Interesting Reading: Heres a .50 Barret...dont shoot anyone

Nyck

IM reading the story of a marine from desert storm..he is in the STA platoon and is one of the 1st to be issued a .50 barrett to use in combat.

They are told however they cannot shoot any humans with this barrett and that they can only kill someone by shooting the gas tank in the car and blowing them up or taking the vehicle out..but it would break the geneva convention laws to shoot a human being with the weapon

anyone know as to why?

I had it posted last night but some fags of course deleted everything from the past 2 months or so

LOL PS..since all of the deletion I have lost over 200 posts rock:

Pwned!

03-13-2004, 07:59 AM

It's some stupid rule in the Geneva conventaion that you cannot shoot at personnel with heavy calibers, supposedly these inflict inhumane suffering, I don't know about you, but I'd rather get my head blow off by a 30mm than bleed to death from a few 5.56 wounds oOo:

I think its post WWII, because the first stories about this rule came from 'Nam, where Marine commanders told their M2 (.50 caliber) gunners to aim a Charlie's canteens or backpacks, and that overpenetration is "unfortunate collateral damage" biggrin:

Nyck · 03-13-2004, 08:02 AM

[quote="Sgt Stryker":44dfe]It's some stupid rule in the Geneva conventaion that you cannot shoot at personnel with heavy calibers, supposedly these inflict inhumane suffering, I don't know about you, but I'd rather get my head blow off by a 30mm than bleed to death from a few 5.56 wounds oOo:[/quote:44dfe]

Thats what I figured..I mean dont you think getting ripped apart would be a lot less painless than a nice gut shot where you slowly bleed to death?

Madmartagen · 03-13-2004, 11:41 AM

[quote="Sgt Stryker":f1735]It's some stupid rule in the Geneva conventaion that you cannot shoot at personnel with heavy calibers.:[/quote:f1735]

WTF? you serious? i never heard of that one. Arent all our tanks, 1/2 tracks, planes, transports, and humvees equipped with ma deuce?? (M2 .50 machine gun).

ninty · 03-13-2004, 12:18 PM

Yeah. I believe that your are not supposed to us a .50 cal machine gun within 100 metres or something like that.

Anyway, I don't know why anyone would want to use a .50 pistol. It's just stupid in my opinion. Go with something a little smaller and you'll have better accuracy since the weapon isn't flying out of your hand every time you take a shot. All .50 are good for is making people look cool in the movies.

Madmartagen · 03-13-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty9

Yeah. I believe that your are not supposed to us a .50 cal machine gun within 100 metres or something like that.

Anyway, I don't know why anyone would want to use a .50 pistol. It's just stupid in my opinion. Go with something a little smaller and you'll have better accuracy since the weapon isn't flying out of your hand every time you take a shot. All .50 are good for is making people look cool in the movies.

True, i think the .45 is good, they should have kept that one and made an extended magazine instead of using the beretta.

Remember, war is 1/4 survival, 1/4 tactics, and 1/2 looking cool when capping a fools ass.

03-13-2004, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madmartagen

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty9

Yeah. I believe that your are not supposed to us a .50 cal machine gun within 100 metres or something like that.

Anyway, I don't know why anyone would want to use a .50 pistol. It's just stupid in my opinion. Go with something a little smaller and you'll have better accuracy since the weapon isn't flying out of your hand every time you take a shot. All .50 are good for is making people look cool in the movies.

True, i think the .45 is good, they should have kept that one and made an extended magazine instead of using the beretta.

Remember, war is 1/4 survival, 1/4 tactics, and 1/2 looking cool when capping a fools ass.

Hekler and Koch made the .45 cal SOCOM pistol for our special forces, it can hold a 12 round magazine. I think its more of an issue of standardizing with NATO, who all use the 9mm parabellum round.
I say screw 'em, besides the Canadians and Brits the rest of NATO rarely fight alongside us, and we can convince our Canuck and Brit friends to use .45s

03-13-2004, 01:23 PM

Some of these Geneva laws rock:

Proteus · 03-13-2004, 01:32 PM

[quote=NyckMSS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by "Sgt Stryker":f3d40

It's some stupid rule in the Geneva conventaion that you cannot shoot at personnel with heavy calibers, supposedly these inflict inhumane suffering, I don't know about you, but I'd rather get my head blow off by a 30mm than bleed to death from a few 5.56 wounds oOo:

Thats what I figured..I mean dont you think getting ripped apart would be a lot less painless than a nice gut shot where you slowly bleed to death?[/quote:f3d40]

You have the chance of being saved from a small caliber. If you get ripped to shreds....

Eames · 03-13-2004, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty9

Yeah. I believe that your are not supposed to us a .50 cal machine gun within 100 metres or something like that.

Anyway, I don't know why anyone would want to use a .50 pistol. It's just stupid in my opinion. Go with something a little smaller and you'll have better accuracy since the weapon isn't flying out of your hand every time you take a shot. All .50 are good for is making people look cool in the movies.

um...you do know that there is a difference between pistol rounds and rifle rounds dont you? The desert eagle definitly does not fire the same rounds as a 50 cal. But I see where your coming from, I've fired a desert eagle and it takes some gettin used to, the standard 1911 45 (my favorite pistol of all time, and my sidearm of choice) is still fairly powerful as well but once you master the technique of shooting it...you will never miss. The 9mm's that are so common today are like toy guns...they have no kick and hardly any muzzle climb....the downside being the 9mm takes more rounds to kill.