.50 cal rifle

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([FILO] HuBBa @ April 07 2002,14:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So Avonlady =) who on these pics are you?<span id='postcolor'>

None of the above.

[ran 0]

we want a pic of you in an idf uniform

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 07 2002,15:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">we want a pic of you in an idf uniform <span id='postcolor'>

Green was never my color.

[ran 0]

lol

[Major Fubar 0]

Hey Avon, this may be a stupid question, but the custom face on your avatar, is that actually you?

[shaggy2 0]

has it ever occured to any of you that the military, may not always try and kill a target with one shot, a .50 round from the m82a1/2 would put a big enough hole in any one that they would die almost in an instant, weather the bullet killed them or they bled to death, But that is not the point since war is a lot more cruel than you might think. Why do you think they use fmj bullets as standard issue, besides the obvious fmj pass through the body not causing as much damage as say a hollow point, thus wounding your enemy and causing your enemy to use extra resources in retrieving and treating that wounded soldier, just killing your enemy in one shot is easy, we have the guns to do it, but if you wound one others have to help and this gives you the opportunity to wound many others, no one is going to waste time to rescue a corpse on a battle field while fighting is going on, but if some one is screaming in agony, well you get the point...someone put a post of a web site in this thread that had a marine corp sniper training video it was pretty decent, they mention 4 types of ammo for the M82a1 and 2 of the 4 could penetrate light armour and one of them called a slap round could penatrate medium armour and explode the trainer never mentioned the gun was used on human targets probably because of the reason i stated above, unless you mean a specific target that you absolutly had to kill in one shot, you would probably not use the m82a1.

[Deadman 0]

@shaggy2

A 50 cal bullet cant penetrate a MBTs armor

[Major Fubar 0]

I would tend to agree, but apparently some people won't believe it until they hear it from a ballistics/physics lecturer.

We need facts and figures!

[lonesoldier 0]

why cant u be allowed to use a 50 cal on people? So if a soldier is gonan shoot at you and hes got a normal gun and u got a 50 cal do u just sit there "oh i hope he misses and ill run off and go grab an m16" . i'd shoot the cunt strate away. my first reflexes would be to just put a round between his eyes.

[Noose_ITO 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (www.verruckt.org @ April 07 2002,08:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

...Also it ( SLAP round ) can penetrate enemy armor 19mm thick @ 1900m

Imagine how far it could go when youre only 500m from the armor, thats about 75mm or armor, enough for any type of APC or old type MBTs....<span id='postcolor'>

The document you pointed says that 19mm @ 1500m. Not 1900m. Typo?

That 75mm @500m penetration you estimated. Is there any documentation of that? www.fas.org says that SLAP round penetrates 34mm @500m:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/cal50evol.gif

Example of an "old" MBT. Sides of T72 are 80mm thick.To reach that bullet has to go between wheels.

[Guest]

The conventional armour of a T72 is about 500 mm. Add ERA to that.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LoneSoldier @ April 08 2002,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">why cant u be allowed to use a 50 cal on people? So if a soldier is gonan shoot at you and hes got a normal gun and u got a 50 cal do u just sit there "oh i hope he misses and ill run off and go grab an m16" . i'd shoot the cunt strate away. my first reflexes would be to just put a round between his eyes.<span id='postcolor'>

That is BS. 12.7 mm (.50) is very much allowed. Hollow point bullets are not, but that is another story.

[Noose_ITO 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2002,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The conventional armour of a T72 is about 500 mm. Add ERA to that.<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps I should quote myself:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

T-72 M1

front of hull: 240mm

side of hull: 80mm

front of tower: 500mm

side of tower: 120-300mm

from www.mil.fi (technical data finnish only)

<span id='postcolor'>

[Guest]

Aha, ok.. I get now what you meant by 'side of hull'.

I am very surprised that they give out that information.. it is usually classified stuff.

[scout 0]

if 0.5" would penetrate MBT why then do we say a sabot has tough time to penetrate some kinds of armour?

why then the iraqi MBT's while shooting ant the BACK of M1A1 didnt achieve penetration?

penetration of the kinds u mentioned is when a bullet hits 90 degrees to the surface of the armour which is never like that.

[Panzer Jaeger 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2002,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Aha, ok.. I get now what you meant by 'side of hull'.

I am very surprised that they give out that information.. it is usually classified stuff.<span id='postcolor'>

I doubt that's classified info. You can get that info from "Jane's".

Very respected source of information to anyone whose interrested in it, even between pro's. They contain very much info from present AFV's, airplanes, helicopters etc.

Check it out

Janes online

[shaggy2 0]

@ deadman....

  If you can give me some proof of your statement then i will believe you, but i saw a marine sniper instructor state straight out that there are types of rounds for the m82a2 that can penatrate light to medium armour. Also i think people misunderstood me, i never once said that you couldn't fire a 0.5 round at a human being, just that it wasnt economical, in war time, with a few exceptions. If you cant fire a 0.5 round at a human being than why can you drop napalm on them, or anti-personel bomblets. Who ever said we cant use a nifty fifty on a human being is stupid. I would say that this sniper rifle was designed for light armoured targets and assasinations from long distance. I know if you kill an officer with a fifty from any distance and his head disapears in a puff of red smoke chances are his buddies will surrender.

[scout 0]

shaggy..

how u define :"light to medium?"

i know that 0.5 can penetrate APC/IFV armour and disable them but again the penetrating of MBT armour is a bit far fetched no? other wise why use expensive DU sabots?

and another thing: if u see a target u shoot at it with what u got. no matter whats that. i agree that 0.5 sniper should wait for some juicy target, but for that matter so does any sniper or AT team no?

[shaggy2 0]

@scout

  I dont disagree with you. I dont know enough about it to say what types or thickness of armour the 50 cal. slap round can penatrate. But i can tell you one thing you are not going to use a slow firing heavy sniper rifle to take targets from close range, when you as a sniper will more than likely have a personal side arm....not that anyone will get close enough to you that you would have to use it. (personally if i had an M82A1/2 with a ten round box magazine i definatly would not waste my ammo on anything less than an officer,and i would definatly not reveal my position if they were close enough to return fire)

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hollow point bullets are not, but that is another story. <span id='postcolor'>

If you are referring to the Geneva Convention, they are not illegal at all. The convention makes no mention to weapons of any kind. I think it was Sadico that posted a link to the convention a few pages back.

Most of the stuff being discussed now is just a repeat of what has been mentioned previously, so I see no need to repeat myself.

Tyler

[eh remraf 0]

Don't know how many times I've posted this but here goes. Watch this video... It will explain all thoughts, topics, comments, and cosmic imbalances that you may have with the M82A1... By the way, the M82A1 SASR cannot fire SLAP rounds.

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/50cal56k.rm

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ April 08 2002,23:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hollow point bullets are not, but that is another story. <span id='postcolor'>

If you are referring to the Geneva Convention, they are not illegal at all. The convention makes no mention to weapons of any kind. I think it was Sadico that posted a link to the convention a few pages back.

Most of the stuff being discussed now is just a repeat of what has been mentioned previously, so I see no need to repeat myself.  

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

Art. 35, para. 2 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, states in part that "It is prohibited to employ weapons [and] projectiles . . . of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering."

HP's fall under that category and is not used wartime by any country that has signed the agreement.

The link that Sadico gave was not to the complete convention and not to the amendments.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Panzer Jaeger @ April 08 2002,19:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2002,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Aha, ok.. I get now what you meant by 'side of hull'.

I am very surprised that they give out that information.. it is usually classified stuff.<span id='postcolor'>

I doubt that's classified info. You can get that info from "Jane's".

Very respected source of information to anyone whose interrested in it, even between pro's. They contain very much info from present AFV's, airplanes, helicopters etc.

Check it out

Janes online<span id='postcolor'>

I know Janes (I subscribe to the International Defense Review), and there are no articles that directly specify the thickness of any armoured vehicle used today. There are some civilian estimates and educated guesses.. but never hard facts.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know Janes (I subscribe to the International Defense Review), and there are no articles that directly specify the thickness of any armoured vehicle used today. There are some civilian estimates and educated guesses.. but never hard facts. <span id='postcolor'>

Don't forget that alot of older model Soviet tanks (T-72, T-80) have been picked up by western countries since the end of the cold war. The U.S. for example has aquired alot of Soviet export equipment from the Egyptians. I don't think Cold-War era technology is so 'top secret' anymore.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Art. 35, para. 2 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, states in part that "It is prohibited to employ weapons [and] projectiles . . . of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering."

<span id='postcolor'>

Was that from the net? If so, can you give me the link?

Tyler

[FLYBOY4258 0]

i know i started this thread, i didnt mean to start a massive agrument but i started it because at the time there wasnt any .50 out to D/L but is it really worth fighting over? i'm not saying anyone is right or anyone is wrong but i was looking for a gun to play with just like mine, and this is indeed the most replied to post