He might have been referring to the M-2, the big, heavy .50-cal; as opposed to the M-60 which fires plain ol’ rifle rounds.
That’s what the I hear being said all the time about the .50 cal, and I’m still in the service. Is there any truth behind this one?
The US Military has had for decades a standard issue .12 Gauge Pump-Action Shotgun. We had a Remington 870 in Gulf War, Episode One, and this was a Stinger Missile Battery! It is to be used in guarding prisoners, riot control, and local security. We also were to use it to destroy COMSEC gear in case we were about to be “compromised”. These shotguns come with bayonet studs.
Yeah, you could chip a tooth, and it’d be hell on your digestion.
All my ex-military friends agreed that they weren’t supposed to fire the .50-cal at people; if asked, they said, “I was shooting at his equipment”…
So the panic that ensues in movies when someone pulls a grenade pin is pure Hollywood hooey and all that they need to do is hold the spoon until they can wrap that sucker with duct tape?
Disclaimer: I have not served in the military, but I work in the field of foreign policy, and I’d say I’m generally knowledgable of the provisions of major treaties.
I have heard the “can’t fire .50 caliber weapons at people” many times, but I’ve never been able to find a single person who can point to a specific provision of any treaty that implies such a limitation. The laws of war prohibit certain types of weapons that cause “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering” in combatants and non-combatants, such as using plastic flechettes (because they wouldn’t show up on X-rays if the soldier made it to the hospital) and dumdum bullets (which fracture and make it hard to remove in surgery), as well as limit the targeting of non-combatants.
The key phrase is “unnecessary suffering.” How can one say a .50 caliber round would cause unnecessary suffering? It might cause a gruesome death, yes. But I fail to see how one could argue that a large caliber bullet (that does not fracture upon impact) causes any type of injury that is superfluous or unnecessary, and also maintain that various other nasty weapons, like artillery and grenades, are in fact legal.
My conclusions upon looking into this for some time: 1. There is no provision of international law that forbids the use of large caliber against combatants simply because of the size of the bullets. 2. Folks who claim such are most likely adhering to a military urban legend, in my guess that began as a flippant “this is a really powerful weapon and you better realize how much it can mess someone up” comment.
I will gladly retract this conclusion if anyone can point me to any provision to such effect. As I said, however, I routinely examine treaties as part of my job, and I have never heard from a single person who can point to a provision of a treaty or a citation of the customary laws of war that would indicate that .50 caliber weapons can’t be used against people.
I remember my first “gernade” experience, on a training range. I’d decided in advance that if something happened, the Safety Officer (whose job was to protect me in case of mishap) was on his own because I had my own escape route already planned.
Anyhoo, after pulling the pin (and it’s a stiff little devil; using your teeth will result in chipped molars) I had a mild “eek” moment when I realized my left hand was the only thing holding the lever on and forestalling the kablammo.
Rigged grenades are used as a plot device in the novel The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, about a group of men who hijack a subway car and hold the passengers for ransom. The leader tapes down the handles of two nades, pulls the pins and then sticks them to the tracks. If another train tries to chase them, it’ll dislodge the nades, break the tape and blow up. The movie Air America had a vaguely similar moment, when Robert Downey tapes together three nades, pulls their pins, and sets up a bunsen burner to slowly burn through the tape, giving him time to get the heck out of there. Sometimes the fiction people get it right. Most times they don’t.
Regarding helmets and chin straps, the helmet’s internal webbing should be fitted properly so it can stay on the wearer’s head even without the chin strap during normal movement. The strap keeps it in place if you have to dive for cover in a hurry, though.
Our story so far: Inigo has been sent to Bimfuk, Egypt as part of a Delta Force team to liberate 3 politically important hostages and “interrogate” their captors.
Inigo skulks down a darkened alley in the Lybian-occupied border village of Bimfuk. His objective lies 20 meters directly ahead accross open road. Like the gazelle, Inigo sprints accross the road and draws fire from a vehicle-mounted .50 cal.
Waves of pain drop him in mid stride as the shock wave travels from his obliterated knee up into his body, effectively liquefying his intestine and kidneys. With his dying gasp he manages to yell, “Weapons violation!”
The sharp tweet of a whistle pierces the night and flood lamps illuminate the scene as a NATO delegate struts into the road and confirms the injury as being caused by a .50 gunshot wound. At the delegates command the hostages are surrendered, their captors imprisoned, and the gunner fined $500 Egyptian Pounds and 3 quarts of hummus.
I don’t understand.
It seems to me that if you threw the pin, instead of the grenade, you’d still want to throw the grenade at your intended target after you realized your mistake
[Not that it would be a very likely mistake after training: grenade tossing situtations tend to be remarkably focusing, in a way that fortune cookie eating isn’t, and a grenade feels quite different than a pin. It’d be like opening a bottle of soda, then trying to drink from the cap.]
If you pulled a pin accidentally, and didn’t toss it (why would you?). It’d still be in the immediate vicinity. Instead of hunting up some duct tape, I’d try scrounging up the pin [holding tightly to the grenade all the while] and re-insert it. Then I’d go change my underwear.
This is an old urban myth in the Army, very commonly heard. People said it when I was in the Forces, too. It is of course 100% false. I’ll be darned if I know how this myth started.
Chairman Pow, shotguns generally are not cost-effective weapons. Remember that the last thing you want is for men to have to carry two different weapons around; you certainly don’t want to burden a man with both a rifle and a shotgun and ammunition for both. Historically the trend has always been towards giving an infantryman more volume of fire with less weight.
Shotguns are utterly useless at ranges beyond forty yards, can’t shoot through armor, don’t have the high rate of fire an automatic rifle does, etc. etc. They’re basically ONLY useful if a man is standing really close to you. Rifles are far more flexible, all-purpose weapons. So, you don’t see many shotguns around except in specialized use.
With reference to the .50 cal not being allowed to be used against people, I have also come across references to this, but specifically for .50 cal and larger sniper rifles, not for machine guns. However, a quick perusal of the Geneva Conventions and related international agreements has turned up no such prohibition. There is a convention regarding excessively injuring weapons, but this mostly deals with landmines, booby traps, etc. It does include what I think is the oldest Geneva Convention prohibition on weapons, the one prohibiting expanding bullets (“dum-dums”), which references the large wounds caused by these bullets, but nothing on large calibre bullets per se.
Let me tell you, putting the pin back in the grenade is a lot harder than it looks.
(Word to the wise - never fool around with a smoke grenade in a watch tower. I don’t care how bored you are).
The range problems with shotguns can be addressed (not cured) with shotgun SABOT rounds.
Yes, there are SABOT rounds for shoguns.
OTOH, if fooling around with a grenade, the smoke grenade is the one. Not the CS or concussion grenades, very much not the thermate grenade, and the frags are just out of the question.
Well, I’m glad we seem to be working through to the bottom of the “HMG not Kosher for antipersonnel use” thing. It had gnawed at me for some time.
Or you could just use a rifle in the first place. No sense in trying to make it something it’s not.
Well, yeah. I mean, there’s stupid, and there’s STUPID.
well, here’s my stupid grenade story: I was Range Safety Officer for some basic trainees on the grenade range. Everyone got the safety lecture, etc, and were taking turns going into the pits to throw their live grenades. There were 4 pits with a Drill Instructor and trainee in each. They get the command, and one by one it’s pull pin, throw grenade, boom. And then one of them didn’t go boom. Uh oh. We shut down the range, evacuated the trainees on the line and waited the prescribed amt of time to see if it was a delayed detonation. No dice, no boom. So we had to get the Ordinance Disposal team out there (the bomb squad). They suit up in their bulky protective gear, and one guy goes out to scope out the situation. We’re listening on the radio as he goes out. He examines the grenade in place and laughs. The recruit forgot to pull the pin. So per SOP they set a small charge and blew the grenade in place and shortly thereafter the range was reopened. I can tell you it was a very long day after that for that particular recruit.