Barrett Update – 2
tkdkerry points to an edited version that does contain the corrections.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 2nd, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Corrections? Where?
December 2nd, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Those corrections weren’t worth the effort. It still leads with a multiply untrue statement: “When U.S. soldiers need to penetrate a tank’s armor from long-distance…” So they changed “1000 yards” (IIRC) to “long distance.” They could have changed it to “point blank range”, and the .50 still won’t penetrate the heavily armored vehicles usually meant by “tanks”. And of course it’s utterly untrue that our troops would use the Barrett for tank-fighting; at long range they’ll call for air strikes and for our own tanks, and if they have to take them on at short range they’ll use LAWs or other RPGs – things that do have a good chance of penetrating.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:27 pm
Boy, that’s even worse than what the AP put out!
Markm is correct and so is the good doctor.
A .50 can’t penetrate a modern tank at any distance.
Ronnie was contracted to take some photographs by Ramo of the M2 they were producing in Nashville, which led to him trying to figure out to make a “Light .50” semi-auto that could be deployed by one person; he couldn’t afford the custom built .50 rifles of the time so had to build his own.
I talked to Bryce Towsley Friday morning (a nice guy) who said he’d spoken to the Nashville AP editor for well over 20 minutes about the .50’s fairly non-impressive impact on game, ie a half-inch hole through it. When he read the actual correction he was disgusted.
Frankly, so was I. At least The Tennessean only ran the three (still erroneous) correction grafs. The AP, obviously thrilled at their puckish wit, sent the whole pack of b.s. VPC propaganda to member papers to run again: as the brain trust at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer did.
Is anyone surprised that newspapers are dying out?