Talk:.50 BMG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale

Contents

[edit] Why is this in here?

Matching the availability and price of the higher-quality .50 ammunition is an impediment to producing large caliber rifles using a different round such as 20 mm or another custom size.

Is this really necessary? It tells just enough of the story to be misleading, but telling the whole story is really too much. Larger components are available -- cases, powder, projectiles, etc. The problem with 20mm is that a lot of the projectiles are HE and any firearm >.50 (that's not a double) is going to get smacked down by the BATFE as a DD. Just axe it IMO. --70.160.160.175 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I reverted this article

Regarding:

The .50 Browning Machine Gun or .50 BMG is a cartridge invented for the M2 Browning machine gun, equivalent to the 12.7 x 99 mm NATO round, that is now also used in high-powered sniper rifles.

This is factually inaccurate. They are not equivalents, which would imply they are different things but have the same value. ".50 BMG" and "12.7 x 99 mm NATO" are different words for the same thing. To give an analogy -- a £1 coin is equivalent to two 50p coins, having the same monetary value, but is not the same thing. -- Cabalamat 00:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ball/Mass/Velocity Chart?

These make it a lot easier to compare rounds from energy perspectives and such. Why is it so difficult to find these on Wikipedia?

The problem is there is so much variance in loads. I can quote Hornady's statistics on their loads, which would give a rule of thumb, but really you need to look at SAAMI for what your loads should be. I don't know that there's a liability issue as such, but it would be very difficult to make accurate loading info available through wikipedia. Do you have a suggestion for how to make it more uniform and generally accurate? I too would like to see that information if it is possible to present it. Avriette 07:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
While there is certainly a wide variance in loads, there are still certain ranges that could be listed. For example, there are common min and max loads and min and max velocities that can easily be taken from a reloading book, plus one or more "typical" loads. For example, the .45 ACP takes bullets from 155 to 260 grains, with typical loads of 185 grains at 1000 fps, 200 at 900, and 230 at 850. These could easily (and should be required to) be referenced, from, say, the Speer reloading manual, or Federal Cartridge Company website. Maybe a template that requires a reference for each entry, and includes a standard "don't try this without a reliable reloading reference handy" disclaimer? scot 22:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Please don't blow your head/hand/whatever off, these are approximate figures, etc but yeah, I like that. I don't have a copy of the Speer manual. Would using Hornady's numbers work as well? I don't think Federal ships a, for example, 50 BMG. I could put the template together and see if those involved in WP:Weaponry like it... Avriette 01:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Speer, Hornaday, Federal, Norma, military specs, whatever's handy and reputable. My Speer manual is a decade and a half out of date (it's a hand-me-down from my father) but it'll do for anything old enough to be covered (does have 10mm, doesn't cover .41 AE or .40 S&W). Even the powder makers' websites might be a good source if they have some load data online--I know they hand out freebie manuals for their powders. Pressures would be nice, too, either in PSI or CUP. Could also add a +P section as an option. I've never tried making a template before, but if you'll get it started, I'm sure I can lend a hand. scot 05:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your best source of ball/mass/velocity charts is probably going to Cartridges of the World. The reloading data sheets on Accurate Arms website puts out PSI/CUP info on all cartridges listed. --70.160.160.175 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

your best source of ball/mass/velocity is TM43-0001-27. It should NEVER be used as reloading data as its specifications could damage some rifles as it is a specification for machineguns, and military produced weapons and ammunition. I have included a link to it in this 50 BMG article with my discussions of case chamber pressure. - B4Ctom1 21:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SAAMI SPEC?

For the .50 BMG cartridge, there is no SAAMI spec, only NATO spec. Those handloading for bolt action rifles do not load to the NATO spec for pressure, machinegun ammo is too hot. There are basic load guidelines for the .50 BMG, but the usual procedure is to start with a minimum load and slowly work up, extrapolating the load range maximum, or at least an accurate shooting "comfort zone", by being on the lookout for high pressure indications, and knowing how to read them. This is NOT for the inexperienced reloader. Military surplus components and powder can also vary by a significant margin. Whenever anything is changed in the equation, the load workup MUST be repeated. ( 00:57, February 1, 2006 User:Goneballistic )

[edit] Dubious statement

and has not been replaced as the standard caliber for western vehicle mounted machine guns - hmm? I can't think of any British Army vehicles ever carrying a .50 calibre gun except as a spotting rifle. GraemeLeggett 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeha, I think that's better as "american." While the fifty is pretty common out there, the Europeans in particular are using more modern designs. Avriette 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any way to get the cartridge in a scale picture?

This is a good article but for someone not familiar with ammunition it can be a bit confusing. I know the .50 BMG is a huge cartridge but I'm not sure how huge. Is there any pictures out there of this scaled with something like a cigarette or anything small enough?

Here you go. Ry Jones 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

.50 BMG, 20mm Vulcan, golf ball, stick of ram
.50 BMG, 20mm Vulcan, golf ball, stick of ram
It would be better, IMO, to snap one with a ruler, a .338, a 7.62 nato, a 5.56 nato, and a 7.62 soviet. -- Cannibalicious!

[edit] Mythbusters

In Episode 34 of Mythbusters, it was shown that the .50 BMG, despite its power, was stopped by less than three feet of water.

Mythbusters do not carry out very scientific tests. Far less powerful rounds can penetrate farther than 3 feet. CynicalMe 02:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have fired a BB or more through about foot of water or more. Dudtz 9/26/06 7:43 PM EST

The more powerful a bullet is the less it will travel when in contact with water. The rapid decelleration on the bullet litterally rips it apart. Low velocity projectiles like pistol rounds and BBs do have very much power behind them compared to other rounds so the forces are less when they hit water. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.56.68 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Yeah...in the same "mythbusters" episode mentioned above, a shotgun round (extremely low mussel velocity as compared to the .50) penetrated through the entire testing mechanism. If I recall correctly, low powered rounds do penetrate deeper, since they are not destroyed by the rapid deceleration of water. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 12:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not always about Power Either. Sometimes its about the round. Had they used the AP .50 BMG round, it would have went all the way through the pool, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.181.98 (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] .50 and .50 caliber

Right now, .50 and .50 caliber point to different places (.50 AE and .50 BMG, respectively.) Anyone else think these two should be the same, and should both point to a disambiguation page? Friday (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. And maybe also to the .500 S&W, which is also a .50 caliber, though it's generally called a "500". scot 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. They are both(all three) .50 call, though used in diffrent weapons. DannyBoy2k 21:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


I own The Desert Eagle .50AE and some .50BMG.

The ammo is EXTREMELY Different, with the only thing in common being the diameter of the round. If you took every bullet with the same diameter and grouped them together, you would have a mess.

[edit] Mass of common round

I find it quite frustrating that nowhere in the Wiki is there a listing of common masses for individual rounds. I am trying to formulate a table for WWII fighter aircraft 3 second weight-of-fire. This will allow the individual to get a good perspective on the relative lethality of each aircraft if you found yourself in its sights. With the rate of fire and mass of each round this would be a fairly simple task, but it looks like only half the data is out there. There must have been a standard military specification for the load out on these rounds. Wplemenos 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the .50 BMG is not a single round--there's ball ammo, tracer, AP, the Raufuss dual purpose high explosive incendiary AP, the match grade stuff snipers use. If you look around on government sites, you can probably find the designation for the ammo used in aircraft guns at that time, and find specs for it; and be sure to factor in the tracer mix. Try starting here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/50.htm scot 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The common US aircraft gun, the AN-M2 M3 commonly fired at 600-1200 rounds per minute in comparison to the 450-550 of the regular M2 (this info from the M2 Browning machine gun article). From my memory the possible ammunition types were usually; Tracer (M17 - 634 grains), Incendiary (M1 - 633gr), Armor Piercing Incendiary (M8 - 622 grains), Armor Piercing Incendiary Tracer (M20 - 619 grains). There are 7000 grains in a pound, a complete round weighs ~1700 grains depending on the round. This data mainly comes from TM43-0001-27 (see 50 bmg article) if you need a source. Unfortunately I do not have a wieght specifically for the aircraft type "t-links" used to belt this ammunition together. I have held one, and it is close in weight to the standard ones. Here is where the estimation comes in, I am calling it 200 grains for one link and I am having it checked. That would be 1900 grains for each round and link together if it is the kind of aircraft that dumps casings in flight (ie not a bomber).

If the aircraft was firing 1 gun at 600 rounds per minute, or 10 rounds per second, or 19000 grains per second. There are 7000 grains in one pound so, that would be 2.7 pounds (1.22 kilos) per second. This would be 8.1 pounds (3.67 kilos) for a 3 second burst. Multiply this times the number of guns in a fighter (either 4 or 6 depending) to come up with a wieght loss for a 600 rpm rate of fire. Multiply that times 2 for the other end of the spectrum with 1200 rpm.

A P51 Mustang with its six guns firing at this 1200 rpm rate would dump 97.2 pounds (44.1 kilos) of wieght. Other things to think of is that we dont know the actual firing rate of these guns. were they set at 600? 1200? something more conservative? the inner 4 50 bmg guns of a P51 have 400 rouns each but the outer ones only held 270 rounds, maybe they offset these speeds to make sure they didnt run out to fast? - B4Ctom1 22:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As a clarification, I had cartridge collector and writer Keith Pagel weigh a few aircraft links to double check my weight estimation above of 200 grains per link. He responded that after weighing a few they range from 273 to 275 grains. I thought it would be good to be thorough. - B4Ctom1 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case pressure specification

I have used an average of the case pressures listed in TM43-0001-27 specifications. This average reflects all of the standard rounds including the SLAP variants and Mk211. This average does not include the data for the low pressure smaller case dimension spotter rounds, the plastic cased low pressure practice only rounds, or the extra pressure test test round. This is the only specification I could find so if you see an ANSI, SAAMI, or CIP specification feel free to add them, preferrably ahead of this Nato/US MIL specification.

Since the US developed/invented this round, I would say its safe to say they may call for the specification though

Fifty Caliber Shooters Association Member - B4Ctom1 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case Diagram Added

I created a case diagram and then used commonly accepted dimensions. If you find fault with a dimension listed please consider that this is a "rough" dimension and that many other members may not agree with your request for a small change to a dimension. If it is a glaring measurement mistake then by all means I will change it.

I could not get the dimension image into the article listed next to the case dimension paragraph so I had to delete some of the comparison and the "bullet jacket" photo entries. I am hoping to later come back and make a "comparisons" paragraph dedicated specifically to these photos. Some might argue that multiple comparison images might be redundant in this article.

Also an image of a separated jacket from a 50 BMG round is interesting, but I'm not sure if it belongs in a wiki article. - B4Ctom1 07:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FCSA, FCI, VHP

Wiki entries should be created for "Fifty Caliber Shooters Association", "Fifty Caliber Institute", and the "Very High Power" magazine. The Gnome 11:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US units to metric conversion

Before we get into an edit war lets discuss this matter here. First issue - do we agree that in accordance with Wikipedia policy that SI units are preferred? I don't see any problem with converting thousands of an inch to hundredths of a millimetre - the order of precision is similar and calibres are commonly converted like that (.308" = 7.62mm, .224" = 5.56mm and so on) in the case of this cartridge it just happens to be that the next figure in 12.7mm is 0 and is thus omitted. As far as statistics like muzzle velocity and energy are concerned, I would agree that the number of significant figures - in both US and SI units - is excessive. Roger (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

SI units aren't really preferred. Per the MoS, the preference goes to the related country (the .50BMG is American in origin, and is the major user), and the original source (the cited source is primarily Imperial measurements, though it does provide a metric equivalents for most of the round's dimensions, but not for other values). So, for this article, the Imperial is clearly favored by the MoS, and the metric is the parenthetic value.

Looking over the level of precision again in detail, the gross changes in precision seem to be a result of the infobox itself (a couple changes of two or three sig figs are in it), not the in-text conversions (which stay within 1 sig fig). So I suppose there's no problem there (though as you mentioned, the velocities seem strangely precise). --Xanzzibar (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This IP address' 189.68.194.36 contributions changed many of the clearly imperial cited sources for for such rounds as the .45 ACP (don't get more imperial/American than that) for some really odd need to have metric first even when doing so introduced errors. This is a firearms article not quantum physics! 76.234.166.151 (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


I really think the units of measure should be based on where the object was invented out of respect for the inventor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.181.98 (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Power section

The Power section states the energy of the 30-06 round low by a thousand foot-pounds. Cite it or fix it. 24.252.195.3 (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencingand appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)