GunFacts Hasn’t Any (5)
Low-hanging fruit on pg. 15:
Myth: .50-caliber rifles can knock a helicopter from the sky
Fact: The terminal energy of a .50-caliber (6,000 ft-lbs) is not enough to knock a modern military aircraft from the sky unless it hits a critical component like a fuel line. Records exist showing this has been done with common, smaller caliber assault rifles such as AK-47s.
Author provides no cite. Additionally, author debunks own “myth” by telling us helos can be shot down with smaller caliber weapons.
Author displays a great deal of ignorance WRT helicopters and .50 cal weapons. A helicopter–or virtually any aircraft–is not a heavily armored air vehicle. Often, fuel tanks–not lines–are exposed. There are also plenty of avionics that could be damaged by a .50 cal round.
I believe the point is, a helicopter cannot be “knocked out of the sky” by a rifle but they can certainly be “shot down” by any firearm (even the lowly .22, if critical components are hit.) What you are missing is that would be next to impossible to do so, regardless of the caliber of your rifle.
Although it could have been worded better, the myth he is attempting to debunk is that a .50 caliber rifle would make it easier for a terrorist to shoot down airplanes and helicopters. In actuality, there is absolutely no evidence that the .50 caliber rifle has ever been an effective ground-to-air anti-aircraft weapon.
Comment by Gregory Morris — December 29, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
GM: I see little difference between “shot down” and “knocked out of the sky.” From an aviation perspective, both events are extremely undesirable.
….
While it’s probably true a .22 could–in theory–shoot down a helo, it’d likely be a one-in-a-million shot. OTOH. your chances of taking down a helo are greatly enhanced with a .50 cal.
Comment by Administrator — December 29, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
No … they’re not. Don’t forget that for the cost of one .50 bullet and low-end rifle, you can get a great .22lr rifle and thousands of rounds of ammonution for training and raining down a barrage of lead on that chopper.
At least, as far as I know that is, I’m sure you can prove me wrong with a well founded study … right?
Comment by Michael Hawkins — December 30, 2007 @ 5:30 am
Can you site where you got your information about a “greatly enhanced chance” of taking down a helicopter with a .50 cal? We agree that it comes down to hitting a critical component, correct? How is .28″ more lead going to increase your chance of hitting something important? The point is, caliber doesn’t matter for precisely striking a moving target. It is a million-to-one shot regardless of caliber.
In fact, I would opine that a lighter caliber with less recoil would be easier to shoot at a moving target.
Comment by Gregory Morris — December 30, 2007 @ 8:42 am
GM: We agree that it comes down to hitting a critical component, correct?
Not really. In an aircraft, there are an awful lot of critical components ranging from dynamic machinery (e.g. rotor heads), avionic systems (e.g., flight control systems) to fuel and hydraulic systems. This also doesn’t take into account loss or incapacitation of the pilot(s). The amount of damage any of these systems can take and safely fly is finite. Obviously, a round with much more kinetic energy is capable of reaching that finite limit with far greater facility. BTW, my info is derived from over 11 years experience with H-60s.
Comment by Administrator — December 30, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
You say ‘experience’ instead of ‘maintaining’. Using that bit of weasel-speak, I can claim over 30 years worth of ‘experience’ with jet airliners. Doesn’t mean I know the first thing about fixing one. If you really had any ‘experience’ you’d know about redundant systems.
Comment by Peter — December 30, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Care to tell us about the “redundant systems” on a helo, Peter? This should be amusing. When a rotor head goes toes up–do you really think they switch to the aux. rotor head?
Comment by Administrator — December 30, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
11 years of experience with H60’s and you’re telling me that damaged hydraulics will knock a chopper from the sky?
Render it difficult to land or keep stable maybe …
If you’re going to make large claims, make it credible … like a .50 has a better chance at piercing a gas tank, or scrambling an exhaust. That I’d be willing to believe.
But a .22 can damage the rear rotor (realastic target, as opposed to flight controls) just as badly as a .50 because the amount of kinetic energy and momentum generated by its revolutions is vastly greater than the energy trasferred from a bullet.
and don’t forget: anything a .50 can do, can be done cheaper by 15 .22’s
Comment by Michael Hawkins — December 30, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
MH: Fortunately, my 11 years experience is exactly 11 more years than you have.
Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to say that damage to an onboard hydraulic system may make it difficult to land a helo? Ask yourself: do you wish to be in aircraft that has a degraded or inoperable capacity to land?
Sheeeesh.
Comment by Administrator — December 30, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
I didn’t say there weren’t a lot of things that could go wrong if a bullet hit a helicopter. However, ignoring the .22 vs .50 reference for a moment, there are quit a few other rifle cartridges that are just as capable of going in on side of an aircraft, exiting the other, and causing loads of damage in between.
I just want to see how many aircraft, civilian or otherwise, have been shot down with a civilian-ownable .50 caliber rifle. I know during Vietnam, we lost aircraft (helicopters being the best example) to small arms fire. However, I believe most of those could be attributed to 7.62x39 or 7.62x54 rounds, as those are what was in common use by the enemy at the time. My biggest beef with your arguments are that you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the .50BMG cartridge has some magical properties which give it destructive power far beyond many standard hunting rounds. Sure it is more powerful, but for the type of damage we are talking about, that point is moot. All large center-fire cartridges are “powerful enough”.
Of course, regarding Michael’s comments, indeed there have also been even more numerous examples of aircraft sustaining damage from small arms fire and still managing a safe landing.
It just seems to me that if someone wanted to knock down a helicopter, there would be better methods than an expensive, difficult to operate (and aim), slow firing .50 caliber rifle.)
Comment by Gregory Morris — December 30, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
Yes you’ve got 11 years on me al right, so please explain to me how on earth (or above it) a blow to the hydraulics could knock a helicopter out of the sky.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — December 31, 2007 @ 4:43 am
You still keep saying ‘experience’. Was it riding in the back? Keeping the paint pretty? Perhaps making sure the airsickness bags worked?
Have you noticed yet that I’m not at all addressing the topic?
That’s because what you’re suggesting hasn’t happened. And let’s not forget that your Average Bad Guy cannot afford one of these rifles, cannot pass the background check to purchase one, and then we have the ammunition, which goes for a buck-and-a-half a pop.
So long as the police and the National Guard have these things, We The People need to have them as well. Take them away from those uniformed services that exist within our midst, and then I’ll happily support your call to ban them.
Comment by Peter — December 31, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Notice how the topic has changed. This happens quite frequently when gunloons are proven wrong. It goes from ‘you can’t shoot down helos with .50 cals’ to ‘well, other firearms can shoot them down as well.’
Comment by Administrator — December 31, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Where in the original fact did it say a .50 couldn’t do it?
See, that happens quite often: Somebody is challenge to back up a statement (11 years of experience doing what? How does damage to the hydraulics render a helicopter in a state of sprirallying towards the earth?) But being unable to do so, said person tries to discredit the opposition with childish and often sladerous -gunloon- insinuations and lies.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — December 31, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
MH: I dunno; do you think it was the quote “Myth: .50-caliber rifles can knock a helicopter from the sky” end quote?
Comment by Administrator — December 31, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Yes: Brady claims: .50’s can knock helicopters from the sky
We say: that’s true for a boatload of calibers and bullets, singeling out .50’s is pointless.
Also: what exactly did you do for 11 years?
Comment by Michael Hawkins — December 31, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Brady may claim it. But so do our armed services. BTW, there’s a testing ground in Aberdeen, MD that will say it as well.
The fact remains that a .50 is a far more effective weapon against a helo than a .22.
And, actually, my experience with H-60s is ongoing.
Your experience? Touch index finger to thumb.
Comment by Administrator — December 31, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
“The fact remains that a .50 is a far more effective weapon against a helo than a .22.” And a surface-to-air missile is even more effective than a .50cal. What’s your point? This is either a true threat, or it is a scare tactic which the Brady Campaign designed to push more gun control through congress. If it is a real threat, I want evidence. Just because GunFacts doesn’t always phrase things right doesn’t make our point any less valid.
This is all still an exercise in thinking “what _could_ terrorists do”. In the end, I think they are far too creative to let something like a ban on .50 caliber rifles stop them from achieving their goals. At least acknowledge that.
Comment by Gregory Morris — December 31, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
GM: It’s a true threat. Our armed services have changed their operations to reflect the reality of the threat overseas.
Yes, a SAM is more effective than a .50. But, no thanks to the NRA, SAMs and LAWs and TOWs are still relatively rare among US gunloons.
Why make it easy for terrorists, GM?
Comment by Administrator — December 31, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
Do you have a source for your claim that our armed services have modified SOP due to a specific threat from .50 cal rifles used by our enemies? In my line of work, I am privy to information about special forces operations, and I’ve never even heard this kind of thing mentioned. I’ve definitely heard about how to deal with SAMs, RPGs (yeah, they try, and sometimes succeed, to take down helos with them) as well as small arms fire. Nothing about a specific .50cal threat, except perhaps heavy machine guns, which are not readily available to the American public.
BTW, why do you seem to think the NRA wants us to have missiles of any variety? I think the NRA would be the first to say that civilians have no need for them, and I’d agree. Some more extreme pro-gun groups would argue for civilian possession of anything and everything up to F-16s, but the “evil” NRA isn’t one of them. I can understand disliking the NRA, but I can’t understand people accusing them of thing in which they clearly disagree with.
Comment by Gregory Morris — January 1, 2008 @ 2:55 am
*sniffs* Ahh, I love the smell of fear-mongering in the morning… not.
Could a .50-caliber round bring down a helicopter or other aircraft? Sure. Could a .223? Sure. Could a 20mm? Sure. Could a dedicated guy with a lot of magazines, a sure hand, and a 9mm pistol? Sure. Could a bird? Sure. Could hail? Sure. Could just about anything outside of the remarkably narrow operating parameters of an aircraft bring it down? Of course.
Gun Facts phrased their debunking poorly, but the point remains that all of the pointless and emotional hooplah about the “dangers of .50-caliber rifles” was just that - pointless and emotional. Kind of like most of the anti-rights arguments out there.
Comment by Mal — January 1, 2008 @ 10:15 am
*sniffs* I love the smell of fear-mongering in the morning… not.
Could a .50-caliber round bring down a helicopter or other aircraft? Sure. Could a .223 round do the same? Sure. Could a 7.62mm round as well? Sure, and they have in the past. Could hail also do the trick? Yuppers. How about birds? Oh hell yeah. What about your standard high-grade “inclement weather”. Ayup. How about anything outside of the remarkably narrow operating limits of an aircraft? Uh… duh.
The Gun Facts folks phrased their debunking poorly, and should indeed be taken to task for that. However, the fact remains that the pointless and emotional “dangers of .50-caliber rifles” arguments put forward by the gun-grabbers are just that - pointless and emtional, like most of the anti-rights arguments out there.
Comment by Mal — January 1, 2008 @ 10:23 am
*sniffs* I love the smell of fear-mongering in the morning… not.
Could a .50-caliber round bring down a helicopter or other aircraft? Sure. Could a .223 round do the same? Sure. Could a 7.62mm round as well? Sure, and they have in the past. Could hail also do the trick? Yuppers. How about birds? Oh hell yeah. What about your standard high-grade “inclement weather”. Ayup. How about anything outside of the remarkably narrow operating limits of an aircraft? Uh… duh.
The Gun Facts folks phrased their debunking poorly, and should indeed be taken to task for that. However, the fact remains that the pointless and emotional “dangers of .50-caliber rifles” arguments put forward by the gun-grabbers are just that - pointless and emtional, like most of the anti-rights arguments out there.
Comment by Mal — January 1, 2008 @ 10:24 am
*sniffs* I love the smell of fear-mongering in the morning… not.
Could a .50-caliber round bring down a helicopter or other aircraft? Sure. Could a .223 round do the same? Sure. Could a 7.62mm round as well? Sure, and they have in the past. Could hail also do the trick? Yuppers. How about birds? Oh hell yeah. What about your standard high-grade “inclement weather”. Ayup. How about anything outside of the remarkably narrow operating limits of an aircraft? Uh… duh.
The Gun Facts folks phrased their debunking poorly, and should indeed be taken to task for that. However, the fact remains that the pointless and emotional “dangers of .50-caliber rifles” arguments put forward by the gun-grabbers are just that - pointless and emtional, like most of the anti-rights arguments out there.
Comment by Mal — January 1, 2008 @ 10:25 am
This whole debate seems to be missing a point. The unlikelyhood of a helo being “knocked out of the sky” with a .50 cal rifle has less to do with power than with actually being able to hit the target at all.
There is probably a reason why helos have NOT been “knocked out of the sky” with a .50 cal rifle.
Comment by JayF — January 1, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Mal raises the same tired point: a helo can be brought down by a birdstrike or FOD. But the fact remains–if a bad guy wants to bring down a helo, a .50 beats using a .22.
Comment by Administrator — January 2, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
The REAL fact that remains is that a bad guy HAS NOT used a .50 rifle to bring down a helo — it’s too darn hard.
Comment by JayF — January 2, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
No, the real fact is that there’s been a lid on .50 cal firearms. For good reason.
Comment by Administrator — January 2, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
A “lid,” huh? How so? And if there is no problem because there is a “lid,” where is the problem?
Comment by JayF — January 2, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
What might that “lid” be?
Comment by JDFAR — January 3, 2008 @ 5:50 am