Juba Sniper anyone?

Kernel wrote:

As far as I know, it's against the Geneva Convention to use the Barrett .50 calibre sniper rifle to shoot directly at a target.

BZZZT!!

Wrong answer.

The .50 cal vs troops myth has been going around for years. Complete with quotes like "I'm not shooting at troops, I'm shooting at equipment: Helmets, flak jackets, webbing, etc"

It has its roots in the Hague Declaration on Expanding Bullets of 1899 which states it is forbidden to use hollow-points or other expanding rounds. This was developed into Art 23e of the IVth Hague Convention in 1907, which prohibits 'superfluous injury' (Also referred to as un-necessary suffering), finally entered into the Geneva Conventions in 1977 which uses both terms.

Generally, for non-expanding rounds, this is held to mean rounds with an explosive content and calibre of less than 20mm. (.50 cal is 12.7mm). As a result, ball and API .50 cal are quite acceptable by the 'rules.' to shoot at people, and .50 cals have been used for that role for about 70 years now. The .50 cal sniper rifle is in use with a few militaries now (To include Ireland), the theory started out in Vietnam when Hathcock stuck a scope on an M2 in single shot mode. The current distance record for a sniper kill is held by Canadians with their .50 cal in Afghanistan.

but I always thought that a sniper in a guerrilla warfare type scenario often went for a wound as opposed to a kill. The reason being that an injured man uses up allot more resources than a dead one [has to be carried away for medical attention, has to be tended to in the hospital]

You're confusing one of the arguments for 5.56mm vs 7.62mm. Given that a sniper is a quick-engagement asset, the resources used to drag a target out of the area is irrelevant: By the time the sniper is set in a new position for the next engagement, those who have been rendering first aid have almost certainly handed him over to the medical staff and are back on the line. The issue is more important in conventional engagements when taking multiple opponents out will result in an increase in firepower superiority when it matters. Consequently, I would emphasise to my guys that if any of us were hit, those next to him were not to render aid until either the firefight was won, or the issue no longer in doubt. Best way to avoid further casualties.

NTM

Spike wrote:

The British SA80's (can't remember if it was on the old or new versions), didn't they have an open crosshair in the scope?

SUSAT has what can probably best be a pointed post-type indicator. The Irish-use AUG has a circular reticle, put the target in the middle of the circle and pull the trigger. Close enough for government work, and doesn't obscure/overlay the target.

The point being that it would most likely involuntarily wound the target. Under the pretence that one wounded soldier, requires two to take him off the field, and hence reducing the number of combatants by three?

Again, that's one of the arguments made in favour of the 5.56mm round. It's actually not the reason it was adopted, but it's a good story, makes a bit of sense, and so is a useful post-facto argument.

Also, isn't there a production 12.7mm HE round? This is all vaguley familiar, I can't remember where I heard it though.

Not in US service, anyway. We use ball, API, AP, SLAP.

*coughparticalionbeamcannoninthesnipersgeneralareacough*

There have been systems around for a couple of years, the US is now only just entering them into service (finally) which basically have a whole bunch of microphones scattered around a vehicle, the computer takes into account the difference in timing between the noise hitting the different mikes, figures out where the shot came from, and can immediately swing the mounted weapon up top and fire back a few rounds. Use a Mk19, and it'll really ruin someone's day.

NTM

You're thinking of the M855 5.56mm round, the green-tips. They have an armour piercing core, and the legend has it (it started in Somalia, mainly) that the rounds would just go right through the body, and the Somalis, high on a narcotic called 'Khat' would just keep on fighting. Such complaints are coming through from Iraq as well.

Personally, I think a lot of it is to do with the fact that the US shoots more and more from short-barreled carbines which lacks the muzzle velocity to properly make the round fragment at the other end. Users of long barrels such as the British are reporting few if any such complaints. Also, I think people are watching too much Hollywood. They now expect that anyone hit by a round is supposed to go flying back through the air, arms and legs splayed. Well, that doesn't happen, no matter what the movies say.

NTM

The .50s are indeed categorised as anti-material rifles, but that's not to say that they can't take pot shots at people anyway. I don't know about Jarhead, I've only read the (atrocious) book, but it may have been due to the distances involved that the superiors only wanted the .50 cal teams to shoot at things they knew they could hit. Radars and vehicles are much bigger than man-sized targets.

Mythbusters also did a piece on this, and its true it doesn't happen, they hit a dummy with a .50 cal and it didn't fall over

Not surprising. Simple Newtonian physics. If the bullet had enough force at the one end to knock the target over, an equal and opposite force would be acting at the other end to knock the shooter over. 5.56mm rifles can be fired with one hand if necessary.

Who's going to want to be the first outside?

Start bunnyhopping.

NTM