PDA

View Full Version : .50 cal headshot photo



Corpse
02-07-2005, 11:59 PM
For all those who ever wondered, this image was forwarded to me by a friend in the Army; unfortunately the image and story source were not posted, so the story below may or may not be accurate.


Well, we've all talked about it and here it is -- the answer to the question "what would a Barret M82A1 do to a human head?" In Iraq a suicide bomber tried to enter an area adjacent to US troops. A US sniper picked him out of the crowd and punched his ticket with a 700grain projectile.

WARNING, image may seriously upset some viewers (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v490/DaCorpse/SuicideBomber2.jpg)

Aerosoul
02-08-2005, 12:01 AM
EDIT....pfft

MEGR
02-08-2005, 12:02 AM
2.7. Don't post links to or display pictures from sites like ********* or ******, for any reason. They serve purely as conduits for terrorist propaganda and aren't allowed here.

Watch yourself. You don't want to get on Hood's bad side.. Cause when that happens.. People die.

BlackFlag
02-08-2005, 12:02 AM
dude..you are supposed to put a graphic warning before posting this kinda ****.

SocScout
02-08-2005, 12:02 AM
maybe i'm extremely tired but for some reason i just burst out laughing :oops:

goldman
02-08-2005, 12:07 AM
Holy **** :fork: :bash:

Jani.R
02-08-2005, 12:11 AM
dude..you are supposed to put a graphic warning before posting this kinda ****.


If you are so lazy to read the description of picture before opening, maybe its your own fault?

RomanS
02-08-2005, 12:14 AM
No respawn point either. Now gotta wait for the rest of your buddies to die to try it again.

02-08-2005, 12:15 AM
Well, atleast he didn't feel a thing.

RomanS
02-08-2005, 12:20 AM
Well, atleast he didn't feel a thing.
Just fell asleep instantly,


PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT SMAAACK SNORE

MEGR
02-08-2005, 12:21 AM
dude..you are supposed to put a graphic warning before posting this kinda ****.


If you are so lazy to read the description of picture before opening, maybe its your own fault?

Forum rules

2.5. Don't direct post gory or graphic images. If you must post such things, only provide a regular link with a large warning as to what to expect when someone clicks on it. We're not interested in surprises here. Users that continue to post such images after a warning will be banned.

Corpse
02-08-2005, 12:23 AM
dude..you are supposed to put a graphic warning before posting this kinda ****.

Well, sorry fellas; already fixed that part but if the mods still want to remove the link or scrap this thread, that's fine by me.

bayul
02-08-2005, 12:26 AM
suicide bomber with ammo in his vest? hmm....

MEGR
02-08-2005, 12:27 AM
dude..you are supposed to put a graphic warning before posting this kinda ****.

Well, sorry fellas; already fixed that part but if the mods still want to remove the link or scrap this thread, that's fine by me.

I think you're fine for now.

LordHalbert
02-08-2005, 12:32 AM
I like that.

You can see his other eyeball - look carefully.

BlackFlag
02-08-2005, 12:36 AM
dude..you are supposed to put a graphic warning before posting this kinda ****.


If you are so lazy to read the description of picture before opening, maybe its your own fault? he's fine now...but why dont you read the damn rules before you start calling people lazy, *******.

On a different note..That's what the assclown gets for trying to be a "martyr"...ive heard that this pic has caused some lefties to cry war crimes..as it is supposedly "illegal" to use .50 caliber weapons against humans....seriously how low can some people sink to...I am starting to think were shooting the wrong guys... ;)

ZaakM433
02-08-2005, 12:41 AM
woot

Corpse
02-08-2005, 12:41 AM
suicide bomber with ammo in his vest? hmm....

Like I said, the story seems a bit sketchy; after all it was probably forwarded through so many e-mail addresses.


I think you're fine for now.

:breathes a little easier:


I like that.

You can see his other eyeball - look carefully.

I noticed, he must have just dropped dead on the spot the instant he was hit.

Rather nasty way to go but it would most probably be painless.

Slug69
02-08-2005, 12:48 AM
For all those who ever wondered, this image was forwarded to me by a friend in the Army; unfortunately the image and story source were not posted, so the story below may or may not be accurate.

[quote]Well, we've all talked about it and here it is -- the answer to the question "what would a Barret M82A1 do to a human head?" In Iraq a suicide bomber tried to enter an area adjacent to US troops. A US sniper picked him out of the crowd and punched his ticket with a 700grain projectile.

That That is pretty gruesome.

Picked him out of a crowd? What about the 40 other people the bullet passed through after exiting this...imbecile? (No offense to any race, creed, etc. I believe anyone who is willing to prevent themselves from fighting another day is truly stupid.)

Those .50 cal rounds are fully jacketed right? The US guys aren't modifying the projectiles or anything are they?

Apart from all that, nice shooting.

radx
02-08-2005, 12:55 AM
I don't see the .50 CAL ban against human targets. Mainly because a .50 to the head is pretty much a surefire kill, and it is instaneous. However, a lower caliber round might not kill the person- resulting in brain damage for the rest of his life, or not kill him instantly resulting in the target's prolonge suffering. Just my 2 cents.

Corpse
02-08-2005, 01:12 AM
That That is pretty gruesome.

Picked him out of a crowd? What about the 40 other people the bullet passed through after exiting this...imbecile? (No offense to any race, creed, etc. I believe anyone who is willing to prevent themselves from fighting another day is truly stupid.)

I'd say those people would not be very impressed with the situation.


I don't see the .50 CAL ban against human targets. Mainly because a .50 to the head is pretty much a surefire kill, and it is instaneous. However, a lower caliber round might not kill the person- resulting in brain damage for the rest of his life, or not kill him instantly resulting in the target's prolonge suffering. Just my 2 cents.

I agree with what you have said; the effectiveness of a .50 cal ensures a kill or at least complete incapacitation of your target if hit in any limb.

The penetration power of a 12.7mm 700grain bullet however can make some serious collateral damage and become a serious threat to any bystander, not to mention the mess left for some poor bastard to clean.

That guy most probably didn't even get to hear the shot and blacked out instantly so I'd say he died in a humane but messy way.

SeanAshi
02-08-2005, 01:13 AM
For all those who ever wondered, this image was forwarded to me by a friend in the Army; unfortunately the image and story source were not posted, so the story below may or may not be accurate.


Well, we've all talked about it and here it is -- the answer to the question "what would a Barret M82A1 do to a human head?" In Iraq a suicide bomber tried to enter an area adjacent to US troops. A US sniper picked him out of the crowd and punched his ticket with a 700grain projectile.

WARNING, image may seriously upset some viewers (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v490/DaCorpse/SuicideBomber2.jpg)
I bet he didn't see that one comin' eh?

ShotOver
02-08-2005, 01:31 AM
Whoah... that guy got made piss.

JTAR7242
02-08-2005, 01:45 AM
I don't see the .50 CAL ban against human targets. There's no such thing as the .50 cal ban.

And I hve to agree, while a warning was needed, if you're one who doesn't want to see stuff like that, why would you ever click on a thread with such an obvious title?

M1A2U2
02-08-2005, 01:46 AM
Its against the Geneva Convention to use 50 cal or bigger on humans. Liberals went silent about this when videos tapes of John kerry said he used 50 cal on VC. So pretty much the libs will ignore this kinda stuff

scm77
02-08-2005, 01:49 AM
That guy got *****ed up. woot The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

Reminds me of this exchange from Austin Powers.

Austin Powers: Not the time to lose one's head.
Vanessa Kensington: No.
Austin Powers: That's not the way to get ahead in life.
Vanessa Kensington: No.
Austin Powers: It's a shame he wasn't more headstrong.
Vanessa Kensington: Hmm.
Austin Powers: He'll never be the head of a major corporation.
Vanessa Kensington: Okay, that'll do.
Austin Powers: Okay.

:lol:

JTAR7242
02-08-2005, 01:52 AM
Its against the Geneva Convention to use 50 cal or bigger on humans. Liberals went silent about this when videos tapes of John kerry said he used 50 cal on VC. So pretty much the libs will ignore this kinda stuffFind me that convention.

A link please to that rule?

digrar
02-08-2005, 01:52 AM
**Sigh**, show us where in the geneva convention is says you can't use .50 on humans.

ShotOver
02-08-2005, 01:58 AM
**Sigh**, show us where in the geneva convention is says you can't use .50 on humans.

What you supposed to use a .50 on if you can't shoot at enemy soldiers? :|
Stupid geneva convention..

usarfang
02-08-2005, 02:05 AM
FU*K THOSE BASTARDS UP

Slug69
02-08-2005, 02:11 AM
The US, Russia, and just about everyone else was using a .50 cal during the second world war from the squad level to SFMG fire support in an anti personell role.

Hell, .50 cal was the size of the rounds used during the 1700's. (A little bit slower than 2,900 FPS though...hehehehe.)

Otsoa
02-08-2005, 02:13 AM
Its against the Geneva Convention to use 50 cal or bigger on humans. Liberals went silent about this when videos tapes of John kerry said he used 50 cal on VC. So pretty much the libs will ignore this kinda stuff

There is no provision in the Geneva Convention that prohibits the use of .50cal ammunition for use as an anti-personnel round. The .50cal mg has been used against humans in all the major conflicts of the 20th and now 21st centuries. Now you might say(as a rebuttal) that the Americans could get away with such a thing since they are a superpower etc. However, .50cal ammunition has been used in two highly publicized cases to take out human personnel. The first was in the Vietnam war when Carlos Hathcock used a scoped .50cal mg to take out a Vietnamese soldier. The second high profile case was when snipers from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry used their McMillan .50cal sniper rifle to take out Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan at ranges out to 2400m.

Now think about this. Canada is governed by a Liberal government who loves nothing more than presenting to the rest of the world an image that Canada is a country that follows pretty much every article of international law. You would think that if it was illegal to use .50cal ammunition as an anti-personnel round, the international community and the Canadian government would have those PPCLI snipers in front of a judge in a hearbeat. However, that has not been the case. This matter has come up on another board and several serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces have stated quite clearly that in the past and currently that 50.cal ammunition in all its incarnations is allowed to be used on all targets on the battlefield.

nzbm
02-08-2005, 02:21 AM
Great picture. Very though provoking...

lmposter
02-08-2005, 02:29 AM
Nice.****ing.Shot.

Walter Schumate
02-08-2005, 02:32 AM
Always nice to see some Islamic terrorist doing a Strawberry Jam impression....you could just scrape up them brains and have them on Toast...yum yum.

Erik_MAA
02-08-2005, 02:39 AM
Interesting photo, but I have to question its authenticity. Having seen .50 wounds myself, I personally think that this one is not severe enough. You could see damage like that from a .308 or even a 7.62x39, depending on how close the shot was taken from.

Slug69
02-08-2005, 02:42 AM
I agree. It could be a smaller calibre like a .308. But it could also indeed be a .50 cal.

Makes a good story though.

reverence
02-08-2005, 02:46 AM
Ah the old .50 cal against dismounts is illegal line. Bulls**t.

supercontra
02-08-2005, 03:07 AM
The geneva convention only says that weapons that cause unnecessary suffering are not allowed, while this includes hollowpoint ammo etc. no specific calibers are mentioned.

drGreen
02-08-2005, 03:31 AM
good shot

DE_Six
02-08-2005, 03:39 AM
Wear a helmet.

KaceCoyote
02-08-2005, 03:44 AM
For some reason I doubt a helmet would've helped.



The .50 cal thing is a misunderstanding apparently spouting from the ban against AAA against soldiers.

iflu
02-08-2005, 03:50 AM
kill confirmed. in fact, 7.62 also can make that in some circumstances. :D

žnake
02-08-2005, 04:08 AM
Wear a helmet.
Would that work? Just asking

Ballistic
02-08-2005, 04:26 AM
Wear a helmet.
Would that work? Just asking

Not a chance against .50 cal. Disturbing photo but that's the reality of war.

Sinfulcurves_AK107
02-08-2005, 05:09 AM
I had seen similar carnage like this before, guys I chat with always send me pics. (Hehe, maybe the guy that sent 'em to me, sent 'em to you, too)

Anyways, one thing I find weird about real life, gory deaths, they look so fake, like from a B gore flick, or somethin...

Daga
02-08-2005, 05:23 AM
There is no rule in the Geneva (or Hauge for that matter) convention stating .50 caliber rounds cannot be used on human targets as long as the are of FMJ/OTM (recent JAG ruling) - hollow points (if they exist in .50) for instance are not allowed, as stated by the Hauge convention.

That being said, there are Armor Piercing Incidenary (Designation m20) rounds for the .50 which could be considered inhuman - not too sure on that.

I have heard that if rounds are not to be used on humans, that aiming at piece of equipment like a belt buckle/weapon is acceptable/a loop hole/joke - any damage to the wearer is just too bad for him.

Might be wrong, please correct me if i am - cheers.

Umm-Qasr
02-08-2005, 05:37 AM
Die ******* die ...

Roldwin
02-08-2005, 05:57 AM
No respawn point either. Now gotta wait for the rest of your buddies to die to try it again.

I'm sorry, but I have to laugh rofl

ShotOver
02-08-2005, 06:14 AM
He has sneakers on... for sneaking..
Didnt work for him though, hahaha.

drGreen
02-08-2005, 06:14 AM
rofl

Crazyjack
02-08-2005, 08:55 AM
YEAH a PERSON WITH A SMASHED HEAD.
RuBBERj!M! :roll:

Well what else should happen, if a real big steelthing flies through your head.

Disgusting!

B25Hmitchell
02-08-2005, 09:13 AM
Don't be sad. He's feeling no pain now.

Macs.
02-08-2005, 09:17 AM
Wear a helmet.
Would that work? Just asking

A helmet is mainly against fragments, not really for bullet protection.

Navy
02-08-2005, 09:48 AM
i think the mitch helmet can stop 9 mm.

Peiper_76
02-08-2005, 10:24 AM
That is certainly a .308 wound.... If it were a .50, there would be no head at all.

American Patriot
02-08-2005, 10:28 AM
PASGT helmets can stop 9x19.

Jippo
02-08-2005, 10:42 AM
First of all it is not the Geneva convention, it is the Hague 1899 convention.

It bans small (i.e. less than a cannon) projectiles that expand and/or flatten in human tissue thus causing unnecessary suffering. Also it banned are small explosive and fragmenting rounds. Reason for this is:

"The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited."

This is based on the Declaration of St. Petersburg; November 29 1868, which states:

"The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances."


It was deemed necessary to ban small weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or permanent disability (i.e. loss of limbs, blindness, wounds that do not heal). Rifle round of a modern rifle will cause injuries that incapacitate a soldier with every good hit. It is true that not all good hits stop the soldier in question immediately, but they will still hospitalise him. Exploding and fragmenting rifle rounds cause much more severe wounds which are much more difficult to take care of, take more time to heal (in cases they never heal), and get easily infected. That is why only full metal jackets are allowed against humans in small arms, they will disable the enemy soldier without necessarily disabling him for the rest of his life.

In this sense 5.56 Nato and 5.45 Russian are borderline cases, they may not disagree with the text of the convention, but they are very close to disagreeing with the spirit of it

There is no reason why .50 or any bigger gun couldn't be used on enemy soldiers with FMJ projectiles. It is perfectly ok to shoot a single soldier with 125mm tank cannon for that matter too. After a hit from such weapon it is not likely that he will suffer very long.


To those who think that it is stupid to have such laws I suggest: join the army. Then it can be you who is shot at. Do you then think that it would be ok to shoot you with a weapon that will not kill you but will disable you for the rest of your life.

If you think that no rules are needed in the war, and hurting your enemy: your enemy will use the same tools to hurt you and your friends as you do to hurt them. Would you like to have nerve agents to ruin your nervous system and make you go blind and survive? Would you like to receive a bullet wound that will not heal for the rest of your life?


I speak from personal experience when I say you would not like anything like that to happen to you, or people near you. Trust me and grow up. It is not nice.


-jippo

johnyjee
02-08-2005, 10:48 AM
Paradise str8 up! :P

demotivater
02-08-2005, 12:01 PM
Enjoy your virgins!

ZaakM433
02-08-2005, 12:05 PM
Enjoy your virgins!

I dont know... Even with all those virgins, he isnt going to get much head!

:lol:

Marmot1
02-08-2005, 12:09 PM
First of all it is not the Geneva convention, it is the Hague 1899 convention.

It bans small (i.e. less than a cannon) projectiles that expand and/or flatten in human tissue thus causing unnecessary suffering. Also it banned are small explosive and fragmenting rounds. Reason for this is:

"The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited."

This is based on the Declaration of St. Petersburg; November 29 1868, which states:

"The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances."


It was deemed necessary to ban small weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or permanent disability (i.e. loss of limbs, blindness, wounds that do not heal). Rifle round of a modern rifle will cause injuries that incapacitate a soldier with every good hit. It is true that not all good hits stop the soldier in question immediately, but they will still hospitalise him. Exploding and fragmenting rifle rounds cause much more severe wounds which are much more difficult to take care of, take more time to heal (in cases they never heal), and get easily infected. That is why only full metal jackets are allowed against humans in small arms, they will disable the enemy soldier without necessarily disabling him for the rest of his life.

In this sense 5.56 Nato and 5.45 Russian are borderline cases, they may not disagree with the text of the convention, but they are very close to disagreeing with the spirit of it

There is no reason why .50 or any bigger gun couldn't be used on enemy soldiers with FMJ projectiles. It is perfectly ok to shoot a single soldier with 125mm tank cannon for that matter too. After a hit from such weapon it is not likely that he will suffer very long.


To those who think that it is stupid to have such laws I suggest: join the army. Then it can be you who is shot at. Do you then think that it would be ok to shoot you with a weapon that will not kill you but will disable you for the rest of your life.

If you think that no rules are needed in the war, and hurting your enemy: your enemy will use the same tools to hurt you and your friends as you do to hurt them. Would you like to have nerve agents to ruin your nervous system and make you go blind and survive? Would you like to receive a bullet wound that will not heal for the rest of your life?


I speak from personal experience when I say you would not like anything like that to happen to you, or people near you. Trust me and grow up. It is not nice.


-jippo

Also there is as I remember some limitation as too caliber of those bullets... ti is something like 13,2(5?)mm or something like that.


There is no way that it was 308. or 30-06 or similar round... I see effects of those bullets on daily basis and never seen such enormous damage.

Cpt. Spaulding
02-08-2005, 12:12 PM
Cant believe it!!!!! That thing is a BRAIN??????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D :D
Lucky man, he┤s in Paradise now

Jippo
02-08-2005, 12:16 PM
Also there is as I remember some limitation as too caliber of those bullets... ti is something like 13,2(5?)mm or something like that.

No, not really. It is only that if it is light it should be not deforming or fragmenting when it hits. There is no rule against hitting someone 125mm HE round except the fact that it is not very economic, that is a very humane way to kill somebody.


-jippo

A Soldier
02-08-2005, 12:53 PM
after ownage waiting to clear spawn points with many virgin

BTR-80
02-08-2005, 12:59 PM
That's what I call bulleyes!

M1A2U2
02-08-2005, 01:09 PM
The nonsense about the .50 cal stems from a misinterpretation of the St.
Petersburg Convention of 1868, which prohibits explosive antipersonnel
projectiles weighing less than 400g (this is where the 37mm caliber
originates from, as the smallest caliber with a projo of sufficient mass).
This was later incorporated into the Hague (not Geneva) Conventions.

A more reasonable argument is that 30-40mm grenades (AGS-17, Mk. 19, M203,
etc) are in violation, being explosive antipersonnel projectiles weighing
less than 400g. Other weapons in this caliber range are _primarily_
anti-materiel, and don't hit this snag. But nobody seems to care about this
sort of thing any more, except in the case of hollowpoint/softnose small
arms bullets not being allowed in proper warfare (but being legit against
terrorist targets).

So my mistake its in the Hague

bloddyaxe
02-08-2005, 01:47 PM
I'd preferred a pic of a guy, killed by an entrenching tool.
but nice nontheless

BlackFlag
02-08-2005, 02:24 PM
Wear a helmet.
Would that work? Just asking if it were a steel plated cinder block...maybe

scm77
02-08-2005, 02:25 PM
Enjoy your virgins!

I dont know... Even with all those virgins, he isnt going to get much head!

:lol:

rofl rofl rofl rofl

BlackFlag
02-08-2005, 02:26 PM
Enjoy your virgins!

I dont know... Even with all those virgins, he isnt going to get much head!

:lol:

rofl rofl rofl roflx2

Clete Torres
02-08-2005, 02:34 PM
If the suicidal dip**** minus his forehead from the photo had actually been picked off while moving through a crowd of people, the .50 round would have kept on truckin' and left 12 more just like him. Love the photo, doubt the story. And to any mamby pamby Berkley Berkinstock *******s that have a problem with the photograph or US policy, I have some rather distasteful photographs to show you of Marines who bought the farm from RPG hits.

Pandy
02-08-2005, 03:02 PM
Come to think of it...

http://www.warships1.com/US/USbb61-pic-52-fir2.jpg

Didn't we shoot this at the Iraqi Army during Desert Storm.... I'm pretty sure the slug coming from this is bigger then a 50..

Walter Schumate
02-08-2005, 03:14 PM
That is certainly a .308 wound.... If it were a .50, there would be no head at all.

Please let me know how you know that that wound is .308 were you there ? how many people have you shot in the head with a 50 cal and .308 ?

joka
02-08-2005, 03:15 PM
Isn't there some rule/law that regulates the muzzle velocity of a bullet? If I remember correctly a bullet travelling too fast causes on impact "flesh shock" .. ? And that's a big no no

Anyone know more about this? Or am I totally out in the woods.

Makaveli
02-08-2005, 03:17 PM
Another one bites the dust.

B25Hmitchell
02-08-2005, 03:24 PM
Did he survive ??

szr
02-08-2005, 03:30 PM
Nice shot in the sniper's part.

seventy6er
02-08-2005, 04:05 PM
Did he survive ??

rofl

ibstolidude
02-08-2005, 04:17 PM
Its against the Geneva Convention to use 50 cal or bigger on humans.
not quite accurate

B25Hmitchell
02-08-2005, 04:17 PM
;)

RGRBOX
02-08-2005, 04:19 PM
Talk about a hell of a headache... Next time use Tylonol... :lol:

Laworkerbee
02-08-2005, 04:54 PM
2.7. Don't post links to or display pictures from sites like ********* or ******, for any reason. They serve purely as conduits for terrorist propaganda and aren't allowed here.

Watch yourself. You don't want to get on Hood's bad side.. Cause when that happens.. People die.

LOL!!!!! rofl

JQ24
02-08-2005, 05:14 PM
That is just nasty! Good thing he got neturalized before he could harm anybody. A mind is a terrible thing to waste indeed.

kuttless
02-08-2005, 05:54 PM
maybe i'm extremely tired but for some reason i just burst out laughing :oops:


x2

Meph
02-08-2005, 05:59 PM
I dont think that was a hit from a real .50 cal round. That looks more like a .308 from a standard sniper rifle. Still a nice shot though.

un_swe
02-08-2005, 06:05 PM
HE Armor Piercing Incidenary .50 cal was the standard ammo for Swedish United Nations Forces back in 1993-94 in Bosnia. Never heard a complaint about that.

un_swe

ROY H
02-08-2005, 06:27 PM
maybe i'm extremely tired but for some reason i just burst out laughing :oops:


x2

x100010313011

I guess when im playing CS sometimes and I yell to the little kids over the mic "WERE IS YOUR FACE ***** YOU GOT OWNED" it would be approbate to say it now.

beNder
02-08-2005, 06:31 PM
Isn't there some rule/law that regulates the muzzle velocity of a bullet? If I remember correctly a bullet travelling too fast causes on impact "flesh shock" .. ? And that's a big no no

Anyone know more about this? Or am I totally out in the woods.

its a rule when playing paintball...

beNder
02-08-2005, 06:38 PM
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/1d1726425f6955aec125641e0038bfd6?OpenDocument

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/51b22df69e39d9d3c12563cd00587b41/6ee20623d6bb0ab8c12563fb0049e4b5?OpenDocument

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html

http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/Ch2.htm#s3

http://www.cpf.navy.mil/pages/legal/NWP%201-14/NWPCH9.htm

Kenshin
02-08-2005, 06:40 PM
I bet the sniper used an AIMBOT.

Damian
02-08-2005, 06:44 PM
good shoot.....

Seraphim
02-08-2005, 06:45 PM
All you guys need to grow the **** up.

Seraphim
02-08-2005, 06:49 PM
Isn't there some rule/law that regulates the muzzle velocity of a bullet? If I remember correctly a bullet travelling too fast causes on impact "flesh shock" .. ? And that's a big no no

Anyone know more about this? Or am I totally out in the woods.

Its called hydrostatic shock...generally rifle rounds that travel above 2000fps cause this. No laws or whatnot preventing this. Or else we all be fighting wars with 22's.

Macs.
02-08-2005, 07:05 PM
Isn't there some rule/law that regulates the muzzle velocity of a bullet? If I remember correctly a bullet travelling too fast causes on impact "flesh shock" .. ? And that's a big no no

Anyone know more about this? Or am I totally out in the woods.

Its called hydrostatic shock...generally rifle rounds that travel above 2000fps cause this. No laws or whatnot preventing this. Or else we all be fighting wars with 22's.

Hydrostatic shock is bull****.

talib_killa34
02-08-2005, 07:48 PM
He got what he deserved and yeah that head was cr-acked!

Roldwin
02-08-2005, 07:50 PM
Maybe he has headache:

http://www.consumed.nl/dagnieuws/images/aspirine.jpg
http://www.vemedia.nl/images/aspirine100mggroot.png
rofl rofl

USAMI
02-08-2005, 09:45 PM
This might have been brought up in one of the 96 responses (i did not read all 96). The barrett pictured is in Kosovo (note the KFOR id in the background). The mindless dude ****ed out was likely not hit by a .50 BMG round, but more in the .30 cal range. Also, the alledged suicide bomber is not in the Green Zone; I have the unfortuneate benefit of canvassing the entire GZ and that simply doesnt appear to be it. Not to mention the vest he's sporting is a ammo vest and bears no resemblance of the vast majority of IED vest found in theather.
On a positive note, nice photo's. (just note what the text protrays them to be)

USAMI
02-08-2005, 09:45 PM
This might have been brought up in one of the 96 responses (i did not read all 96). The barrett pictured is in Kosovo (note the KFOR id in the background). The mindless dude ****ed out was likely not hit by a .50 BMG round, but more in the .30 cal range. Also, the alledged suicide bomber is not in the Green Zone; I have the unfortuneate benefit of canvassing the entire GZ and that simply doesnt appear to be it. Not to mention the vest he's sporting is a ammo vest and bears no resemblance of the vast majority of IED vest found in theather.
On a positive note, nice photo's. (just note what the text protrays them to be)

v-twin
02-08-2005, 09:50 PM
Good day, gentlemen, sorry for asking but could you please tell me what's the equivalent of a .50 cal in mm?

Thank you :oops: :)

szr
02-08-2005, 09:52 PM
Good day, gentlemen, sorry for asking but could you please tell me what's the equivalent of a .50 cal in mm?

Thank you :oops: :)~12.7mm

Gauntlet
02-08-2005, 10:22 PM
One word for that shot:

Damn

scm77
02-08-2005, 10:23 PM
Okay this is completely unrelated to everything in this topic except two of the last three posts.

What is 9mm in caliber form? ie .36? .38? .39?

:lol:

Wilco
02-08-2005, 10:28 PM
http://www.grunt.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=32609


This is an Alabama National Guardsman from the south. On shot – One Kill. The stupid raghead had the suicide vest in plain view and was attempting to enter a Green Zone.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v117/satie/NEWONESHOT.jpg

Fallosophy
02-08-2005, 10:32 PM
How can you say hydrostatic shock is bull****?



It happens. remember our bodies are 70% water? Ever throw a rock into a lake? what happens...ripples right? Well that happens to a human body when it gets hit with a bullet. Only the ripples occur over a fraction of a second.

scm77
02-08-2005, 10:32 PM
From the above link.


Went from being a rag head to being a Ragu head in a split second...

rofl rofl

BarkingSquirrel
02-08-2005, 10:33 PM
Okay this is completely unrelated to everything in this topic except two of the last three posts.

What is 9mm in caliber form? ie .36? .38? .39?

:lol:35. 50 divided buy 12.7 = 3.9ish times 9 = 35ish

*Edit, or just go here (http://members.aol.com/mudsmeller/gauge2.html)

scm77
02-08-2005, 10:35 PM
:hug: thanks BS woot

QRO?
02-08-2005, 11:48 PM
This one is a typical "real picture, fake caption" story (http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/greenzone.asp)

Also, take note that the brain matter is splashed neatly just around the corpse, so it's highly likely that the victim was shot lying down on the ground.

It's also highly possible, that something other than .50 was used. If you have seen several corpses after being shot in the head with typical combat rifle calibers at point-blank range, I'm sure you will concur, that the results may well look like that.

The question about .50 being "against the laws of war" to use against personnel, only concerns exploding rounds (in the US service I think the only problematic round for the M82 is the M211 Raufoss multipurpose round, which I believe could very well be against the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, when specifically used against personnel). However, US is not a signatory of that declaration and has IIRC reserved right for their own interpretation on how the customary international law affects their armed forces in regards to this specific issue.

PCarola
02-09-2005, 12:50 AM
"Walter Schumate
Rank 0"

If you are thee W. Schumate, good to have you aboard sir. A living legend.

Initiative
02-09-2005, 01:04 AM
Bad hair day.

Walter Schumate
02-09-2005, 04:26 AM
"Walter Schumate
Rank 0"

If you are thee W. Schumate, good to have you aboard sir. A living legend.

No not me, sorry and I believe that the legends name is spelt "shumate"

I know there is some debate of the calibre of weapon used to remove the piece of filth from his breathing duties but I think it could be 50 cal AP rd that was used.
I suspect that the only person who knows for sure is the guy that shot him....well done, if I was ever to meet you much beer would be bestowed upon young.

Polyshot
02-09-2005, 04:46 AM
Sorry if this is spamming, but I wanna to recreate what it looks like....... here it goes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v181/Polyshot/Weapons%20In%20Action/M82Pwnage1.jpg
I guess that's what it looks like at the moment when a .50 cal slug drives though that suicide bomber's brain....... this is the screenshot of Firearms, which is a mod of Half-Life...... and yes, the bipod is deployable......

pathetic
02-09-2005, 05:45 AM
The Hungarian version of the gun:
http://www.fegyver.org/ismertet/gepardok.jpg

I use the Gepard sometimes - on single shot with 2500 m around - and it's destroy EVERYTHING!!! It break on thrue the standard PSA-wehicles - and it desapierd any part of your body if it got hit... i don't know the picture real or not, but this kind of wepons kill in the first time - no question abaut...

Walter Schumate
02-09-2005, 07:02 AM
http://www.2and2.net/Uploads/Images/M82Pwnage1.jpg

talib_killa34
02-09-2005, 03:33 PM
Wow, they make very realistic graphics in games I must say! :lol:

usa320
02-09-2005, 04:02 PM
he got some... rightfully so... this is all nice and mild compared to what the picture would show if he set the bomb off in a crowded square.

Seraphim
02-09-2005, 06:52 PM
OMG, you kids are ****ing hopeless. No wonder this website reputation is down the drain.

Seraphim
02-09-2005, 06:54 PM
Isn't there some rule/law that regulates the muzzle velocity of a bullet? If I remember correctly a bullet travelling too fast causes on impact "flesh shock" .. ? And that's a big no no

Anyone know more about this? Or am I totally out in the woods.

Its called hydrostatic shock...generally rifle rounds that travel above 2000fps cause this. No laws or whatnot preventing this. Or else we all be fighting wars with 22's.

Hydrostatic shock is bull****.

Ok Einstein :roll:

Tropical_ulcer
11-29-2007, 10:11 AM
the machineguns in the humvees arent .50 cal? those are used against people isnt?

well I dont know

Name Taken
11-29-2007, 10:21 AM
You revived a nearly 3-year-old thread to ask... what is it that you're asking again?

Winnar! rofl

B25Hmitchell
11-29-2007, 10:44 AM
I thought it was his foot.

Morboute
11-29-2007, 01:02 PM
Someone trying to take the award away from the Starfox kid?