«

I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns *are*
available for civilian use, in fact, if you have the cash, they're easy
to buy.

They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/

"Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
news: om...
>I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns *are* available
>for civilian use, in fact, if you have the cash, they're easy to buy.
>
> They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.
>
> http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/
>
>
Yea, but you can`t `slip` one in your pocket <g>.

beenthere wrote:
> "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
>
>>I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns *are* available
>>for civilian use, in fact, if you have the cash, they're easy to buy.
>>
>>They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.
>>
>>http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/
>>
>>
>
> Yea, but you can`t `slip` one in your pocket <g>.

You don't need to have it in your pocket, you can stay at home and kill
the target from 4 miles away! Hard for me to imagine. One US sniper team
in Iraq said that the spotter found a guy with an RPG up on top of a
water tower, I believe they said about a half mile away. The sniper took
one shot and they said the top half of the terrorist fell off of the
water tank, the bottom half stayed on top. There was no wondering if the
shot was lethal.

Next time my neighbor's dog barks all night, I'm ordering one of them
babies.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:48:55 -0400, Rôgêr wrote:

> I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns *are* available
> for civilian use, in fact, if you have the cash, they're easy to buy.
>
> They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.
>
> http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/

Pretty hard to pull a bead on an intruder inside your house with that
thing. I'll stick to my Glock 35 or HK USP Variant .40

--



Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004

In article <>,
l says...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:48:55 -0400, Rôgêr wrote:
>
> > I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns *are* available
> > for civilian use, in fact, if you have the cash, they're easy to buy.
> >
> > They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.
> >
> > http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/
>
> Pretty hard to pull a bead on an intruder inside your house with that
> thing. I'll stick to my Glock 35 or HK USP Variant .40

Don't forget, just about any round from a 38/357/.40 will go through the
wall, so you might want to consider shot-shell type ammo for use inside
the home. Most intruders don't wear vests, so, SS ammo does well and
doesn't go through enough walls to have to worry about your
kids/neighbors if you miss.

--


remove 999 in order to email me

Rôgêr was thinking very hard :
> I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns
> *are* available for civilian use, in fact, if you have the
> cash, they're easy to buy.

> They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.

> http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/

I don't need any of that for home security, I have a
mother-in-law.

Top

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
much better


"Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
news: om...
>I recommend the T-1 feed version of this video. These guns *are* available
>for civilian use, in fact, if you have the cash, they're easy to buy.
>
> They'd be hell on varmints. Or ... just about anything else.
>
> http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/video/

Bill wrote:
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
> much better

Well, I'd agree to some degree, but the 50 cal I was posting about can
put rounds through the Abrams tank at a distance the tank can't respond
to. Part of what amazes me about that Barrett weapon.

Rôgêr wrote:

> Bill wrote:
>> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
>> much better
>
> Well, I'd agree to some degree, but the 50 cal I was posting about can
> put rounds through the Abrams tank at a distance the tank can't
> respond to. Part of what amazes me about that Barrett weapon.

Could you explain that statement?

Are you saying the .50 will punch a *hole* in an M1A1 tank? And at over
4,000 meters? I do not believe the Barrett has a range of 4,000 meters,
as does the 120mm cannon on the tank, per the above m1.htm page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_(rifle)

"The long effective range, over 1500 m with a record shot of 2500 m,"

No match for an Abrams that I can see...

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Rôgêr wrote:
>
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
>>>much better
>>
>>Well, I'd agree to some degree, but the 50 cal I was posting about can
>>put rounds through the Abrams tank at a distance the tank can't
>>respond to. Part of what amazes me about that Barrett weapon.
>
>
> Could you explain that statement?
>
> Are you saying the .50 will punch a *hole* in an M1A1 tank? And at over
> 4,000 meters? I do not believe the Barrett has a range of 4,000 meters,
> as does the 120mm cannon on the tank, per the above m1.htm page.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_(rifle)
>
> "The long effective range, over 1500 m with a record shot of 2500 m,"
>
> No match for an Abrams that I can see...
>
Had you watched the video I posted links to, the Marine doing the
talking claims an effective range of 2000 yards, with rounds going out
to 7450 yards, using rounds that are especially made for armor piercing
(using explosive means). I can't verify any of this, I don't have either
weapon available for testing. But from what I've read elsewhere, there
are reported kills on lightly armored personnel carriers at over 2
miles. The govenator of California had a law passed specifically banning
the sale of this rifle in that state. It's pretty hard core stuff.