shooting personell with a .50 cal

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ISC

Moderator
I got into a disagreement with an instructor today about whether or not it is a violation of the laws of war to shoot soldiers with a M2 .50 cal today.

I did a search and found this proving that it is OK to shoot the enemy with a .50. It is a myth that I've heard many times so I am glad to have found a document proving my position:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/04-1987.pdf

Note pages 36 and 37

Also there's this from FM 23-65:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-65/ch62.htm#s2p4

Note section 6-4
 
Last edited:
Some people tend to believe that military policy is all the law. While the 50cal is generally reserved for material targets and sniping in the sake of humanity, there is no law or rule against using it on enemy combatants.
 
it's not for the sake of humanity. it's for the sake of efficient use of resources. I can think of few ways more humane to die in war than to be killed instantaneously by having your entire upper torso explode with a .50 cal bullet.
 
Sorry, no explosion

No explosion when hit by a .50 cal.
Sorry, ask anybody that shoots a .50 cal muzzle loader.
Just a big hole.
 
While no explosion, there is indeed a world of difference between a .50 muzzle loader and a .50 BMG and their respective rounds.

Of course it is okay to shoot people with {modern} .50 cals in war. They have been used for that purpose since they were introduced into actual warfare. Note that .50 bmg has been used to set several sniping distance records.
 
Glad you called him out on it. I've heard that moronic rumor as well.

Hopefully practicality wins out over dimwitted instruction when young dudes with M2s meet individuals trying to kill them.
 
Well if it wasn't meant for shooting anything and everyone who posses a threat. Why then can a M2 be mounted to virtually every vehicle and platform in military inventory?
 
Well, the way we always put it---If I'm standing there holding nothing but an AT-4 and I've got an enemy soldier getting ready to pop me---Guess what? I'm aiming for equipment all right. I'm aiming for his canteen. Geneva be damned.
 
Every year we had to attend a "Law of Armed Conflict" briefing while I was in the military. Every year we were told the M-2 was for use against equipment and facilities and we could not shoot personnel with it.

Every year I asked the briefer why the snipers could use a .50 cal to take out long distance targets, every year I was told they would check and get back to me. They never did.

If the only thing I had available was the M-2 and I was being shot at, guess what my reaction would be? Rangefinder has it correct: Geneva convention be damned!
 
Ha - there are videos on youtube of apache helis shooting individuals with hellfire rockets! What about grenades?
 
Ha - there are videos on youtube of apache helis shooting individuals with hellfire rockets!
Click to expand...

That 30mm chain gun loaded with HEDP has also been used in antipersonnel roles.

All this "it's too big" stuff seems to only be repeated by those who aren't in combat at the time.
 
gearchecker said:
No explosion when hit by a .50 cal.
Click to expand...

I've got a video of a sniper shooting mountain goats with a .50 BMG. The goats literally explode with huge chunks of flesh flying in different directions.

When a one ounce supersonic bullet enters a fluid filled body cavity, it creates a huge wound cavity that bursts in a steam explosion.

Comparing a .50 BMG to a .50 black powder is like cimparing a 5.56x45 to a .22 lr.
 
No explosion when hit by a .50 cal.
Click to expand...

A recent show on the Military Channel showed an exploding bullet now in service for the .50 sniper M2. Designed to explode after going through a wall.
 
When a one ounce supersonic bullet enters a fluid filled body cavity, it creates a huge wound cavity that bursts in a steam explosion.
Click to expand...

This is not quite correct. It is not a steam explosion, but basic hydraulics. When a high velocity bullet strikes flesh, the moisture (water) in the flesh is rapidly displaced by the shock wave. Water is an incompressible liquid and all of the energy is imparted to the 10% of the flesh that is solid matter, hence a large, severely damaged wound channel.

By the way, a steam explosion is much more violent than even a point blank .50 BMG
 
This is not quite correct. It is not a steam explosion, but basic hydraulics. When a high velocity bullet strikes flesh, the moisture (water) in the flesh is rapidly displaced by the shock wave. Water is an incompressible liquid and all of the energy is imparted to the 10% of the flesh that is solid matter, hence a large, severely damaged wound channel.

By the way, a steam explosion is much more violent than even a point blank .50 BMG
Click to expand...

Thanks! I was going to say the same thing.... :)
 
I am a paralegal in the Army.

I have sat through over 50 LOW briefings and the question always comes up, usually from some 19 year od, private fresh out of training, and begins with "my drill sergeant said..." . The answer is always the same in that every weapon system you are issued is authorized for use against the enemy and has been reviewed for compliance with the LOW.

Just because a weapon system is designed more as an anti materiel weapon doesn't mean it is prohibited for use against personnel.

That doesn't mean you should pick and choose a weapon because you want to see what it will do. (I want to see what an AT4 would do to a person) You should always choose the weapon that makes the most tactical sense, and makes best use of the available resources. If you don't have a choice in weapons use what you have.
 
Lets just get down to brass tack, shall we? Combat isn't politically correct, and warfare damn-sure isn't pretty. I don't care if you hit enemy personnel with a rock or a Bradly---when you're is the heat of it, you do what you have to do, and suck it up. Dwell on it later if you must, though I'm not sure what point that will serve. If you're on the field of combat, your intention beyond the objective is to survive. How you do that can NOT be defined by some pencil-pushing putz trying to appease the delicate sensibilities of the masses. Do what has to be done, and push forward--end of story.
 
I think the most conclusive answer to this canard is to be found on--of all places--YouTube. It has to rank as one of the funniest videos I have ever seen.

In the video, you see an insurgent, engaging (from what I understand) US troops with what looks like an RPK. He fires a burst and dances back out of sight.

Of course, he is having such a great time that he does not check to his immediate right--and promptly gets "lit the #$!! up" by an M1 Abrams MBT at almost point blank range.

He promptly disappears into the "ahsh!tosphere". :eek::D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top