.50bmg and international law.

[Buzzcook]

Good catch carguychris.

My only question is how frequently did the M40 get used against Vietnamese tanks?
While Vietnam fielded some T50 series tanks I don't remember them being used much against the US.
So that would leave the M40 as mostly an anti personnel weapon.

 

[Buzzcook]

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/free-fire-zones/
While it doesn't mention the .50cal this article gives an overview of the problems with free fire zones in Vietnam.

BTW a search of the site doesn't give any hits for .50 caliber. It does mention that there is a difference between a weapon used in aircraft as opposed to by infantry.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/weapons/

It should be noted that a weapon may be unlawful if used for one purpose, and yet lawful if used for another purpose. For example, during World War I, the British armed the machine guns on their warplanes with incendiary bullets. The initial reaction of the German government was to threaten to try captured British airmen as war criminals for violating the St. Petersburg Declaration. Upon reflection, however, the German government backed down. Today, legal experts generally regard the use of incendiary and small caliber explosive bullets as lawful in air warfare, though their use in infantry rifles would still be forbidden. - See more at: http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/weapons/#sthash.Kk1cJBQg.dpuf

 

[Jimro]

Ok,

Article 23 of Section 4, Law of land warfare, Hague 1907.

It is forbidden to:

• To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
  
• To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
  
• To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
  
• To declare that no quarter will be given;
  
• To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

This "calculated to cause" language allows us to use Boat Tail Hollow Point bullets for sniper rifles. The bullets are designed to fly true and maintain high accuracy, not to cause unnecessary suffering.

The intent behind the bullet design is the legal issue, not the caliber. I'm not sure if there has been a JAG determination memorandum on 50 Cal API rounds, but I don't know if it matters as anything a 50 BMG sends downrange is going to smack things with authority.

Jimro

 

[Double Naught Spy]

And that adds more to the likley source of the "ban" - WP (Phosphrous) is not supposed to be used against personnel

Starting a new rumor of some sort????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

On November 15, 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense confirmed to the BBC that white phosphorus had been used as an incendiary antipersonnel weapon in Fallujah, stating "When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives."[15][16

 

[jrwhitt]

Not trying to start a new set of FUD. I was taught in the British Army that WP wasn't to be used against personnel. Very specifically our smoke grenades and those on our armoured vehicles.

I'll grant that was 25 years ago and may be as much a fallacy as anything else we have discussed in this thread.

However the way WP keeps burning in air could be related to the unnecessary suffering clause.

 

[jrwhitt]

Oh - and thanks for the link to the Wiki. Some very interesting data in there

 

[Double Naught Spy]

However the way WP keeps burning in air could be related to the unnecessary suffering clause.

The only problem here is that this is as sketchy as the purported claims of unnecessary suffering causing by the round itself. WP and WP ammo are not precluded for use against human targets by international law.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"This "calculated to cause" language allows us to use Boat Tail Hollow Point bullets for sniper rifles."

But those aren't really hollowpoints.

They're generally called open points, and are NOT designed to expand upon hitting a target.

They have the open nose because the jacket is drawn from the base to the nose and the base is solid (unlike standard military ball ammo, where the nose is solid and base generally has exposed lead).

By having a solid base, it allows the base to be pretty much ballistically perfect, giving levels of accuracy that generally can't be achieved with standard open-base FMJ ammo.

 

[Jimro]

Mike Irwin,

Actually we normally refer to them as "Open Tip, Match" bullets, "OTM", but they are the same as the Boat Tail Hollow Point "BTHP" as made by Sierra (Nosler was involved with the Mk262 Mod0 lots, but Sierra is a sole supplier now as far as I know).

But no matter what we call them, the point is that the bullets were not designed to cause unnecessary suffering/wounding.

However if you take that same bullet, and chuck it into a mini-lathe to open up the open tip with a small drill, then you have a "law of land warfare" violation.

After all, our job is to kill the enemy as humanely as possible within the rules of engagement. But then again, when the enemy is not a uniformed military of a recognized combatant nation, the use of expanding ammunition by military personnel conducting "police or stability actions" was approved through the SOCOM channels.

So it would be totally legal to shoot a terrorist with a Winchester Ranger hollowpoint through your M9 when deployed in a FID role, but completely illegal to shoot that same guy with a hollowpoint if he happened to wear a uniform and you were deployed in a "war" role. Then to CYA you would use FMJ.

There is no human activity that cannot be made more complicated by getting lawyers and politicians involved.

Jimro

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Boat Tail Hollow Point "BTHP" as made by Sierra"

Jimro,

I just looked through Sierra's online catalog of .30-caliber bullets, and at one time they offered true expanding hollowpoint bullets, suitable for hunting, that differed from the MatchKings in that as the jacket got closer to the tip of the bullet, it got progressively thinner. It appears that they no longer offer such bullets.

MatchKings are not suitable for hunting (something that the website also states) because they perform like a full metal jacket bullet and do not expand.



Edit In:

Wait, I found it. Item 2140, 165-gr. hollowpoint boattail expanding bullet suitable for use in hunting applications becase it expands due to the larger hollow point and the progressive thinning of the jacket towards the tip.

 

[Mike40-11]

The whole OTM vs. BTHP is whole 'nuther, though related, discussion. Here's a good article by a guy who did the legal review for the SMK,
http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1262

 

[thallub]

Wait, I found it. Item 2140, 165-gr. hollowpoint boattail expanding bullet suitable for use in hunting applications becase it expands due to the larger hollow point and the progressive thinning of the jacket towards the tip.

That bullet was in the Sierra GameKing line.

 

[CowTowner]

That bullet was in the Sierra GameKing line.

Still is according to their website.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"That bullet was in the Sierra GameKing line."

Yeah, that sort of lines up with my description of it:

"I just looked through Sierra's online catalog of .30-caliber bullets, and at one time they offered true expanding hollowpoint bullets, suitable for hunting, that differed from the MatchKings in that as the jacket got closer to the tip of the bullet, it got progressively thinner. It appears that they no longer offer such bullets.

MatchKings are not suitable for hunting (something that the website also states) because they perform like a full metal jacket bullet and do not expand."


I never said that the GameKing = the MatchKing.

Their construction style is similar, in that they are both base drawn bullets, not nose drawn like military style FMJ bullets, but their particulars are different because they're designed to do different things.

 

[thallub]

Their construction style is similar, in that they are both base drawn bullets, not nose drawn like military style FMJ bullets, but their particulars are different because they're designed to do different things.

Yes. Someday i will regale the board with my shooting of a big bull elk with a .30-06 and the 168 grain MatchKing bullet. Myself, a dumb soldier, and about 15 sailors searched for over seven hours and found the elk just before dark.

Somewhere i have some .30 caliber 165 grain GameKing hollow points but can't find them today.

These are the .224 caliber 55 grain Game King bullets and a .223 round loaded with that bullet. Last fall my grand daughter bang flopped a 100 pound doe with that round.