• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sniper rifles

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< OK, so the US can't use the fiddy cal on people (are al-queda people?).

i would like to see them report on the snipers, whether they are being used, etc. >>



No, they are filthy animals, to be killed in any way possible!
 


<< Technically, the military uses the .50cal rifles against equipment, not personnel (helicopters, light vehicles, radar, etc.). It is against the Law of Armed Conflict to deliberately use .50cal ammo against personnel. I'm certain that the U.S. military would never do that... 😉 >>



That being said, go read about how Carlos Norman Hatchcock used a Browning M2HB with a scope to do some amazing snipes against the VC in Viet Nam.
 
It is against the Law of Armed Conflict to deliberately use .50cal ammo against personnel.

I may be missing something, but I remember seeing a show with seals where he specifically said that he took out a somali (before the black hawk incident) with it.

If I am correct, we also use .50 cal machine guns that are meant for anti-personnel.

 


<< It is against the Law of Armed Conflict to deliberately use .50cal ammo against personnel. I'm certain that the U.S. military would never do that... >>

huh? I remember seeing a documentary about special forces and the anti-personnel sniper rifle they were training with was a .50 cal. The .50 BMG mounted to some tanks, amored personnel carriers, and helicopter gun ships aren't just for equipment.

You cannot lawfully use specific types of .50cal projectiles on personnel, but the standard .50cal is perfectly legal to use as an antipersonnel weapon.
 
If I am correct, we also use .50 cal machine guns that are meant for anti-personnel.

In line units, neither commanders nor troops differentiate very much between the types of targets in regards to the M2 .50 cal MG. There was always the "you can't shoot at personnel, but you can shoot their equipment" statement. This statement was typically followed with: "their helmets or weapons are considered equipment".

The old M2 is a fine weapon. While in an old Mech Inf unit, I remember lugging all 80 something pounds of it along with my ruck to the motorpool quite often. We left the 40 pound barrels in the 113s. With enough practice, one can make that baby sing. Just set the headspace and timing correctly and she performs quite well.
 
That being said, go read about how Carlos Norman Hatchcock used a Browning M2HB with a scope to do some amazing snipes against the VC in Viet Nam.

I don't have to -- I heard him speak at my college about that very experience.

If I am correct, we also use .50 cal machine guns that are meant for anti-personnel.

Let me clarify, while .50cal weapons are officially for use against equipment, they are routinely used against people. "I was aiming at the truck, and the gun got away from me, hitting the people also."

You cannot lawfully use specific types of .50cal projectiles on personnel, but the standard .50cal is perfectly legal to use as an antipersonnel weapon.

Not according to the Judge Advocate General, but you're entitled to disagree with their legal expertise.

The old M2 is a fine weapon.

It boggles my mind to think about how long that gun has been in service. Browning was a genius.
 
Description: The Browning M2 .50 Caliber Machine Gun, Heavy barrel is an automatic, recoil operated, air-cooled machine gun with adjustable headspace and is crew transportable with limited amounts of ammunition over short distances. By repositioning some of the component parts, ammunition may be fed from either the left or right side. A disintegrating metallic link-belt is used to feed the ammunition into the weapon. This gun is has a back plate with spade grips, trigger, and bolt latch release. This gun may be mounted on ground mounts and most vehicles as an anti-personnel and anti-aircraft weapon. The gun is equipped with leaf-type rear sight, flash suppressor and a spare barrel assembly. Associated components are the M63 antiaircraft mount and the M3 tripod mount.

This is from Military.com.

I see that this is a .50 cal and states anti-personnel.
 


<< That being said, go read about how Carlos Norman Hatchcock used a Browning M2HB with a scope to do some amazing snipes against the VC in Viet Nam.

I don't have to -- I heard him speak at my college about that very experience.

If I am correct, we also use .50 cal machine guns that are meant for anti-personnel.

Let me clarify, while .50cal weapons are officially for use against equipment, they are routinely used against people. "I was aiming at the truck, and the gun got away from me, hitting the people also."

You cannot lawfully use specific types of .50cal projectiles on personnel, but the standard .50cal is perfectly legal to use as an antipersonnel weapon.

Not according to the Judge Advocate General, but you're entitled to disagree with their legal expertise.

The old M2 is a fine weapon.

It boggles my mind to think about how long that gun has been in service. Browning was a genius. >>



You got to see White Feather? You lucky bastard! 😀

Yes, Browning was a genius. 🙂
 
When I went through "Boot Camp" in the early 70's, I trained with the M14. It was a GREAT weapon. (but heavy, and with considerable kick)
Then in ITR, we switched to M16. (Truly POS's)
The only time I ever fired one on full auto, I got off 3 rounds before it jammed.
The M16 was made for in tight jungle combat, where the M14 was to big and bulky.
In the terrain in which they are fighting now, the M14 make's much more sense. (IMO)
That's probably why they are using sniper rifles based on the 7.62 round that the old M14 used.
If I were over there now, I would definitely prefer my trusty old M14!
 
<<Much better >>

Glad to know someone else has found this site!!!

Personally I love the 300-round UZI mag. Wonder if it ships with stilts?
 


<< Not according to the Judge Advocate General, but you're entitled to disagree with their legal expertise. >>

lol! Are you saying we cannot use powerful rifles to kill people because it would kill them? There is NOTHING about the 50BMG that makes it an 'unlawful' weapon to use against valid military combatants. There are a couple projectile types for the BMG that would probably fall into 'prohibited' classes (incendiary or fragmenting), but that's all. It is not a weapon of mass destruction, it CAN be controlled to kill only those it is trained upon, etc. We drop cluster bombs on people - perfectly lawful - but you're trying to tell me we can't use a high-powered rifle to kill them?

 


<<

<< Not according to the Judge Advocate General, but you're entitled to disagree with their legal expertise. >>

lol! Are you saying we cannot use powerful rifles to kill people because it would kill them? There is NOTHING about the 50BMG that makes it an 'unlawful' weapon to use against valid military combatants. There are a couple projectile types for the BMG that would probably fall into 'prohibited' classes (incendiary or fragmenting), but that's all. It is not a weapon of mass destruction, it CAN be controlled to kill only those it is trained upon, etc. We drop cluster bombs on people - perfectly lawful - but you're trying to tell me we can't use a high-powered rifle to kill them? >>



Apparently we are not supposed to hurt enemy troops while in the process of killing them
rolleye.gif
 


<< When I went through "Boot Camp" in the early 70's, I trained with the M14. It was a GREAT weapon. (but heavy, and with considerable kick)
Then in ITR, we switched to M16. (Truly POS's)
The only time I ever fired one on full auto, I got off 3 rounds before it jammed.
The M16 was made for in tight jungle combat, where the M14 was to big and bulky.
In the terrain in which they are fighting now, the M14 make's much more sense. (IMO)
That's probably why they are using sniper rifles based on the 7.62 round that the old M14 used.
If I were over there now, I would definitely prefer my trusty old M14! >>



I have fired many thousands of rounds through an M-16, and never had a jam.
 


<< I have fired many thousands of rounds through an M-16, and never had a jam. >>



Well they have no doubt gotten better since the early 70's.

Still I never had a jam with the M14. And the range was MUCH MUCH better.
 
lol! Are you saying we cannot use powerful rifles to kill people because it would kill them? There is NOTHING about the 50BMG that makes it an 'unlawful' weapon to use against valid military combatants. There are a couple projectile types for the BMG that would probably fall into 'prohibited' classes (incendiary or fragmenting), but that's all. It is not a weapon of mass destruction, it CAN be controlled to kill only those it is trained upon, etc. We drop cluster bombs on people - perfectly lawful - but you're trying to tell me we can't use a high-powered rifle to kill them?

tcsenter: That's one of those old "written, but not adhered to" gray-area regulations.

I saw mounted .50 cals firing on dismounted Iraqis in the Gulf and no one ever said a word about it. There were Field Grade officers in the immediate AO too.

It's like we weren't supposed to have .50 cals on the DMZ in Korea. But if you walk a little ways back to a staging area, there they are, covered up in the back of 2 1/2s.
 


<< Technically, the military uses the .50cal rifles against equipment, not personnel (helicopters, light vehicles, radar, etc.). It is against the Law of Armed Conflict to deliberately use .50cal ammo against personnel. I'm certain that the U.S. military would never do that... 😉 >>



I was told at the two-week Army Law of War Seminar (at their JAG School at UVA) that this is an old wive's tale, and even as a JAG with a significant amount of LOAC education and field experience I can't see any reason the use of a .50 cal with ball ammo would be illegal. See, for example, this Navy JAG page, which plainly states that "use of .50 caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation of [the] proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury."
 


<< My God that guy's a redneck if I ever aw one. :Q 😀


BTW, I WANT ONE!!! 😀 >>



You want a redneck? Why, what would you do with him? No, don't tell me....



































😉😀
 


<< Technically, the military uses the .50cal rifles against equipment, not personnel (helicopters, light vehicles, radar, etc.). It is against the Law of Armed Conflict to deliberately use .50cal ammo against personnel. I'm certain that the U.S. military would never do that... 😉 >>



I was told at the two-week Army Law of War Seminar (at their JAG School at UVA) that this is an old wive's tale, and I can't see any reason the use of a .50 cal would be illegal. See, for example, this Navy JAG page, which plainly states that :se of .50 caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation of [the] proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury."

Wow. That really put's to rest an age old "wives tale". Nice info.
 


<< The M16 was made for in tight jungle combat, where the M14 was to big and bulky. >>



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember hearing that M16 is not particularly good at jungle-combat. Reason being the smallish calibre of the gun. When compared to AK47 that Vietkong used, M16's bullets tended to change direction when they hit branches in jungle-combat, whereas AK47 (which has larger calibre) bullets just went straight through those branches. I remember hearing both US Vietnam-veterans and former Vietkong soldiers say the same thing.
 


<< Technically, the military uses the .50cal rifles against equipment, not personnel (helicopters, light vehicles, radar, etc.). It is against the Law of Armed Conflict to deliberately use .50cal ammo against personnel. I'm certain that the U.S. military would never do that... 😉 >>



I was told at the two-week Army Law of War Seminar (at their JAG School at UVA) that this is an old wive's tale, and even as a JAG with a significant amount of LOAC education and field experience I can't see any reason the use of a .50 cal with ball ammo would be illegal. See, for example, this Navy JAG page, which plainly states that "use of .50 caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation of [the] proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury." Also, see the USMC's take on this, here:

Caliber .50 weapons.

1. There is a common misperception that the .50 caliber machinegun may not be used against personnel. It was effective as a long-range sniper weapon in Vietnam and Korea.

2. FM 2365, Browning Machinegun Caliber .50 HBMG (1972), is
consistent with the law of war in authorizing use of the .50 caliber MG against enemy personnel.




<< It's against those same laws to use shotguns in war, as well. And I saw several Marines slinging Remingtons over their shoulders on CNN. >>



This is not true either. Shotguns are not prohibited by the Hague Convention or any other doctrine of the Law of War.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top