Taint no thing Poll 100 people about it and 98 will tell you its against the Geneva Convention to use JHPENSANE1970 said:Sorry Bud I thought I had seen somewhere, that the Geneva convention had something to do with that decision. I can't remember where I got that info, I maybe read it wrong.
Excellent post Freak,freakshow10mm said:Also, the US DIDN'T sign the Hague Accord. We abide by it but we don't have to. Our military snipers use OTM bullets, which are OK because the wounding mechanism is the same as FMJs, they don't expand or flatten, the design is for ballistic purposes only. A bullet can fragment, but not expand or flatten. The HA, IIRC only applies to GOVERNMENT MILITARIES. So since the Taliban/AQ/ whoever ISN'T an actual government military, just mere civilians basically, the HA regarding the use of non FMJ bullets doesn't apply. Neither does the ban on firing on people in a religious building. But because the enemy is not governmental, both aforementioned "rules" are null and void.
.50BMG cannot be used as anti-personnel weapons, but to only disable military equipment. Loophole: I am not shooting at that enemy soldier. I only want to disable his uniform shirt by placing a hole in it. Oops, got him too.
Actually this is not true. This has been linked in the past to Vietnam where .50BMG was rather expensive and officers didn't want soldiers expending it at the rate that the BMG was capable to do.freakshow10mm said:.50BMG cannot be used as anti-personnel weapons, but to only disable military equipment. Loophole: I am not shooting at that enemy soldier. I only want to disable his uniform shirt by placing a hole in it. Oops, got him too.
I know I heard this the whole way through basic training, and everytime the subject came up in the National Guard. Then, suddenly, we were in a combat zone and that supposed rule went out the window. Never heard it again. I think it's just a rumor.BigDaddy5 said:Actually this is not true. This has been linked in the past to Vietnam where .50BMG was rather expensive and officers didn't want soldiers expending it at the rate that the BMG was capable to do.
No need to apologize, it's a common misconception. And usually there's some statistic to back it up, but you just have to think about it...I mean if .50BMG is outlawed, why? The only thing that's outlawed is a round that's designed to cause a superfelous injury, as far as I know, so what makes the .50BMG? Why not a .557 round, or .60 or .70? What about a 25mm round, or an A10's main gun?freakshow10mm said:If this is untrue, then I apoligize. I was speaking from information that was provided to me by what I deemed as a credible source.
It had zero reason at all for being cheaper than hollow point. If the enemy is wearing armor then a hollow point round will not go through that. You have a better chance of putting the opposite side down with FMJ in that aspect.Also, the US DIDN'T sign the Hague Accord. We abide by it but we don't have to. Our military snipers use OTM bullets, which are OK because the wounding mechanism is the same as FMJs, they don't expand or flatten, the design is for ballistic purposes only. A bullet can fragment, but not expand or flatten. The HA, IIRC only applies to GOVERNMENT MILITARIES. So since the Taliban/AQ/ whoever ISN'T an actual government military, just mere civilians basically, the HA regarding the use of non FMJ bullets doesn't apply. Neither does the ban on firing on people in a religious building. But because the enemy is not governmental, both aforementioned "rules" are null and void.
.50BMG cannot be used as anti-personnel weapons, but to only disable military equipment. Loophole: I am not shooting at that enemy soldier. I only want to disable his uniform shirt by placing a hole in it. Oops, got him too.
I think you may have set the record for oldest zombie thread revival.It had zero reason at all for being cheaper than hollow point. If the enemy is wearing armor then a hollow point round will not go through that. You have a better chance of putting the opposite side down with FMJ in that aspect.
Also, just like the North Koreans did to us, if we were to, instead of killing one of their soldiers and just wound them it would take more of their men out of the battle to carry and tend to the victim. But If they were already dead then no other men would be taken out of the action. Ergo, more soldiers firing at us and killing more of us troops.
When it comes to self defense I don't reckon the intruder would be wearing armor, so best to keep work the good ol' Hollow Point. -SPC Piirainen
Just another illustration of the absurdity of trying to have "rules of warfare".Also, the US DIDN'T sign the Hague Accord. We abide by it but we don't have to. Our military snipers use OTM bullets, which are OK because the wounding mechanism is the same as FMJs, they don't expand or flatten, the design is for ballistic purposes only. A bullet can fragment, but not expand or flatten. The HA, IIRC only applies to GOVERNMENT MILITARIES. So since the Taliban/AQ/ whoever ISN'T an actual government military, just mere civilians basically, the HA regarding the use of non FMJ bullets doesn't apply. Neither does the ban on firing on people in a religious building. But because the enemy is not governmental, both aforementioned "rules" are null and void.
.50BMG cannot be used as anti-personnel weapons, but to only disable military equipment. Loophole: I am not shooting at that enemy soldier. I only want to disable his uniform shirt by placing a hole in it. Oops, got him too.