Not in war, no.CommieChipmunk wrote:
should using any weapons aganist another human be illegal...?
Poll
Should using .50 Caliber weapons against humans be illegal
| Yes | 21% | 21% - 81 | ||||
| No | 78% | 78% - 296 | ||||
| Total: 377 | ||||||
i know this is sad and all but ive nvr seen a .50 cal wound. Is there a link someone could post for me showing a wound?
I saw a video of U.S. snipers in Afganistan nailing Taliban wid de fiddy on ogrish.BornToKill67 wrote:
i know this is sad and all but ive nvr seen a .50 cal wound. Is there a link someone could post for me showing a wound?
Holy mother, it blew the guys into chunks.
If someone shoots at me and I have a .50 layin around... Ill use that bad boy!!!
Why is it that the .50 cal M95 sniper rifle can shoot people out of choppers but the .50 cal mounted gun on Vodniks and HMMWVs cant?
Why is it that the .50 cal M95 sniper rifle can shoot people out of choppers but the .50 cal mounted gun on Vodniks and HMMWVs cant?
.50 cal turn head to jell-o.
Sick mother Fu....BornToKill67 wrote:
i know this is sad and all but ive nvr seen a .50 cal wound. Is there a link someone could post for me showing a wound?
Alright, heres a .50 cal vid, and those arent rocks hes shooting at.
!!!EXTREME VID!!! http://garytakahashi.md/braden/NastyMeds.wmv !!!EXTREME VID!!!
!!!EXTREME VID!!! http://garytakahashi.md/braden/NastyMeds.wmv !!!EXTREME VID!!!
.50 cal? Why not use the FN BRG-15? It's .61 cal and can penetrate the armour of most APCs and even many heavy tanks at ranges over 1000 meters.
That thing would blow you to pieces
That thing would blow you to pieces
just like the .50 did to those taliban shitbags in the video i posted?
how many times do i gotta say The Bushmaster 25MM automatic cannon
GO BRADLEYS
GO BRADLEYS
Anti-infantry vehicleGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
how many times do i gotta say The Bushmaster 25MM automatic cannon
GO BRADLEYS
Go Dora!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
how many times do i gotta say The Bushmaster 25MM automatic cannon
GO BRADLEYS
800mm!
Go Karl!
600mm!
Just to clear something up here, maybe i'm not comprehending it.
I don't feel bad if a sniper turns someone into soup. You think a .50 makes a mess, what do you think an IED does? I've been there, and helped load the caskets of good men/women onto aircraft for thier final flight home. You think i'm going to loose a dammed wink of sleep over a sniper using .50 instead of 7.62 it and your wrong.
Turns out, its called war for a reason. Some people just don't play nice.
How is a sniper rifle any worse than a .50 MG? .50 cal is still .50 cal. Granted a rifle may shoot it farther, and straighter, but if you get hit with a .50 either way your gonna be in a world of hurt. You can't choose one or the other, either you think .50 is allowable or not.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.
I don't feel bad if a sniper turns someone into soup. You think a .50 makes a mess, what do you think an IED does? I've been there, and helped load the caskets of good men/women onto aircraft for thier final flight home. You think i'm going to loose a dammed wink of sleep over a sniper using .50 instead of 7.62 it and your wrong.
Turns out, its called war for a reason. Some people just don't play nice.
why u need a to send a sniper to kill a enemy when u can use a non drived plane which can throw a antitank missile and 0% of killed soldiers in that mission?
This is ridiculous. By this logic, we shouldn't use any weapon which doesn't leave a pretty corpse: Tanks, Artillery, aircraft, etc. etc.Kibbick wrote:
For those of you who are saying "Who cares the hole it makes, its just an issue for those who have to clean it up, the dead guy doesnt care" Does this mean that the mangling and mutilation of dead bodies is ok? Cause you gotta remember this shit goes both ways. Dont care about shredding the body of your dead enemies? Ok, but dont be surprised and shocked when they drag your dead through the streets and burn the bodies publicly. If you say that alls fair in war, then it would be perfectly acceptable for Haj to napalm a US military base? After all, alls fair. (Not saying its likely they'll napalm, but just making a point. If you dont even try for decency in warfare then dont expect your opponent to.)
There's a pretty big difference between using a weapon which will harm a body in process of killing it, and desecrating a corpse which is already dead. Claiming not to see that difference in support of your PC argument is pretty lame.
people seem to think these are the days of parley and one line of musket infantry facing another. war is wet, smelly, slimey and sweaty.whittsend wrote:
This is ridiculous. By this logic, we shouldn't use any weapon which doesn't leave a pretty corpse: Tanks, Artillery, aircraft, etc. etc.Kibbick wrote:
For those of you who are saying "Who cares the hole it makes, its just an issue for those who have to clean it up, the dead guy doesnt care" Does this mean that the mangling and mutilation of dead bodies is ok? Cause you gotta remember this shit goes both ways. Dont care about shredding the body of your dead enemies? Ok, but dont be surprised and shocked when they drag your dead through the streets and burn the bodies publicly. If you say that alls fair in war, then it would be perfectly acceptable for Haj to napalm a US military base? After all, alls fair. (Not saying its likely they'll napalm, but just making a point. If you dont even try for decency in warfare then dont expect your opponent to.)
There's a pretty big difference between using a weapon which will harm a body in process of killing it, and desecrating a corpse which is already dead. Claiming not to see that difference in support of your PC argument is pretty lame.
three words
Violence of Action
if a person cant understand that, then they cannot understand the concept of war.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-07-17 19:50:23)
Too much for me to read, but if a soldier has the gun in their hands, why not use it to shoot an enemy? I'd think most times when you are in combat and aiming for somebody, your only thought is to kill them and a .50 cal will do exactly that. But, they shouldn't be equiping every soldier with a .50 cal weapon as it is just not cost effective.
I was emailing a fellow Somalia Vet yesterday. His signature line contained the phrase:GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
people seem to think these are the days of parley and one line of musket infantry facing another. war is wet, smelly, slimey and sweaty.
three words
Violence of Action
if a person cant understand that, then they cannot understand the concept of war.
I thought you might like that, Gunslinger.MOGVET wrote:
For those who understand, no explanation is necessary
and for those that don't... no explanation is possible.
I'd rather die quickly by getting vaporized with a .50 then to die slowly with a fucking 9mm or something like that You could say it's actually more humane - to the person on the recieving end of the bullet. Anyone watching someone get hit by a .50 would be the real punishment i'm imagining.
It comes down to what gets the job done. The .50 is a multipurpose round. It will shred infantry, but it is also effective against vehicles, up to and including many APC's. You have a weapon that will do whatever job you ask it to do.
Plus, its a vehicle and fortification mounted fire support weapon. It isn's designed or used to hunt down infantry. Its to support the "good guys" who are running around with smaller caliber rifles that are optimized for use against infantry.
Try taking out light armour with a 5.56 or 7.62 round. Doesn't work too well.
If I have it, and it will do the job better than whatever else I am using, why wouldn't I use it in the heat of battle? To hell with rules and regulations, I want to be able to walk away at the end of the day.
PS: Are WP rounds still banned ? (For use against infantry or whatever the ban was) I know the brits used them in the falklands for clearing trenches, and that the US uses them in iraq for "Signalling, Screening, and other non-offensive operations" (yeah, right). I mean, if you have a WP grenade with you, and your good old m67 frag(in the case of the US) isn't doing the job, would you not use it?
Plus, its a vehicle and fortification mounted fire support weapon. It isn's designed or used to hunt down infantry. Its to support the "good guys" who are running around with smaller caliber rifles that are optimized for use against infantry.
Try taking out light armour with a 5.56 or 7.62 round. Doesn't work too well.
If I have it, and it will do the job better than whatever else I am using, why wouldn't I use it in the heat of battle? To hell with rules and regulations, I want to be able to walk away at the end of the day.
PS: Are WP rounds still banned ? (For use against infantry or whatever the ban was) I know the brits used them in the falklands for clearing trenches, and that the US uses them in iraq for "Signalling, Screening, and other non-offensive operations" (yeah, right). I mean, if you have a WP grenade with you, and your good old m67 frag(in the case of the US) isn't doing the job, would you not use it?
Last edited by {DsM}SongofWar[BoC] (2006-07-20 00:35:59)
Well said... rather put a HE or AP on a running RPG team.... but what do these people know there GunSlinger....GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
no conventional weapon should be illegal when it comes to war.
man, I keep trying to tell em about the Bushmaster, haha. honestly you know more than I do, how many .50's were issued out to the platoons after we (mostly you guys and second) got rid of the guntrucks. shit even when 3rd was in baghdad we never took out the .50 from those oregon or arkansas cats. we just stuck to our Brads and 240's when we were using the humvees.TXVeteran512 wrote:
Well said... rather put a HE or AP on a running RPG team.... but what do these people know there GunSlinger....GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
no conventional weapon should be illegal when it comes to war.
.50 cal.....Rhodes....HAHAHA
Its just a big bullet. Its not like small bullets dont sting. I don't get why there's this stigma attached to .50cal rounds, other bullets kill too you know?
i just ate pie you bastard. I almost ended up with something looking like that guy on my monitormafia996630 wrote:
shit, i just searched google to see wot the .50 calebur bullet looks like, first pic that came up shows wot it can do.
THIS IS SICK!!!! PLEASE DONT CLICK LINK IF YOU CAN NOT HANDLE IT.
http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudie … esults.jpg
NO need to be calling me a bastard, fukin dick. READ THE WARNING NXT TIME.CommieChipmunk wrote:
i just ate pie you bastard. I almost ended up with something looking like that guy on my monitormafia996630 wrote:
shit, i just searched google to see wot the .50 calebur bullet looks like, first pic that came up shows wot it can do.
THIS IS SICK!!!! PLEASE DONT CLICK LINK IF YOU CAN NOT HANDLE IT.
http://www.geocities.com/tacticalstudie … esults.jpg