The Dester Tech HTI .50BMG seems to have found a sweet spot at 20lbs and 29″, where its competitors are in the 25-35 pound range at 34+ inches. Although, until we solve the barrel weight problem we can’t do much better than this.
Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science
-
photos_and_videos/TheGreatGame_10155865944942264/23509165_10155871613467264_8402
photos_and_videos/TheGreatGame_10155865944942264/23509165_10155871613467264_8402906177558265372_o_10155871613467264.jpg The Dester Tech HTI .50BMG seems to have found a sweet spot at 20lbs and 29″, where its competitors are in the 25-35 pound range at 34+ inches. Although, until we solve the barrel weight problem we can’t do much better than this.Steven KnappSure we can shoot a smaller bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient at a higher velocityNov 10, 2017 3:11pmWilliam L. BengeHigh velocity through brush is great if your targets the side of a barn from a few yards.Nov 10, 2017 3:24pmJonathan WilburBullpup is bae.Nov 10, 2017 3:24pmSteven KnappWon’t be a problem as long as your bullet is a decent weightNov 10, 2017 3:27pmRolo TomasiNever seen bullpup 50 calNov 10, 2017 3:28pmWilliam L. BengeAlmost $7500? That might dip into my gigolo money.Nov 10, 2017 3:37pmSteven KnappHaving power is one thing but if your shooting long range you need to conserve that power as the projectile flys the higher ballistic coefficient allows this so you can shoot more accurately while conserving the bullets power and speedNov 10, 2017 3:41pmJon JonathanI’m not certain I’d want to fire a lot of rounds through a light weight .50bmg. My poor shoulder.Nov 10, 2017 3:43pmBill JoslinOne of my favsNov 10, 2017 3:44pmBill JoslinHey look! A Canadian/California version – www.herooutdoors.com/desert-tech-srs-a1-26-spring-powered-bullpup-airsoft-sniper-rifle-by-silverback-airsoft-od-greenNov 10, 2017 4:01pmFrank LovellFor me, the heavier the rifle the better (and I’ll take the best muzzle brake too, Thank You!)…Nov 10, 2017 4:17pmAl FreemanI cannot see myself needing a .50 badly enough to invest in one, considering the type of tactics that you get in the type of fractive multi-group conflicts I see in our future.
A .308 or .338 sniper, yes. Maybe even a 45/70 shooting solids for close in anti-armor work.
Overall, the expense on acquisition and the weight do not lend them to guerilla unit/civil war tacticsNov 10, 2017 4:35pmJon JonathanStill banned in England and Australia.Nov 10, 2017 4:40pmJon JonathanIt’s for anti-material, not sniping. You know, detonating IEDs, stopping light vehicles, destroying power transformers.Nov 10, 2017 4:42pmAl FreemanI agree, and for the most part don’t see it as of value for smaller guerilla groups.
Lighter, cheaper rifles like the 45/70 can engage those same targets efficiently and effectively out to several hundred yards with proper bullet selection, IED’s can be used in some situations to achieve the same results.
Overall unless you are running a group of 50+ warriors, the .50 seems like it has more downsides than good.
It is a great rifle for larger forces when attacking smaller forces and/or occupying their lands. It is much less so when being used by those smaller forces while attacking larger.Nov 10, 2017 5:00pmBill JoslinI feel for yaNov 10, 2017 5:02pmJon JonathanTrue, it is something that depends in the situation and isn’t the first rifle you would want. The Peshmerga have made effective use of Russian .50 caliber rifles and to a lesser extent 20mm against suicide car bombers but that also has to due with the nature of their enemy and the flat terrain they are working in.Nov 10, 2017 5:10pmDylan NewmanIt’s a bullpup version… Wow. @[100000662377931:2048:Charlton Ward]Nov 10, 2017 6:23pmCurt Doolittlea .50 is a military not militia weapon.Nov 10, 2017 6:39pmJon Jonathanhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Armagh_Sniper_(1990–1997)Nov 10, 2017 6:41pmCurt DoolittleYes. If you were ‘around’ back then… I studied the IRA program and I still think it’s the recipe for ‘how its done’.Nov 10, 2017 7:42pmEdward Townesbullpup on a sniper rifle, curious choiceNov 10, 2017 7:45pmBarry BroomeHahahahaNov 10, 2017 8:26pmMher BoyadzhyanDidn’t know you are into guns.
So glad we have this in common.Nov 10, 2017 9:19pmSteven Knapp?Nov 10, 2017 9:42pmGreg Hamiltonyou don’t want to solve the barrel weight “problem” it’s one of the largest contributors to reducing recoil.Nov 10, 2017 10:35pmCurt Doolittleit’s to keep length down.
Altough that f–king syrian guy that has all thost kills doesn’t mind lugging his all over the place. a 20lb rifle that’s 30″ long is tolerable compared the Barrett….Nov 11, 2017 10:05amCurt Doolittle”Oh baaaybee, I like stuff that goes boooooom!”Nov 11, 2017 10:06amDavin Eastleyyep, thisNov 12, 2017 7:18am
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-10 15:09:00 UTC
-
The Dester Tech HTI .50BMG seems to have found a sweet spot at 20lbs and 29″, wh
The Dester Tech HTI .50BMG seems to have found a sweet spot at 20lbs and 29″, where its competitors are in the 25-35 pound range at 34+ inches. Although, until we solve the barrel weight problem we can’t do much better than this. -
AFAIK the difference between the two popular cartridges is penetration vs energy
AFAIK the difference between the two popular cartridges is penetration vs energy absorption. Is there any difference? At short range (Pistol) where I can point shoot – I want a slow, fat, heavy bullet that doesn’t go on forever. At medium range (SMG) with I want balanced faster bullet with lower recoil. At longer range I want a faster, longer, thinner but still heavy bullet(Rifle). At longest range I want an aerodynamic bullet with as much mass as possible(Sniper or Vehicle Mounted rifle/MG) As far as I know 45/50 pistol 9mm SMG, .65/.7 Rifle, and .5BMG are pretty much the optimums. And if you’re using two bullets you are firing on a borderline between pistol and smg. So most caliber talk that I know of consists of trying to produce the wrong effect from the wrong size of weapon. Now, I can totally understand the 9mm affectionados. Because at double the rounds and longer distance using sights it’s bridging that distance between a pistol and an smg. A 1911 in 9mm (The original caliber believe it or not) has fewer rounds, but makes a great race gun. A 6″ 1911 with the extended sight picture is probably even better. And so I think the science says and now the logic as well both say that the data is in enough, and that it’s possible to buy ammunition that negates the differences. But if we’re talking about military grade (volume) ammo, I think the story is finished. It’s basic physics. A fat heavy thing transfers more energy faster. Thinner lighter thing more slowly. It’s just resistance. simple stuff.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-10 11:02:00 UTC
-
AFAIK the difference between the two popular cartridges is penetration vs energy
AFAIK the difference between the two popular cartridges is penetration vs energy absorption. Is there any difference? At short range (Pistol) where I can point shoot – I want a slow, fat, heavy bullet that doesn’t go on forever. At medium range (SMG) with I want balanced faster bullet with lower recoil. At longer range I want a faster, longer, thinner but still heavy bullet(Rifle). At longest range I want an aerodynamic bullet with as much mass as possible(Sniper or Vehicle Mounted rifle/MG) As far as I know 45/50 pistol 9mm SMG, .65/.7 Rifle, and .5BMG are pretty much the optimums. And if you’re using two bullets you are firing on a borderline between pistol and smg. So most caliber talk that I know of consists of trying to produce the wrong effect from the wrong size of weapon. Now, I can totally understand the 9mm affectionados. Because at double the rounds and longer distance using sights it’s bridging that distance between a pistol and an smg. A 1911 in 9mm (The original caliber believe it or not) has fewer rounds, but makes a great race gun. A 6″ 1911 with the extended sight picture is probably even better. And so I think the science says and now the logic as well both say that the data is in enough, and that it’s possible to buy ammunition that negates the differences. But if we’re talking about military grade (volume) ammo, I think the story is finished. It’s basic physics. A fat heavy thing transfers more energy faster. Thinner lighter thing more slowly. It’s just resistance. simple stuff. -
AFAIK the difference between the two popular cartridges is penetration vs energy
AFAIK the difference between the two popular cartridges is penetration vs energy absorption. Is there any difference? At short range (Pistol) where I can point shoot – I want a slow, fat, heavy bullet that doesn’t go on forever. At medium range (SMG) with I want balanced faster bullet with lower recoil. At longer range I want a faster, longer, thinner but still heavy bullet(Rifle). At longest range I want an aerodynamic bullet with as much mass as possible(Sniper or Vehicle Mounted rifle/MG) As far as I know 45/50 pistol 9mm SMG, .65/.7 Rifle, and .5BMG are pretty much the optimums. And if you’re using two bullets you are firing on a borderline between pistol and smg. So most caliber talk that I know of consists of trying to produce the wrong effect from the wrong size of weapon. Now, I can totally understand the 9mm affectionados. Because at double the rounds and longer distance using sights it’s bridging that distance between a pistol and an smg. A 1911 in 9mm (The original caliber believe it or not) has fewer rounds, but makes a great race gun. A 6″ 1911 with the extended sight picture is probably even better. And so I think the science says and now the logic as well both say that the data is in enough, and that it’s possible to buy ammunition that negates the differences. But if we’re talking about military grade (volume) ammo, I think the story is finished. It’s basic physics. A fat heavy thing transfers more energy faster. Thinner lighter thing more slowly. It’s just resistance. simple stuff. -
So just as we see the quantum level emerge from some underlying causes, and we s
So just as we see the quantum level emerge from some underlying causes, and we see the physical level emerge from underlying causes, and the chemical level from underlying causes, and the biological from underlying causes then we see the same in economics and in language.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-08 10:09:00 UTC
-
We do not consent with nature. We do not avoid it or deny it. We defeat it
We do not consent with nature.
We do not avoid it or deny it.
We defeat it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-07 10:16:00 UTC
-
We do not consent with nature. We do not avoid it or deny it. We defeat it
We do not consent with nature. We do not avoid it or deny it. We defeat it. -
We do not consent with nature. We do not avoid it or deny it. We defeat it
We do not consent with nature. We do not avoid it or deny it. We defeat it.