BF2S Forums Using .50 Cal

mikkel wrote:

whittsend wrote:

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.

?  Where do people get this stuff?  You know, in addition to packing a pretty good punch, the M2 has a lot more range than the smaller caliber machine guns, right?  You don't suppose that is a factor too, do you? 

Obviously not when we're talking about whether or not it should be illegal to use those calibres on people. Range has nothing to do with that discussion.

whittsend wrote:

Your TOE is your TOE.  You don't get issued different stuff depending on what the mission is (unless you are special ops).  Nobody says, "Here's the .50, it is your anti-armor weapon and that is what you are expected to use it against."  In fact, it is understood to be, "Here's the .50.  If you see the enemy, grease him with it."  Gunners may have an M-16 or an M-249 in the truck, but they sure as shit aren't going to switch out when it comes time to fight because someone with a sensitive stomach back home doesn't like the sizes of the holes it makes in the enemy.

I don't think you get the point. I'm talking about issuing .50cal rifles on the same level as you'd issue AT rockets to infantry, and I can assure you that you most definitely aren't told to fire at infantrymen with those things.

whittsend wrote:

Here's a fact:

JG1567JG wrote:

When the shit hits the fan you will use whatever gun you can.

If you are in the turret of a HMMWV on the .50, you are the eyes and fists of that vehicle.  It doesn't matter what form the enemy takes, vehicle or dismount, you are NOT going to take the time to switch weapons or talk it over with the vehicle commander.  If you do, you are likely to be responsible for the deaths of the people in that truck.  Instead, you will shoot them and kill them with the weapon in your hands: the M2.

The idea of saying you can't use a .50 to shoot at people is stupid.  Anybody who thinks it is a good one doesn't know shit about combat.  If you think the .50 is violent, cruel or unfair in use against a dismounted enemy, tough shit.  War is hell, and it's kill or be killed - my vote is kill.  I'm not going to give up an advantage because someone who never served is a pussy.  Fortunately the idiots are not in a position to enforce their views on this point.

I don't think you read my whole post. I specifically said that I have nothing against .50cals on vehicles. A HMMWV is a vehicle. A HMMWV gunner can face pretty much anything, while an infantry sniper usually expects to hit infantry and nothing else.

all .50 MG's are mounted on a somekind of turret or tripod, you cant carry that mugg around like its an M-16.

.50 sniper rifle is an anti-material weapon, but could just as easily be anti-personell.  why would you take your ability to defeat the enemy down a notch?  the point of combat is OVERKILL

AT weapons dont get issued out like water, usually a squad or a fire team (if that) has a designated anti-armor specialist.  But the fact that there are no enemy tanks in iraq means AT weapons Iraq are pretty useless unless your trying to get at somebody taking cover, and in that case AT weapons (excluding the javelin, ofcourse) are about as effective as a .50 when your just trying to shoot through the mud brick walls in iraq. 

5.56 will bounce

7.62 will punch through but loose that UMPH!

but the .50 will go through a concrete wall like it wasnt even there, adding peices of debris along with the projectile as potential hazards

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

mikkel wrote:

whittsend wrote:

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.

?  Where do people get this stuff?  You know, in addition to packing a pretty good punch, the M2 has a lot more range than the smaller caliber machine guns, right?  You don't suppose that is a factor too, do you? 

Obviously not when we're talking about whether or not it should be illegal to use those calibres on people. Range has nothing to do with that discussion.

whittsend wrote:

Your TOE is your TOE.  You don't get issued different stuff depending on what the mission is (unless you are special ops).  Nobody says, "Here's the .50, it is your anti-armor weapon and that is what you are expected to use it against."  In fact, it is understood to be, "Here's the .50.  If you see the enemy, grease him with it."  Gunners may have an M-16 or an M-249 in the truck, but they sure as shit aren't going to switch out when it comes time to fight because someone with a sensitive stomach back home doesn't like the sizes of the holes it makes in the enemy.

I don't think you get the point. I'm talking about issuing .50cal rifles on the same level as you'd issue AT rockets to infantry, and I can assure you that you most definitely aren't told to fire at infantrymen with those things.

whittsend wrote:

Here's a fact:


If you are in the turret of a HMMWV on the .50, you are the eyes and fists of that vehicle.  It doesn't matter what form the enemy takes, vehicle or dismount, you are NOT going to take the time to switch weapons or talk it over with the vehicle commander.  If you do, you are likely to be responsible for the deaths of the people in that truck.  Instead, you will shoot them and kill them with the weapon in your hands: the M2.

The idea of saying you can't use a .50 to shoot at people is stupid.  Anybody who thinks it is a good one doesn't know shit about combat.  If you think the .50 is violent, cruel or unfair in use against a dismounted enemy, tough shit.  War is hell, and it's kill or be killed - my vote is kill.  I'm not going to give up an advantage because someone who never served is a pussy.  Fortunately the idiots are not in a position to enforce their views on this point.

I don't think you read my whole post. I specifically said that I have nothing against .50cals on vehicles. A HMMWV is a vehicle. A HMMWV gunner can face pretty much anything, while an infantry sniper usually expects to hit infantry and nothing else.

all .50 MG's are mounted on a somekind of turret or tripod, you cant carry that mugg around like its an M-16.

Obviously the MGs are mounted somehow, but there are the sniper rifles, too.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

.50 sniper rifle is an anti-material weapon, but could just as easily be anti-personell.  why would you take your ability to defeat the enemy down a notch?  the point of combat is OVERKILL

Well, people argue that it's too violent. People argued that biological warfare was too violent, and everyone had to take their abilities down a notch or two.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

AT weapons dont get issued out like water, usually a squad or a fire team (if that) has a designated anti-armor specialist.  But the fact that there are no enemy tanks in iraq means AT weapons Iraq are pretty useless unless your trying to get at somebody taking cover, and in that case AT weapons (excluding the javelin, ofcourse) are about as effective as a .50 when your just trying to shoot through the mud brick walls in iraq.

And the argument consists of that .50cal sniper rifles shouldn't be handed out like they do now, either. I respect their use if it's to knock out cover, like I said in my first post.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

5.56 will bounce

7.62 will punch through but loose that UMPH!

but the .50 will go through a concrete wall like it wasnt even there, adding peices of debris along with the projectile as potential hazards

That last bit there is why some people don't agree with the use of it.

Bubbalo wrote:

Meh, it's war, banning a weapon is pointless.  "Hey, let's all go to war, but keep it safe!"

You don't strike me as the type who'd say that banning biological weapons is pointless.


Just to clarify again, I'm not all for hugs and kisses, but some of those .50cal injuries you see are horrific.

mikkel wrote:

Just to clarify again, I'm not all for hugs and kisses, but some of those .50cal injuries you see are horrific.

true that.  I said though, I dont think you should outlaw any form of conventional weapons, NBC weapons aint conventional.  But i dont understand why you think we should restrict the use of that calibre when it comes to anti-personal.  the enemy aint gonna hesitate to shoot an RPG at your pinky toe if he has a chance.  the object of war is to inflict the most amount of damage to your enemy so they dont inflict the damage on you.  why you would not want the deadliest, most effective human killing weapons out there?

mikkel wrote:

Obviously not when we're talking about whether or not it should be illegal to use those calibres on people. Range has nothing to do with that discussion.

Your military knowledge is grossly lacking.  If you see a guy with a phone a klik away, range matters quite a bit.  You aren't going to hit him with a 240B, you might with an M2.  Carlos Hathcock killed a guy in Vietnam who was 1.5 miles away...you simply can't make a shot like that with a 7.62.

mikkel wrote:

I don't think you get the point. I'm talking about issuing .50cal rifles on the same level as you'd issue AT rockets to infantry, and I can assure you that you most definitely aren't told to fire at infantrymen with those things.

A .50 is issued to any unit that has one in it's TOE, and AT rockets are issued to infantry all the time.  You can assure me?  What unit did you serve in that you can assure me with such confidence.  I have been in the Infantry and the MPs, and you might be surprised what I have seen 'Anti-tank' missiles fired at during my 12 years in the Army.  There are no rules governing what you may fire an AT missile at, except that it is generally expected that you will fire it at the enemy.

Bubbalo wrote:

I don't think you read my whole post. I specifically said that I have nothing against .50cals on vehicles. A HMMWV is a vehicle. A HMMWV gunner can face pretty much anything, while an infantry sniper usually expects to hit infantry and nothing else.

I read it, and it doesn't make much sense.  As Gunslinger pointed out .50 caliber weapons are either sniper rifles, or mounted.  Did you think someone was lugging an M2 around on a sling?   As far as the sniper goes, I have addressed that, and contrary to your beliefs, range is crucial to a sniper.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Just to clarify again, I'm not all for hugs and kisses, but some of those .50cal injuries you see are horrific.

true that.  I said though, I dont think you should outlaw any form of conventional weapons, NBC weapons aint conventional.  But i dont understand why you think we should restrict the use of that calibre when it comes to anti-personal.  the enemy aint gonna hesitate to shoot an RPG at your pinky toe if he has a chance.  the object of war is to inflict the most amount of damage to your enemy so they dont inflict the damage on you.  why you would not want the deadliest, most effective human killing weapons out there?

Well, the point of a war on ideals is also to be the better man. =P

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.

kkolodsick wrote:

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).

So it's ok to kill a guy with the weapon if he is in a vehicle but not if he is on foot.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but dead is dead no matter how you got there.

Overlooked that one. The point is that I think that .50cal is just fine if it needs to be used, and if the guy is in a vehicle where regular 5.56 can't touch him, the need is there.

Last edited by mikkel (2006-06-01 09:04:36)

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Obviously not when we're talking about whether or not it should be illegal to use those calibres on people. Range has nothing to do with that discussion.

Your military knowledge is grossly lacking.  If you see a guy with a phone a klik away, range matters quite a bit.  You aren't going to hit him with a 240B, you might with an M2.  Carlos Hathcock killed a guy in Vietnam who was 1.5 miles away...you simply can't make a shot like that with a 7.62.

Your comprehension skills are quite lacking. It should be obvious from the previous post I made what I meant, and if you overlooked that, you can just read back up. I've spent too much time explaining things to you in previous threads to do that again.

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I don't think you get the point. I'm talking about issuing .50cal rifles on the same level as you'd issue AT rockets to infantry, and I can assure you that you most definitely aren't told to fire at infantrymen with those things.

A .50 is issued to any unit that has one in it's TOE, and AT rockets are issued to infantry all the time.  You can assure me?  What unit did you serve in that you can assure me with such confidence.  I have been in the Infantry and the MPs, and you might be surprised what I have seen 'Anti-tank' missiles fired at during my 12 years in the Army.  There are no rules governing what you may fire an AT missile at, except that it is generally expected that you will fire it at the enemy.

Assurance in that I'm sure someone along the line would rather see that expensive rocket doing things that a bullet costing a few cent can't.

whittsend wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

I don't think you read my whole post. I specifically said that I have nothing against .50cals on vehicles. A HMMWV is a vehicle. A HMMWV gunner can face pretty much anything, while an infantry sniper usually expects to hit infantry and nothing else.

I read it, and it doesn't make much sense.  As Gunslinger pointed out .50 caliber weapons are either sniper rifles, or mounted.  Did you think someone was lugging an M2 around on a sling?   As far as the sniper goes, I have addressed that, and contrary to your beliefs, range is crucial to a sniper.

You obviously didn't get it then. I have at no point implied that those things were carried around in any form other than sniper rifle, and neither have I said that range doesn't matter to a sniper, so if you'd please also comprehend my posts before responding, I'd appreciate it.

mikkel wrote:

Your comprehension skills are quite lacking. It should be obvious from the previous post I made what I meant, and if you overlooked that, you can just read back up. I've spent too much time explaining things to you in previous threads to do that again.

I read it and I understood it.  It is clear to me that you don't understand the weapons system.

mikkel wrote:

Assurance in that I'm sure someone along the line would rather see that expensive rocket doing things that a bullet costing a few cent can't.

If it kills an enemy intent on doing you harm, it has done its job.  Same with the .50.

mikkel wrote:

You obviously didn't get it then. I have at no point implied that those things were carried around in any form other than sniper rifle, and neither have I said that range doesn't matter to a sniper, so if you'd please also comprehend my posts before responding, I'd appreciate it.

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?

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Your comprehension skills are quite lacking. It should be obvious from the previous post I made what I meant, and if you overlooked that, you can just read back up. I've spent too much time explaining things to you in previous threads to do that again.

I read it and I understood it.  It is clear to me that you don't understand the weapons system.

Oh whittsend. I made the post, and I'm telling you that you didn't get it. Don't let your desire to be right cloud your common sense.

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Assurance in that I'm sure someone along the line would rather see that expensive rocket doing things that a bullet costing a few cent can't.

If it kills an enemy intent on doing you harm, it has done its job.  Same with the .50.

Well you just go right ahead and shoot that rocket at some guy with an AK while a vehicle-mounted MG is plowing down your friends.

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

You obviously didn't get it then. I have at no point implied that those things were carried around in any form other than sniper rifle, and neither have I said that range doesn't matter to a sniper, so if you'd please also comprehend my posts before responding, I'd appreciate it.

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?

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.

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.

when your in an engagement, at least what they train US Army inftantry, you are supposed to attack the nearest target that poses the biggest threat to your element.  Say your on patrol and and all of a sudden you see one RPG team 300 meters and you see a bunch of yokels with muskets 50 feet away your field of fire.  SOP  dictates that you engage and destroy the RPG team first.  even though they are farther, they posess the biggest combat capabilities, therefore you take them out first with everything you got. 


now you make me wanna delve deeper

say you have a patrol of 3 guntrucks (humvees) the first truck will have its mass casualty producing weapon in the turret (either M2, M249, m240 or a Mark 19...thats a whole nother can of worms) scanning 10 to 2 0'clock for the most part, the second truck scans the flanks and the 3rd  9 to 3.  if enemy pops up, which ever machine gunner has their weapon their direction will fire.  So, say haji appears at the 12, chances are the first guntruck is gonna be the only one engaging while the 2nd and 3rd are gonna be standing by watching their lanes. That way if anybody wants to pop up anywhere else, you got two other mass casualty producing weapons with the finger on the trigger observing fire discipline.  I think im off subject here........

gunslinger wrote:AT weapons dont get issued out like water, usually a squad or a fire team (if that) has a designated anti-armor specialist.  But the fact that there are no enemy tanks in iraq means AT weapons Iraq are pretty useless unless your trying to get at somebody taking cover, and in that case AT weapons (excluding the javelin, of course) are about as effective as a .50 when your just trying to shoot through the mud brick walls in Iraq. 

this is a fair point gunslinger but javelin is an anti aircraft missile not at

now for the other points
the purpose behind the Barret 50 is to be a long range target intra diction weapon, this means basically that whether it be anti personnel, light skinned vehicles, aircraft helo's radar components it's job is to cause as much damage as possible. would you risk sticking your head out of your bunker if someone had blown your comrades head off with a 50 cal (i think not) that is the intra diction part it demoralizes troops.

to all of you who think a 50 cal is less humane than a 5.56 or 7.62 mm round then you obviously don't know much about the nature of these projectiles. they all have 1 purpose which is to kill  a target as effectively as possible. the 7.62 mm is very good at causing fatal wounds and has a longer range than the 5.56 mm

the 5.56 mm is designed with 1 added extra it leaves the barrel of the rifle slightly off its center of gravity meaning that when it hits it's target it (tumbles) or ricochets around the body this serves a dual purpose
1) it will kill more effectively as it has more chance of hitting vital organs. (2) 9 out of 10 times the bullet stays in the body and doesn't always kill but it will still cause a vast amount of damage which a medical team will have to spend more time on.

most army's have 5.56 as the standard caliber for the second point as it takes more personnel to look after a wounded soldier ( estimated at 23 including rehab and pharmacists) than it does a dead one and for every wounded soldiers it takes two on average to evac them from the battle field

the point in this being just because it is a bigger caliber it doesn't make it less or more humane it was designed for a reason and has a job to do if a 50 cal means the difference between a friendly living and an enemy dying then i don't see the problem with it

/gree (scouseclarky)

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-01 09:39:30)

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.

on average they are not rely used that often the British army now use a lupia super magnum round which replaces the l96a1. the 50 cal is however still used by the us in Iraq and Afghanistan and has proved effective at extreme ranges where a normal round wont reach and the enemy feels safe it is especially good at anti-sniper missions as it can shoot through mortar and concrete it means you can take out a target as safely as possible

scouseclarky wrote:

gunslinger wrote:AT weapons dont get issued out like water, usually a squad or a fire team (if that) has a designated anti-armor specialist.  But the fact that there are no enemy tanks in iraq means AT weapons Iraq are pretty useless unless your trying to get at somebody taking cover, and in that case AT weapons (excluding the javelin, of course) are about as effective as a .50 when your just trying to shoot through the mud brick walls in Iraq. 

this is a fair point gunslinger but javelin is an anti aircraft missile not at

incorrect sir. Javelin is anti-armor anti-bunker weapon.  I would offer you a link man, but Ive seen them fired and ive trained extensivly on them so I think maybe you should go check do the searchin.  but you are correct about the tumbler round.  I was told that when the round was first introduced, they were trying to say that it was against geneva conventions.  That round is meant to wound a target more than kill him. 

1 dead enemy= 1 dead enemy

1 wounded enemy = 3 soldiers out the battlefield, the casualty and the two guys that are attending to him.