<< Go Back

Barrett 82A1 Rifle System .50 BMG 29", W/Leupold Mk4 4.5-14x50mm Scope, Mounted, Monopod, 10 Rnd Mag

MANUFACTURER NO: 13317 M82A1-K1

Images shown may not be an exact representation of the actual product.
You may contact us if you have questions about the exact specifications of this item.

ITEM #: 816715010018

More Items From: Barrett Firearms

 5 of 5 STARS    2 REVIEWS | WRITE A REVIEW

DETAILS SPECIFICATIONS REVIEWS SHIPPING

BARRETT MODEL 82A1 Rifle Package W/Mark IV Scope

Total Rifle System: 29” barrel (chrome chamber), Leupold Mark 4 4.5-14x50 Scope, Barrett Ultra High Rings, Hard carry case, one 10-round magazine, carry handle, M1913 optics rail, detachable adjustable bipod, monopod, sling attach points, cleaning kit and owner’s manual.
FASTER WITH AGE.
Perfection isn’t accomplished overnight. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Model 82A1. For more than two decades, this short-recoil, semi-automatic series rifle has been carefully honed, studied and then refined again. The result is a feat of engineering so impossibly precise, it’s hard to believe it’s man-made.
After 25-plus years of making history, the powerhouse rifle that started it all is still leading the pack. With its low perceived recoil and self-loading action, the Model 82A1 offers rapid, accurate firepower that never slows down.
As the first and only semi-automatic .50 caliber rifle available, the Model 82A1 continues to blaze new territory. Its chamber is chrome-plated and dimensioned for both civilian and military ammunition. The extractor and ejector are proven to work under any condition, and close tolerances on every part allow it to function in all environments. The muzzle brake, dual barrel springs and long mainspring design make this iconic rifle comfortable and exciting to shoot.
The Model 82A1 fits into a regular sized carrying case. Although it’s transported as a disassembled upper and lower receiver, it can be ready to fire in under a minute. The scope remains mounted on the upper receiver, maintaining scope zero. the rifle’s M1913 optics rail has a 27 MOA taper to take full advantage of the scope’s elevation travel.
Rapid, accurate fire from its ten round magazine is a breeze.
The Model 82A1/M107 is what you expect in a Barrett. Dependable. Reliable. Well-designed. There are no competitors.
Emergency iron sights provided. Nerves of steel are not.
Barrett 82A1 Features

	M1913 STEEL OPTICS RAIL, 27 MOA ELEVATION
	10-ROUND MAGAZINE
	DUAL BARREL SPRINGS
	CHROME CHAMBER

Leupold Vari-X III 4.5-14X50 Scope
ZERO-GAP Ultra High Rings
Air/Watertight Pelican carrying case
Cleaning Kit
Carry Handle
Flip-up Iron Sights
Sling Attach Points

MAGAZINE CAPACITY: 10 Rounds

Barrett 82A1 Videos Model 82A1 Product Animation:


The Model 82A1 rifle is a rugged, dependable semi-automatic rifle. In simple terms, it has earned unmatched respect because it works in battlefield conditions. Our military men and women have depended on over 5,000 Model 82A1/M107 rifles to protect themselves and to protect our freedoms.



Unlike other semi-automatic .50 BMG's, the Model 82A1 is completely reliable. Its chamber is chrome plated and dimensioned for both civilian and military ammunition. The extractor and ejector are proven to work under any condition. Close tolerances on all parts and intelligent design allows it to function in all environments. The trigger is appropriate for a battle rifle.

deer stand for sell

deer stand for sell

Matt Damon Calls for Confiscation of Guns in U.S

Matt Damon Calls for Confiscation of Guns in U.S.

Actor Matt Damon wades through a flooded street escorted by U.N. peacekeepers and police officers in Gonaives, Haiti, Sunday, Sept .14, 2008. (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa).

MAAAATT DAAAAAMON.

Hollywood actor Matt Damon used a press conference in Australia over the Fourth of July weekend to discuss his desire for a massive confiscation of U.S. guns.“You guys did it here in one fell swoop [in 1996] and I wish that could happen in my country, but it’s such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly,” Mr. Damon said during a promotional engagement in Sydney for the movie “Jason Bourne.”
The action star went on to say people get too “emotional” when it comes to “not selling AK47s to people on terror watchlists.”

As we proceed in this election year, expect the American leftists to become less coy about their intentions, especially now that their Queen is getting a pass from the FBI on her email "confusion."
Their "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" approach to gun laws thus far has featured repeated proclamations that they really are coming for our guns. They just want "sensible" gun reform, right?

The 5 Most Destructive Political Ideas in Matt Damon's Movies

Now Damon says we can't talk "sensibly" about guns while dreaming of a national gun confiscation, which is all you need to know about what their version of sensible is.

Illinois Man Charged With Desecrating American Flag After Posting Photos On FB

WE NEED TO SEE MORE PEOPLE CHARGED WITH THIS

A 22-year-old Illinois man has been charged with desecrating the American flag after he posted photos on Facebook FB +0.28% along with messages decrying the state of violence and race in the U.S.
This is the first time the Urbana Police Department has seen the flag desecration statute used in 27 years.
Bryton Mellott was booked into the Campaign County Jail at about 9:47 a.m. Monday after police received numerous calls from citizens concerned about his safety and theirs. The calls started coming in around 7:30 a.m., Sgt. Andrew Charles told me over the phone.
The calls prompted the Urbana Police Department to investigate Mellott’s Facebook page, where he had posted photos of him burning an American flag along with the following commentary.
“I am not proud to be an American. In this moment, being proud of my country is to ignore the atrocities committed against people of color, people living in poverty, people who identify as women, and against my own queer community on a daily basis,” Mellott wrote on Facebook in a post.

DHS WHISTLEBLOWER: WHY OBAMA IS 'SO ADAMANT TO PROTECT ISLAM'

'The power of Shariah is very difficult to exaggerate'

Published: 2 days ago

http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif

 Print

(Photo: Twitter)

Appearing this week on CBN News, former Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney gave an insider’s perspective on the Obama administration’s dedication to avoiding offending Muslims at the expense of national security.

Haney, who details his experience as a whistleblower in his new book “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad,” came to the realization in 2009 when his superiors made an odd request regarding valuable information he had gathered and entered into the DHS electronic database.

“They told me, we want you to eliminate – the word was ‘modify’ – all the linking information in about 850 records that I put into the system on guess what group? The Muslim Brotherhood,” Haney told CBN’s Jennifer Wishon.

Haney said the Obama administration did not wish to investigate Muslim Brotherhood members as terrorists because it relied on the Brotherhood and other Muslim groups with ties to terrorism to help form U.S. counter-terrorism policy.

Three years later, in 2012, the administration purged all 67 of Haney’s records dealing with Muslims associated with a movement known as Tablighi Jamaat.

“This time they didn’t just modify the information in the records; they completely eliminated them out of the system, erased them forever,” Haney explained. “And then they investigated me for putting that information into the system when that was exactly the job that I was supposed to be doing.”

This pattern continued after the recent terror attack in Orlando, when the Justice Department initially redacted all of shooter Omar Mateen’s references to Islam and ISIS from a transcript of his 9-1-1 call. In fact, Haney discovered immediately after the shooting that the Fort Pierce, Florida, mosque Mateen attended had ties to the Tablighi Jamaat case that the Obama/Clinton State Department shut down in 2012. If Haney’s information had not been eliminated, the Orlando massacre might have been prevented.

Get “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad” now at the WND Superstore!

“I can’t explain to you the ideology or the worldview of this administration that makes them so adamant to protect Islam from harm by addressing it in its true nature,” Haney said.

Islam, he noted, is not just a religion, but a system of laws – Shariah – that Muslims who adhere to fundamental teaching wish to establish over all the world.

“The power of Shariah is very difficult to exaggerate how much influence it has on the lives of Muslims around the world,” the whistleblower warned.

In fact, Haney believes America is presently locked in a battle between the U.S. Constitution and Shariah law.

“Are we going to submit to the influence of Shariah law and make it legal for one particular religion to have more than one wife?” he asked. “Or are we going to say, ‘No, you cannot implement those provisions as long as you want to be a citizen of United States’?”

The answer, according to Haney, is for Americans to become more familiar with the Constitution.

“If you become more familiar with the Constitution, you’ll be able to see more clearly the points of conflict between the U.S. Constitution and Shariah law, and then you can discuss it without fear of being called a racist or a bigot or an Islamophobe,” he advised.

Haney, who testified before a Senate subcommittee Tuesday, told CBN’s audience his Christian faith has helped him get through his long ordeal. In fact, only faith in God could help him overcome the dark forces he has faced.

“We’re talking about very, very high-level, malevolent kind of forces here at work, and it is very sobering to see these kinds of things operating,” he said. “These are biblical-level events that we’re talking about.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/dhs-whistleblower-why-obama-is-so-adamant-to-protect-islam/#Evhhp3yOtlk6Gv4A.99

Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules

Consistent with prior precedent, the court found machine guns to be “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

LUKE SHARRETT/BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES

Vietnam War-era M16 rifles displayed at a vendor’s booth during the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot in West Point, Kentucky, on Oct. 9, 2015. 

A Texas man who sued the federal government because it wouldn’t approve his application to manufacture a machine gun doesn’t have a constitutional right to possess the automatic weapon, an appeals court ruled.

Jay Hollis sought permission to convert his AR-15, a popular semi-automatic firearm, into an M16 — an automatic firearm that is banned under federal law, except for official use or if lawfully obtained before 1986.

After he was rejected, Hollis mounted a constitutional challenge to the Gun Control Act of 1968 — which Congress amended in 1986 to make it illegal to possess or transfer machine guns. Among other things, he argued that an “M-16 is the quintessential militia-styled arm for the modern day.” 

In a unanimous ruling issued Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected Hollis’ arguments, categorically noting that “machine guns are not protected arms under the Second Amendment.”

The court explained that the leading Supreme Court precedent on the right to keep and bear arms, 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, only protected individual handgun possession for “defense of hearth and home.”

“Today ... ordinary military weaponry is far more advanced than the weapons typically found at home and used for (self)-defense,” the court said, adding that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual,” and nothing like what militias might have used at the founding of the republic.

“Heller rejected a functionalist interpretation of the Second Amendment premised on the effectiveness of militia service,” the court of appeals said.

Aided by a number of gun rights groups, Hollis had pressed a number of other arguments — that anything that is “ordinary military equipment” is protected, that the Second Amendment really exists to allow a rebellion against the government, and that machine guns aren’t really “dangerous and unusual.” 

The 5th Circuit was largely unimpressed, calling the last argument “tantamount to asking us to overrule the Supreme Court.” 

Interestingly, the court did survey the confused state of gun rights in the wake of the Heller decision, pointing to recent action and inaction by the Supreme Court and lower courts — on stun guns, so-called “assault weapons“ and the legal framework for weighing firearm bans — to suggest that it can only do so much to bring clarity to the law.

“We leave changes in Supreme Court caselaw to the Supreme Court,” the 5th Circuit said.

But if the high court’s recent moves are any indication, those changes may not come any time soon.

Just last week, the Supreme Court declined to review yet another Second Amendment challenge to strict gun control measures enacted in the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut — more evidence that it may not be the right timeto determine how far the Second Amendment extends

Shocking Polls Show What U.S. Muslims Think of U.S. Laws

Shocking Polls Show What U.S. Muslims Think of U.S. Laws

As July 4 approaches, new polling data reveal non-Muslim Americans are increasingly cognizant of the threat Sharia -- Islam’s totalitarian religio-political “law” -- poses to their basic liberties. Overwhelmingly, they reject its encroachment in the United States.

But polling data also reveal that an ominous, growing proportion of American Muslims wish to impose Sharia on America.

Opinion Savvy polled a random sample of 803 registered voters -- 98.2% non-Muslim, and 1.8% Muslim (with age, race, gender, political affiliation, and regionpropensity score-weighted to reduce biases) -- from June 19 to June 20, 2016. They asked:

Do you believe that the United States government should screen, or actively identify individuals entering the United States who support Sharia law?

Seventy-one percent affirmed:

Yes, supporters of Sharia should be identified before they are admitted into the US.

The group answering “yes” was then asked:

Once identified, do you believe that individuals who support the practice of Sharia law should be admitted into the United States?

Eighty percent responded:

 No, supporters of Sharia should not be admitted into the US.

The next query, which addressed only foreign visitors, elicited an even more emphatic demand for fidelity to bedrock First Amendment principles. It asked:

Do you believe that the United States government should require all foreign individuals entering the United States to affirm that they will uphold the principles of the constitution, such as freedom of religion and speech, above all personal ideologies for the duration of their stay in the country?

Seventy-eight percent insisted:

Yes, visitors to the US should be required to agree to uphold the constitution, regardless of their personal ideology, as a condition of their visit.

The unblinkered assessment of Sharia validates its broadly shared rejection by non-Muslim Americans, but also illustrates how increased U.S. Muslim Sharia support represents a dangerous trend.

Time Is Running Out for American Muslims

The Sharia, Islam’s canon law, is traceable to Koranic verses and edicts (45:18, 42:13, 42:21, 5:48; 4:34, 5:33-34, 5:38, 8:12-14; 9:5, 9:29, 24:2-4), as further elaborated in the “hadith” -- the traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the earliest Muslim community -- and codified into formal “legal” rulings by Islam’s greatest classical legists. Sharia is a retrogressive development compared with the evolution of clear distinctions between “ritual, the law, moral doctrine, good customs in society, etc.,” within Western European Christendom.

Sharia is utterly incompatible with the conceptions of human rights enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights.From October 22 to October 26, 2012, Wenzel Strategies polled 600 U.S. Muslims of high socio-economic status. They were asked:

Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?

Regarding this most fundamental U.S. right, 58% replied “no”. Only 42% affirmed this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech, i.e., to criticize religious or any other dogma.

Indeed, oblivious to U.S. constitutional law as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed with the following:

[T]hose who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges.

Only 38% did not; 17% were “unsure.”

Moreover, fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the U.S. code, answering affirmatively that:

Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.

In June of 2015, data from a survey of another 600 U.S. Muslims conducted by the respected political pollster Kellyanne Conway revealed:

51% … agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Sharia.

 Perhaps most frightening, 25% of those polled agreed:

[V]iolence against Americans here in the United States is justifiedas a part of the global jihad.

Why is Sharia supremacism -- which is diametrically opposed to U.S. Constitutional law -- so alarmingly prevalent among U.S. Muslims? The inescapable conclusion, validated in Senate Judiciary Committee testimony this week by Department of Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney, is that mainstream institutional Islam within the U.S. inculcates this liberty-crushing mentality.

Haney’s presentation mentioned in passing the mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, (AMJA). Well-accepted by the broader American Muslim community, the Islamic scholars affiliated with AMJA have attained influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States. AMJA scholars train American imams. They issue online “fatwas” -- Islamic Sharia rulings -- to guide individual Muslims. Should the mainstream AMJAaccomplish its unabashed goal of implementing Sharia in North America, the organization has already issued a ruling which sanctions the killing of non-Muslim “blasphemers.”

Donald Trump’s rational call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, especially from hotbeds of violent Sharia supremacism, must be viewed gimlet-eyed bearing in mind irrefragable data capturing U.S. (here, here) and global Muslim attitudes, as well as the behavior of mainstream, institutional American Islam.

Muslims Attack People in England for Drinking Beer...?!?

Forty years ago, Husayn al-Quwatli -- director general of Dar al-Ifta, the center of spiritual authority for the Sunni community of Lebanon, and author of the treatiseIslam, the State, and Secularism (1975) -- candidly elucidated the Muslim Sharia supremacist mindset which perhaps best validates Trump’s moratorium:

The position of Islam is very clear on one point, namely that the true Muslim cannot take a disinterested position vis-à-vis the state. As a result, his position with regard to ruler and rule cannot be an indecisive one which is content with half solutions.

Either the ruler is Muslim and the rule Islamic, then he will be content with the state and support it, or the ruler non-Muslim and the rule non-Islamic, then he rejects it, opposes it, and works to abolish it, gently or forcibly, openly or secretly.