Gun Forums banner
Cancel

.50 Cal VS. Katana

Jump to Latest Follow
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
fatcat

· Fanatical Feline
Joined
·
5,275 Posts
#5 ·
Il still take that M2 browning any day :)

They were just using lead core bullets, the point of the blade is so sharp that all the energy of the impact was just on the tip of the blade so it split the round in two. Still impressive.
 
L

· Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
#6 ·
I read in I think Guns and Ammo 50 cal versus sheep. It wasn't that impressive. At 70 yards the sheep was shot, but got up and walked away, then roughly 2 mins later the sheep was shot again. The second shot killed the sheep.
 
J

· Registered
Joined
·
724 Posts
#11 ·
at close range a 50 doesn't expand or yaw it just goes straight through. on something small like a sheep or a person a head, shoulder or spine shot will be terminal with most ammo. Other wise you just get a 1/2 inch hole going in and a little bigger hole coming out.
 
B

· Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
#13 ·
The .50 BMG round is more dangerous at close yards from a near miss than from a hit. Basically the round is still extremely hot from being fired so in addition to not transfering hardly ANY energy to its target it would cauterize (sp?) as it goes through. Maybe not completely however it could be enough to save your life.

Now about it being more dangerous from a near miss... That round carries roughly a 12" diameter "cone of destruction". Meaning that the mass is so great and so are the velocities that it will REPORTEDLY take off, at a minimum, pieces of flesh, if not whole limbs. I don't know first hand, cause i'm not the crazy SOB to get within a foot of a flying bmg round. But with 12,000 Ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle, Hell I'd believe it.
 
Nose Nuggets

· Registered
Joined
·
4,273 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
BhamRoadrunner said:
The .50 BMG round is more dangerous at close yards from a near miss than from a hit. Basically the round is still extremely hot from being fired so in addition to not transfering hardly ANY energy to its target it would cauterize (sp?) as it goes through. Maybe not completely however it could be enough to save your life.

Now about it being more dangerous from a near miss... That round carries roughly a 12" diameter "cone of destruction". Meaning that the mass is so great and so are the velocities that it will REPORTEDLY take off, at a minimum, pieces of flesh, if not whole limbs. I don't know first hand, cause i'm not the crazy SOB to get within a foot of a flying bmg round. But with 12,000 Ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle, Hell I'd believe it.
Click to expand...
thats frigin nutz
 
fatcat

· Fanatical Feline
Joined
·
5,275 Posts
#15 ·
uh... I dont know about that... Alrightey lets think this our for a second.... a 50 cal BMG has a FPS of only 2900, with 665 grains, and a projectile diameter of .510 inches. Now say this round carries a 12" diameter "cone of destruction"

Now say a.... Ah F-14 does a super sonic low fly by (As they do at airshows) with a weight 72,900 pounds going 1,584 mph (Mach 1.88 a bit slower than a .50 cal projectile) BUT with a size of 38 feet wingspan with wings swept back this would mean that the so called "Cone of DEATH" on this aircraft would be about 912 feet in diameter.


http://jkkang.net/fighter/f14/f14-4.html

The shock wave seen in this picture is water in the air condenceing with the blast wave is about 50 feet in total diameter, True it could be deadly, But only if you were around 10 feet from the aircraft at the time be in this wave because of rupture of your interals organs, But that would MAINLY be from the sound wave of the sonic boom and displacement of the air and vibrations. many pictures taken are from at or alot less than 1,000 feet from the aircraft. Now with the mass of this aircraft being 218,700 times larger that this projectile weighing 218,700 times smaller could not possably be a chance that a .50 cal projectile at .5-12 inches away would tare a limb from a body or be near enough for the shock wave to rupture any internal organs, not even your ear drum's.

Therefore your misinformed about this...







Oh and trust me... the bullet can in no way cauterize a wound with its heat, the heat would not even make the tissue inflamed at that speed.
 
jamz

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
#16 ·
BhamRoadrunner said:
The .50 BMG round is more dangerous at close yards from a near miss than from a hit. Basically the round is still extremely hot from being fired so in addition to not transfering hardly ANY energy to its target it would cauterize (sp?) as it goes through. Maybe not completely however it could be enough to save your life.

Now about it being more dangerous from a near miss... That round carries roughly a 12" diameter "cone of destruction". Meaning that the mass is so great and so are the velocities that it will REPORTEDLY take off, at a minimum, pieces of flesh, if not whole limbs. I don't know first hand, cause i'm not the crazy SOB to get within a foot of a flying bmg round. But with 12,000 Ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle, Hell I'd believe it.
Click to expand...
Uh, not to downplay your military experience, but I call BS on this until it's proved. Even a glowing hot projectile moving that fast has no time to cauterize anything, it needs a bit of contact time on the flesh for it to take place.

Also, I'm pretty sure the cone of destruction thing is urban legend too. It would be easy enough to test on a range by placing paper, veggies and stuff within the so-called "cone" and seeing the effect.

I think I must buy a 50-cal to check this out. Someone else can tell my wife... :D
 
J

· Registered
Joined
·
724 Posts
#17 ·
At 150yds a lung shot from a 50bmg hornady 750grn A-max does less damage to a whitetail than a 243 with shooting rem corlokts. There are no frangiable rounds available to the shooting public for the 50 bmg unless you roll your own. And no animal on this continent has the mass to expand a non frangible round.
 
B

· Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
#19 ·
Owned? No. I presented info at the best of my knowledge but never presented it as cold-hard fact. I can't find anything on the internet to prove or disprove the info so i take it as i was told. I always found it hard to believe however it was told by the intructor who was teaching us about the ma duece, so.... Till Box 'o Truth proves me different.. I'll continue to pass the info off exactly as i did here, "I was told by a military instructor" I relate the info as it was related to me, didn't make anything up, didn't leave anything out. Take it for what its worth and with a grain of salt. Again, i'm not standing downrange to find out.

The cauterizing thing... condsidering the amount of friction generated by your typical ball round going through the air, i can imagine that the round get very hot (not a physics major, don't even know the formula) not to mention the amount of powder that was already behind it and the fact that most .50bmg barrels are close to 35-40 inches long.... well thats just a hell of alot of friction. However looking at the burn marks left on my m-16 targets at 500 yards from where the round strikes the paper, i can draw a logical conclusion that a MUCH larger round at a shorter distance would be much hotter than a .22 at 1500 feet. Any physics people who care to run the calculation are more than welcome to.

Sorry to sound grumpy tonight, its been a horrible day.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
About this Discussion
27 Replies
10 Participants
Last post:
BhamRoadrunner
Gun Forums
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Off Topic Lounge General Gun Talk Long Guns Handguns Camera Land
Top