shooting personell with a .50 cal

ISC · December 9, 2009, 07:33 PM

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/milita.../ch62.htm#s2p4

Note section 6-4

knight0334 · December 9, 2009, 08:52 PM

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.

HarrySchell · December 9, 2009, 09:04 PM

I think I would rather take a .50 BMG than napalm.

ISC · December 9, 2009, 09:06 PM

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.

gearchecker · December 9, 2009, 11:58 PM

No explosion when hit by a .50 cal.
Sorry, ask anybody that shoots a .50 cal muzzle loader.
Just a big hole.

Double Naught Spy · December 10, 2009, 12:58 AM

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.

B. Lahey · December 10, 2009, 01:17 AM

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.

teeroux · December 10, 2009, 01:27 AM

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?

maestro pistolero · December 10, 2009, 03:17 AM

So, no problem with hitting human military targets with a 50 BMG, but using a 9mm hollow point is somehow cruel and unusual?

Rangefinder · December 10, 2009, 04:34 AM

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.

Uncle Buck · December 10, 2009, 08:57 AM

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!

tet4 · December 10, 2009, 09:46 AM

Ha - there are videos on youtube of apache helis shooting individuals with hellfire rockets! What about grenades?

Technosavant · December 10, 2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Ha - there are videos on youtube of apache helis shooting individuals with hellfire rockets!

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.

ISC · December 10, 2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by
gearchecker

No explosion when hit by a .50 cal.

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.

Doyle · December 10, 2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

No explosion when hit by a .50 cal.

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.

schutzen · December 10, 2009, 08:55 PM

Quote:

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

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

koolminx · December 10, 2009, 09:04 PM

Quote:

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

Thanks! I was going to say the same thing....

vranasaurus · December 10, 2009, 11:51 PM

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.

Rangefinder · December 11, 2009, 05:48 AM

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.

Powderman · December 11, 2009, 05:54 AM

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 "ah[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]osphere".

**Mike Irwin** · December 11, 2009, 09:28 AM

Apparently during WW II the Germans particularly feared the M2 because of its ability to create grievious wounds and penetrate soft to medium cover like mad.

Madcap_Magician · December 11, 2009, 01:01 PM

One time I was on an AT4 live fire range and a black bear went charging across at about 250 meters.

If I'm ever kicked out of the army, I want it to be for blowing up a black bear with an AT4, laws of war be damned.

spacecoast · December 11, 2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

So, no problem with hitting human military targets with a 50 BMG, but using a 9mm hollow point is somehow cruel and unusual?

There's probably not a lot of time to think about suffering after the 50 hits you. But I do see your point...

johnwilliamson062 · December 11, 2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

M-2 was for use against equipment

How expensive is a 50 BMG round? I would guess the pencil pushers would really prefer you send three 556 at a target rather than one 50 bmg if possible.
Sergeant Carlos Hathcock engaged personnel with the M2 in documented cases where they were not an immediate threat, so it can't be that big of a deal.

MTT TL · December 11, 2009, 11:27 PM

A .50 BMG round is about $3 each, although the price per round is not really that relevant. Even a 100 million rounds would only be 300 million dollars, a drop in the bucket really. Nearly all vehicles in theater now mount an M2 or M240. The M2 has seen plenty of use in the anti-personnel role in the last 8 years. However the M2 it is more useful on the anti-vehicle role than the M240. It is also more likely to cause collateral damage.

The table VIII identifies personnel targets as part of the qualification for the weapon system. Your instructor needs to go back to school.

December 9, 2009, 07:33 PM	#1
ISC Junior member Join Date: August 5, 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,982	shooting personell with a .50 cal 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/milita.../ch62.htm#s2p4 Note section 6-4 Last edited by ISC; December 9, 2009 at 08:04 PM.

December 9, 2009, 09:04 PM	#3
HarrySchell Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2007 Location: South CA Posts: 566	I think I would rather take a .50 BMG than napalm. __________________ Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain

December 9, 2009, 11:58 PM	#5
gearchecker Senior Member Join Date: April 6, 2009 Location: North IDAHO, Big Bear Country Posts: 466	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. __________________ When the time comes that I don't want a new gun, Call the undertaker! My firearm is an investment on my life. http://www.takdriver.com http://www.corneredcat.com

December 10, 2009, 12:58 AM	#6
Double Naught Spy Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX Posts: 12,717	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. __________________ "If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

December 10, 2009, 01:17 AM	#7
B. Lahey Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 2008 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,857	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. __________________ "A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards." -George Orwell

December 9, 2009, 08:52 PM	#2
knight0334 Senior Member Join Date: January 1, 2006 Location: Brookville, PA Posts: 442	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.

December 9, 2009, 09:06 PM	#4
ISC Junior member Join Date: August 5, 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,982	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.

December 10, 2009, 01:27 AM	#8
teeroux Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2006 Posts: 1,512	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?

December 10, 2009, 03:17 AM	#9
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	So, no problem with hitting human military targets with a 50 BMG, but using a 9mm hollow point is somehow cruel and unusual?

December 10, 2009, 04:34 AM	#10
Rangefinder Senior Member Join Date: August 4, 2005 Posts: 2,017	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. __________________ "Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?" Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.

December 10, 2009, 08:57 AM	#11
Uncle Buck Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2009 Location: West Central Missouri Posts: 2,592	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! __________________ Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.

December 10, 2009, 09:46 AM	#12
tet4 Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2009 Posts: 232	Ha - there are videos on youtube of apache helis shooting individuals with hellfire rockets! What about grenades?

December 10, 2009, 11:51 PM	#18
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	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.

December 11, 2009, 05:48 AM	#19
Rangefinder Senior Member Join Date: August 4, 2005 Posts: 2,017	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. __________________ "Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?" Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.

December 11, 2009, 05:54 AM	#20
Powderman Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2001 Location: Washington State Posts: 2,166	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 "ah[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]osphere". __________________ Hiding in plain sight...

December 11, 2009, 09:28 AM	#21
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,381	Apparently during WW II the Germans particularly feared the M2 because of its ability to create grievious wounds and penetrate soft to medium cover like mad. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

December 11, 2009, 01:01 PM	#22
Madcap_Magician Senior Member Join Date: August 13, 2009 Location: MN Posts: 668	One time I was on an AT4 live fire range and a black bear went charging across at about 250 meters. If I'm ever kicked out of the army, I want it to be for blowing up a black bear with an AT4, laws of war be damned.

December 11, 2009, 11:27 PM	#25
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	A .50 BMG round is about $3 each, although the price per round is not really that relevant. Even a 100 million rounds would only be 300 million dollars, a drop in the bucket really. Nearly all vehicles in theater now mount an M2 or M240. The M2 has seen plenty of use in the anti-personnel role in the last 8 years. However the M2 it is more useful on the anti-vehicle role than the M240. It is also more likely to cause collateral damage. The table VIII identifies personnel targets as part of the qualification for the weapon system. Your instructor needs to go back to school. __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.