Secondary weapon for anti-boat defense on naval destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers
Coaxial gun or independent mounting in some tanks
A primary armament in WWII-era U.S. aircraft such as the P-51 Mustang, and the Korean-era U.S. F-86 Sabre.
Defensive armament in WWII-era bombers like the B-17 Flying Fortress, and B-24 Liberators.
A long range sniper rifle, when attached with a scope. One well-known expert was US Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock during the Vietnam War. The success of the M2 in this role led to the development of actual sniper rifles based on the same .50 caliber round.
Can Be mounted on to vehicles like the HMWWV.

when i was in the army many years ago the field manual addressed the 50 cal for sniper use. pretty sure it got a lot of use from mountain top to mountain top in the korean police action. we had a lot of vehicle mounted ones in the field artillery units. they sure are a hoot on live fire exercises!

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

>So now assault weapons can take down a 747 from a mile and a half out?
>That's news to me.

The Browning M2 was designed as (in part) an antiaircraft weapon. It has an effective range of 1.2 miles and a maximum range of 4 miles. A little history:

"The development of a large-caliber heavy machine gun in USA was initiated in 1918, at the direct request of General Pershing, the commander of the US expeditionary corps in Europe. He requested a heavy gun capable of destroying military aircraft and ground targets such as tanks and armored cars. . . .

In the year 1930 US Army adopted a slightly modified .50caliber M1921A1 machine gun, and further work on this gun concentrated on the development of a universal weapon suitable for most roles. The key design changes were made by Dr. Samuel G. Green, who redesigned the basic receiver so it could be used in conjunction with either water-cooled or air-cooled barrels, encased in a water jacket or short perforated sleeve respectively. He also developed a switchable left or right side belt-feeding unit. The US Army adopted the new, improved fifty-caliber machine gun as the M2, in a water-cooled anti-aircraft version, an air-cooled ground mount version and as an aircraft weapon."

And how many people have or want M2's?

Totally irrelevant to the discussion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[regulator 0]

Lets do this instead.

I just googled the words [how many people murdered with browning m2]

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=how+many+people+murdered+with+browning+m2&oq=how+many+people+murdered+with+browning+m2&gs_l=hp.3...467.7700.0.8058.41.23.0.13.13.1.312.4785.0j12j8j3.23.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.hp.VK3vW9ZeixY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42080656,d.b2I&fp=72bf9325becb8e42&biw=1229&bih=814


The grand total 0

I guess google isnt my friend after all

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>So now assault weapons can take down a 747 from a mile and a half out?
>That's news to me.

The Browning M2 was designed as (in part) an antiaircraft weapon

The M2 is an assault rifle? The damned thing is weighs nearly about 80 pounds without the tripod. Each cartridge for it weighs a quarter of a pound. It's crew served.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>So now assault weapons can take down a 747 from a mile and a half out?
>That's news to me.

The Browning M2 was designed as (in part) an antiaircraft weapon. It has an effective range of 1.2 miles and a maximum range of 4 miles. A little history:

"The development of a large-caliber heavy machine gun in USA was initiated in 1918, at the direct request of General Pershing, the commander of the US expeditionary corps in Europe. He requested a heavy gun capable of destroying military aircraft and ground targets such as tanks and armored cars. . . .

In the year 1930 US Army adopted a slightly modified .50caliber M1921A1 machine gun, and further work on this gun concentrated on the development of a universal weapon suitable for most roles. The key design changes were made by Dr. Samuel G. Green, who redesigned the basic receiver so it could be used in conjunction with either water-cooled or air-cooled barrels, encased in a water jacket or short perforated sleeve respectively. He also developed a switchable left or right side belt-feeding unit. The US Army adopted the new, improved fifty-caliber machine gun as the M2, in a water-cooled anti-aircraft version, an air-cooled ground mount version and as an aircraft weapon."

I have no idea what your point is in bringing up the Browning M2. It's nothing like the M1 Carbine. They don't even use the same ammunition. Also as others have pointed out, it's not an assault weapon. It's a tripod mounted machine gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine

[regulator 0]

Precisely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG

If you look at the picture in the link provided you would see the round on the far left .50 BMG and at the far right you will see two rounds. The 22 LR and the 5.56 ( or .223 equivalent) The 30 caliber round would fit between those two.

[billvon 2,396]

>And how many people have or want M2's?

No idea. They are currently being sold in their semiauto form, so clearly some people want them.

Like the guy said, it's a good idea to preserve the right to bear arms. That right does not extend to antiaircraft weapons.

[regulator 0]

Ill tell you right now I wouldnt even waste my time with a Ma Deuce unless it was the real deal.

Thats like buying a brand new corvette stingray and having it set on 1/3rd power...for when your 16 year old kid drives to the prom.

Its heavy, cumbersome, heavy, the ammunition is heavy...did I mention it was heavy?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

And how many people have or want M2's?

I don't have one. But in traffic - damn, I want one.

[regulator 0]

Besides I think just because they were used as anti aircraft guns during WW2 and other conflicts doesnt mean that can shoot down a commercial airliner @ a mile and a half out. This during its heyday was the epitome of spray and pray. Its cyclic rate was 750-800 rounds per minute of .50 coming your way. Like I said even though the round can shoot on a good day @ 1.2 miles out...and a max range of 4 miles doesnt mean this weapon can do that. There is no way to mount optics on the top and even if you did...theres no way in hell you can look down a scope while it was going off.

[billvon 2,396]

>Its heavy, cumbersome, heavy, the ammunition is heavy...did I mention it was heavy?

Not if you're Arnold Schwarzenegger. Didn't he fire one one-handed in Terminator 3?

Edited to add - it was an M1919, and he had some help in the form of a shoulder strap. My bad.

>Besides I think just because they were used as anti aircraft guns during WW2 and
>other conflicts doesnt mean that can shoot down a commercial airliner @ a mile and a
>half out.

Agreed; no guarantees there. However, a weapon designed in part as an antiaircraft weapon is going to stand a pretty good chance of doing some damage to aircraft.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

it's a good idea to preserve the right to bear arms. That right does not extend to antiaircraft weapons.

Why not?

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Ill tell you right now I wouldnt even waste my time with a Ma Deuce unless it was the real deal.

Thats like buying a brand new corvette stingray and having it set on 1/3rd power...for when your 16 year old kid drives to the prom.

Its heavy, cumbersome, heavy, the ammunition is heavy...did I mention it was heavy?

It's really expensive to buy and the ammunition is really expensive also. I wonder if anyone has ever committed a crime with one of these in the US?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

>So now assault weapons can take down a 747 from a mile and a half out?
>That's news to me.

The Browning M2 was designed as (in part) an antiaircraft weapon. It has an effective range of 1.2 miles and a maximum range of 4 miles. A little history:

"The development of a large-caliber heavy machine gun in USA was initiated in 1918, at the direct request of General Pershing, the commander of the US expeditionary corps in Europe. He requested a heavy gun capable of destroying military aircraft and ground targets such as tanks and armored cars. . . .

In the year 1930 US Army adopted a slightly modified .50caliber M1921A1 machine gun, and further work on this gun concentrated on the development of a universal weapon suitable for most roles. The key design changes were made by Dr. Samuel G. Green, who redesigned the basic receiver so it could be used in conjunction with either water-cooled or air-cooled barrels, encased in a water jacket or short perforated sleeve respectively. He also developed a switchable left or right side belt-feeding unit. The US Army adopted the new, improved fifty-caliber machine gun as the M2, in a water-cooled anti-aircraft version, an air-cooled ground mount version and as an aircraft weapon."

Well, the aircraft of 1918 were a just a little bit more vulnerable to a 50 cal round than a 747, I would think.

And the ground version used in WW2 was called an "M16" and was Four M2 machine guns mounted to a vehilce.
I think that little puppy would be just a little bit more powerful than a single shot 50 cal rifle (which is a huge step up from a military style semi like an AR)

If you watch WW2 footage you can see people shooting 50 cal machine guns trying to shoot planes down. The gunners on the bombers over Europe and the gun camera footage from fighters (Allied fighters usually used 4 or more 50 cal guns).
See how many hits it usually takes to knock down an enemy fighter. With the exception of hitting the fuel tank in a Japanese Zero (which often resulted in a nice little fireball), it took a lot of hits to down a plane.

And kind of like anti-tank weapons, guns firing bullets have been obsolete for a long, long time as anti-aircraft weapons.
With the exception of the Phalanx CIWS and a couple east-bloc (Soviet) multi-cannon systems, all the anti-air stuff is guided missle technology. The two "gun" anti-air systems have very, very high rates of fire. They are well beyond normal "Machine guns."
We didn't send 50 cal rifles to the Afghan rebels in the 80s, we sent Stinger missiles.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Airgump 1]

http://texashideout.tripod.com/guns.html


other than the chicago typewriter that gained fame from kallend's home 20. The BAR that Clyde used was pretty handy for dispatching folks. this link also shows a weapon that he modified for a bigger magazine for his scatter gun, so much for limiting mag size. if push comes to shove, i bet even lefty billy could devise the same.

along with the above mentioned weapons, got to have a special license to posses one, but once again.......criminals don't spend any time with following the letter of the law towards possession of weapons.

[billvon 2,396]

>Well, the aircraft of 1918 were a just a little bit more vulnerable to a 50 cal round than
>a 747, I would think.

Really?

So it's easier to get a round into the air intake of a DC-3's radial engines than into the air intake of a 747's engines?

A nonpressurized aircraft would be in trouble if you poked some holes in it, but a pressurized aircraft would be OK?

A 3/8" steel control cable would be taken out by gunfire, whereas a 3000ps hydraulic line would be just fine?

A B-17 that lost its windscreen would crash, but a 747 would be quite flyable?

Hmm. Think I'd disagree there. Read up on the punishment that DC-3's, B-17's and B-24's took during the various wars they were in, then consider what would happen to, say, a 747 with the same number of holes/missing engines/missing windshields etc.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

http://texashideout.tripod.com/guns.html


other than the chicago typewriter that gained fame from kallend's home 20. The BAR that Clyde used was pretty handy for dispatching folks. this link also shows a weapon that he modified for a bigger magazine for his scatter gun, so much for limiting mag size. if push comes to shove, i bet even lefty billy could devise the same.

along with the above mentioned weapons, got to have a special license to posses one, but once again.......criminals don't spend any time with following the letter of the law towards possession of weapons.

A Browning M2 is not the same thing as a BAR. They aren't even close to being the same thing.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

And how many people have or want M2's?

I don't have one. But in traffic - damn, I want one.

You, me and a whole bunch of us too!

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Airgump 1]

that was my underlying point.......along the lines of lawrocket's post, it's a crew served weapon, which even when used as a sniper weapon it has to be mounted. the BAR, Thompson and the M60 that arnie liked so much are about the only weapons a criminal could use against their fellow citizens efficiently.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

>Well, the aircraft of 1918 were a just a little bit more vulnerable to a 50 cal round than
>a 747, I would think.

Really?

So it's easier to get a round into the air intake of a DC-3's radial engines than into the air intake of a 747's engines?

A nonpressurized aircraft would be in trouble if you poked some holes in it, but a pressurized aircraft would be OK?

A 3/8" steel control cable would be taken out by gunfire, whereas a 3000ps hydraulic line would be just fine?

A B-17 that lost its windscreen would crash, but a 747 would be quite flyable?

Hmm. Think I'd disagree there. Read up on the punishment that DC-3's, B-17's and B-24's took during the various wars they were in, then consider what would happen to, say, a 747 with the same number of holes/missing engines/missing windshields etc.

Well, I was under the impression that -3s, -17s and -24s were developed well after 1918.

And while turbine engines are far more vulnerable to bullet damage than piston radials (hitting the air intake on a DC-3 wouldn't hurt the engine at all, hitting the crankcase, which would drain the oil out would) actually hitting it with a rifle from that far away while the airplane is moving a couple of hundred mph (slower on final approach, but still well over 100) is very difficult. And a 747 will fly on 3 engines just fine.

Pressurized aircraft are just fine with a couple of 1/2" holes poked in them. Mythbusters proved it. And at less than 8000' the loss of pressure won't affect anyone much.

Hydraulic systems are usually 2 completely seperate sets, with a backup. The crash of UAL232 happened because the departing turbine disk took out all three systems. And even smaller than the engine, hitting it would be virtually impossible.

A 747 that lost its winshield would be in trouble, but there have been cases of airliners losing them and landing safely (one even did it after the pilot got sucked out the opening and was being held by his feet by a steward)http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/11/world/4-miles-over-britain-pilot-is-sucked-out-crew-holds-on-tight.html

There's absolutely no way a 747 could continue to fly after taking the kind of hits you are talking about. The damage those aircraft took, and still got thier surviving crew home was absolutely staggering. I know exactly what you mean.
But that wasn't done by an "assault rifle" or a semi-auto 50 cal, or even machine gun fire.
The Germans used 20mm and 30mm cannon on their fighters. And much of the damage you are talking about came from flak. 88mm anti-aircraft cannon.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

And how many people have or want M2's?

I don't have one. But in traffic - damn, I want one.

You could put it on top of your Hummer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.