At what distances do .50 caliber rounds material penetrating qualities noticeabley decrease? 1 mile? Awfully irrelevant, but hell, it would be cool to know.
Poll
Should using .50 Caliber weapons against humans be illegal
| Yes | 21% | 21% - 81 | ||||
| No | 78% | 78% - 296 | ||||
| Total: 377 | ||||||
(quote won't work so) Mikkel wrote:"I have said that I don't think that .50cal sniper rifles shouldn't be used against plain infantry if it can be avoided. It really is as simple as that."
Why? I would take out the enemy with whatever I had with me...be it a Barret .50cal, M1A2, A-10, or frying pan. It would be nice for their family to have the option of an open casket funeral, but the guy was my enemy. He, most likely, would have killed me if the opportunity presented itself.
Why? I would take out the enemy with whatever I had with me...be it a Barret .50cal, M1A2, A-10, or frying pan. It would be nice for their family to have the option of an open casket funeral, but the guy was my enemy. He, most likely, would have killed me if the opportunity presented itself.
my bad then the British army used to have a AA man portable system called javelin i apologies for the mistake
I'd make this simple, too, but it seems as if when I do, you just don't get it.whittsend wrote:
I'm going to make this simple. You don't understand weapons, and you don't understand combat. You claim specific uses for systems and force fit situations with no conception of the effect that would have...it doesn't work like that. If you are in a turret with a .50, you will use the .50. Period. You have implied that the .50 is overused, but when queried on that opinion, you dropped it. Why won't you back up your own opinion? Who is getting .50s that shouldn't be? Who is using .50s that shouldn't be? When are they using them when they should be using something else?
I have said over and over again, even clairified to you the first time you didn't get it that I don't have anything against vehicle mounted (that's turret for you) .50cal weapons. Will you please get it this time, or do I have to explain it to you again? I have not implied that the .50cal is overused, and when queried on that, I simply did not reply, 'cause if I was to respond to every single failure of yours to comprehend just what I mean, I'd never be expressing my actual points. I have backed up my own opinion. I won't back up opinions that aren't mine. It really is as simple as that.
It seems that the only way you can get something to actually post is to make up these things. That whole paragraph is useless 'cause every single "point" of mine in there is made up by you.
No, whittsend. Every point you have made to me have been completely irrelevant as they were all based in your abhorrent misinterpretation of my posts, so the simple fact is that you don't get what I'm saying, and it doesn't look like you're going to anytime soon as you seem intent on maintaining that you're right no matter what.whittsend wrote:
Every point I have made to you, you claim I don't understand your point. The simple fact is you don't understand the implications of what you are saying. When you casually say that a .50 shouldn't be used against infantry if it can be avoided, you betray a lack of knowledge about how weapons systems are manned.mikkel wrote:
You're delusional if you think I'm backpaddling, but from previous experience with discussing with you, you tend to go all out when arguing with anyone disagreeing with you even slightly, and when you realise that it is indeed just a slight disagreement, the other party is backpaddling. Control your rage there for a second.whittsend wrote:
You have said you don't think .50s should be used against dismounts. Only two types of .50s exist, mounted and Sniper rifles. If both of those are ok (as you in your current backpaddle mode seem to be saying), what current usage of the .50 is not ok?
Tapdancing? Whittsend, I have bluntly been telling you just how wrong you are in your interpretations, and you've even complained about it, so either your memory was wiped clean between that paragraph and the one above, or you're just too lost in your own little lake.whittsend wrote:
I'll say it again: .50s are ONLY mounted or sniper rifles. Both of these seem ok with you. Or are you honestly suggesting that if someone with a .50 in his hands sees an enemy troop, they should switch weapons? If you are not suggesting that WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING? Nobody who has an M-16 in his hands is dropping the M-16 when dismounts show up just to make bigger holes. TROOPS SHOOT THE WEAPONS IN THEIR HANDS. To say that some discretion is involved, again, betrays your ignorance of combat, and especially of the timing of combat, where tenths of seconds mean life and death.mikkel wrote:
I have said that I don't think that .50cal sniper rifles shouldn't be used against plain infantry if it can be avoided. It really is as simple as that. Stop making it out to be more just so that you can pick an internet fight.
So, please, If I'm wrong about what you are saying, stop tapdancing and say it.
If you had read and comprehended my posts, you'll see that I over and over again have explained that I am talking about sniper rifles, and that I have explained precisely why I disagree with their use if avoidable. To state this again would be a complete waste of time, just like these last few posts have.
If you've noticed, they've all been spent telling you that you simply aren't getting what I'm saying, despite having clearly answered the questions you're asking in previous posts, yet you're still trying to force through those same points. I guess that's tapdancing in your strange world.
Either you're completely incapable of carrying a discussion, or you're majorly confused about your disposition.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-06-01 09:59:44)
Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion of the 7th Cavarly regiment did not have a single .50 designated marksmen during OIF II. Thats my unit and thats my iraq experience, so I cant speak on anybody elses, but, my company only had two snipers and they were both in HQ platoon and they both had modified m14's as their weapons. the battalio0n snipers had m24's and they were part of the scout platoon. Now we had about 5 M2 MG's in the company but it became more practical for us to keep them in the arms room and attach SAW's and 240's to our guntrucks when we used the humvees (half the time we were in a bradley and you REALLY dont wanna know what an HE 25MM will do to someones head, holy fucking shit you think .50's are bad.) We didnt use the .50 for patrol for many reasons 1) old weapons + shitty armorer = bad mix 2) we had an ate up E7 have an accidental discharge early in the deployment which made our 1sg sour on the m2 idea 3) cool ass plt sgt that knew that we had to hump 1.5 miles in full battle rattle to and from the motor pool from the living quarters. 4) we were heavy mechanized infantry, the .50 was not our biggest ace up the sleeve and you cant attach it to a bradley. So whenever we werent in our brads, we were in gun trucks and since we used our tracks for most of our patrols/missions we never bothered signing out the .50's for the platoon.atlvolunteer wrote:
I think something needs to be cleared up here. whittsend, Gunslinger, and whoever else has actually been in the military and been there: How often are .50 sniper rifles actually issued? Are they commonly used? I would think that they are not that common, but, as I have never been in the military, I don't know.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-06-01 09:58:13)
i had an inclination that you were referring to non american odrinance.scouseclarky wrote:
my bad then the British army used to have a AA man portable system called javelin i apologies for the mistake
well its well know that us brit soldiers are great but have crap kit exept challenger 2, rapier aa misile system ( the only 1 to ever pick up stealth bomber and sucsessfuly track it) and apache attack helo
Mikkel:
I'll make it even more simple since you evaded the question again. No quotes to confuse you, just questions:
Do you think soldiers are using .50 caliber weapons when they should not?
If you do, when do you believe this is occuring?
If you are referring only to sniper rifles, do you believe snipers should give up their range advantage?
I'll make it even more simple since you evaded the question again. No quotes to confuse you, just questions:
Do you think soldiers are using .50 caliber weapons when they should not?
If you do, when do you believe this is occuring?
If you are referring only to sniper rifles, do you believe snipers should give up their range advantage?
Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-01 10:04:20)
one might think that getting hit by a 50.cal bullet will hurt less then a 5.56, cuz you be dead.
All is fair in love and war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211
All is fair in love and war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211
Last edited by herrr_smity (2006-06-01 10:30:01)
What the heck? Where are you coming from, here? Are you actually saying that I am influenced by movies and media? A hit to the hand with a .50 could kill. If knew I was going to die and had my choice of a large caliber bullet blowing my heart out my back, and a .22 worming its way around my chest while some quack fishes around for it with a pair of tweezers, I think I'd choose the former. I thought the whole point to this discussion was irrelevant to begin with. a .50 is hardly the biggest projectile you can get hit with in war. The media just likes rolling it around their collective tongues because it's one of the ban-standards gun control activists rally around.mikkel wrote:
And the reason why you won't ever see that happen is because .50cal rifles issued for anti-vehicular missions are usually just used to, y'know, shoot at vehicles, and my stand is that smaller calibre rifles should be issued when you're asked to go shoot people on foot, in fortifications, ect.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"Just a damn minute, Lootenant! That's an on-foot A-rab, not a veeyickle! Put that rifle away and get out a smaller one...quick, buhfore he disappears!"mikkel wrote:
For regular law enforcement and military use, I would have to say yes. I don't see why anyone need to blow holes in people. That being said, I don't have anything against it being used to penetrate light armour to get to targets (Armour-plated cars, APCs, tactical shields, ect. - Not body armour).
Don't see that happening anytime soon...You've watched too many movies if you think that being shot with a higher calibre bullet from a sniper rifle doesn't mean that you die right away in many cases. If non-fatal shots really were an issue, don't you think it'd be more humane to get shot in the leg with a bullet that'd go right through, or at least leave your leg somewhat intact, rather than one that's going to rip half of it off?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I suppose an instant-kill .50 to the torso is alot more inhumane than a small-caliber, fatal sucking wound. Really, all that matters is the sensibilities of those who have to see the resultant corpses, right? The dead don't matter, is that it?People have seen clips of those things blowing limbs off. You should be used to sensationalistic politics.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Where's all the complaints about explosives and even larger projectiles killing people in war? Why all this hubub about .50's?So get a decommissioned one. I'd like a can of anthrax spores for collector's sake, but hey, I can't have that, either.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
And for "private" use? Who can afford that shit anyway. An average criminal Joe looking to shoot up a 7-11 isn't going to bring in a $5000+ rifle for the job. If he had one, he'd sell it. I always dream of owning large-caliber rifles for collector's sake, but I have satisfy myself with an SKS-45 once I skim through the price sheets.
And no, I am not interested in deactivated weapons for "collection" purposes. I want my rifles working so I can actually use them at a targetting range, though out of courtesy I would only take a .50 out when there is nobody there but me. It is loud, and you can feel your kneecaps rattle when one goes off near you.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-06-01 10:26:14)
Don't lower yourself by exaggerating the situation in order to promote your argument. Please. We aren't talking about .22 rounds. We're talking about .338 and 7,62mm rounds that -will- kill you very fast to instantly in most any case.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
What the heck? Where are you coming from, here? Are you actually saying that I am influenced by movies and media? A hit to the hand with a .50 could kill. If knew I was going to die and had my choice of a large caliber bullet blowing my heart out my back, and a .22 worming its way around my chest while some quack fishes around for it with a pair of tweezers, I think I'd choose the former. I thought the whole point to this discussion was irrelevant to begin with. a .50 is hardly the biggest projectile you can get hit with in war. The media just likes rolling it around their collective tongues because it's one of the ban-standards gun control activists rally around.mikkel wrote:
And the reason why you won't ever see that happen is because .50cal rifles issued for anti-vehicular missions are usually just used to, y'know, shoot at vehicles, and my stand is that smaller calibre rifles should be issued when you're asked to go shoot people on foot, in fortifications, ect.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
"Just a damn minute, Lootenant! That's an on-foot A-rab, not a veeyickle! Put that rifle away and get out a smaller one...quick, buhfore he disappears!"
Don't see that happening anytime soon...You've watched too many movies if you think that being shot with a higher calibre bullet from a sniper rifle doesn't mean that you die right away in many cases. If non-fatal shots really were an issue, don't you think it'd be more humane to get shot in the leg with a bullet that'd go right through, or at least leave your leg somewhat intact, rather than one that's going to rip half of it off?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I suppose an instant-kill .50 to the torso is alot more inhumane than a small-caliber, fatal sucking wound. Really, all that matters is the sensibilities of those who have to see the resultant corpses, right? The dead don't matter, is that it?People have seen clips of those things blowing limbs off. You should be used to sensationalistic politics.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Where's all the complaints about explosives and even larger projectiles killing people in war? Why all this hubub about .50's?So get a decommissioned one. I'd like a can of anthrax spores for collector's sake, but hey, I can't have that, either.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
And for "private" use? Who can afford that shit anyway. An average criminal Joe looking to shoot up a 7-11 isn't going to bring in a $5000+ rifle for the job. If he had one, he'd sell it. I always dream of owning large-caliber rifles for collector's sake, but I have satisfy myself with an SKS-45 once I skim through the price sheets.
Well, if you prioritise your right to shoot a big gun at a range higher than keeping the bodies of other people somewhat intact when they get killed, we're just fundamentally different people, and that's that.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
And no, I am not interested in deactivated weapons for "collection" purposes. I want my rifles working so I can actually use them at a targetting range, though out of courtesy I would only take a .50 out when there is nobody there but me. It is loud, and you can feel your kneecaps rattle when one goes off near you.
Ironically, whittsend, I'm the one whi's going to have to make it simple for you, but I'll answer your questions despite them being logically deductable from what I've been saying to anyone with an open mind.whittsend wrote:
Mikkel:
I'll make it even more simple since you evaded the question again. No quotes to confuse you, just questions:
Do you think soldiers are using .50 caliber weapons when they should not?
If you do, when do you believe this is occuring?
If you are referring only to sniper rifles, do you believe snipers should give up their range advantage?
Yes, I do think they're using .50 calibre sniper rifles in situations where it could be avoided.
I believe this is occuring when lower calibre, less devastating ammunition could be used.
No, I do not believe that snipers should give up their range advantage, and they will not have to. If they have to shave a few feet off of their maximum range, they'll hardly give up their range advantage. It'll be harder for sure, but it's also harder to shoot someone with a gun than bomb him to hell.
Listen, whittsend, I've been spending all this time telling you that you failed to understand my posts, and when you've asked questions that had already been answered, I answered them simply to facilitate discussion. When I make it clear to you, on your own request, what exactly I meant by what I said, you accuse me of backpaddling and tapdancing, completely dismissing the most obvious and logical possibility that perhaps you just -did- misunderstand me, and instead blame me and accuse me of backpaddling when I haven't at any point come close to taking back anything I've said. It's this kind of "I'm right and you're wrong and no matter what I'll always be right" mentality that makes you impossible to discuss things with. If you reply in a sane manner and ask questions that have not already been answered, I'll answer, but if you keep this up, I'm not going to reply.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-06-01 10:48:09)
in war, millimeters mean life and deathmikkel wrote:
No, I do not believe that snipers should give up their range advantage, and they will not have to. If they have to shave a hundred or two feet off of their maximum range, they'll hardly give up their range advantage.
I won't bother with the fluff, instead I'll continue to keep it simple.
Now, specifically (since you believe I have misread you before), WHY do you think they should not use the .50 against infantry?
You just posted this:
Would you care to provide an example of when you believe this is occuring? A generalized one will do.mikkel wrote:
Yes, I do think they're using .50 calibre sniper rifles in situations where it could be avoided.
I believe this is occuring when lower calibre, less devastating ammunition could be used.
You are lacking information on the weapon systems. The maximum effective range of a 7.62 weapon is on the order of 800m. As I noted earlier, Carlos Hathcock was able to shoot an enemy at 1.5 miles away with a .50 in Vietnam. To be sure, that is an extreme shot even with a .50, but a shot at even 2/3 that range is impossible with a 7.62. The point is that the range advantage of a .50 over smaller calibers is SIGNIFICANTLY greater than 'a few feet', and in asking them to give up the .50 for anti-personnel operations, you are, in fact, asking them to lose a great deal of range.mikkel wrote:
No, I do not believe that snipers should give up their range advantage, and they will not have to. If they have to shave a few feet off of their maximum range, they'll hardly give up their range advantage. It'll be harder for sure, but it's also harder to shoot someone with a gun than bomb him to hell.
Now, specifically (since you believe I have misread you before), WHY do you think they should not use the .50 against infantry?
You just posted this:
But when I suggested keeping the body intact was the reason for your preferences before, you claimed I misunderstood. Care to clarify?mikkel wrote:
Well, if you prioritise your right to shoot a big gun at a range higher than keeping the bodies of other people somewhat intact when they get killed, we're just fundamentally different people, and that's that.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-01 10:57:55)
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
in war, millimeters mean life and deathmikkel wrote:
No, I do not believe that snipers should give up their range advantage, and they will not have to. If they have to shave a hundred or two feet off of their maximum range, they'll hardly give up their range advantage.
Please don't mistake me for some ignorant hippie. I know that these things are critical, and the range aspect of it is exactly one of the reasons why I'm torn on the subject. It's never good to lower chances in war, but I don't fully agree that the needs of war transcend human decency. If extreme range is needed, and no other ammunition can do what the .50cal can do, then we're back to where I'm saying that I'm not against it if it can't be avoided.mikkel wrote:
It'll be harder for sure.
Thank you, Dr. Science. I'm glad to see you don't need extreme examples compared side-by-side to understand the issue. So you freely admit that smaller rounds (than .50, which aren't the largest used) can kill just as readily. Then what's the issue, here? Enlighten me.mikkel wrote:
Don't lower yourself by exaggerating the situation in order to promote your argument. Please. We aren't talking about .22 rounds. We're talking about .338 and 7,62mm rounds that -will- kill you very fast to instantly in most any case.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
What the heck? Where are you coming from, here? Are you actually saying that I am influenced by movies and media? A hit to the hand with a .50 could kill. If knew I was going to die and had my choice of a large caliber bullet blowing my heart out my back, and a .22 worming its way around my chest while some quack fishes around for it with a pair of tweezers, I think I'd choose the former. I thought the whole point to this discussion was irrelevant to begin with. a .50 is hardly the biggest projectile you can get hit with in war. The media just likes rolling it around their collective tongues because it's one of the ban-standards gun control activists rally around.
What? You are trying to put words into my mouth. Firearms usage at home and in the military are two completely different matters. At home, a .50 isn't exactly going to be a convenient weapon to shoot an armed housebreaker with. Of course I don't want to blow a hole through my wall and send a bullet through two neighbors' houses. But in the military, there are so many ways to blow up an enemy beyond recognition so much that you'd think a .50 would be last on the list of humanity complaints.mikkel wrote:
Well, if you prioritise your right to shoot a big gun at a range higher than keeping the bodies of other people somewhat intact when they get killed, we're just fundamentally different people, and that's that.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
And no, I am not interested in deactivated weapons for "collection" purposes. I want my rifles working so I can actually use them at a targetting range, though out of courtesy I would only take a .50 out when there is nobody there but me. It is loud, and you can feel your kneecaps rattle when one goes off near you.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-06-01 10:59:42)
You understand the inherent contradiction in saying that war need not transcend human decency, I hope?mikkel wrote:
It's never good to lower chances in war, but I don't fully agree that the needs of war transcend human decency. If extreme range is needed, and no other ammunition can do what the .50cal can do, then we're back to where I'm saying that I'm not against it if it can't be avoided.
Given that no other ammunition can do what the .50 can do, I guess you aren't against it after all.
According to the Canadian military, they're aiming for 1,500 metres with their .338 rifles. Kills from below 1,000 meters really do not need .50cals. If you honestly want me to give you a link to some page that says that sniper kills from less than 1,000 metres are frequent, you're wasting both mine and your time. We both know they are.whittsend wrote:
I won't bother with the fluff, instead I'll continue to keep it simple.Would you care to provide an example of when you believe this is occuring? A generalized one will do.mikkel wrote:
Yes, I do think they're using .50 calibre sniper rifles in situations where it could be avoided.
I believe this is occuring when lower calibre, less devastating ammunition could be used.You are lacking information on the weapon systems. The maximum effective range of a 7.62 weapon is on the order of 800m. As I noted earlier, Carlos Hathcock was able to shoot an enemy at 1.5 miles away with a .50 in Vietnam. To be sure, that is an extreme shot even with a .50, but a shot at even 2/3 that range is impossible with a 7.62. The point is that the range advantage of a .50 over smaller calibers is SIGNIFICANTLY greater than 'a few feet', and in asking them to give up the .50 for anti-personnel operations, you are, in fact, asking them to lose a great deal of range.mikkel wrote:
No, I do not believe that snipers should give up their range advantage, and they will not have to. If they have to shave a few feet off of their maximum range, they'll hardly give up their range advantage. It'll be harder for sure, but it's also harder to shoot someone with a gun than bomb him to hell.
I've answered both of these, so as I said before, I'm not going to answer it again to avoid cluttering the thread because you couldn't look back a page or two. If you want to know, read back.whittsend wrote:
Now, specifically (since you believe I have misread you before), WHY do you think they should not use the .50 against infantry?
You just posted this:But when I suggested keeping the body intact was the reason for your preferences before, you claimed I misunderstood. Care to clarify?mikkel wrote:
Well, if you prioritise your right to shoot a big gun at a range higher than keeping the bodies of other people somewhat intact when they get killed, we're just fundamentally different people, and that's that.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-06-01 11:06:50)
thats the thing yo. war is unpredictable and you never know how the enemy might react to your actions. therefore you must always be prepared to match and supercede the amount of firepower your enemy might possibly lay on you in order to ensure victory. overkill overkill overkill. no such thing as overkill if your trying to win, ya get what im saying. You see, i think i understand exactly what your trying to say and thats just where we gotta agree to blah blah, ya know. War is bad. Wars are not good. the reason why war is so bad, the reason why we inflict the most damage and suffering is so we as a society, as human animals could avoid it as much as possible. If war was clean and neat, people would fight it more often. Thats one thing the invention of photgraphy and media changed. peoples perceptions of war, from gallant and heroic, to messy and smelly and painful and damp. I dont know who said it, if it was some famous guy or a movie but some general after seeing the aftermath of a victory says something like" it is good that war is so terrible, or we shall grow too fond of it". As a war fighter, you cant choose what your enemy decides to use as a weapon.mikkel wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
in war, millimeters mean life and deathmikkel wrote:
No, I do not believe that snipers should give up their range advantage, and they will not have to. If they have to shave a hundred or two feet off of their maximum range, they'll hardly give up their range advantage.Please don't mistake me for some ignorant hippie. I know that these things are critical, and the range aspect of it is exactly one of the reasons why I'm torn on the subject. It's never good to lower chances in war, but I don't fully agree that the needs of war transcend human decency. If extreme range is needed, and no other ammunition can do what the .50cal can do, then we're back to where I'm saying that I'm not against it if it can't be avoided.mikkel wrote:
It'll be harder for sure.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-06-01 11:11:37)
War is inevitable. It doesn't mean you have to go about it in the worst possible way.whittsend wrote:
You understand the inherent contradiction in saying that war need not transcend human decency, I hope?mikkel wrote:
It's never good to lower chances in war, but I don't fully agree that the needs of war transcend human decency. If extreme range is needed, and no other ammunition can do what the .50cal can do, then we're back to where I'm saying that I'm not against it if it can't be avoided.
You're getting closer, but you're overshooting. The world isn't black and white. Read and comprehend my posts and you'll spot my stand.whittsend wrote:
Given that no other ammunition can do what the .50 can do, I guess you aren't against it after all.
I'm going to give you the same advice I gave whittsend. Read back a bit and you'll see what my problem with it is.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Thank you, Dr. Science. I'm glad to see you don't need extreme examples compared side-by-side to understand the issue. So you freely admit that smaller rounds (than .50, which aren't the largest used) can kill just as readily. Then what's the issue, here? Enlighten me.mikkel wrote:
Don't lower yourself by exaggerating the situation in order to promote your argument. Please. We aren't talking about .22 rounds. We're talking about .338 and 7,62mm rounds that -will- kill you very fast to instantly in most any case.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
What the heck? Where are you coming from, here? Are you actually saying that I am influenced by movies and media? A hit to the hand with a .50 could kill. If knew I was going to die and had my choice of a large caliber bullet blowing my heart out my back, and a .22 worming its way around my chest while some quack fishes around for it with a pair of tweezers, I think I'd choose the former. I thought the whole point to this discussion was irrelevant to begin with. a .50 is hardly the biggest projectile you can get hit with in war. The media just likes rolling it around their collective tongues because it's one of the ban-standards gun control activists rally around.
I'm not trying to put words in your mout, unnamednewbie. You're the one working from the assumption that if they were to be illegal against human, there'd be a total ban on ownership, and I'm just going along with that. If you present a black and white scenario, expect a black and white answer.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
What? You are trying to put words into my mouth. Firearms usage at home and in the military are two completely different matters. At home, a .50 isn't exactly going to be a convenient weapon to shoot an armed housebreaker with. Of course I don't want to blow a hole through my wall and send a bullet through two neighbors' houses. But in the military, there are so many ways to blow up an enemy beyond recognition so much that you'd think a .50 would be last on the list of humanity complaints.mikkel wrote:
Well, if you prioritise your right to shoot a big gun at a range higher than keeping the bodies of other people somewhat intact when they get killed, we're just fundamentally different people, and that's that.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
And no, I am not interested in deactivated weapons for "collection" purposes. I want my rifles working so I can actually use them at a targetting range, though out of courtesy I would only take a .50 out when there is nobody there but me. It is loud, and you can feel your kneecaps rattle when one goes off near you.
Time to go spend time with my fiancée. I'll be gone for the rest of the night.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-06-01 11:12:14)
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it." -Robert E. Lee, 1862GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I dont know who said it, if it was some famous guy or a movie but some general after seeing the aftermath of a victory says something like" it is good that war is so terrible, or we shall grow too fond of it". As a war fighter, you cant choose what your enemy decides to use as a weapon.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-06-01 11:14:08)
was it a movie or did I read about it, I think i read about it I dont think there any movies out with Robert E Lee in 1862 during the civil warunnamednewbie13 wrote:
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it." -Robert E. Lee, 1862GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I dont know who said it, if it was some famous guy or a movie but some general after seeing the aftermath of a victory says something like" it is good that war is so terrible, or we shall grow too fond of it". As a war fighter, you cant choose what your enemy decides to use as a weapon.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-06-01 11:18:19)
This Canadian might disagree:mikkel wrote:
According to the Canadian military, they're aiming for 1,500 metres with their .338 rifles. Kills from below 1,000 meters really do not need .50cals. If you honestly want me to give you a link to some page that says that sniper kills from less than 1,000 metres are frequent, you're wasting both mine and your time. We both know they are.
wiki wrote:
The longest-ever recorded and confirmed sniper kill was made by PPCLI Corporal Rob Furlong of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda in 2002. Using a .50-caliber (12.7 mm) McMillan TAC-50 rifle, Furlong shot and killed an opposing combatant soldier from a distance of 2,430 metres (1.5 miles).
Here is the exchange I am thinking of:mikkel wrote:
I've answered both of these, so as I said before, I'm not going to answer it again to avoid cluttering the thread because you couldn't look back a page or two. If you want to know, read back.whittsend wrote:
Now, specifically (since you believe I have misread you before), WHY do you think they should not use the .50 against infantry?
You just posted this:But when I suggested keeping the body intact was the reason for your preferences before, you claimed I misunderstood. Care to clarify?mikkel wrote:
Well, if you prioritise your right to shoot a big gun at a range higher than keeping the bodies of other people somewhat intact when they get killed, we're just fundamentally different people, and that's that.
The full quote is here:mikkel wrote:
Nice selective quoting there, whittsend. I guess that's what you need for your argument to stick up. Honestly, quit these petty attacks. I realise that it might make you feel bigger, but it has no place here.whittsend wrote:
So you want me to give up my .50 so the enemy corpses are whole?mikkel wrote:
I think being able to bury your loved ones intact and preferably in an open casket makes things a lot easier on the survivers.
I don't think I'm missing anything: You believe that .50s tear up bodies, and therefore should be avoided. Contrary to your protestations to the contrary YOU HAVE NOT OFFERED ANY OTHER REASON WHY .50s SHOULD NOT BE USED AGAINST INFANTRY. I believe that is a pretty poor reason for limiting their use. If I missed something, please clarify.mikkel wrote:
I'm kinda torn on the subject, and just trying to add some weight to the other side. I think being able to bury your loved ones intact and preferably in an open casket makes things a lot easier on the survivers. I know my grudge would be a lot more intense if some invading country literally shot him to pieces than if he could be laid to rest peacefully. War is brutal, and war should be brutal at times, but some things really should be avoided if possible, not for the sake of combat, but for the sake of human decency.
OK lets use this as an example
you are a sniper you no an enemy sniper is in a town 1.7 miles away u also know by way of casualties he uses a 7.62 cal rifle if you use your 50 cal rifle you know you can kill the enemy sniper without having to get close enough that you enter his rifle's effective range would you be against the use of 50 cal in anti personnel role then
you are a sniper you no an enemy sniper is in a town 1.7 miles away u also know by way of casualties he uses a 7.62 cal rifle if you use your 50 cal rifle you know you can kill the enemy sniper without having to get close enough that you enter his rifle's effective range would you be against the use of 50 cal in anti personnel role then
Ceramics???? That is to defeat heat rounds. .50 cal is just not to be used on personel in combat. This is why I only shoot it at the enemys clothing and not the person. Even if a person wore enough armor to stop the .50 cal round, the energy would most likely shatter every bone in their body and throw them 10ft. A 750 grain bullet at 3500 fps really really really hurts compared to a 55 gain .223 round at 2900 fps.Cactusfist wrote:
Do people seriously think that these bullets go through any sort of armour? ITS JUST A BULLET. Theres an article on Barrett's homepage correcting some misconceptions, .50cal is just a bullet. It makes little to no difference the bullet size, 1 shot can kill even with a 6mm. If you want the .50cal to be banned in war just ban war.
edit: By armour i mean ceramic kind of stuff you find on armoured transports etc. Not kevlar.
So just remember these physics, would you rather someone stand 5ft from you and throw a brick at your head or a pebble?????
heres something you might be able to clear up
whats the difference between the 5.56 rounds with the green tip and the 5.56 rounds without. i always thought the ones without were the older versions of the ammo that will work with the older m16's and the ones with the green wont
you know what im talking bout
whats the difference between the 5.56 rounds with the green tip and the 5.56 rounds without. i always thought the ones without were the older versions of the ammo that will work with the older m16's and the ones with the green wont
you know what im talking bout