View Single Post
Old February 15, 2014, 04:14 PM   #1
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
.50bmg and international law.

In another thread it was suggested that the .50bmg is not used as a anti-personnel round because it is forbidden under the Geneva convention.

It is my contention that is not the case.

However I have been told by a former Ranger and sniper that it is against international law. I have also been told second hand that others have heard the same for former and current members of the military.

Is it possible that our military has rules of engagement that preclude the use of the .50bmg against individuals?

Again I don't think that is the case, but it is also something I doubt I can prove one way or the other.

So I'll start with google.
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-rum...rgets-1.134278

While stars and strips may not be the most authoritative source it is the first hit on "Geneva Convention .50bmg.

Quote:
In truth, neither the 1949 Geneva Conventions nor other laws governing the conduct of war forbid U.S. troops from using the weapon against enemy fighters, said Gary D. Solis, an adjunct law professor at Georgetown University.
snip
Quote:
Since all weapons issued to U.S. troops have passed a review that
Quote:
they comply with international law, .50-caliber machine-gunners can legally use the weapon against human targets, he said in e-mail.
snip
The exact origin of the rumor is unclear. Solis said it dates back to the Korean War, possibly earlier. Another story suggests that commanders in Vietnam were told to conserve their .50-caliber ammunition by only using it against enemy equipment or hard targets.

But retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey said his troops used .50-caliber machine guns when fighting enemy troops at close range and when bombarding the enemy from afar.
There is also this earlier thread from this forum.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...eva+convention

That thread was closed because of excessive chest pounding. So if you could keep away from histrionic posts about how war is war and we gotta use everything we got and dam the french, I'd appreciate it.

One last thing before I go to work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M82

Once again wikipedia isn't an authoritative source but it is easy to get to.

Quote:
The XM107 was originally intended to be a bolt-action sniper rifle, and it was selected by the U.S. Army in a competition between such weapons. However, the decision was made that the U.S. Army did not, in fact, require such a weapon. The rifle originally selected under the trials to be the XM107 was the Barrett M95.

Then the Army decided on the Barrett M82, a semi-automatic rifle. In summer 2002, the M82 finally emerged from its Army trial phase and was approved for "full materiel release", meaning it was officially adopted as the Long Range Sniper Rifle, Caliber .50, M107. The M107 uses a Leupold 4.5–14×50 Mark 4 scope.
So basically I think I've made my case with what's here. I don't mind doing more research though.
If anyone has any solid evidence to the contrary, please post it.
Buzzcook is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04120 seconds with 8 queries