all .50 MG's are mounted on a somekind of turret or tripod, you cant carry that mugg around like its an M-16.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.whittsend wrote:
? 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?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.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:
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 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.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.JG1567JG wrote:
When the shit hits the fan you will use whatever gun you can.
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.
.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