50cal CQB?!!!!!

[Arbiter]

Re: 50cal CQB?!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 78steeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As hot as that girl is I would throw her out of bed and sleep with the fifty next to me. Haha</div></div>

What gun?

 

[Kodiak61]

Re: 50cal CQB?!!!!!

Attention whore rifle.

Nothing really wrong with that, however it has been an observation that most guys that own would be better off with the T1 then the 111100000000x power optic they put on to shoot 100 yards.

However I have been known to have no idea what I'm saying.

 

[SWFA]

Re: 50cal CQB?!!!!!

That's not short enough...

 

[CaptNemo]

Re: 50cal CQB?!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: strangedays</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Exactly. That configuration is mainly for close range Hard Target Interdiction.

If you are hanging out the side of a Helo a long barrel isn't adding anything but weight. You don't have the stability to take a long shot. You just need to be able to hit a 10 MOA target and cause catastrophic damage.

I don't even want to think about running through a ship carrying a full sized M82 assembled. </div></div>
Even with the short barrel and lighter optics that beast is going to be heavy enough if one were to run through a ship with it. The M82 has a much wider use range than just taking down hostiles so a short barrel would work for a limited class of buyers. </div></div>

The hell with running thru the ship, just shoot thru it...

 

[PowerstrokeOBX]

Re: 50cal CQB?!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mac62</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have never thought of a .50 as a CQB weapon. It's heavy and the ammo is heavy. For engagements out to a max of 200 meters why bother? </div></div>

I think the idea is to market it for law enforcement.

That and some people just get super horny over anything 50cal...and if you can buy it with someone else' money...woohoo! </div></div>

^this

If I was the one hauling it I'd rather have a 458 socom or 50 beo in an AR.
The lightest weight version is still 30lbs.

 

[kthomas]

Re: 50cal CQB?!!!!!

I like how he's wearing a patch over a patch on his right shoulder...

 

[lord of war619]

Re: 50cal CQB?!!!!!

I have to agree this rifle is overkill, i would think the 50 beowolf was this type of intended use if you want stopping power say for the truck mentioned

 

[AMMOWASTER]

Re: 50cal CQB?!!!!!

There are a lot of interesting replies in this thread.

People need to realize this gun was named the CQ because it was a shortened gun not because it was meant for actual CQB.

I like the idea of it and would have probably bought one over my standard 82 if it were available. I never took any shots other than messing around past 5-600 yards and I would bet that is the norm with most of the privately owned 50's. They are toys.

No different than the thousands of 338 Lapuas/7MM Mags that never get shot past 5-600 yards.

 

[Anachronist]

Re: 50cal CQB?!!!!!

Ok in all seriousness... aside from the flash-bang simulation at the shooters end, what kind of ballistics does one get from a 50 bmg with that kind of barrel. For what little I've seen of the Barrett, it makes more sense to me to deploy it as a crew served weapon (one shooter, one spotter/close protection), but I have *no* experience with coast guard/chopper/whatever, and I realize there may be other ways of using it that I've never seen.

 

[Brainbizz]

Re: 50cal CQB?!!!!!

I have M107 and M107 A1 CQ. I plan on placing the suppressor on the A1 so I got the CQ. The accuracy at 1000 yards is similar but I can absolutely see this set up. At 100 to 200 yards ABSOLUTE DEVASTATION. I am actually waiting fore adapter from Barrett to mount the aimpoint next to my scope. The blast concussion is more prominent with CQ but with the suppressor will be a non issue.

 

[mission_fail]

Re: 50cal CQB?!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CaptNemo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: strangedays</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Exactly. That configuration is mainly for close range Hard Target Interdiction.

If you are hanging out the side of a Helo a long barrel isn't adding anything but weight. You don't have the stability to take a long shot. You just need to be able to hit a 10 MOA target and cause catastrophic damage.

I don't even want to think about running through a ship carrying a full sized M82 assembled. </div></div>
Even with the short barrel and lighter optics that beast is going to be heavy enough if one were to run through a ship with it. The M82 has a much wider use range than just taking down hostiles so a short barrel would work for a limited class of buyers. </div></div>

The hell with running thru the ship, just shoot thru it... </div></div>

Wish I would have had the short barreled version when I had to walk through the ship with my M107 at right shoulder arms. Fucking staff nco's. Particularly SgtMaj's. They get a hard on for that drill shit.