The .50 Caliber Rifle
Ongoing controversy surrounds the .50 caliber rifle, a long-barreled rifle that fires a bullet about a half-inch wide. Although the weapon was on the market for decades, only very recently has this rifle come under public scrutiny as a particulary vicious weapon of unnecessary design. A movement arose to outlaw this rifle, given its destructive capability, and a growing chorus of concern originated from a claim that this weapon could shoot down commercial aircraft, and that the weapon is lethal from a mile away.
Some states have already begun to consider banning this rifle, and two states have done so, based on commonly cited information about this rifle. Proponents of the rifle claim that the media has incorrectly reported this information, and that the weapon is not anywhere as dangerous as the opponents claim.
Who is right?
One of the major opponents of this rifle is The Brady Campaign, who actively seeks to outlaw this weapon. Using information taken from their website (as of 2007), we have analyzed the claims factually.
Chongdo has ignored all passionate claims, such as the weapon serving no purpose except to terrorize—these are broad opinions by the compiler, and cannot be analyzed in any meaningful way. Once these opinions are removed, there are ultimately only four core claims. A cursory review of other organizations against the rifle also cite these four fairly consistently.
One common claim is that this weapon, in the hands of criminals, is an especially potent weapon.
There are many models of .50 caliber rifles on the commercial market, made by several manufacturers. A common element to all these weapons is their extreme length: these weapons require a long barrel to fire over such exaggerated distances. As a result, they are extemely difficult to conceal, or modify for concealing. Further, their sheer cost makes these weapons far too expensive to “chuck away” after a crime. They are inherently traceable due to their distinctiveness.Further, are they used by criminals in the US? The Brady Campaign provides a list of situations in which criminals have had access or attempted to acquire these weapons. Only one of the instances was used to kill Americans: during the Branch Davidian raid in Waco, Texas, a .50 caliber rifle was used to kill four Federal agents. Despite the claim that these weapons are especially lethal in the hands of criminals, more Americans have been killed in barehanded attacks by criminals in one average week than have been killed by a .50 caliber rifle since its introduction in the 1980s. This actually demonstrates the weapon has an excellent safety record, and may be the least likely to be used as a weapon.
A second common claim is that this weapon is lethal from more than one mile away, making anyone with one a virtually untraceable sniper.
Any rifle is potentially lethal in a sniper’s hands; a basic rifle with telescopic sight can be effective at hundreds of yards. However, the average rifle is highly ineffective at ranges beyond a half-mile. It is indeed true that the .50 caliber round has excellent accuracy at ranges up to 1.25 miles away: the militaries of many countries employ the .50 caliber rifle for sniping purposes because of it. However, accuracy beyond a few hundred yards is beyond the capability of the average shooter. A .50 caliber rifle marksman—at ranges of a mile or more—requires specialized training, equipment, and (very importantly) a spotter to assist him in making his shots. This is beyond the capability of the average criminal: even the DC snipers of 2001-2002 were using a conventional hunting rifle, and had some apparent difficulty with accuracy at comparatively close ranges. It is essential to remember that the sniper makes the rifle deadly, not the other way around. As an analogy, a typical car can travel at 100 or more miles per hour (a deadly speed), but driving at these speeds is far beyond the capability of the average driver. Similarly, mere possession of a .50 caliber rifle does not assume the average shooter will be accurate beyond 200 yards.But, the counter-argument is, who on earth needs such a rifle? Who needs to shoot at ranges of a mile or more? Is there any need for this ultimately unique rifle?
The primary purchasers of these sporting versions are competition shooters, who specifically study the complex ballistics of long-range shooting, and have the necessary tools and equipment to do so. It is unknown if a .50 caliber weapon has ever been used for hunting: the commercial success has all been long-range competitors. And there isn’t anything unique about the .50 caliber bullet’s performance: a .338 Lapua Magnum can frequently outperform the .50 caliber bullet, for example, but these other rounds attract no opposition.
Another shocking claim cites a Senate report that finds the energy from a .50 caliber bullet at one mile away is the same as a .44 Magnum bullet at point-blank range. Who needs a weapon this powerful to shoot paper targets? Everyone is aware of the power of a .44 Magnum bullet...and this .50 caliber bullet has more kinetic (that is, destructive) energy even a mile away.
In fact, a typical 661-grain M33 .50 caliber cartridge has 1,825 foot-pounds of energy at 1,800 yards. The muzzle energy of a 240-grain .44 Magnum is only 741 foot-pounds. You’d need to switch to a 180-grain bullet to get closer: a less-popular 180 grain bullet produces 1,036 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. So, in actuality, a .50 caliber bullet is significantly more powerful than a .44 Magnum at any distance.But there’s a fatal flaw in that assumption: a .44 Magnum is a bullet for a revolver, not a rifle. Most rifle bullets produce more energy than a short-range .44 Magnum cartridge. Grandpa’s old .243 Weatherby rifle, for example, has more kinetic energy at its maximum range than the muzzle energy of a .44 Magnum. While the .44 Magnum is often advertised as the world’s most powerful handgun, even a low-powered sport rifle can produce more energy than it can.
A claim made popular after 2001 is that a .50 caliber rifle can shoot down a commercial plane. This claim is even cited by one .50 caliber manufacturer’s own advertising.
No rifle is powerful enough to shoot down any aircraft, commercial or otherwise, at altitude. Firing a weapon skyward naturally shortens the range of the bullet significantly. An aircraft would need to be either landing or taking off to be within range of a rifle. However, commercial airports have a secure zone around all runways and taxiways that exceeds the range of a .50 caliber weapon. A consensus by security auditors concluded that such a shot is beyond the realm of probability, and disregard such a threat for aviation in this country.The claim by the manufacturer, when re-read in this light, makes it clear that the military version of the weapon is capable of damaging parked aircraft. In fact, one of its primary military uses is to damage equipment. Even this risk is unlikely for commercial aircraft, given that a criminal would need to be inside the security ring of the average airport in order to reach gated aircraft or equipment.
Each of these four claims appears in many arguments calling for the ban of the .50 caliber rifle. Unfortunately, the evidence either contradicts the claim, or deeper analysis of the evidence exposes a flaw in the assumption of the claim. Consequently, Chongdo concludes that arguments in favor of any .50 caliber rifle ban are based on speculation, rather than fact. Although the claims initially appear shocking, the facts behind them are fairly mundane. As a result, we do not at this time support any such ban or restriction.