# Barret vs the Mac.



## Spr.Earl (13 Feb 2005)

Any opinions.


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Feb 2005)

I'm definetly not one who likes to throw around idle speculation, but the snipers (both American and ours) I've spoken to seem to think that the Barrett is an anti-material rifle, while the Macmillan is a true sniper rifle. 

Also the Macmillan comes with a wider variety of color schemes.

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/britney1234/weed50.jpg">


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Feb 2005)

I spoke with one of the snipers in Afganistan Roto 0 and he seemed to indcate that they preferred the Mac.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Feb 2005)




----------



## KevinB (14 Feb 2005)

I will tend to echo Britney's comments - I spoke with CWO3 Mike Haugen (SF ret.) (who now works for Remington MIL sales) when he was the IC of Sniping in 1 SFG (before he became their Force Mod Officer) he claimed that anyone who thought the Barret was a sniping rifle was an idiot - or at best delusional.  I've seen them battery fired (yup 6 of them at a time) to maximize the chance of them hittting a tgt...

 With the SLAP chambers (which nearly all have or they cant fire SLAP ammo) the system is at best a 2MOA gun - thus 20" at 1000yds best case without wind or rangign errors.  The McMillan's however are much tighter - but slower 5 rd mag bolt gun versus 10rd semi.

Different role - different system


----------



## Spr.Earl (18 Feb 2005)

KevinB,I asked the question because I just had the chance to put 30 rnds down range in the anti material roll with the scope,mounted on the M2 .50 tri pod and what a bitch to get a good sight picture but I did hit all the targets then tried it a rapid fire, all over the F'n  place.
I did not like the ringing of the recoil spring in my lug hole
Ring a Ding Ding!!! :


----------



## Spr.Earl (18 Feb 2005)

Oh I also for got about the pussy pull!!


----------



## KevinB (22 Feb 2005)

I think they both have a roll -- HTI teams can work well with the Barrett - the Mac is not exactly what I'd want to use to put round into a ZSU...

 Similarily if I were bobbing on a boat (sorry SHIP) and trying to put fire into another boat I think the M82 series woudl be a good choice.


----------



## Britney Spears (23 Feb 2005)

I am skeptical of the usefulness of a rifle on a ship(or a helicopter, for that matter), It's hard enough to to hit a moving target at thosse distances, but a moving target from a moving (both elevation and traverse) platform? Those navy snipers must be insanely good.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Feb 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I am skeptical of the usefulness of a rifle on a ship(or a helicopter, for that matter), It's hard enough to to hit a moving target at thosse distances, but a moving target from a moving (both elevation and traverse) platform? Those navy snipers must be insanely good.



I've seen it work decently (Mac, not the Barrett)...


----------



## scm77 (23 Feb 2005)

Spanish Special Forces board North Korean ship, find some scud missiles.






North Korean Ship





Spanish SF Snipers (I believe the guy on the left has the Barrett)





Mast after they shot the wires off.

Don't know if that is completely true, but that's what the captions of the photo said and I've seen articles saying the same thing so it should be legit.
 :sniper:


----------



## Spr.Earl (26 Feb 2005)

Hmm, what type of Ammo?
I will reserve my comment on the last photo.


----------



## Spr.Earl (26 Feb 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I am skeptical of the usefulness of a rifle on a ship(or a helicopter, for that matter), It's hard enough to to hit a moving target at thosse distances, but a moving target from a moving (both elevation and traverse) platform? Those navy snipers must be insanely good.


I would not be surprised if we or they have it in a stabilised platform. 

I will say one thing it's quite the wack when firing it for the first time.


----------



## KevinB (26 Feb 2005)

The Barrett in the photo is not the M82 series but the M99 bulpup bolt gun (a different kettle of fish altogther)

From my understanding they shot Mk211 Raufoss rounds (HE payload) at the mast to remove the wires for the helicopter coudl get closer to rope in the team.


----------



## Spr.Earl (4 Mar 2005)

You may say that but can't comment.

Heres a link for the new Seal .50 ?

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_AS50,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Mar 2005)

You may want to read the "Accuracy International tits up because their rifles suck" thread.


----------



## KevinB (4 Mar 2005)

FWIW _ dave Crane and his "Defence Review" is full of SHIT

 He posts a lot of rumours and any one in the trade does not take him very seriosuly

- He reported the USMC adopted new Glocks in the new .45GAP cartridge - once again bullshit....


----------



## bobtiji (7 Mar 2005)

i'd say the ;eft guy on the boat does not have a m82 since the m82 has it's loaded in front of the trigger...


----------



## KevinB (7 Mar 2005)

bobtiji said:
			
		

> i'd say the ;eft guy on the boat does not have a m82 since the m82 has it's loaded in front of the trigger...



Its the M99 bullpup bolt gun of Mc's


----------



## bobtiji (10 Mar 2005)

Does it uses 50 cal too?


----------



## KevinB (11 Mar 2005)

Yes


----------



## bobtiji (14 Mar 2005)

i prefer the feel and accuracy of the bolt-action Mac Millian even though i'm not sure if the mac is a .50cal i'd take it


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2005)

bobtiji said:
			
		

> i prefer the feel and accuracy of the bolt-action Mac Millian even though i'm not sure if the mac is a .50cal i'd take it



What, if any, experience do you have, at 16 years old, with a McMillan? Yes, it comes in .50 cal.


----------



## patt (14 Mar 2005)

As Emeril would say "Lets kick it up a notch"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2005)

BAAMM!!! ;D


----------



## bobtiji (16 Mar 2005)

my father got a similar and i already tried the barret m82.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2005)

bobtiji said:
			
		

> my father got a similar and i already tried the barret m82.



Are you saying your father has a McMillan .50 or something similar in that calibre?


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2005)

Uhm -- The Barrett and Mac .50's are prohibited...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Mar 2005)

LOL I read it to mean his dad had the 25 mm....   :


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2005)

Strangely, that is likely legal...


----------



## bobtiji (16 Mar 2005)

he doesnt have them anymore but when he had them he wasnt in this contryof ours


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2005)

bobtiji said:
			
		

> he doesnt have them anymore but when he had them he wasnt in this contryof ours



Man, everytime you get called on one of your statements, you just keep coming up with another weak excuse. You'd better read & heed the comments over in the grenade thread. Either that or you'd better write a good clear post stating al the whys, whens, whats, wheres and hows. Cause your young credibility is definately on the block here.


----------



## Nervous sheep (16 Mar 2005)

i'd say the same


----------



## Nervous sheep (16 Mar 2005)

You know i've never tried any of those weapons but i'm leaning toward the mac.
no special reason i just like bolt-action's


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2005)

What he should have said the first time :


----------



## KevinB (17 Mar 2005)

Recceguy - Please  let me help...  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2005)

Just an idle thought; what if a semi-auto .50 was given an automatic sear and a "snail drum" magazine. SF troops would then have a "LHG" (for want of a better term) which would primaraly fire semi-auto at defined targets, but could be used to lay down supressive fire if needed (rear guard dealing with an enemy APC for example). Considering the size and weight of a "real" HMG, this would be far eaiser to transport and set up.

As far as the preference is concerned, I have never had the pleasure of firing a .50 rifle, and the only weapon of that description I have ever handled was a Boys anti-tank rifle (no, I havn't been in *that* long!), which struck me as being insanely large and awkward to fire. On a theoretical basis, I would think the Mac, with fewer moving parts and a bolt action would be more accurate than a Barret, which would have residual vibrations from the movement of the action to affect the barrel.


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Mar 2005)

> Just an idle thought; what if a semi-auto .50 was given an automatic sear and a "snail drum" magazine. SF troops would then have a "LHG" (for want of a better term) which would primaraly fire semi-auto at defined targets, but could be used to lay down supressive fire if needed (rear guard dealing with an enemy APC for example). Considering the size and weight of a "real" HMG, this would be far eaiser to transport and set up.



So is an M72.



While we're on the subject of HMGs for supression, I would like to note that the Chinese type 89 12.7mm HMG is man portable, weighing in at only 26kg or so with tripod complete. A 3-4 man det can easily carry it with a reasonable amount of ammo.


----------



## SteveB (20 Mar 2005)

The only .50 I've fired weighed 144lbs.  That said, I saw S&W .500 mag at Shooter's Express last week in Charlotte.  It could be tried out at $5 a shot.  From the look of the round, you had best have travelers insurance for the setting and casting of your wrist.

The idea of a full auto .50 rifle is absurd.  Any supression needing volume of fire would be better handled with any number of weapons.  If I wanted to haul that much weight, give me the C6.  Any hard target needing multiple .50 hits would be better engaged with rapid (relatively) semi-auto.  Or more likely, an AT wpn, indirect fire, fast air etc.

To answere the original question I'd shoot either, but only accurate rifles are really interesting.  I'd prefer the Mac.

Steve


----------

