how would you burn through about $30 in less than one second?
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GXEK7rcqO-Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


close quarters defensive shooting-

way more kinetic energy than a 12g shot gun-

If you get American Eagle .50 BMG, that's only $18. ;)

you think you might do it twice?

I would like to try a nitro powered car. Or a jet. A jet could burn $30 of fuel in a second easy.

Miculek is a legend in handgunning circles.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WzHG-ibZaKM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

you wouldn't get to the runway...

I've got many answers I won't be mentioning here.

The muzzle-brake on that Barrett doesn't look conducive to shoulder-firing. I assume that the moveable barrel absorbs most of the recoil.

Most of the .50s that I've fired (no Barretts) would be physically impossible to shoulder fire--far too long and heavy.

I will go ask my wife.

Now that's impressive.

Pretty much every handgun speed record has been set with a revolver. Waiting for the slide to cycle on an autoloader just slows these guys down. The late, great Bob Munden at his best (cocky SOB, but he earned it):

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/XsU5AMxvlKg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks Jeff.

Very interesting.

I've shot several hundred rounds through an M107 (mostly prone and mounted in a turret, but some standing/kneeling) and truthfully the "kick" isn't that bad. The weight, recoil system, and muzzle brake all do a great job at keeping it tame. I would say my Kimber Montana 300WSM hurts way more to shoot. It has more of a push than a kick, the muzzle doesn't rise, and the weight keeps it pretty stable, so as long as you have the strength to hold it up, it's pretty stable to shoot standing. I have repeatedly hit a 300m pop-up target standing.

Now I say the recoil isn't bad, but the concussion is ridiculous. The sound and shockwave that thing puts out punish your insides. And whatever you do, don't stand beside someone else shooting it, or you will feel the brunt of the muzzle brake pressure.

I like this one better:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KydwknyfUrg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nope. Barrel is fixed. Bolt carrier, brake, and overall mass take up most of the recoil.

I've fired a couple .50's from the shoulder. It's (surprisingly) not that bad. Even with a bolt action the recoil tends to come straight back due to the mass of the gun.

Miculek is a bad ass, but my money would have been on Tom Knapp to put meat in the cooler. Never have found a reasonable explanation for owning a hand gun.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/a8ZeqZrLxpw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

.50ae and .50 BMG are not the same thing.

Well, you have clearly never fired the Barrett - every one I have ever played with utilizes the "short recoil" system wherein the barrel does, in fact, move aft with the bolt carrier and bolt upon firing. Kind of like a Browning Auto-5 shotgun. Maybe you should watch the video...

That's just it. You don't need a reasonable explanation to own anything.

I used to think like you but not anymore. If you want it and you can afford it then why not?

I have a collection of film cameras. A few are very valuable because of age, rarity, condition etc.
I still shoot film but most of my camera bodies are shelf queens. So is it OK to have over $20,000 tied up in rare cameras and lenses? I think it is because it brings me enjoyment.