Zak Smith
Member
This one can be fired from normal shooting positions
Why aren't there more .50 BMG big game rifles?
- Thread starter John Wayne
- Start date
- Status
winchester '97
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2009
- Messages
- 306
Well i would guess it could have something to do with taking the danger out of dangerous game with the long range shots and such, some people do love the thrill, and the countries that have elephants and rhinos might be a little antsy about military type weapons considering the volatile region.
dubbleA
Member
ArmedBear said:
The 750gr Amax is a hammer in my 50, gotta love em..........
Greg Koziol
member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2010
- Messages
- 300
The recoil would make it impractical. You would need a recoil piston mechanism like the m82 a1 barret sniper rifle where the barrel slides back and forth , or else it'll just be too much kick. .500 nitro, 458 win mag, .458 lott, .460 weatherby, .505 gibbs, and .375 RUM and .375 H&H are plenty for anything, even dinosaurs if you had FMJ or brass solids.
Greg Koziol
member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2010
- Messages
- 300
even a .45-70 with buffalo bore ammo or grizzly 400 grain solids pushed at 2050fps is enough to down anything
Acera
Member
saturno_v wrote:
It is obvious that it is not a gun for you. But that does not mean that the rest of us have your limitations. I plan on taking some pigs in the fall with mine. While I will be shooting from a stand, I don't expect any issues.
Another myth someone posted is about the break, and that PHs ears would be destroyed and they are banned. If you look at a lot of the big game bolt guns out there, they come with a break. In fact on Weatherbys their Accubrake option (standard on .30-378, .338-378, .378, .416 and .460 models) is popular.
So you guys that hate on the 50, just remember when they ban it, they get one step closer to whatever cartridge you think is the upper limit. Thanks for contributing to the anti-hunters, anti-gunners efforts at more control.
If you want truthful and insightful information listen to the folks that have these guns, they understand them and don't believe all the hype and inaccuracies that float around about them on boards like this one from the uneducated.
It is obvious that it is not a gun for you. But that does not mean that the rest of us have your limitations. I plan on taking some pigs in the fall with mine. While I will be shooting from a stand, I don't expect any issues.
Another myth someone posted is about the break, and that PHs ears would be destroyed and they are banned. If you look at a lot of the big game bolt guns out there, they come with a break. In fact on Weatherbys their Accubrake option (standard on .30-378, .338-378, .378, .416 and .460 models) is popular.
So you guys that hate on the 50, just remember when they ban it, they get one step closer to whatever cartridge you think is the upper limit. Thanks for contributing to the anti-hunters, anti-gunners efforts at more control.
If you want truthful and insightful information listen to the folks that have these guns, they understand them and don't believe all the hype and inaccuracies that float around about them on boards like this one from the uneducated.
porscheboy
Member
Without a massive muzzle break or recoil system a .50 bmg side by side would likely either break the guns stock or your shoulder.
dougw47
Member
When I started reading this thread, I thought..."Why?"
Listening to both sides, I thought..."Why not?"
I don't have no dog in this fight, somebody will probably do it.
Listening to both sides, I thought..."Why not?"
I don't have no dog in this fight, somebody will probably do it.
..."So you guys that hate on the 50"...
none of MY remarks about the 50 have been positive....
that doesn't mean i'm down on it, or the legality of owning one! what you have read was written in the context of the OP's question. i see nothing wrong with some one who wants/owns a 50. i do not however see it as a practical DGR platform.
the shell is too long for fast cycling in a bolt action. a semi-auto would be mucho too heavy. a rifle with a bbl long enough to burn all of the powder from a full house loading would be way too long for fast target acquisition. and a full power loading is well beyond what the mission requires. a bbl short enough to be somewhat handy for swinging quickly on a threat, like in Zak's posting, #51, would require serious/judicious downloading to keep from being classified as a "flamethrower", and all of the power the round was chosen for would be out the window.
maybe you are reading in animosity that isn't there? lighten up. we aren't trashing the 50BMG, or it's following. read our replies in light of the OP's question/thread.
gunnie
none of MY remarks about the 50 have been positive....
that doesn't mean i'm down on it, or the legality of owning one! what you have read was written in the context of the OP's question. i see nothing wrong with some one who wants/owns a 50. i do not however see it as a practical DGR platform.
the shell is too long for fast cycling in a bolt action. a semi-auto would be mucho too heavy. a rifle with a bbl long enough to burn all of the powder from a full house loading would be way too long for fast target acquisition. and a full power loading is well beyond what the mission requires. a bbl short enough to be somewhat handy for swinging quickly on a threat, like in Zak's posting, #51, would require serious/judicious downloading to keep from being classified as a "flamethrower", and all of the power the round was chosen for would be out the window.
maybe you are reading in animosity that isn't there? lighten up. we aren't trashing the 50BMG, or it's following. read our replies in light of the OP's question/thread.
gunnie
Last edited:
Zak
What is the weight of that thing?? How much power you lose with that short barrel?? Ballistic data for the 50 BMG is usually published for 45" barrels....nto to mention the horrendous blast and recoil...it is like firing a 30-06 from a 10" barrel....what is the purpose of that??
I'm sorry but I think that is not just "my limitation"..no matter how you put it, a 20 lbs rifle is not practical or fun to lug around....the "rest of you" it is the exception, not the rule...
Zak Smith
Member
It wasn't very heavy, but I don't remember off the top of my head. I would guess it was about 16-18 lbs.
Now the one in the photo has an 18" barrel, which was a dumb move by who-ever spec'd out that rifle IMO. But I think milspec ammo should still have over 2400 fps from that one - I didn't chrono it.
Don't take my first post the wrong way. I merely posted that photo to show what "could" be done, not what would be a good idea.
No idea what this means. Data is data; you can argue what the 50BMG was designed for but the reality is that most of the "issue" sniper rifles for this cartridge have approx 27-31" barrels and the ballistics achieved by these rifles are well known.
Now the one in the photo has an 18" barrel, which was a dumb move by who-ever spec'd out that rifle IMO. But I think milspec ammo should still have over 2400 fps from that one - I didn't chrono it.
Don't take my first post the wrong way. I merely posted that photo to show what "could" be done, not what would be a good idea.
Sorry...what I meant to say is that the fantastic 12-14K level of energy of a 50 BMG published by ammo manufacturer are intended for 45" barrels.
Hornady advertises its 750 gr. A-MAX load at 2820 fps from a 45" barrel.
2400 from a barrel of only 18"??.....maybe but I'm highly skeptical...
Even assuming the optimistic 2400 fps, calculating over my head, that put a 750 gr. slug at just over 9K of ME....not far from ~8K reached by classical African calibers like the 460 Wby Magnum and similar, available in well proven, light, DG hunting rifles (10 lbs or even less)
Exactly.....a rifle like that doe not make sense as DG weapon......
Last edited:
Zak Smith
Member
Read my post a little more carefully. I posted the weight in my prior post, and I said "milspec ammo" not AMAX reloads. FYI typically 750gr AMAX loads from a 27" barrel shoot about 2650 fps.
I don't really understand this thread's opening question - it should be nonsensical to anyone who has handled .50BMG cartridges or fired the rifles. The .50BMG cartridge is used most "in the real world" for shooting vehicles and materiel at medium, long, and ultra long distances. The cartridge is intrinsically good at this because of the bore size and the bullet BC values that are possible and the case capacity of the cartridge in relation to the bore size, which enables long-range use. It is only a "good" hunting cartridge to the extent that such "hunting" resembles shooting vehicles at long range-- which is not much. A cartridge designed to shoot heavy, deep-penetrating bullets at close range (within the point-blank range of the cartridge) will look a lot different than the .50BMG - and not coincidentally the canonical African dangerous game cartridges do not resemble it.
I don't really understand this thread's opening question - it should be nonsensical to anyone who has handled .50BMG cartridges or fired the rifles. The .50BMG cartridge is used most "in the real world" for shooting vehicles and materiel at medium, long, and ultra long distances. The cartridge is intrinsically good at this because of the bore size and the bullet BC values that are possible and the case capacity of the cartridge in relation to the bore size, which enables long-range use. It is only a "good" hunting cartridge to the extent that such "hunting" resembles shooting vehicles at long range-- which is not much. A cartridge designed to shoot heavy, deep-penetrating bullets at close range (within the point-blank range of the cartridge) will look a lot different than the .50BMG - and not coincidentally the canonical African dangerous game cartridges do not resemble it.
Yes, infact I already corrected my post......18" and still 18 lbs...ouch!!! Not exactly a piece of hardware you want to hike around with....is it a single shot??
Totally agree....the 50 BMG is absolutely impractical as DG round nor it was even remotely designed for it.
The OP already apologized in advance if the post did not make much sense.
What I'm surprised of is that someone that should know the cartridge and typical platforms that fire it, somewhat suggested it was "feasible"...and someone even tried to build a rifle for the purpose....
Zak Smith
Member
The rifle was detailed here
article | Battle of the Budget .50 BMG Rifles
article | Battle of the Budget .50 BMG Rifles
Zak Smith
Member
It was 16.3 lbs.
I'm not sure if there are more 50 bmg rifle in civilian hands than military, but I'm sure that most of the civilian owned ones are not anti-material/vehicle weapons. I have seen lots of sporting 50 cals, and they were all used to shoot paper, metal, water jugs and rocks. Have not seen them used on vehicles yet.
Ranb
Zak Smith
Member
I used the phrase "in the real world" to refer to non-sporting/recreational use. I do agree with your point regarding numbers in civilian vs. military hands; however, I bet the number of rounds fired by the military from the M2 machinegun far exceeds the number shot by hobbyists.
ZAK, read the article with keen interest, thanks for the (per usual) well written, FREE info....
but it still left me wondering about the AR conversion uppers:
a bud of mine has been considering a 50 BMG upper for his AR 15 clone lower for quite a while. when we talked about it, i told him to wait a while to see what the long term effects of launching that kind of power on an aluminum lower intended for 5.56 energies would be.
sure, new lowers are relatively cheap, and fairly easy to assemble. but he won't even mount glass himself, preferring to have the dealer he bought it from do so. "cheaper than doing it myself, when you count in ammo costs". so we are talking at best, limited mechanical ability on his part.
to make a short story long, did Mr. Ruiz give a round count/approximation for the Ligamec unit you tested? did he say if the lower was the original, also? your write up said the bbl had many rounds through it, do you feel this was the onliest impediment to accuracy? (i doubt very much he will run up a large amount of .50 trigger time for his own personal use.) any looseness noted in the lower rear face or pin bosses from the extended diet of overdose M.E.?
i know the bbl and bolt (devices) contain the pressures, but the resulting energy has to be absorbed by the lower even before it gets to the shooter. is this accomplished with large amounts of bearing surfaces at the lower's "breech face"* with the pins only locating the upper? for clarification, can you, or those you shoot 3 gun with tell me if the pin boss-to-lower rear dimensions on a decent lower (bushmaster) are close enough to allow for the recoil force to impinge only on the "breech face"?
if not perhaps i will tell my friend that the energy transfer to the AR lower can be achieved without him getting charged with domestic abuse, and that he should go for it.
please advise both of us,
gunnie
* for lack of a more precise term, called "breech face" to describe the new function it somewhat assumes.
but it still left me wondering about the AR conversion uppers:
a bud of mine has been considering a 50 BMG upper for his AR 15 clone lower for quite a while. when we talked about it, i told him to wait a while to see what the long term effects of launching that kind of power on an aluminum lower intended for 5.56 energies would be.
sure, new lowers are relatively cheap, and fairly easy to assemble. but he won't even mount glass himself, preferring to have the dealer he bought it from do so. "cheaper than doing it myself, when you count in ammo costs". so we are talking at best, limited mechanical ability on his part.
to make a short story long, did Mr. Ruiz give a round count/approximation for the Ligamec unit you tested? did he say if the lower was the original, also? your write up said the bbl had many rounds through it, do you feel this was the onliest impediment to accuracy? (i doubt very much he will run up a large amount of .50 trigger time for his own personal use.) any looseness noted in the lower rear face or pin bosses from the extended diet of overdose M.E.?
i know the bbl and bolt (devices) contain the pressures, but the resulting energy has to be absorbed by the lower even before it gets to the shooter. is this accomplished with large amounts of bearing surfaces at the lower's "breech face"* with the pins only locating the upper? for clarification, can you, or those you shoot 3 gun with tell me if the pin boss-to-lower rear dimensions on a decent lower (bushmaster) are close enough to allow for the recoil force to impinge only on the "breech face"?
if not perhaps i will tell my friend that the energy transfer to the AR lower can be achieved without him getting charged with domestic abuse, and that he should go for it.
please advise both of us,
gunnie
* for lack of a more precise term, called "breech face" to describe the new function it somewhat assumes.
45B@cav
Member
BINGO! Z Michigan is correct. It's a Military Cartridge/Rifle ban that is strictly inforced in African countries. Here in North America the only living thing I would consider shooting with a fifty would be a pissed off Grizzly from a long distance because I honestly would not want to get upclose to one. I know there are other cartridges that would do it and I don't know if it's even legal but a nine foot tall 1,000+ pound Grizzly from about a half mile away personally makes sense to me. JMO
Last edited:
Zak Smith
Member
I don't think it will hurt an AR-15 lower. .50BMG "AR" uppers have been around for quite some time and I haven't heard of it being a problem. Remember, a new lower is worth about 20 rounds of match-grade .50 ammo.
- Status