Whoa, whoa, whoa...

The paint alone for a new bumper is probably going to be $1,000. That special AMG paint ain’t cheap.

.45 ACP is a boy’s round. A man’s round is .45-70! :P LOL

My solution to this and other phone related annoyances? Don’t use voicemail. Seriously.

I like the Autozone treatment of random useless shit glued onto the exterior. Makes it look all refined and classy and such.

ROFL Gizmodo’s best (read: worst) strikes again!

I mean on a sniper platform.

Oh, I didn’t mean to make it sound like it’s some conspiracy. We obviously use the round against personnel (great example, like you point out, is the M2). None of my military relatives of buddies have ever denied .50 being used against personnel because, there’s nothing to deny really. I meant it in the sense that…

Shhh! You’re going to blow my cover...

Uh, ballistics includes what happens upon impact (i.e. terminal ballistics). Saying a .50 BMG slug is “just a giant chunk of lead” is a bit disingenuous. Even the heaviest of 5.56mm bullets don’t come close.

Actually they are used extensively for extreme long range. Six of the ten longest range kills were made with .50 BMG. The world’s longest range confirmed kill was made with an AI L115A3 (.338 Lapua).

They are rarely if ever used against a person.
...
I think 7 of 10 most recent long range kills as a sniper all used some variation of a .50 cal bullet.

Needs moar muscles!

They have become a popular method of disabling and/or detonating IEDs from a distance.

Whether the aircraft is piloted on the aircraft or remotely (this one is obviously remotely controlled) is irrelevant as the flight mechanics are the same. The only thing that changes is scale (and of course risk, lol).

Dear Mr. Hamilton,

From my understanding, that’s just PR to make it sound like we’re not using .50 BMG to take down people. They’re not terribly effective at stopping vehicles and aren’t significantly better than some other rounds for that purpose. They’re for extreme long range or penetration.

I take it you don’t actually fly multirotors?

Controlling an X4/X8 rotorcraft without a conventional flight controller would be near impossible. Notice the stability until the moment of failure; that isn’t possible without computer assistance. It’s easy to say that “simple motor syncing” would be sufficient but that’s simply not the case; the mixing necessary to…

Props to them for using an X8 setup which gives at least some failover. I dunno if that thing could maintain altitude with only 4-7 rotors running but at least it could perform a controlled landing.