People getting "cut in half" by machine-gun fire?

Can a human body be literally torn apart by machine-gun fire? I have heard the expression “cut in half by machine gun fire” before – I was wondering if this could actually happen?

Easily. It would take an M2 .50 cal machine gun approximately 1.6 seconds to do so.

Complete separation of the trunk or just turned into Hamburger meat?

I know the Phalanx system can do it, but that is a monstrous Anti-air/Anti-missile system.

Jim

The .50 is a powerful round. One shot might do it, several certainly could. It would depend on the orientation of the body to the direction of fire, but it would be possible. A .30 caliber weapon would be less effective. A 20mm cannon would make a meat mist out of you.

Assuming a torso width of +/- 16 inches, and a cyclical rate of fire of 750 rpm, and a slug 1/2" in diameter…

Eek, never realized they were that powerful, fast and precise. I thought the Marines just enjoyed shooting them of the fantail for fun.

Jim

Oh, yeah. A .50 will seriously ruin your day. I’ve seen gun camera footage of P-38s slicing open Japanese destroyers like Spam cans with 6 .50s. An M2 can penetrate the armor of a Bradley if it hits it square.

I saw a video clip of a .50 caliber cutting a medium sized tree trunk in half. Given that human flesh isn’t nearly as tough as wood . . .

Is this a type of gun easily held and fired by a soldier, or one of the types that are mounted onto aircraft? (I really know next to nothing about such matters!)

At the begining of WWII my father was an inspector for Western Cartridge Co. (before joining the Navy) anyway he somehow wound up with a couple of dozen rounds of various ammo including 2 50 caliber rounds. One AP and one tracer.
Anyway one day in the late 1960 he tells me we need to dispose of these rounds.
So on that Saturday we carefully disassembled the various rounds.
When we were all done we had a pie plate full of various gun powders. Boy does that stuff burn fast.
We checked the shell from the tracer into a vice and set off the head with a torch. It throws a flame about 18" long for several seconds.
A 50 caliber is a freaking huge shell. By comparsions a 30 caliber looks like a rifle round.
So between the size of the round, the speed (supersonic) I could see it cutting a man in half.

The .50 is usually mounted on a HMMWV or other vehicle. The .30 is portable and fired by a crew of 2 soldiers, I think. The US Army now uses the M-249 in 5.56 mm.

Easily held and fired? I’d say no. The M2 is designed to sit on the ground, supported by a tripod. See here.

The M3 is an aircraft-mounted .50 cal. You can see a pic of it on the cite above. Look to the left for “M3.”

I spend too much time here, obviously. I meant site, not cite!

I’ve seen 50 caliber shells and I wouldn’t be suprised if people just exploded in a puddle of goo after being hit by one. Someone being cut in half by one wouldn’t supprise me in the least.

One thing I’m confused on is in a few movies a sniper is said to be using a 50 caliber rifle for sniping. The targets all seem to get a nice clean hole through their heart and die after giving a few words. The only example I can think of is Jordan Colier in the 4400 series.

Is that in anyway possible?

A nice clean hole? I doubt it. Snipers have made kills with a .50 to ranges over a mile away. At that range, I would expect the round to be very unstable, so it would tumble when it hit. This makes the opposite of a “nice clean hole.”

One complaint I’ve heard about the original AK-47 round is that it could pass right through a target without a lot of damage, but from what I’ve “heard” about the damage caused to the heart from compression of the bloodstream, I would not volunteer for a test of a .50 caliber bullet.

The reason that the .50BMG is a viable sniper round up to a mile out is in part due the types of rifles that are designed to use it as a precision round. The Barrett company makes a variety of rifles of this type.

The trajectory must be stable for a clean hit. What one can expect is a rather large exit wound.

The use of .50BMG in a machine gun is different: the issue there is volume of fire, not accuracy.

Maybe they can’t show a really ghastly hole in the movies because it would alienate the audience.

Maybe they could show it if they wanted to, but the problems with Makeup are too expensive to surmount.

Or maybe the actor objects…

That I can understand but I’d expect after being hit they should be very dead without enough time to say anything right?

I think you may be confusing the 7.62x39 fired by the AK47 with the 5.56x45 fired by the M16. There has been assorted grumbling about the M16 round for as long as it’s ben in service. As regards the AK47, the only complaints tend to be from people who have had one fired at them - it’s notorious for making big nasty holes.

In terms of the OP, I have no difficulty believing it. The original hand-cranked gatling gun was sometimes used to cut down trees during sales pitches, and weapons like the MG42 could exceed 1000 RPM - a short burt from one of those would do the trick, no problem. As regards heavier-caliber weapons and .50 sniper rifles, the movies are apparently not an accurate representation.

from a word doc linked at a globalsecurity.org page
The .50 BMG is a monster of a round, but three or four rounds of 7.62 or half-a dozen 5.56 probably carry the same amount of energy, making half-cutting ability reachable by most crew-served weapons nowadays…