snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » Military » 50 caliber weapon against Geneva Convention? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: 50 caliber weapon against Geneva Convention?
snopes
Return! Return! Return!


Icon 209 posted      Profile for snopes   Author's Homepage   E-mail snopes       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Comment: There's a myth I've been trying to debunk that is driving me crazy.

For some reason, people have begun insisting that it is illegal or against
the Geneva Convention to use a .50 caliber weapon against personnel,
despite Congressional Medal of Honor winner Audie Murphy using a .50
caliber machinegun against German Infantry, and legendary Marine sniper
Carlos Hathcock using a .50 caliber sniper rifle against the Viet Cong.

I see it all the time on anti-US & anti-Israel message boards claiming
their soldiers are committing war crimes.

I've sat through dozens of briefings as a veteran and I assure you, it's a
legal anti-personnel weapon, and I've poured through the online GC trying
to find a citing online from a reliable source. Of course, you can't find
something that doesn't exist, so I'm out of luck.

Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Archangel
Spider Cider


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Archangel     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well the Geneva conventions (there are lots of'em) are easy to find on the internet, so its a simple matter to find and check. But my recollection is that there is nothing that pertains to firearms calibre.

(Edit to add) Could have something to do with:

"1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects*"

As to the Anti-Israel/US sites, never seen such a thing or such a reference. Could it be that the real intention of this message is...

"them US/Israel opponents, so devious they lie about laws of armed conflict. Never believe them when they complain about treatment of Palestinian children & etc. Instead..."

Posts: 1749 | From: -> Canberra <-/ Hong Kong / London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lucky13
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 213 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
My friend (who was an infantryman) tells me that the .50 cal mounted on a HUMVEE is not to be used as an anti-personal weapon. But you can fire it on enemy equipment, if there happens to be an enemy soldier in the equipment, it isnt your fault if you hit them.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Goes-boooo
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I believe that unless the ammunition does not have a full metal jacketed bullet and is not designed to explode or separate on impact, then it is legal by the Geneva Convention. If I am wrong, then the Canadian sniper mentioned in this thread is also a war criminal.

Goes-hmmm

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
The Slighty Scary Otter
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know about anti-Israeli websites, but the Waco conspiracy theorists seemed to have latched onto this:

quote:

...Idema also points out that other photographs released clearly show an FBI agent with a .50-caliber Browning machine gun next to his leg.

Such weapons are to be used only against armored equipment and weapons, certainly not civilians, says Idema.

"Why were they there?" he asks. "Koresh didn't have any tanks or helicopters, or APCs. The Geneva Convention states that these weapons are never to be used in an anti-personnel role."

http://209.126.160.2/racialnews/pub/waco_01.html

He is wrong of course. The .50BMG round is perfectly legit to use against human targets in warfare. It's only a 12.7mm, compare that to the 20mm gun on a Cobra attack chopper, the 30mm gun on an Apache, and the 40mm Bofors cannon on the AC-130. The AC-130 also has a 105mm Howitzer mounted on it. All of these have been used against personnel with no legal action against the soldiers.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Gunpilot
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 402 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that some units in Vietnam (or maybe all Americans) had a specific rule of engagement (ROE) that prohibited use of .50 cal machine guns against personnel. So, of course, the running joke is "Hyuk, hyuk, I'm not shooting at him, I'm shooting at his equipment."

Actually, there is nothing in the GC that prohibits weapons of a specific calibre from being used against personnel. As someone already pointed out, 20mm, 30mm, even 203mm (old howitzer) ammo is designed to be used against personnel.

It is against the GC to use ammunition that is designed to cause undue suffering. "Hollow point" ammo is an example of this. All American ammunition complies with this requirement, unless modified by a soldier, who would then be in violation of the GC.

Gun"what do you mean, his hat is not equipment?"pilot

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ThreadSlayer
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I think Gunpilot covered the question, so I will just throw in a minor nitpick
quote:
and legendary Marine sniper
Carlos Hathcock using a .50 caliber sniper rifle against the Viet Cong.

Hathcock used the same rifle as other snipers, I believe a .30-06. However, he once had a confirmed kill at 2500 meters firing a single shot from a .50 Browning machine gun. The other 92 confirmed kills were with the .30-06.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Yute
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
On the following statement made by the website "http://209.126.160.2/racialnews/pub/waco_01.html":
quote:

Idema also points out that other photographs released clearly show an FBI agent with a .50-caliber Browning machine gun next to his leg.

I cringe at this statement. According to an FBI HRT sniper at Waco (Christopher Whitcomb, from his book Cold Zero, ISBN 0-316-60103-9), it was Koresh that had a .50 in his compound, not the FBI. The FBI uses 7.62 bolt action Remington 700s(much much smaller round). Yes, perhaps the source is bias, but I rather take the word of a FBI agent than some person that sympathizes with a madman.
Quote from book page 313, " Everywhere [in the Koresh compund], literally everywhere, I could reach out and touch a weapon. Ar-15 barrels in rows, AK-47 recievers, bipod mounted-machine guns, handguns, the two big Barretts"
Quote from book page 283, "That's the way I found the Barrett. I had just begun my sweep... I trained my scope on a one-by-two-foot opening in the wall.. "Sh**, that looks like a fifty to me". Good I wasn't seeing things."
(sorry edited for space)

In Soviet-Afghan conflict, the CIA provided .50 Caliber sniper rifles (Haskins i believe or variant) to the Afghanistan resistance. (Source:The power series, US navy seal by Hans HalberstadtISBN 0-87938-781-5, which suprisingly has the capiton on page 107"Despite ther rumour, there is no prohibition against using the .50 Caliber against individual targets")
Were the Afghans breaking the Geneva conventions?

On another issue, in Vietnam, the NVA and VC regularly empolyed 12.7 mm (soviet version of the .50) and 14.5 mm (even bigger than the .50) machine guns on US troops (I am sure many veterans will attest to that fact). How come no one ever accuses them of that 'war crime' if .50s are banned by the Geneva convention?

Furthermore, the South Africans have developed a 20mm sniper rifle (the caliber used on aircraft), so if a .50 is not allowed, how can SA build a rifle for the bloody huge 20mm?

An odd thing about these conventions that always get to me: we can have so called "human" bullets but we still allow the usage of flame weapons, napalm and landmines?

Hmm.. probably doesn't help, sorry but cheers
[edited for grammar)

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
The Slighty Scary Otter
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The quote I posted, even though probably totally unreliable, I think he meant the M-2HB .50 Browning heavy machine gun. I don't think he was referring to the M-82A1 Barrett sniper rifle.

I know the US Secret Service uses .50 caliber sniper rifles (I used to be stationed at Andrews Air Foce Base, and I'd see them doing a prep for Air Force One movements) so it wouldn't suprise me that the FBI's HRT would have them, too. I heard that LAPD SWAT has them, too.

Even so, non-military law enforcement (even federal) do not fall under the Geneva Conventions, so his point is moot.

Civilian police officers are allowed to use hollow-point and frangible ammo, while military soldiers are required to use jacketed rounds.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Donovan Ravenhull
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 99 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd always heard the basis of this belief was that at the time of the Geneva Convention, the .50 calibur was considered an anti-tank weapon and that the GC forbade the use of AT weapons against personel.

This goes with the idea of just how puny tanks were at the time.

My question is, as of the writing of the Geneva Convetions shortly after WWI, was the concept of specificly Anti-Tank weapons in use at the time?

In the end, I think this simply is Military Legend.

Donovan Ravenhull

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Orion
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Just a couple of notes - a .50cal machine gun is classified as a weapon of mass destruction for the purposes of sale. Using one for anti-personnel purposes should probably be considered a no-no.

While it is clearly not in the same league as a tac-nuke, this might just be a little bit of wriggling by the US government... there are a number of instances where ex-Soviet air force hardware has been brought into the States by private buyers. Think "MiG 29". It seems that to satisfy certain regulations regarding the transportation and import of weaponry, these planes have to be "demilitarized" - and that includes the disabling or removal of any automatic weaponry, (apparently, firing a shotgun from the cockpit is okay though...), or "weapons of mass destruction".

Presumably the right to keep and bear arms does not include the rotary cannon of a fast fighter, and unsurprisingly, the government does not seem entirely pleased at the idea of a (rich) McVeigh clone tootling around randomly blowing things out of the sky or destroying military assets.

As for "excessive use of firepower", I am reminded of the *possible UL* concerning a young man in the Falklands who was allegedly faced with an Aregntinian soldier pointing an SLR, (rifle - not a camera!), at him. He in turn was holding an anti-tank weapon...

At the later court-martial, is was determined that the soldier should have allowed himself to be shot, rather than using the rocket launcher to turn his adversary into a fine pink mist and a pair of smoking boots. Rumour has it that he was charged for the ammunition, and given a discharge.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orion:
Just a couple of notes - a .50cal machine gun is classified as a weapon of mass destruction for the purposes of sale. Using one for anti-personnel purposes should probably be considered a no-no.

While it is clearly not in the same league as a tac-nuke, this might just be a little bit of wriggling by the US government... there are a number of instances where ex-Soviet air force hardware has been brought into the States by private buyers. Think "MiG 29". It seems that to satisfy certain regulations regarding the transportation and import of weaponry, these planes have to be "demilitarized" - and that includes the disabling or removal of any automatic weaponry, (apparently, firing a shotgun from the cockpit is okay though...), or "weapons of mass destruction".

Presumably the right to keep and bear arms does not include the rotary cannon of a fast fighter, and unsurprisingly, the government does not seem entirely pleased at the idea of a (rich) McVeigh clone tootling around randomly blowing things out of the sky or destroying military assets.

As for "excessive use of firepower", I am reminded of the *possible UL* concerning a young man in the Falklands who was allegedly faced with an Aregntinian soldier pointing an SLR, (rifle - not a camera!), at him. He in turn was holding an anti-tank weapon...

At the later court-martial, is was determined that the soldier should have allowed himself to be shot, rather than using the rocket launcher to turn his adversary into a fine pink mist and a pair of smoking boots. Rumour has it that he was charged for the ammunition, and given a discharge.

I don't think I'm buying either one of those assertions. Would you care to provide a cite as to where 50 caliber bullets are listed as a weapon of mass destruction.

As for the Molvinas incident, there are too many issues with that story. None of the least on which being, I have never heard of any military requiring that a soldier reimburse the government for mis-spent ammunition. It reeks of UL.

Beach...of course, I admit I don't understand the laws in the UK...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Orion
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmm. No cites provided. Good point, well made.

Certainly for the "excessive use of force" one, I have no references - it was purely anecdotal and I was hoping for a clarification. The fact that you seem to know of it is immensely helpful and gives me something to Google around for.

As for the other, it was a reference I read on USENet, in rec.aviation.military. Looking back on it, the weapon in question was a multi-barrelled 30mm cannon, but a discussion of "weapons of mass destruction" and their definition is further down the thread. There are some reference materials included as well. You can find the thread here;

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=TB7L8.5610%242n4.2214%40nwrddc04.gnilink.net&rnum=9&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2B%2522weapon%2Bof%2Bmass%2Bdestruction%2522%2B group:rec.aviation.military%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3DTB7L8.5610%25242n4.2214%2540nwrddc04.gnilink.net%26rnum%3D9

But if that link doesn't work, look for a thread called "Privately owned MiG-29 Fulcrum..." that was started at the beginning of June 2002.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 209 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I hardly think that the .50 cal is a "weapon of mass destruction". It is just another machine gun (albeit a large one....).

Incidently, a few years ago, I went to a gun show where they were offering for sale a semi-automatic .50 cal for sale. I don't know whether the laws have changed, but at the time, it was legal.

[For those of you who don't know the difference, an automatic weapon is one that continues to fire as long as you hold the trigger down. A semi-automatic is one which requires another trigger pull for each round. What is usually called an automatic handgun is really semi-automatic.]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Donovan Ravenhull
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 88 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:

Incidently, a few years ago, I went to a gun show where they were offering for sale a semi-automatic .50 cal for sale. I don't know whether the laws have changed, but at the time, it was legal.

To my knowledge, they are still legal. I'm sure this gives folks like the Secret Service sleepless nights considering that a practiced shot can use a .50 sniper rifle and have it be effective at about 1 mile. (This assumes working with the weapon, having a stable firing possision and a number of other factors.) Through most of that range, a vest wouldn't even slow it down and it might be able to penetrate some of the protective glass sometimes put around the Pres. On the other hand, these are big, loud weapons, and I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't at least some clandestine monitoring of folks buying them.

Ravenhull

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Finite Fourier Alchemy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Finite Fourier Alchemy   E-mail Finite Fourier Alchemy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I never quite understood why certain types of ammunition were considered less humane than others to the point of international decrees against their use.

Doesn't being shot with a non-fragmenting, non-tumbling, non-distorting bullet hurt? Like, a lot? Assuming the shooter was good, won't it probably kill you? Does it really make much difference how horrible the exit wound looks when you die?

I just don't get it.

Alchemy

--------------------
Thinking about New England / missing old Japan

Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
The Slighty Scary Otter
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
According to the ATF's webpage, you can own up to a .50 caliber rifle without having it federally registered. Anything over .50 caliber is considered an anti-tank weapon and a destructive device.

There is a big difference between a "destructive device" and a "weapon of mass destruction."

You can still purchase something larger than .50, you just have to have it registered with the ATF under the National Firearms Act.

You can also legally purchase fully-automatic machine guns, as long as they are made prior to 1986 and registered under the NFA.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m1

Ironically, most of the ammo that would be banned is actually smaller, not larger. I believe flechettes are so small, they rarely kill someone, and they are extremely difficult to locate and remove through surgery. They are designed to wound, maim, and cause pain, not kill.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
TumbleWeed
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 19 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alchemy:
I never quite understood why certain types of ammunition were considered less humane than others to the point of international decrees against their use.

Doesn't being shot with a non-fragmenting, non-tumbling, non-distorting bullet hurt? Like, a lot? Assuming the shooter was good, won't it probably kill you? Does it really make much difference how horrible the exit wound looks when you die?

I just don't get it.

Alchemy

Well, yes and no. Soldiers (at least in the US) are trained to shot 'center of mass' (i.e., chest area). A 'good shooter' may or may not kill.

As I recall from my studies, the problems with the modifications to the weapons are that they cause 'unnecessary suffering.' Yes, it made most of us laugh, because, after all, what is necessary suffering?

Anyway, apparently a lot of the modifications (and I'm no ballistics expert) cause additional wounds that are harder to heal. So the 'unnecessary suffering' takes into account that some (if not most soldiers) will be wounded rather than killed by gunshot. A soldier shot will required medical evacuation in almost every case (i.e., the modifications to the round won't increase the chances of a soldier seeking medical attention rather than continuing to fight.) Modifications to rounds, therefore, only increase the extent of the physical damage to the soldier and his or her pain, even though the effect is the same (i.e., the soldier is medevaced).

That's the logic as I was told.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
0b1knob
Deck the Malls


Icon 302 posted      Profile for 0b1knob   E-mail 0b1knob   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Nitpicking point, but I don't believe that .50 cal. sniper rifles were in use by Hitchcock or anybody else during the Vietnam war. Snipers in Vietnam used smaller bolt action (.308?) rifles.

If you play the online game America's Army, the sniper school .50 cal sniper training is specificly about equipment targets, trucks and unexploded ammo. The .50 cal is refered to as an antiequipment weapon.

Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
The Slighty Scary Otter
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock did not use what we think today of as a .50BMG sniper rifle, like the Barrett M-82 or the McMillan 87R .50.

He jury-rigged a rifle scope to a .50 caliber anti-aircraft weapon to shoot a Viet Cong courier from over 2,000 meters away.

There was a picture of the set-up in one of the biographies of Hathcock, and it looked as ridiculous as it sounds.

It did work, however.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ThreadSlayer
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Slighty Scary Otter:
Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock did not use what we think today of as a .50BMG sniper rifle, like the Barrett M-82 or the McMillan 87R .50.

He jury-rigged a rifle scope to a .50 caliber anti-aircraft weapon to shoot a Viet Cong courier from over 2,000 meters away.

There was a picture of the set-up in one of the biographies of Hathcock, and it looked as ridiculous as it sounds.

It did work, however.

Hey! I said that way back on Oct.24th. Jeez, nobody ever reads my posts! [Big Grin]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
The Slighty Scary Otter
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
You did, and you nailed it on the head. I was just re-posting to clear something up.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
SirPolish
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 86 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Alchemy said:
I never quite understood why certain types of ammunition were considered less humane than others to the point of international decrees against their use.

Doesn't being shot with a non-fragmenting, non-tumbling, non-distorting bullet hurt? Like, a lot? Assuming the shooter was good, won't it probably kill you? Does it really make much difference how horrible the exit wound looks when you die?

I just don't get it.

quote:
Tumbleweed said:
Anyway, apparently a lot of the modifications (and I'm no ballistics expert) cause additional wounds that are harder to heal. So the 'unnecessary suffering' takes into account that some (if not most soldiers) will be wounded rather than killed by gunshot.

A jacketed round is considered a 'kill' weapon in so far as it is designed to penetrate clear through body mass and armor at a high speed. A hollow point or fragmented round (especially from a shotgun) is more in the 'wound' range of weaponry, as they are designed to actually flatten out in the body causing far more damage and those nasty exit wounds.
So with a non-jacketed hollow point round you have a bullet that moves through the body, flattening out and ends up passing through the body much slower. This increases the stopping power of the weapon making it extremely useful in a close quarters fighting but makes it far less effective in long range fighting or against a person in body armor in any case, which would the main reason most of the world's militaries choose not to use them.
However Police do use them as they often face threats which are at close range and rarely wear Kevlar vests.

Sir"Rainbow 6 does a good job modeling all this stuff"Polish

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
The Slighty Scary Otter
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
A minor nitpick. A shotgun does not fire a fragmented round. They either fire solid slugs or pellets. They are perfectly round and I believe the 12 gauge fires a bunch of .32 caliber pellets. The US Army has used shotguns in combat with no legal issues for years.

I have hunted with stainless steel birdshot, and it maintained it's shape and consistency when we pulled the pellets out of the pheasant, which is similar to a Full Metal Jacket round.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Chava
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 501 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
A shotgun does not fire a fragmented round. They either fire solid slugs or pellets. They are perfectly round and I believe the 12 gauge fires a bunch of .32 caliber pellets.
The size of the "pellets" depends on which rounds you buy for your shotgun. I think one of the common buckshot sizes (00 maybe) is about the same size as .32 caliber ball ammunition.

I have never heard shot refered to as pellets. Pellets are those little things shaped like miniature bottle caps that you put in your air rifle.

I think it's legal to own long arms of greater than .50 caliber as long as they are unrifled (shotguns, for example) or incapable of firing smokeless powder rounds. A lot of black powder guns (antique and reproduction) were large caliber because the muzzle velocity was so low.

You can own big smokeless powder guns as well, there's just a hefty transfer tax.

Chava

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
The Slighty Scary Otter
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Ack! I meant 12 gauge buckshot. Don't know what I was thinking.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
SirPolish
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 81 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
A shotgun does not fire a fragmented round. They either fire solid slugs or pellets. They are perfectly round and I believe the 12 gauge fires a bunch of .32 caliber pellets.
D'oh!
I only ment fragmented in so far as it fires many small pieces, not that they actually fragment. I wasn't even thinking of slugs.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Homer
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 98 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Talking about fragmenting rounds, there were a type of bullet marketed by Remington (IIRC) called something like Black Talon. These rounds were designed to shatter into about a dozen razor sharp splinters when they hit. They hit with a big knock down and then cut the target up inside.

ER Doctors hated them because they were often used in gang driveby shootings. When the doctors tried to patch up the victims, they had dozens or hundreds of little holes to stitch up and at the end of each hole the might be a jagged razor just waiting to cut a glove and a finger. There was a huge blood borne pathogen risk, which discouraged doctors from trying to remove the fragments. Because of this they were quickly pulled off the market.

With a military FMJ round, when it hits, it either kills you pretty quickly or it makes a clean entry and exit wound. The damage is generally pretty easy to trace and the doctor can either fix it or not. With hollow point or these shattering rounds it's a whole different story. If there's an exit wound it's huge and took a lot of tissue with it. If it stays inside then it could be an infection site. If it shattered then you chasing pieces around the body and looking for hundreds of tiny tears.

War is not humane, the Geneva conventions just try to reduce the suffering.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
The Slighty Scary Otter
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The Black Talon doesn't shatter. It's a hollow-point that when the front peels back upon impact (like a flower's petals opening) it forms a claw pattern with sharp points. It was supposed to have a buzzsaw effect while the bullet spun through the body cavity.

Most experts said the claw pattern was more of a marketing tool, and the supposed massive trauma & horrifying wounds were grossly exaggerated.

While the Black Talon name was removed, they are still sold under the new name, Ranger SXT. The bullet is identical.

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/winchester/

CARTRIDGE: WINCHESTER RANGER SXT

Available in: 9mm, 40 S&W, 38 Special, 45 Auto. Winchester's Ranger SXT Ammunition features a uniquely designed bullet, that upon target impact, produces six uniform, radial jacket petals with perpendicular tips* for maximum in-target energy deposit and stopping power. This design also delivers incredible match-grade accuracy and a 12" to 18" penetration with 0% core-jacket separations.*

* Documented results obtained with bullets fired into bare 10% calibrated ordnance gelatin.

There is legal frangible ammo, like the Glaser Safety Slug & the Mag-Safe. It is a bullet that contains metal shot suspended in liquid teflon & covered with a cap. When the bullet hits, the cap breaks off and the shot is dumped into the body.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BULLDON
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
now here is my problem...if it was true, a desesert eagle .50 would bve classified as an anti tank weapon or something.

i think if it is true, they may disern between automatic and other types(like the single shot sniper rifle)

what do you think?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
An Otter Wearing A Duck Mask
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I think they would more likely differentiate between rifle and pistol ammo.

The M-82 fires a .50BMG (Browing Machine Gun) rifle round, while the Desert Eagle fires a .50AE (Action Express) pistol round.

The have the same caliber, but are nowhere near the same length, power, range, or penetrating ability.

Also, according to the ATF, a .50BMG is not an anti-tank round. Anything over .50, like a .51, is.

The Geneva Convention does not state specific sizes of bullets prohibited against human targets.

If it did, a Canadian sniper would be in prison, not lauded, and the Army Ranger Humvee gunners in Somalia, using .50BMG M-2 machineguns, would have been prosecuted, not featured in a Hollywood flick. (yes, they did use M-2s in the actual event, not just the movie).

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pheonix
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yute:
[QUOTE]
An odd thing about these conventions that always get to me: we can have so called "human" bullets but we still allow the usage of flame weapons, napalm and landmines?

Actually, after WW2 the Flame thrower was to become a banned weapon and after the Vietnam war Napalm was also banned. Landmines are still allowed as long as they are up to standards, ie: they must kill when used, not disable.

The problem with all of this however is:
1- who is going to police this? do we take soldiers word that these weapons wont be used or do we send in big yellow policemen who can hold up big signs to stop the fighting, walk up to the enemy, whack 'em over the head and say "sorry, you are not allowed to use that flamethrower, it is banned. please wal;k back to your home. goodbye"
2- The winner of the war ALWAYS writes history. What this means is that even if a general used fletchette rounds (which are SEVIERLY illegal) and his army won the war, then he never EVER killed ANYONE, let alone with a banned weapon. An example of this are the American, French, British, Australian (whom im a citizen of), and Russian troops who won WW2, and yet with an amazing coincidence, none where tried for war crimes. Just becouse they wherent tried dosnt mean they wernt commited.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GI Joe
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 01 posted      Profile for GI Joe     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Pheonix,

Would you mind providing sources for the banning of the weapons you mention in your post. My reading of the Law Of Land Warfare discloses no language banning those weapons, and I've never heard of a restriction on landmines that requires them to kill, not wound.

Appreciate it.

--------------------
Once a Warrior Prince

Posts: 496 | From: California | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ksmo
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 303 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not saying that I'm the all-knowing authority on the subject, but I do give this briefing on a regular basis.

First, the UL about not firing at a person, but you can shoot the equipment stems from paratroopers. If you see a sky full of parachutes and know that they are coming down with the full intent to do harm to you, they are fair game, BUT if they are fleeing an aircraft in distress, then they are off limits. This usually turns into the joke, although a bad one, that it is perfectly legal to shoot at the equipment they are wearing.

As far as the different types of caliber that can be used on personnel, .50 cal, along with mortar fire and artillery, are fair game to use against personnel, if the need is there. The general rule is the use of "minimum force" necessary:

Minimum Force. That force which is reasonably necessary and militarily prudent for self-defense or to accomplish the assigned mission and related tasks. Measures reasonably required depend on the circumstances and the exact mission/task or threat. Examples of necessary and militarily prudent force exist on a continuum and include normal challenge procedures, open display of weapons, searches of persons and vehicles, use of warning shots, use of all other authorized forms of non-deadly force, and the use of deadly force. Deadly force is sometimes the minimum force reasonably necessary and prudent for self-defense or to accomplish the assigned mission and related tasks.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pheonix
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GI Joe:
Pheonix,

Would you mind providing sources for the banning of the weapons you mention in your post. My reading of the Law Of Land Warfare discloses no language banning those weapons, and I've never heard of a restriction on landmines that requires them to kill, not wound.

Appreciate it.

I wont be able to for a few days at the earliest (away from home at the moment) but when i get back ill start searching my "stockpile" of books (no kidding, i have two walls 2 meters long by 2 high PACKED with all types of books).
I know i read it there somwhere, but it might take a bit to find.

But i will reply as soon as i can.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2