Talk:.50 BMG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Related task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 Why is this in here? 2 Why I reverted this article 3 Ball/Mass/Velocity Chart? 4 SAAMI SPEC? 5 Dubious statement 6 Any way to get the cartridge in a scale picture? 7 Mythbusters 8 .50 and .50 caliber 9 Mass of common round

[edit] Why is this in here?

Matching the availability and price of the higher-quality .50 ammunition is an impediment to producing large caliber rifles using a different round such as 20 mm or another custom size.

Is this really necessary? It tells just enough of the story to be misleading, but telling the whole story is really too much. Larger components are available -- cases, powder, projectiles, etc. The problem with 20mm is that a lot of the projectiles are HE and any firearm >.50 (that's not a double) is going to get smacked down by the BATFE as a DD. Just axe it IMO. --70.160.160.175 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I reverted this article

Regarding:

The .50 Browning Machine Gun or .50 BMG is a cartridge invented for the M2 Browning machine gun, equivalent to the 12.7 x 99 mm NATO round, that is now also used in high-powered sniper rifles.

This is factually inaccurate. They are not equivalents, which would imply they are different things but have the same value. ".50 BMG" and "12.7 x 99 mm NATO" are different words for the same thing. To give an analogy -- a £1 coin is equivalent to two 50p coins, having the same monetary value, but is not the same thing. -- Cabalamat 00:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ball/Mass/Velocity Chart?

These make it a lot easier to compare rounds from energy perspectives and such. Why is it so difficult to find these on Wikipedia?

The problem is there is so much variance in loads. I can quote Hornady's statistics on their loads, which would give a rule of thumb, but really you need to look at SAAMI for what your loads should be. I don't know that there's a liability issue as such, but it would be very difficult to make accurate loading info available through wikipedia. Do you have a suggestion for how to make it more uniform and generally accurate? I too would like to see that information if it is possible to present it. Avriette 07:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

While there is certainly a wide variance in loads, there are still certain ranges that could be listed. For example, there are common min and max loads and min and max velocities that can easily be taken from a reloading book, plus one or more "typical" loads. For example, the .45 ACP takes bullets from 155 to 260 grains, with typical loads of 185 grains at 1000 fps, 200 at 900, and 230 at 850. These could easily (and should be required to) be referenced, from, say, the Speer reloading manual, or Federal Cartridge Company website. Maybe a template that requires a reference for each entry, and includes a standard "don't try this without a reliable reloading reference handy" disclaimer? scot 22:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't blow your head/hand/whatever off, these are approximate figures, etc but yeah, I like that. I don't have a copy of the Speer manual. Would using Hornady's numbers work as well? I don't think Federal ships a, for example, 50 BMG. I could put the template together and see if those involved in WP:Weaponry like it... Avriette 01:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Speer, Hornaday, Federal, Norma, military specs, whatever's handy and reputable. My Speer manual is a decade and a half out of date (it's a hand-me-down from my father) but it'll do for anything old enough to be covered (does have 10mm, doesn't cover .41 AE or .40 S&W). Even the powder makers' websites might be a good source if they have some load data online--I know they hand out freebie manuals for their powders. Pressures would be nice, too, either in PSI or CUP. Could also add a +P section as an option. I've never tried making a template before, but if you'll get it started, I'm sure I can lend a hand. scot 05:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your best source of ball/mass/velocity charts is probably going to Cartridges of the World. The reloading data sheets on Accurate Arms website puts out PSI/CUP info on all cartridges listed. --70.160.160.175 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SAAMI SPEC?

For the .50 BMG cartridge, there is no SAAMI spec, only NATO spec. Those handloading for bolt action rifles do not load to the NATO spec for pressure, machinegun ammo is too hot. There are basic load guidelines for the .50 BMG, but the usual procedure is to start with a minimum load and slowly work up, extrapolating the load range maximum, or at least an accurate shooting "comfort zone", by being on the lookout for high pressure indications, and knowing how to read them. This is NOT for the inexperienced reloader. Military surplus components and powder can also vary by a significant margin. Whenever anything is changed in the equation, the load workup MUST be repeated. ( 00:57, February 1, 2006 User:Goneballistic )

[edit] Dubious statement

and has not been replaced as the standard caliber for western vehicle mounted machine guns - hmm? I can't think of any British Army vehicles ever carrying a .50 calibre gun except as a spotting rifle. GraemeLeggett 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeha, I think that's better as "american." While the fifty is pretty common out there, the Europeans in particular are using more modern designs. Avriette 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any way to get the cartridge in a scale picture?

This is a good article but for someone not familiar with ammunition it can be a bit confusing. I know the .50 BMG is a huge cartridge but I'm not sure how huge. Is there any pictures out there of this scaled with something like a cigarette or anything small enough?

Here you go. Ry Jones 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be better, IMO, to snap one with a ruler, a .338, a 7.62 nato, a 5.56 nato, and a 7.62 soviet. -- Cannibalicious!

[edit] Mythbusters

In Episode 34 of Mythbusters, it was shown that the .50 BMG, despite its power, was stopped by less than three feet of water.

Mythbusters do not carry out very scientific tests. Far less powerful rounds can penetrate farther than 3 feet. CynicalMe 02:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have fired a BB or more through about foot of water or more. Dudtz 9/26/06 7:43 PM EST

The more powerful a bullet is the less it will travel when in contact with water. The rapid decelleration on the bullet litterally rips it apart. Low velocity projectiles like pistol rounds and BBs do have very much power behind them compared to other rounds so the forces are less when they hit water. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.56.68 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] .50 and .50 caliber

Right now, .50 and .50 caliber point to different places (.50 AE and .50 BMG, respectively.) Anyone else think these two should be the same, and should both point to a disambiguation page? Friday (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. And maybe also to the .500 S&W, which is also a .50 caliber, though it's generally called a "500". scot 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. They are both(all three) .50 call, though used in diffrent weapons. DannyBoy2k 21:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass of common round

I find it quite frustrating that nowhere in the Wiki is there a listing of common masses for individual rounds. I am trying to formulate a table for WWII fighter aircraft 3 second weight-of-fire. This will allow the individual to get a good perspective on the relative lethality of each aircraft if you found yourself in its sights. With the rate of fire and mass of each round this would be a fairly simple task, but it looks like only half the data is out there. There must have been a standard military specification for the load out on these rounds. Wplemenos 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the .50 BMG is not a single round--there's ball ammo, tracer, AP, the Raufuss dual purpose high explosive incendiary AP, the match grade stuff snipers use. If you look around on government sites, you can probably find the designation for the ammo used in aircraft guns at that time, and find specs for it; and be sure to factor in the tracer mix. Try starting here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/50.htm scot 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)