Question about use of 50 caliber ammo on people

This was just on Jerry: a caller claimed that to use a 50 caliber gun
to target people (as opposed to vehicles) is against Geneva Convention. I am not sure it's true. Why else would they make 50 caliber sniper guns, right? Does anybody know?

.50 was not an uncommon shot size in the musket days.

As long as the round is fully jacketed and not an Armor round, I think it would likely pass muster.

.50 and .30 Machine Guns against personnel are against the GC.

A sniper rifle is not a MG and so does not trip the wire.

You are allowed to use a MG against military equipment though, and a uniform would qualify as military equipment, as would any gear carried by the soldier.

So, unless you are using the MG against un-uniformed un-armed people, you probably have a wiggle under the GC.

and occasionally people behind concrete walls

How far can a .50 BMG penetrate concrete?

but they shoot them through semi-tractor trailer truck engine blocks. I will look around and see what I can find.

As long as FMJ ammo is used, it meets Geneva Convention standards.

You make a good point about the 50 cal sniper rifles, though. It would be hard to make the case that a sniper's purpose is to target vehicles. From a technical standpoint, it would seem difficult to make a smaller caliber rifle with the same range and accuracy - I would think the momentum of a smaller round would be too low to carry it the distances it needs to go.

I think I know the conventions as well as any layperson can, and I'm 99% sure that they make no mention of the use of high-caliber weapons against personnel.

A good resource is www.genevaconventions.org.

but I don't know.

The shift to smaller calibers for infantry weapons was primarily to allow soldiers to carry more ammo for the automatics (AK-47, M-16). There are plenty of 50 cal. civilian arms.

The 50 BMG was designed as an anti-sniper weapon, so one must assume it was meant for war-time use.

or has the Million Mom March led me astray again?

eta: I kid!

Here's a thread where this belief gets beaten down upon pretty good:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1891550

Caller has it wrong.

So I think all bets were off there.

Plus the war, there, being undeclared, as well, I guess.

which fired the .30 7.62 Nato round.

I could have sworn one of the workhorse copters in Vietnam had door mounted .50 Cals.

Those pictures I've seen of the UH-1 Hueys that were made into gun platforms would have 50 cals mounted on those stubby wings.

Most of the configurations used twin door M60s. The UH-1 could also be outfitted with 2.75 inch rocket launchers, 40 mm grenade launchers, .30 gatling guns, smoke, and other toys.

http://incolor.inetnebr.com/iceman/uh1.htm

One configuration, the M59 used a .50 M2 doormounted on one side, with an M60 on the other.

of it.

Just looks cumbersome.

The NVA 12.5mm AA piece (basically a 50-cal MG) was used very effectively against US helicopters and low-flying fixed-wing in Vietnam. NVA flak-traps, which used a triangle of 50-cals (once inside the triangle, any turn was into the kill-zone of a 50-cal emplacement), were ubiquitous in the A Shau Valley and along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. A helicopter-pilot friend of mine was shot down three times in one day, by 50-cal flak traps, in the A Shau during Operation Lam Son 719. His shoot-downs were chronicled in William Kieth Nolan's history of that battle, Into Laos: Lam Son 719. My friend survived the shoot-downs and went on to become a veterinarian.

In my training on it didn't hear a word about using it only on vehicles. Pretty much any threat like with any other weapon.

Thinkin even was mountable on the HUMVEE but always would have a Mark 19 mounted.

and the Marine Sniper rifles are NOT 50 cal BMGs, the army uses some, and their mission is soft skinned vehicles and targets

The original function of the 50 machine Gun (1930s) as an AT weapon

unless it is weapon of last resort. Semi-auto 50 cal is allowed.

Geneva Conventions prohibit using weapons or ammo that will cause unnecessary damage against individuals -- e.g. hollow point bullets, flame throwers...

edited for spelling

and a uniform is equipment.

the 50 cal is a last resort weapon against personnel, striclty should not be used

Now lets not go into the reality of it, since we both know it is used.

It is like the 50 cal BMG sniper rifle, its theoretical mission is against equipment, its real reason is against any target designated by the mission profilers.

But strictly under the rules, they are toys of last resort against personnel. And having seen what AKs do I shuder to think what a 50 cal do to the human body... don't care what ammo... it is all about the kinnetic energy.

But the "equipment" excuse is the one they use, apparently.

A uniform in and of itself is considered "equipment".
Therefore it would not be illegal to use a 50 cal MG to shoot a uniform if one were hanging in a closet or lying on the ground. It would still be illegal to use a 50 cal MG against a person wearing a uniform though.

Think about it...
It would not be a crime to take some articles of clothing, hang them up and use them for target practice at a range. But it would be a crime if someone were wearing those clothes at the time. No jury would buy the "I only intended to hit his shirt" defense.

they're going to use them against their opponent whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Snipering...it's not too clear that caliber makes a meaningful difference in the results. Maybe the relatively large/heavy ammunition can be made to smaller net variation, that seems the only real technical advantage. The bigger and heavier gun needed is a drawback.

What's the big Deal??

I could easily see why it may be against Geneva convention. If one gets hit with a 50 cal. bullet. It will do more than just penetrate your body. It will blow you to pieces.

The idea with 50 cal. rifles is take out equipment(trucks, jeeps, troop carriers, aircraft etc...). But hey, what are you going to do if an enemy soldier gets in the way. Ooops! And if you disable a truck and obliterate everyone inside, you can argue that you were aiming at the truck with the intent of rendering it useless. Soldiers aboard are colateral damage.
To be hit with a high power rifle cartridge can be bad enough, even from a .308, 30-06, or some other sniping type round. But to get hit with 50 caliber machine gun fire is pure carnage.