.50 cal illegal for use on human targets?

[incommin]

[QUOTE=JJ_BPK;220141]I don't suppose that it would make much difference to the anti-gun peace-niks,,

Muskets at that time used round lead balls,, the caliber??

.62 to .75 inch bore, equivalent to the modern 16 & 12 Ga shotgun??? Which we still carry in combat.

The reason, Black Powder is a slow burning propellant, so to do any damage you needed a large projectile.


Ever see the damage .31 to .44 caliber lead balls do? There were firearms of smaller caliber during the period you speak of. You needed large calibers to do damage at longer ranges........ not because the smaller calibers didn't do any damage.


Jim

[JJ_BPK]

Ever see the damage .31 to .44 caliber lead balls do?, Jim

Agreed,, I carry a 1860 Colt Navy, repro, .44 or a Lyman Plains Pistol in .54, for black power season, as back-up. Up close they are fine weapons.

The thread talked about "are .50 cal rounds legal". I just wanted to make a point that the USA and the rest of the World have been using large caliber rifle rounds forever and are un-likely to stop..

Neither will I,, as my BP rifle is an old TC Renegade, also in .54 cal. Stuff it with 120 gr of FF and she can kick some butt,, does a good job on my shoulder, too..

Keep your powder dry...

[Air.177]

While I find the historical information interesting, I *believe* that it doesn't really factor all that heavily into the topic at hand, as I believe that the ".50 caliber" in question would be the .50 BMG cartridge. My (admittedly minimal) understanding of this topic leads me to believe that the argument against the use of the .50 BMG round in an antipersonnel role stems from it's original designation as an "anti-tank" weapon. This early designation, which was obsolete even at the time of the Battlefield Debut of the M2 HMG, would appear to classify the .50 with the likes of the RPG, M72 LAW, AT4, Dragon, Tow, Javelin, etc. which are generally not likely to be misconstrued as anti-personnel weapons by any reasonably knowledgeable and prudent individual. (Not to say it hasn't/won't happen, but this is not their intended use)

In the big scheme of things, I really don't see these "laws of war" or the violation thereof having any actual bearing on treatment of personnel captured by the savages with whom we are currently at war. The Geneva Convention didnt have a "Don't cut off the heads of noncombatant prisoners in front of a global internet audience" clause, so the only thing these antiquated documents are realistically going to do is provide ammunition to anti-war Journalists and other Miscreants wishing to do harm to the American soldier and his appearance to the global audience.

These are just a few of my Uneducated civilian thoughts on the matter, take em or leave em.

Good times,
blake

[incommin]

[QUOTE=Air.177;220194]While I find the historical information interesting, I *believe* that it doesn't really factor all that heavily into the topic at hand, as I believe that the ".50 caliber" in question would be the .50 BMG cartridge. My (admittedly minimal) understanding of this topic leads me to believe that the argument against the use of the .50 BMG round in an antipersonnel role stems from it's original designation as an "anti-tank" weapon. This early designation, which was obsolete even at the time of the Battlefield Debut of the M2 HMG, would appear to classify the .50 with the likes of the RPG, M72 LAW, AT4, Dragon, Tow, Javelin, etc. which are generally not likely to be misconstrued as anti-personnel weapons by any reasonably knowledgeable and prudent individual. (Not to say it hasn't/won't happen, but this is not their intended use)

You're correct the thread was about the .50 BMG. Referencing older weapons in larger calibers that have been in use for a long time does have some bearing on the discussion. As far as weapons designed to take care of vehicles and armor being used against troops, I've seen RPG's and the 90 and 106 recoil-less used against individuals. A weapons role is to kill the other SOB. You use what you got!

[Air.177]

Originally Posted by incommin

You're correct the thread was about the .50 BMG. Referencing older weapons in larger calibers that have been in use for a long time does have some bearing on the discussion. As far as weapons designed to take care of vehicles and armor being used against troops, I've seen RPG's and the 90 and 106 recoil-less used against individuals. A weapons role is to kill the other SOB. You use what you got!

Absolutely sir, Nor was I implying otherwise, just trying to illustrate the thought processes that may have lead to such discussions as these on the .50 BMG and it's "legal role on the battlefield".

Good times,
Blake

[Lmmsoat]

You still need to be on the look out for the un-informed. I have been correcting this myth for 7 years. Little story. I was working with some marines in the past. The Marine task force's commanding general was convoying to Ramahdi. The enemy sprung an ambush on the convoy, initiating with an IED. When the ambush line began to engage the convoy, one of the marine NCO's on the CG's vehicle began to engage them with his M-2. A col. in the back yanked him out of the turret. He screamed at the NCO telling him "that gun was not for personnel". To which the NCO promptly responded, "Why the **** do I have it then". Afterwards I had to have a discussion with this col. about the laws of land warefare.

Officially coming from a JAG officer who has had time at both the pentagon and 18th Abn Corps, the .50 cal is safe. Matter of fact if it is in the ASP it is good for all uses. Just like you can shoot down a plane with an M-4, you can kill a human with a rocket. Before any munitions in the military inventory are approved for use, they are put through a review board. This approval process certifies it in accordance with all conventions. This goes for everything from SAMs to bullets.

[ODA572]

I recall hearing that old saw about not using Ma Deuce on people. I was an 11B in Basic Training at Ft. Benning in 1978. My "almost fresh from Viet Nam" drill instructor told me that one.

Then he followed it up with this: " Don't shoot at the soldier, but do try to hit his canteens, helmet, or buttons on his shirt". I thought that was good advice.

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

I agree with everything you guys said here.

But, I PRAY that no one is killed domestically with a .50 cal, even if the shooter is justified.

The anti-gun groups would love the death of someone by .50 cal to push legislation limiting our options of bullet. A .50 cal vs. .338 Lupa or .50 cal vs. .44 Mag death would be the difference in a lot of media coverage and uneducated public outcry.

Just not worth it when there are comparable, if not better, options available for the home front.

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

"use of silenced weapons."

Whew, well thats a relief!!

Why'd you show us a picture of a Navy SEAL wearing chocolate chips?

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

Why'd you show us a picture of a Navy SEAL wearing chocolate chips?

Talk about necro posts!!!

You ain't going to see/find any SEAL Trident on that uniform.......

[emoore]

Originally Posted by ODA572

" Don't shoot at the soldier, but do try to hit his canteens, helmet, or buttons on his shirt". I thought that was good advice.

I had always heard it was for shooting at equipment – but my old First Sergeant who was also a Vietnam vet clarified it for us. “Just shoot his web gear.”

I don’t see what difference it makes in war if you kill someone with a slingshot or a .50 cal as long as you kill them. Someone will have to explain to me one day why it’s inhumane.

[7624U]

Flamethrower if you want it done right and painful

[SRGross]

as a former .50 cal gunner, the rules for us where 2.
1. An item on them is equipment, .50 cal are used to disable equipment or destroy it. tell them you was aiming at the rifle he was caring.
2. As a .50 cal gunner it is your primary weapon of defense, you are allowed to defend yourself and also those in harms way.

That was the end of the question asked for the JAG in 1987 Rules of Engagement.

[JimP]

Please put this "equipment" issue to rest: the answer has been previously posted - there's NOTHING wrong/illegal/immoral with lighting up some knucklehead with a .50 cal!!!! There's some stupid JAG's out there that know NOTHING about engagement dynamics or the ROE/LOW. Some of the most insane lunatics I've heard running around spouting off as "experts" have been JAG's. A little knowledge is dangerous.

You can pop "skinny" with a tank round of that is what's convenient - it's fun to watch, besides...the kids LOVE it.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by JimP

Please put this "equipment" issue to rest: the answer has been previously posted - there's NOTHING wrong/illegal/immoral with lighting up some knucklehead with a .50 cal!!!!

Good idea.

Done!

This thread is closed.

TS