Legality of the 50 cal round?

DeCoR18 · 06-01-2010 2:39am #1

Was just wondering could anybody more knowledgable explain why certain weapons using a 50 cal round are legal under international law and why others aren't?

For example I've heard numerous times that the Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle is illegal to use specifically on personel and that its designed primarily as an anti vehicle weapon?

But then the browning 50 cal mounted machine gun is common (very common?) on various vehicles in the US army and Navy.

I'm interested because of the effects this round has on the human body, decapitations, amputations etc. Basically a very very nasty weapon to come up against in my view.

Wouldn't the round also prove more fatal than a smaller round, and thus not tie the enemy up in the logistics of caring for the wounded which seems to be a strong aim in war today?

Local-womanizer · 06-01-2010 2:53am

Its an anti-material weapon afaik. And yes it is nasty but that is the nature of war. And any weapon is nasty to come up against.

The oppositon cant really complain about a .50 cal being used on people, as I would go out on a limb and say suicide bombings are 10x worse to come up against.

And Snipers dont shoot to wound.

DeCoR18 · 06-01-2010 3:43am

The oppositon cant really complain about a .50 cal being used on people, as I would go out on a limb and say suicide bombings are 10x worse to come up against.

Clearly. But I was talking about international law.

And Snipers dont shoot to wound.

Didn't mean to imply they did. I was talking about the Browning in particular in that case.

But yeah I shouldn't of said that as I think I'm wrong in that assumption, I was basing it on landmine thought, wound instead of kill. I don't know about that kind of thought when it comes to choosing the caliber of rounds.

Zambia · 06-01-2010 4:21am

633872178061773200-50calbmgapibecausethebadguyshidebehindstuff.jpg

I actually never knew it was illegal to use on humans, personnally I dont see the issue if your goona be hit best you never even know it happened

DeCoR18 · 06-01-2010 5:02am

^Ha ha good stuff

It might not be illegal I've heard it a few times but it could be bull**** all the same.

I'm kind of thinking about families aswell, like say "well Mrs XYZ the reason you can't see young timmys remains before the burial is because his head was taken off by a very large bullet."

I think people know the terrible injuries explosions cause and maybe there would be more of an acceptance there.

I don't know just random thoughts on that. Also I understand you need to use whatever advantage you can get over the enemy to keep yourself alive etc.

Local-womanizer · 06-01-2010 5:21am

Regarding international law,I am not sure on that. But I am assuming it would be near impossible for anyone to prove that a terrorist was shot by a .50 cal,be it from any weapon. After all who is going to do the autopsy!

A 7.62 or a 5.56 round to the head would ensure a closed casket aswell.

Sorry,thought you meant the rifle. As with the Browning though,used for destroying cover or stopping vehicles,if a person gets caught in the line of fire so be it,I would think that would be their argument in the use of the .50 cal against a person;) But then again I could be wrong!

Personally I think it is dangerous having certain rules in war when one side so blatently ignores them.

Seifer · 06-01-2010 5:28am

DeCoR18 wrote: »

For example I've heard numerous times that the Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle is illegal to use specifically on personel and that its designed primarily as an anti vehicle weapon?

The bold part is what's relevant. The Barrett is designed for taking out light vehicles, it's not used against personnel because it's not its intended purpose, not because it's illegal.

Local-womanizer · 06-01-2010 5:36am

Seifer wrote: »

The bold part is what's relevant. The Barrett is designed for taking out light vehicles, it's not used against personnel because it's not its intended purpose, not because it's illegal.

It has been used on personnel,its just not the norm. As they said in the book Sniper One, "Put a round through his kidneys,he could stick his hand through his body to wipe his arse!"

jill_valentine · 06-01-2010 5:43am

In terms of using it on personnel, I guess you could call it... overkill?

Man, I'm going to start writing for CSI:Miami.

Zambia · 06-01-2010 6:26am

jill_valentine wrote: »

In terms of using it on personnel, I guess you could call it... overkill?

Man, I'm going to start writing for CSI:Miami.

Jill you can never be overly dead, plus if you destroy the body they cant come back as Zombies.

Let me know the episode you write

You could say the following in realtion to firearms you are intended to shoot them at a target then that target is meant to stop performing. And only that target.

If you shoot a person with a .50 cal the bullet kills them or FUBAR's them the bullet will then keep going till it hits something that stops it. So it is always the most prudent thing to use the calibre for the intended target. However what is most prudent is not always at hand or quickest.

Manic Moran · 06-01-2010 7:57am

The US Army keeps it simple. If it's not legal for use against personnel, it does not get issued for any purpose at all. In a rare act of good common sense, there is an acknowledgement that when their life is on the line, soldiers are going to shoot everything they have at the opposition, and not be too worried about the legal niceties.

There is no variant of the .50 cal round in service which may not be used against personnel.

NTM

petergfiffin · 06-01-2010 9:51am

Both the current and previous records for the longest recorded sniper kills were with .5 rounds and these were specifically targeted at people, not vehicles. Let's call a spade a spade with these type of weapons, in spite of all the marketing BS, they're intended to take out people at long range even when they may be wearing body armour (i.e. Bessbrook). I reckon any talk of taking out engines of vehicles from long range etc is largely pointless given most units will be equipped with some variant of LAWs/SRAWS which will do a more effective job much more quickly I imagine.

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Personally I think it is dangerous having certain rules in war when one side so blatently ignores them.

Then what differentiates a professional soldier from a "terrorist"? I know it's extending the argument but the same argument could be made for the Guards

Morpheus · 06-01-2010 10:39am

A LAW or SRAAW doesnt have the same range as a Barett 50 cal sniper rifle.

You put a single 50 cal round through the engine block of any vehicle, it wont be going anywhere.

It was primarily designed to allow sniper teams to disable enemy vehicles at extreme long range without the need (or maybe the capability at the time) to call in Arty or Air strikes. A nice secondary capability is also to shoot people like a normal sniper rifle, if only at a longer range.

war is not meant to be nice.

concussion · 06-01-2010 11:13am

OP, have a read over the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, it should clear things up a bit.

The .50 inch round is very big and will leave a nasty hole in you, but is it really any worse than getting a burst of four 7.62 into you? As long as they don't expand, flatten, explode or release poisonous gas into the target, they're pretty much ok for use against personnel.

BigDuffman · 06-01-2010 11:46am

*Jill removes sun glasses*

jill_valentine wrote: »

In terms of using it on personnel, I guess you could call it... overkill?

Que theme tune and scream

Fratton Fred · 06-01-2010 1:54pm

Is it the Barrat that the American sniper turns up with in Sniper one? The gun they "accidentally" use the HE rounds in?

Local-womanizer · 06-01-2010 2:23pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is it the Barrat that the American sniper turns up with in Sniper one? The gun they "accidentally" use the HE rounds in?

Yea,he's British is he not though,working with a RM spotter. He shoots a man 1600 m with it. They basically say in the book its there to extend their reach.

petergfiffin wrote: »

Then what differentiates a professional soldier from a "terrorist"? I know it's extending the argument but the same argument could be made for the Guards

I dont understand what you mean at that it can be made for the Guards.

I was getting out,why should soldiers be restricted in what they use for killing the enemy,at the end of the day they are trained to kill the enemy,that is their job,let them do their job.

iceage · 06-01-2010 4:52pm

He was a Brit I believe Fred. As was his No 2.

Whoops..Local got there.

DeCoR18 · 06-01-2010 5:22pm

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Regarding international law,I am not sure on that. But I am assuming it would be near impossible for anyone to prove that a terrorist was shot by a .50 cal,be it from any weapon. After all who is going to do the autopsy!

A 7.62 or a 5.56 round to the head would ensure a closed casket aswell.

Sorry,thought you meant the rifle. As with the Browning though,used for destroying cover or stopping vehicles,if a person gets caught in the line of fire so be it,I would think that would be their argument in the use of the .50 cal against a person;) But then again I could be wrong!

Personally I think it is dangerous having certain rules in war when one side so blatently ignores them.

With the 5.56 most of the damage is at the back of the skull so wouldn't it still be possible for an open casket?

With a .50 cal obviously there would be no possibility.

Have no idea about 7.62, but doesn't it make a cleaner strike making it less damaging as it doesn't tumble on impact like the 5.56?

DeCoR18 · 06-01-2010 5:29pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US Army keeps it simple. If it's not legal for use against personnel, it does not get issued for any purpose at all. In a rare act of good common sense, there is an acknowledgement that when their life is on the line, soldiers are going to shoot everything they have at the opposition, and not be too worried about the legal niceties.

There is no variant of the .50 cal round in service which may not be used against personnel.

NTM

Thanks for that:)

Manic Moran · 06-01-2010 6:04pm

DeCoR18 wrote: »

With the 5.56 most of the damage is at the back of the skull so wouldn't it still be possible for an open casket?

With a .50 cal obviously there would be no possibility.

Have no idea about 7.62, but doesn't it make a cleaner strike making it less damaging as it doesn't tumble on impact like the 5.56?

I'll be generous and not count the misconceptions in that post.

NTM

DeCoR18 · 06-01-2010 6:20pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll be generous and not count the misconceptions in that post.

NTM

Hey correct me if you want, I make no claim to be an expert on anything to do with the military.

Fratton Fred · 06-01-2010 6:27pm

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Yea,he's British is he not though,working with a RM spotter. He shoots a man 1600 m with it. They basically say in the book its there to extend their reach.

iceage wrote: »

He was a Brit I believe Fred. As was his No 2.
Whoops..Local got there.

My bad, for some reason i thought he was a yank. I've just finished four Discworld books so all i could remember was that he wasn't a wizard.:D

Remmy · 06-01-2010 7:26pm

DeCoR18 wrote: »

With the 5.56 most of the damage is at the back of the skull so wouldn't it still be possible for an open casket?

With a .50 cal obviously there would be no possibility.

Have no idea about 7.62, but doesn't it make a cleaner strike making it less damaging as it doesn't tumble on impact like the 5.56?

All three are high velocity rounds.The 7.62 would be alot more damaging than the 5.56 simply because it is a heavier bullet and there is alot more powder behind it.

DeCoR18 · 06-01-2010 7:30pm

Remmy wrote: »

All three are high velocity rounds.The 7.62 would be alot more damaging than the 5.56 simply because it is a heavier bullet and there is alot more powder behind it.

Damaging in what sense? In the structure of the skull? I thought the 7.62 would go straight through albeit leaving a large exit wound, whereas I was under the impression the 5.56 tumbles upon impact which basically blows out the back of the skull?

But Manic left me with the impression this is wrong?

Remmy · 06-01-2010 7:37pm

DeCoR18 wrote: »

Damaging in what sense? In the structure of the skull? I thought the 7.62 would go straight through albeit leaving a large exit wound, whereas I was under the impression the 5.56 tumbles upon impact which basically blows out the back of the skull?

But Manic left me with the impression this is wrong?

I think the tumbling effects of the 5.56 are quite overplayed.This is a pretty contentious issue to be debating on a public forum.

CJhaughey · 06-01-2010 7:43pm

As long as FMJ rounds are used as per Hague convention then there is no issue.
But I guess if Incendiary,WP or exposive rounds are used then they would be in breach of the Hague convention.... As if it would make any difference.

DeCoR18 · 06-01-2010 8:12pm

Remmy wrote: »

I think the tumbling effects of the 5.56 are quite overplayed.This is a pretty contentious issue to be debating on a public forum.

Fair enough. Again I don't have a clue really.

Thanks for the replys everyone.

twinytwo · 06-01-2010 10:46pm

a direct hit form say an ak round will usually mess someone up.. take of limbs etc... a hit from a 50.cal i would assume kill you on impact surly it is no worse than an ak round

Zambia · 06-01-2010 11:10pm

DeCoR18 wrote: »

Fair enough. Again I don't have a clue really.

Thanks for the replys everyone.

I blame the movies

Shotguns and Magnum 44's dont make people fly though the air either.

Cocking your semi-automatic means your gun was not ready to fire. Unless a bullet pops out.

Droping your pistol on the ground does not set it off , unless you jamm something in the trigger at the same time.

Guns do not go off in the holster , people however do lie about playing with them when they know they shouldnt.

Bullet proof vests are designed for certain bullets, Manic is there a vest to stop a 50 cal that could actually be worn? And dont say an APC?

twinytwo · 06-01-2010 11:45pm

Zambia232 wrote: »

I blame the movies

Shotguns and Magnum 44's dont make people fly though the air either.

Cocking your semi-automatic means your gun was not ready to fire. Unless a bullet pops out.

Droping your pistol on the ground does not set it off , unless you jamm something in the trigger at the same time.

Guns do not go off in the holster , people however do lie about playing with them when they know they shouldnt.

Bullet proof vests are designed for certain bullets, Manic is there a vest to stop a 50 cal that could actually be worn? And dont say an APC?

as far i know the answer is no.. even if there was an insert capable of withstanding a.50 round the resulting impact whould still destroy your torso/organs

Legality of the 50 cal round?

Comments