Poll: I want a sniper rifle what should I get

[Billion Backs]

I can't imagine what a civilian would need a "sniper" rifle for. What, are you going to defend yourself from 1 mile distance?

I can see sense in owning a pistol, a shotgun, hell, a carbine or something semi-automatic... but a sniper rifle?

Although I totally support ya, the international news have been a bit boring lately.

 

[CaptainKoala]

Spent the money on a Gaming Console and some good FPS games ... Guns are bad m'kay

What's wrong with guns, it's you right as an American?

What's wrong with guns...?
- Hmmmm, i heard somewhere that they were able to kill people (not sure if it's true though :O)

Sure, cars, power tools, virtually everything heavier than a roll of quarters, and my bare hands can kill people too, so we should outlaw all of them.

Cars kill ten times more people than guns a year! The nature of a gun doesn't make it inherently evil. Good Lord, owning a gun is explicitly permitted in the Bill of Rights!
I'm not saying your view is wrong, because it's America and you get to think what you want. But I do think you should reconsider the mindset that 'If it has the ability to hurt people, then it's wrong.' Since that would outlaw half the things in existence today.

 

[Billion Backs]

I use blister agent (it's not illegal if you don't call it mustard gas!) for home defence.

Me too!

I never agreed with the whole "ban" on mustard gas and similar substances.

 

[jmoore4ska]

Well, it depends on your battlefield I suppose. For barren plains/dessert and an urban environment I'd go for the Barret, for the fact that'll go through walls and it'll go a long way.
If your battlefield is more diverse, especially woodland or uneven hillsides, I'd go for the bravo.

As a civilian, let's hope that the OP does not have a "battlefield" at all. We're beyond trying to choose the best gun for a map in CoD4 at this point.

If you're anything other than military and you plan on having a real "urban" battlefield, there's something seriously illegal going on.

 

[slopeslider]

All the people freaking about why does he need a .50 cal sniper:
You know how many people in America have been killed by 50.cal's?
ZERO
You know how many people were killed by SUV's in 2005?
4,666.
You are more likely to be killed by a chainsaw than a .50
You are more likely to be killed by a random seizure after years of playing video games with no problems.
Which should we ban first, smart escapist legal experts?

OT: I say the r700 based one. If Kansas turns sensible and bans .50 cal's then you can still shoot yours. It's based on a hunting rifle after all.

Yes because cars that a built for driving are more dangerous than guns built for KILLING. hes buying a gun for taking out armored cars and light tanks!? And for what? To shoot at some old cars or some targets. Its like saying "0 people killed by nukes in america, lots by cars, nukes are safer than cars." The reason people are not killing by barretts is because no one is allowed to have one for that very reason.

Considering that nukes aren't even eligible for ownership I'd say that has no bearing on this. You are allowed to have a Barret, OBVIOUSLY. Yet no one has been murdered by one. It's WAAY to expensive to use compared to other alternatives and most criminal gun use is with handguns, not evil .50cal's.
You are allowed to own chainsaws, Suv's, toasters, and 50.cal guns. Only three of those were ever used in a murder here and they were the ones NOT designed for killing people, now please tell me why. Your argument is full of holes man. You can go buy a sports-car with 500hp and Have a greater chance of killing someone else and yourself than if you got a normal sedan. There are ZERO needs for a sports-car other than recreation, just like a .50 cal. They kill more people than all Rifles combined. I think you should turn your righteous indignation towards this more pressing matter rather than a gun that has never killed anyone here.

 

[cubikill]

You Americans and your weapons... is there anything you aren't allowed to buy?
I'd say unless you're planning in advance for a zombie apocalypse or you want to overthrow the gouvernment where's the point in owning a sniper rifle?

Well there fun, and or hunting. And yes we cant really buy anything thing that lunches grenades. But if you look really hard I bet you could find something.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I use blister agent (it's not illegal if you don't call it mustard gas!) for home defence.

Me too!

I never agreed with the whole "ban" on mustard gas and similar substances.

Much easier to control than biologicals. I used to use Ebola for home defence but, you know... neighbours' kids breaking into the shed... usual story.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I think you should turn your righteous indignation towards this more pressing matter rather than a gun that has never killed anyone here.

You miiiiiight want to rephrase that.

oh wait, my bad. n/m

 

[jmoore4ska]

Spoiler: snip

Spent the money on a Gaming Console and some good FPS games ... Guns are bad m'kay

What's wrong with guns, it's you right as an American?

What's wrong with guns...?
- Hmmmm, i heard somewhere that they were able to kill people (not sure if it's true though :O)

Sure, cars, power tools, virtually everything heavier than a roll of quarters, and my bare hands can kill people too, so we should outlaw all of them.

Cars kill ten times more people than guns a year! The nature of a gun doesn't make it inherently evil. Good Lord, owning a gun is explicitly permitted in the Bill of Rights!
I'm not saying your view is wrong, because it's America and you get to think what you want. But I do think you should reconsider the mindset that 'If it has the ability to hurt people, then it's wrong.' Since that would outlaw half the things in existence today.

Although i don't agree there should be a ban on guns, i can see where people like THA are coming from on this point. Cars may kill more people than guns, but cars kill through misuse, whereas the whole intent of a gun is to cause harm to another entity, human or animal. I can see how THA might think one cannot ban the misuse of common objects, but can ban the intent to cause harm by removing the implement of that intent.

Unfortunately, i'd have to say even that intent cannot be banned, considering nearly anytime anything is banned anywhere, it only serves only to line the pockets of the black market/organized criminals.

Anyway, i'm just sayin i can see where the'yre comin from.

 

[cubikill]

All the people freaking about why does he need a .50 cal sniper:
You know how many people in America have been killed by 50.cal's?
ZERO
You know how many people were killed by SUV's in 2005?
4,666.
You are more likely to be killed by a chainsaw than a .50
You are more likely to be killed by a random seizure after years of playing video games with no problems.
Which should we ban first, smart escapist legal experts?

OT: I say the r700 based one. If Kansas turns sensible and bans .50 cal's then you can still shoot yours. It's based on a hunting rifle after all.

Yes because cars that a built for driving are more dangerous than guns built for KILLING. hes buying a gun for taking out armored cars and light tanks!? And for what? To shoot at some old cars or some targets. Its like saying "0 people killed by nukes in america, lots by cars, nukes are safer than cars." The reason people are not killing by barretts is because no one is allowed to have one for that very reason.

I think you might be forgetting this, owning a gun in the USA does not make you a criminal nor does it make you a murderer. I don't understand why so many people are freaked out by guns. Im not trying to slam you, Im just wondering? Just remember not all gun owners are criminals, or murders.

 

[Quaxar]

You Americans and your weapons... is there anything you aren't allowed to buy?
I'd say unless you're planning in advance for a zombie apocalypse or you want to overthrow the gouvernment where's the point in owning a sniper rifle?

Well there fun, and or hunting. And yes we cant really buy anything thing that lunches grenades. But if you look really hard I bet you could find something.

Sure, I understand the fun part but I would never go hunting with a long-range sniper rifle, I think it takes the fun out of it if you can kill the game from your living room couch. I prefer a good ol' knife and mud to conceal the human smell.
However, I'm from Europe, we have actual weapon regulations, you even have to pass a psychological test just to own a weapon, not to speak of taking a weapon with you (that needs additional testing). So I guess I'm a bit influenced by strict regulations on ballistic weapons.

I used to use Ebola for home defence but, you know... neighbours' kids breaking into the shed... usual story.

Ah yes. I never leave the house without my mutated anthrax... for duck hunting.
Armored cookie for reference.

 

[GBlair88]

You want a 'sniper' rifle.

...

I hope to God you don't get one (Or have one already, which you seem to). Civilians own high powered rifles, not sniper rifles. Are they the same thing? Yes. But the wording you use makes me nervous.

It's the red dot dancing across your forehead that should really be making you nervous.

 

[Melias]

Get the cheaper one because then you could afford more ammo and blast away to your hearts content!

 

[Hawgh]

I want to get a new sniper rifle

Which one should I get?

The Barrett M82A1 50 Cal. - Overpowered, maybe. But that engine block 2 miles away needs to be destroyed. ($2 per round)(retails for $3200) http://www.vincelewis.net/rifle.html

The Bravo51 7.62x51mm - Much more sane in power. Highly accurate and a lot cheaper to fire than 50 Cal ($0.50 per round). Also the rifle itself is cheaper. (retails for $1200) http://www.snipercentral.com/bravo51.htm

These are the 2 main ones I am looking at but any American sniper rifle might go on the list that I will look at. http://www.snipercentral.com/rifles.htm

I am 26 years old and all of these are legal in the state of Kansas.

EDIT: Many have pointed out that good 50 cal round cost $7.50 or more. I was looking at the cheap rounds by mistake. Also I probably will load (make) my own ammo.

Why get a sniper?

Why not? He can, it's America.

I 'can' also chop off one of my fingers, doesn't mean I should.
I 'can' also count cards when playing blackjack, doesn't mean I should.(I can't, just roll with the magical fantasy realm of this example)
Being able to do something doesn't mean it's right, or even smart.

Of course, that's the point of America. We have the right to do anything we want (within reason and the government's laws) and then we decide weather some of the things we CAN do. You're right, the ability to do something doesn't make it moral. But that's the point of freedom, being given the right to do things and then deciding for yourself which things to do and which ones not to do. And in this case, buying a rifle is perfectly legal, and even explicitly permitted in the Bill of Rights. You know how many people in America have died from .50 cals? 0.
SUV's? Over 4,500 a year.

And, statistically, if you own a car you own a gun. So cars are, in reality, much more dangerous than firearms.

True dat. However, that doesn't really answer the "why" of it, which is the really juicy bit.
It's really just that I want to know, the suspense could kill! (Much like a sniper rifle).
I probably obfuscated that by throwing in the example with the moral angle, sorry for that.

 

[Timboslice]

Why would you ever fuck with the .50, unless you are actually taking out armor. Thing is a piece of shit. If you're only shooting out to 800m go with the Bravo.

 

[Timboslice]

Ah yes. I never leave the house without my mutated anthrax... for duck hunting.
Armored cookie for reference.

Futurama. Get some!

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Dude, why are you going for high-tech? Get the classic Springfield, I'm sure that's more legal.

But of the two, Bravo.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

All the people freaking about why does he need a .50 cal sniper:
You know how many people in America have been killed by 50.cal's?
ZERO
You know how many people were killed by SUV's in 2005?
4,666.
You are more likely to be killed by a chainsaw than a .50
You are more likely to be killed by a random seizure after years of playing video games with no problems.
Which should we ban first, smart escapist legal experts?

OT: I say the r700 based one. If Kansas turns sensible and bans .50 cal's then you can still shoot yours. It's based on a hunting rifle after all.

Yes because cars that a built for driving are more dangerous than guns built for KILLING. hes buying a gun for taking out armored cars and light tanks!? And for what? To shoot at some old cars or some targets. Its like saying "0 people killed by nukes in america, lots by cars, nukes are safer than cars." The reason people are not killing by barretts is because no one is allowed to have one for that very reason.

I think you might be forgetting this, owning a gun in the USA does not make you a criminal nor does it make you a murderer. I don't understand why so many people are freaked out by guns. Im not trying to slam you, Im just wondering? Just remember not all gun owners are criminals, or murders.

But everyone who owns a gun has the potential to be one, the ability to do more harm and kill more people. your right, most are good people, I accept that. The fact is you get bad people who WILL exploit the guns to do harm. No guns is safer than everyone has a gun.

Next complaint.

All the people freaking about why does he need a .50 cal sniper:
You know how many people in America have been killed by 50.cal's?
ZERO
You know how many people were killed by SUV's in 2005?
4,666.
You are more likely to be killed by a chainsaw than a .50
You are more likely to be killed by a random seizure after years of playing video games with no problems.
Which should we ban first, smart escapist legal experts?

OT: I say the r700 based one. If Kansas turns sensible and bans .50 cal's then you can still shoot yours. It's based on a hunting rifle after all.

.

.

The gun is more dangerous than the car. Heres the reasoning. Yes more people are killed every year by cars than barrett 50 cal anti material sniper rifles. Thats because of numbers, there are more cars than barretta 50cals in the general populous. Imagine EVERY car owner had a 50 cal and used them everyday. Now the statistics are comparable, and i bet 50 cal would get a much higher rank.
More people own chainsaws. You cant say your more likely to die from something to say something is safe, its about numbers you are comparing by numbers. A fairer way is to take ONE random car and ONE random barreta 50 cal and see how many lives its ended. Repeat. I bet the 50cal would come on top. There may only be one of a deadly weapon and 5000 cars but the deadly weapon is still more dangerous. Its about how many there are.

 

[slopeslider]

All the people freaking about why does he need a .50 cal sniper:
You know how many people in America have been killed by 50.cal's?
ZERO
You know how many people were killed by SUV's in 2005?
4,666.
You are more likely to be killed by a chainsaw than a .50
You are more likely to be killed by a random seizure after years of playing video games with no problems.
Which should we ban first, smart escapist legal experts?

OT: I say the r700 based one. If Kansas turns sensible and bans .50 cal's then you can still shoot yours. It's based on a hunting rifle after all.

Yes because cars that a built for driving are more dangerous than guns built for KILLING. hes buying a gun for taking out armored cars and light tanks!? And for what? To shoot at some old cars or some targets. Its like saying "0 people killed by nukes in america, lots by cars, nukes are safer than cars." The reason people are not killing by barretts is because no one is allowed to have one for that very reason.

I think you might be forgetting this, owning a gun in the USA does not make you a criminal nor does it make you a murderer. I don't understand why so many people are freaked out by guns. Im not trying to slam you, Im just wondering? Just remember not all gun owners are criminals, or murders.

But everyone who owns a gun has the potential to be one, the ability to do more harm and kill more people. your right, most are good people, I accept that. The fact is you get bad people who WILL exploit the guns to do harm. No guns is safer than everyone has a gun.

Next complaint.

All the people freaking about why does he need a .50 cal sniper:
You know how many people in America have been killed by 50.cal's?
ZERO
You know how many people were killed by SUV's in 2005?
4,666.
You are more likely to be killed by a chainsaw than a .50
You are more likely to be killed by a random seizure after years of playing video games with no problems.
Which should we ban first, smart escapist legal experts?

OT: I say the r700 based one. If Kansas turns sensible and bans .50 cal's then you can still shoot yours. It's based on a hunting rifle after all.

.

.

The gun is more dangerous than the car. Heres the reasoning. Yes more people are killed every year by cars than barrett 50 cal anti material sniper rifles. Thats because of numbers, there are more cars than barretta 50cals in the general populous. Imagine EVERY car owner had a 50 cal and used them everyday. Now the statistics are comparable, and i bet 50 cal would get a much higher rank.
More people own chainsaws. You cant say your more likely to die from something to say something is safe, its about numbers you are comparing by numbers. A fairer way is to take ONE random car and ONE random barreta 50 cal and see how many lives its ended. Repeat. I bet the 50cal would come on top. There may only be one of a deadly weapon and 5000 cars but the deadly weapon is still more dangerous. Its about how many there are.

The fact remains you will not be shot by a .50 cal but your chances are actually existent for a car crash. Most .50 cal's are used in the war to kill enemies, unless you decide to fight the US government in the middle east you don't have to worry about getting shot by one.
And betting is no way to get answers. You can't use 'bets' in an argument. I KNOW there are almost 300 million legal guns in the US, and there are 62 million registered vehicles in the U.S. at the current time and approx. 6.4 million unregistered functioning vesicles. Roughly 32% of those two numbers combined would account for Semi-Trucks, construction, heavy machinery vehicles. Stats accurate as of 02/01/05.
Yet car fatalities are far higher than gun fatalities, even disregarding the fact most gun crime is committed in cities by organized crime towards one another using UNREGISTERED guns.
Please tell me why there are more than 4 times more guns than cars yet cars kill many more people, and have no criminal underworld skewing the car's statistics with illegal car killings.

And 'no guns' is not safer, as most gun deaths are crimes using UNREGISTERED guns by criminals that, by definition, WILL NOT obey the murder laws or the gun ban laws. Banning guns will have the same effect as banning weed. It will line the criminal's pocket's smuggling MORE Weapons (or weed)into the country, this time supplying normal homeowners who still want guns(or weed) AS WELL AS criminals.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Would I be right in assuming you need the sniper rifle for sport hunting, killing pests or shooting tagets right?

The M82A1 is a little overkill on rabbits/wooden targets considering .50 BMG ammuntion can shoot through reinforced steel plates. Its not like your hunting Godzilla.

The Bravo51 seems a little more realistic when thinking of value for money, theres no real point in owning a Barrett if a rifle 3x cheaper will do exactly the same thing for aswell as the $7 cheaper cost per round.
The only point I see is so you can say (brag) you own a weapon that can blow a man chest into several hundred little gibblets.