I have the utmost confidence in my CZ550 to hit targets out to probably 600 yards, assuming I do my part. Howver, Im the first to admit the .308 may be a little light for longer than 1000 yards and for busting up things like vehicles and the like. Which is why I feel the need for this:

It’s Steyr’s HS50 single-shot .50 BMG. Its supposed to be wonderfully accurate, moreso than the Barret. Theres a dealer in town who sells these things for about $4300 a piece and I desperately want one. Not badly enough to clean out my gun collection to afford it, but badly enough that I’d be tempted to get into some sort of relentless layaway program.

The days of the .50 cal. rifle are numbered. If Im going to have one I might as well get one of the really nice ones. The Barretts get lotsa press but from what I read they arent as accurate as some other guns. A McMillan might be nice, but I sure like the way the Steyr looks and, more importantly, I like Steyr’s reputation for accurate products.

As I was saying, the days of the .50 cal. are numbered. From an investment standpoint, the HS50 would be a smart move since its a bit more uncommon than the other guns…much the way a Steyr AUG sells for more than, say, an HK93. Of course, were I to posess such a magnificent hunk o’ steel as the HS50 it aint getting sold…its too purposeful a gun.

The purpose? Shooting things at 1000+ yards, naturally. Theres a comfort in knowing that you could sit in the middle of a cirlce one mile wide and pwn anything within it. I think the challenge of 1000 yard shooting would be quite enjoyable and the secondary uses for personal defense would be a bonus.

I have to go check and see if CZ offers something in the .50……….

16 thoughts on “HS50

  1. I’d go for one of the bolt action AR-15 uppers. Equally accurate with the added benefit of never existing on a form 4473.


  2. It looks as if it takes Barrett muzzle brakes, or at least ones that look like them. If you could convince a Class III dealer to override Gem-Tech’s “government sales only”, you could then pick up a Stormfront can for it and shoot it without hearing protection. That can’s threaded for the Barrett threads, so that could be handy indeed.

    I’m looking at getting a .50 BMG rifle in the future…not for any practical purpose, but one of the “because I can” purchases. Unfortunately, my budget for the next year or so is pretty much laid out, and I can’t spend that much cash on any single gun, let alone ammo to shoot it regardless of the politics.

    I’m not even sure the .50 BMG round and rifles chambered in it would be banned…at worst, I think it might be added to the NFA under “destructive device”, but that doesn’t prohibit one from manufacturing or buying new guns of that type (there are new 20mm Vulcan-chambered guns being made and sold today under the NFA).

    Even that seems a bit much — for all the whining the Brady Campaign and VPC do, gun control simply isn’t a major issue in politics right now, or amongst the general citizenry. The conflict in Iraq (not technically a war, since it hasn’t been officially declared by Congress), healthcare, Social Security, and other stuff are things that attract the attention of voters, not guns. The pro-gun side has s substantial amount of allies in Congress, even with the Democrats taking the slight lead in the new year (even so, they probably wouldn’t get enough for anti-gun laws to get passed), and the NRA, GOA, SAF, and others have very vocal membership, not to mention the rest of internet readers. .50 cal owners are getting more common and vocal, and they wouldn’t take such an attempt quietly.

    The only really bad things to pass Congress (with either party in control of the two houses) since 1968 were the machinegun ban in ’86 and the AWB in ’94, and the AWB expired without all the doom and gloom that was predicted by the antis.

    I’m personally rather surprised with the relative lack of “Oh noes! Teh ebbil gunz!” attitudes in the public sphere these days….I’m not going to worry about the .50 BMG round for some time now.

  3. I respect your reasoning but I feel compelled to disagree. The amount of .50 shooters is small enough that banning the guns would be entirely do-able. Banning something as popular as, say, the AR-15 (in a Federal ban sense), wouldnt fly because of the large amount of people affected. The .50 guys are a small enough group they can be isolated from mainstream shooting. The fact that its already done in California should show that it is possible and I have no doubt that with the ‘terroists shooting down planes’ angle the VPC has been pushing the idea of a Federal ban/reclassification of .50 cal. guns is not out of the realm of possible.

    Redefining the .50 to DD status, to me, is the same as banning them. If I cant walk into a gun shop and buy it across the counter without extra-special paperwork then, to me, its banned.

    The .50 is ripe for the ‘serves no legitimate purpose’ test the anti0gun people like to throw around. Its a ‘weapon of war’ and a ‘snipers weapon of choice’ and all that nonsense.

    So, Im gonna disagree with you. I hope Im 110% wrong but I dont think so. Even if I am wrong, buying a .50 at the soonest opportunity isnt something I’ll be likely to regret.

  4. *nods* I completely understand your reasons, and I occasionally feel like that sometimes (less so, now that I moved out of California).

    Perhaps I’m being optimistic, but I seriously hope that you’re wrong about the .50 being endangered.

  5. If you both want it that much, you should!! If you could raise $2500+ for the Grizzly Dip you can certainly raise at least that much for the Steyr.

    I bet a lot of the freaks would be delighted that all they have to do in terms of a gift is click a paypal button. I can host it in my journal; that seems like an appropriate duty for the Best Matron. 🙂

  6. Forgive my tangent, but “not technically a war, since it hasn’t been officially declared by Congress”

    What’s the difference between a “Declaration of war” and an “Authorization to use force”? It seems to me that it is a semantic distinction. After all, we renamed the “Department of War” to the “Department of Defense”. One would almost expect that congress would be passing Declarations of Defense. A Rose by any other name… Unless there is some sort of distinction I’m missing.

    Besides, we’ve been at war with Iraq since 1991. At most, we broke the ceasefire. (unless Desert Storm wasn’t an official war?)

  7. Honestly, I don’t know what the legal difference is. I’m no lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but I think some Congresscritters find it somewhat distasteful to call it a “war” when they sign off on it. Who knows?

    As for Iraq, I don’t believe Desert Storm was a “war” either.

Comments are closed.