« Petition for cert in NRA v. BATFE case | Main | Maryland situation »
I think I'll let someone else shoot it
a .90 [corrected: .95] caliber rifle. Recoil: 2,777 foot pounds. Cost of ammo: $40 a round (you could probably handload it for $30, if you could find a press). And legally it's a destructive device. No wonder that the manufacturer has built only three.
(It's also amusing how the British press has trouble describing guns and ammo).
6 Comments | Leave a comment
I am trying to think of some use for this rifle. If I come up with anything I'll get back to you.
It's too big to be a practical rifle, and too small to be useful as artillery, so I suppose hobbyist interest and curiosity are the driving factors behind this project. At that, I suppose those are good enough reasons.
I believe that is the .950 jdj. It is a .95 cal rifle, not a .905 cal rifle.
I wonder if they will work on a recoil spring, like the Barrett has now?
For drones in Colorado!
.95 inch works out to about 24mm.
How about a 20mm rifle?
http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm
That video's been on the internet for awhile (see it here on Youtube from 2012 with 2.6 million views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xohy9gWz7kk)
Somebody wrote about the gun again recently for whatever reason (I'm not sure if it was the Daily Mail who did, or someplace else) and in the process transposed a digit. They wrote about the ".905 caliber" rifle and then everyone else that copied the story repeated the error. .950 JDJ is .95 cal, not .905 cal.
Also, .950 JDJ has a sporting use exemption from the ATF (like the .577 Tyrannosaur, .600 Nitro Express, .700 Nitro Express and a couple other >.50 caliber cartridges), so rifles chambered in those aren't destructive devices.