Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules
#26
(02-24-2017, 12:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While those are arms, that is more in reference to the rounds they use which are also used in other arms. There is a round called the .50 BMG, which is a half-inch in diameter and is used in anti-material sniper rifles. It is the high profile round used for those, however it is being replaced with the .416 Barrett because the round has a similar charge to it, but a smaller projectile, meaning it will have a higher velocity and often travel further and straighter. The .338 Lapua is a similar situation, though more of an anti-personnel round for long distance shooting. This isn't to say the .50 BMG and .416 Barret arms are not used for anti-personnel action, just that they weren't technically designated for that because according to modern conventions we are not supposed to use rounds larger than .30 caliber on personnel in warfare.

The M2 and M82 are both .50 cal weapons designed for personnel. The M203 and MK-19 fire 40mm rounds designed for personnel. I'm too lazy to look up an APERs round for a Carl Gustaz, but it's larger than 40mm. I've heard Active Duty military personnel make the same claim, but until I see it in writing I'm of the opinion it is urban legend. 





Messages In This Thread
RE: ‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 02-24-2017, 01:26 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)