Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: .50 cal SNIPER RIFLE performance
HYPOCENTER    1/15/2007 11:01:07 PM
I'm just wondering what first hand-accounts there are of using the .50 cal sniper rifle in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm well-aware of what a .50 cal sniper rifle can do on a test range and what it can do in-theory... and now I want to know how it's performing in-practice. For instance, -I'm very curious to know the ranges we're getting kills at. -Is it even necessary? It's not like we have to kill enemy hiding inside armored vehicles or tanks... and it's not like we have to disable the engines of enemy airplanes. I'm questions if it's practical and is overkill. At most the enemy is hiding behind an adobe wall or is driving in a pick-up truck. In which case, wouldn't a standard snipe rifle be better (can carry more ammo... and isn't as loud). -Finally, and above all... I want to know the physical effects it has on the human body. Some of the things i've heard sound unreal... I've heard of kills where the shot decapitated the enemy. This propaganda or fact? I want to hear details of its effects.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
RockyMTNClimber    Barretts - The King of Rock and Roll   1/15/2007 11:47:18 PM
 
-I'm very curious to know the ranges we're getting kills at;
This gun can be used comfortably at ranges around 1000-1500 yards. This thing is HYPER ACCURATE. Its heavy bullet weight bucks the wind down range and takes allot of guess work out of the equation.
 
-Is it even necessary?  Oh yes! at best a sniper can get reliable hits out to around 750-1000 yards with a conventional rifle and allot of practice. The ballistics of the .50 Browning are such that it is in its zone from about 700 yards out. This fills a very important firepower niche for the sniper. The sniper is up to a mile away and can watch a target who does not know he is in a battle until he is dead. And typically can't return fire.Very useful!
 
- At most the enemy is hiding behind an adobe wall or is driving in a pick-up truck. being able to shoot out a truck or thinly armored vehicle with a squad portable weapon gives the team a edge over the bad guys. That edge saves American lives.
 
-Finally, and above all... I want to know the physical effects it has on the human body. It is plenty effective without going all nasty with the details. Consider this MA Duce Math equation: A .50 Browning will go through a terrorist one time with nothing left over.
 
Globalsecurity.org has a pretty good profile on the Barretts and there is a Thread here on SP that talks about the work some Canadians did with a Barretts that has been widely reported and I think is accurate.
 
A final note HYPOCENTER. The wording on your inquiry almost hints that you think this weapon is "unfair" "unnecessary" ect.. I might be mis reading your post so I don't want to put words in your mouth.
 
In my mind any weapon that helps our troops terminate bad people with the least risk to our forces is a god send. The people being dropped by these guns are running around in combat zones with AK 47's & RPG's  and their faces covered.
 
Weapons like the JDAM, Predator, and the Barretts .50 help us kill them before they get a IED on the roadside to kill my nephew, my son, or my neighbors kid.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER    AS50   1/16/2007 2:24:54 AM
The Barrett is being replaced with the AS50: http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=691" href="http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=691">http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=691
... at least for the NAVY SEALS anyway. Anyone who watched the Discovery Channels "Future Weapons" show will have seen the AS50 rifle demonstrated. Exciting stuff.

I happen to love the .50 cals and want our troops to use them. I want the enemy dead and I don't care how we do it as long as it gets done.... so I didn't mean to come across as if I think they're bad. I'm pro-sniper and pro big guns all the way. But my wording was weird only because I wanted to hear some first hand reports of it being used... and thought my wording would generate some response.

Most of all though, I want to hear the gruesome details of its effects. Do the enemy fly backwards like a cartoon? Do their heads completely explode? Or is it relatively "normal" reaction?
 
Quote    Reply

mustavaris    Where to look..   1/16/2007 5:09:21 AM
They do not fly bakwards, no noo.. the 12,7mm doesnt do that. But it does "blow up" the tissues and can shred people into pieces, sometimes. If you are interested in graphic details, ogrish dot com used to have some pics taken in Iraq which gave quite a good idea about what happens when a person gets hit with a 12,7mm bullet. Basically even a single bullet can have extremely devastating effect when they hit bones.
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237       1/17/2007 12:03:32 AM
Be careful of some of the videos claiming to show .50 cal "hits".  One that went around a few years ago showing guts and fur flying were actually videos of varmint shooting somewhere in the Rocky Mountains. 
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       1/17/2007 7:01:47 PM
The Mk 211 round preferred for .50 cal sniping applications has high explosive and incendiary filler, so its effects have the potential to be as gruesome as you are imagining.  Even with standard .50 cal ammunition that kinetic energy is such that it will destroy limbs, explode heads, etc.  All of the above is a couple notches below what Hollywood would have you believe, but it's still one of the uglier things to be on the receiving end of.
 
Quote    Reply

Schackleford       1/19/2007 6:00:22 AM
When I was in the Royal Life Guard, we were always told that international treaties prohibited the use of 12,7 mm (.50 cal) against human targets.
It was considered an inhumane method of killing a man (!)
We have 12,7 mm machineguns and rifles, but only use them for anti-vehicle and EOD assignments.
How do the US get to use their 12,7 mm weapons on human targets? Did they choose not to sign? Like with the anti-landmine treaty a few years back.

 
Quote    Reply

Old Grunt    Ahh... The .50 Cal myth resurfaces   1/19/2007 8:32:46 AM
When I was in the Royal Life Guard, we were always told that international treaties prohibited the use of 12,7 mm (.50 cal) against human targets.
It was considered an inhumane method of killing a man (!)
We have 12,7 mm machineguns and rifles, but only use them for anti-vehicle and EOD assignments.
How do the US get to use their 12,7 mm weapons on human targets? Did they choose not to sign? Like with the anti-landmine treaty a few years back.
 
There is no international treaty prohibition against the use of any caliber of weapon against any type of target.  The prohibitions are based on the nature of the target, e.g. aircrew under canopy after abandoning their aircraft are prohibited targets, paratroopers under canopy are fair game.  The general prohibition is against weapons that cause "undue suffering".  It is left to the belligerents to decide what may fall into that category.  The United States has traditionally followed the rule that only small arms caliber projectiles, defined as a projectile whose diameter does not exceed 1 inch, will be used against single personnel targets, however this has as much to do with practicality and ammunition consumption as any relation to the Hague Conventions.  The only treaty provision prohibiting projectiles specifies those that flatten or deform significantly on impact with the body, those that have cases that are scored, pierced, or do not totally encase the core; those that are filled with glass; those that are coated with poison or any other substance that would inflame the wound or increase the risk of infection.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       1/19/2007 7:17:16 PM

When I was in the Royal Life Guard, we were always told that international treaties prohibited the use of 12,7 mm (.50 cal) against human targets.
It was considered an inhumane method of killing a man (!)
We have 12,7 mm machineguns and rifles, but only use them for anti-vehicle and EOD assignments.
How do the US get to use their 12,7 mm weapons on human targets? Did they choose not to sign? Like with the anti-landmine treaty a few years back.


I was told something generally similar when I went through basic training, with the added little bit of humor that while you could not shoot personnel with a .50 caliber machinegun, you could engage their equipment -- which could include, say, canteens, helmets, and ammo pouches.  So you could *technically* shoot them, because you were shooting their stuff, not them.
 
Anyway, like Old Grunt said, there's not any actual international restriction against the use of .50 caliber, or any other caliber of projectile, against personnel targets.  I had thought that was a peculiarly American urban myth, but I'm not surprised to hear that it has an international dimension.
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237       1/19/2007 7:32:08 PM

When I was in the Royal Life Guard, we were always told that international treaties prohibited the use of 12,7 mm (.50 cal) against human targets.
It was considered an inhumane method of killing a man (!)
We have 12,7 mm machineguns and rifles, but only use them for anti-vehicle and EOD assignments.
How do the US get to use their 12,7 mm weapons on human targets? Did they choose not to sign? Like with the anti-landmine treaty a few years back.

 

There is no international treaty prohibition against the use of any caliber of weapon against any type of target.  The prohibitions are based on the nature of the target, e.g. aircrew under canopy after abandoning their aircraft are prohibited targets, paratroopers under canopy are fair game.  The general prohibition is against weapons that cause "undue suffering".  It is left to the belligerents to decide what may fall into that category.  The United States has traditionally followed the rule that only small arms caliber projectiles, defined as a projectile whose diameter does not exceed 1 inch, will be used against single personnel targets, however this has as much to do with practicality and ammunition consumption as any relation to the Hague Conventions.  The only treaty provision prohibiting projectiles specifies those that flatten or deform significantly on impact with the body, those that have cases that are scored, pierced, or do not totally encase the core; those that are filled with glass; those that are coated with poison or any other substance that would inflame the wound or increase the risk of infection.



I remember being told the same thing when I was in the National Guard back in the 90's.  I think it had something to do with using anti-aircraft guns against individual soldiers.  Shackelford may very well be correct on this one, but I don't seem to have a copy of the Geneva Convention lying around (probably makes for dull reading anyway).  We were told that by treaty the Ma Deuce could only be used to destroy equipment, so to justify its use against infantryman we were told to aim for their equipment, such as their weapon or load bearing equipment.  This piece of information was delivered with a wink and a nod, knowing full well that a hit on an enemy soldier's load bearing equipment will turn the poor sap into a steaming pile of blood and guts.  Presumeably by this doctrine we would have to refrain from mowing down hordes of screaming, naked savages with our fifty calibre machineguns. 
 
Schackleford's interpretation on international is probably correct, but I can't help but comment on international law and how it applies to ground warfare.  I know I run the risk of causing this thread to run off course, but I find it ironic that some people are so obsessed with following the Geneva Convention when almost every enemy we have fought since World War II has blatantly ignored it whether we followed it or not.  The main argument for the adherence to the Geneva and Hague Conventions is to guarantee good treatment of our own soldiers should they ever be captured, but the Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Somalis, and even the European Serbs violated the rules regardless of our compliance.  In my opinion this makes the international rules of war absolutely useless. 
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       1/20/2007 4:17:38 PM
rocky the canadian military doesn't use the barret.  we use a mcmillan 50 cal rifle.  no idea what the differences are between the rifles though.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics