Sniper & Sharpshooter Forums banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok so i really dont know that much but what i do know is there is some limitations when sniping, or just war fare in general. If you could just leave a post on some thing that you cant do with out being in some trouble. Like i heard some stuff about bullet types beign limited like ballistic tips and stuff? but thats all i heard we could use that as a base to get this thing going.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Firing twice from a hide is a good start.
Choosing bullets that are too light limits energy, but creates flatter trajectories, although a lighter bullet is more susceptible to winds.
Choosing a heavier bullet gives you more energy, and thus, more range, but less velocity, which will give you a more curved trajectory.

But, in general, your subject matter is vague. I mean, by comparison, eating a pencil is a bad idea, but I don't know if you do that, so I might just mention it, even though it's useless. Point is; Too broad of a subject matter. Narrow it down, provide some working areas. "Tell me everything" just isn't a good place to start.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
im not sure what bullets are allowed by the geneva convention/hague accords
i think that expanding rounds are illegal this might include ballistic tips i think it includes soft points
and like CM2K said: dont fire too many rounds from the same hide
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
Cannot use bullets that are designed to expand (dum dum bullets). No soft points, no hollow points, no ballistic tips, etc. The Hollow tip on the Sierra matchkings were determined to not aid in expansion and have been cleared by the head US military judge as legal for combat, and have since been adopted in M118LR.

You cannot shoot unarmed medics
You cannot fake like you are surrendering, and then surprise the enemy with an ambush
You cannot kill POW's once captive
You cannot bomb medical facilities.
You "used" to not be able to shoot airborne troops when floating down on thier chutes... .but I think that one changed.

This are all "laws of land warfare" that you get taught in basic training. There are more...

MEL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
re

One of the more stupid ones; you can not shoot someone once you have bayoneted them to assist in removing the bayonet.
You can shoot them, then bayonet them, but you must remove the bayonet through physical effort alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
Yimmy said:
One of the more stupid ones; you can not shoot someone once you have bayoneted them to assist in removing the bayonet.
You can shoot them, then bayonet them, but you must remove the bayonet through physical effort alone.
now thats a stupid law lol

i was always wondering why BTHPs were allowed ie M118 LR
since they do not expand do they fragment or do anything to increace lethality?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
The open tip bullets provide a flatter trajectory. Kinda like pushing a stick forward. You can do it pretty well yourself, but if you have someone guiding it, it'll hit it's target easier. Problem is, it'll move slower and be lighter.

At least i'm pretty sure that's what's going on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
There is NO weapon you cannot fire at soldiers. It's ammo that's the concern here. If you pick out a piece of ammo or weapon explicitly designed to cause more damage than is neccesary, it's considered illegal. You can pick off infantry with the 16 inchers on an Ohio class, but you cannot fire a .22 HPBT round at someone. It would be stupid if the rules of war said that you cannot fire at someone. Tankers would be perpetually screwed over.

Non soldiers wih guns pretty well qualify as soldiers, seeing as they have taken up arms against you. Or at least I assume that is what would happen. And soldiers without guns are pretty well POWs, so no worries there.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
CM2k is correct. There is no limit on what guns you can and cannot fire at soldiers. (The .50 BMG is a common myth).

If someone picks up a gun and engages in combat with you, they are fair game. The only rule is the unarmed medic one. If he is clearly identified as a medic (the big red + sign on the arm band) and he/she is unarmed, you cannot shoot them. If they pick up a weapon, they are fair game. Every combat medic I have seen attached to out infantry units ALWAYS wore their M9's on their side. They were not about to trust the enemy to not shoot them, and they were not about to be caught with a needle and saline solution at a gun fight.

MEL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
well i dont think that the enemy machine gunner is gonna try extra hard to miss the combat medics but hit the combat troops... he is going to try to hit any american soldier that moves

but as far as bullet shape: id rather be killed instantly than bleed to death and id rather use something that killed instantly rather than have a wounded enemy shoot me

but would partitions, ballistic tips or any other rounds make good assault rifle rounds (.223s)? id guess that ballistic tips wouldnt fare well against body armor but partitions might do ok... just full metal jackets are affordable given the ammount of soldiers you got and the ammount they will need for training and combat

CM2K:
btw Ohio class is a nuclear ballistic missile submarine, i think your referring to Iowa class battleship.. the big mother w/ 9 16" guns make 200 ft swimming pools :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Boy, with some of these rules that are going around a lot of us that fought in S.E. Asia are in trouble for war crimes! I'm pretty sure I remember seeing the M2 (.50 cal. BMG for those of you in Rio Linda) with an 8x Unertl scope mounted on it used against enemy soldiers. Oops! And some of the people I shot at didn't wear uniforms!! Oops again! In retrospect, maybe they were just carrying those weapons for someone else when they accidently discharged magazine after magazine in our direction. Maybe I should write a letter of apology.

On the "no shooting at parachuting troops until they hit the ground", does a McGuire Rig count? If it does, and this rule is for real, then SOMEONE owes ME an apology, not to mention reimbursing Uncle Sam for patching a hole in my calf!! Wait, a parachute goes down and a McGuire rig goes up. Damn! Shot at on a technicality!

I shot more than a few rounds from an M79 at enemy soldiers (again, not all were wearing uniforms). Now WE called these rounds grenades, but they sure LOOKED like bullets. And MAN, did they expand!! Should I contact my lawyer?

I seem to recall BOTH sides setting off a few explosives around medical facilities. Of course, a lot of their hospitals were underground, so we could retain plausible deniability and just say that we didn't know it was there. Those 500-pounders were REALLY meant to take out the underground kitchen and we were just off by a few feet! Can't say why their mortar rounds went off in our facilities. Must have been an accident too.

I won't even get into how American POWs have been treated in conflicts we have taken part in over the past 50 years. I guess being skinned alive and then having your genitals stuffed in your mouth, or being burned, dismembered and hung from a bridge doesn't constitute mistreatment, but being photographed naked does.

Oops, got off the subject didn't I. What I was really trying to establish is, the rules of engagement are set by the aggressor. Yes, there are boundaries set by the Geneva Convention, but the U.S. and NATO seem to be the only ones that adhere to these rules. I heard it said that if we could take Diplomacy out of war, then it would be a much less attractive option (I'm paraphrasing). Just once I'd like to see our troops go into battle authorized to fight to win! War is hell! War is a fight for survival for at least one of the combatant entities! When fighting for survival all rules go out the window except survival of the fittest!

There! I've vented. Thanks.

By the way, the hollow-point design on match bullets prevents the tip of the bullet from being deformed through recoil or other means. This facilitates a more constant ballistic coefficient which results in better accuracy.

K2
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
K2,

Yep, I hear what you are saying. The rules are really rediculus, but they offer a general guideline of humane war fighting :?: I would agree, we really are just about the only ones who try to follow the guidelines. I guess that means the politicians can sleep at night, while the soldiers die trying to follow guidelines and rules of engagement. But like you said, we get off the subject a bit....

To further clarify, the Hague Convention is the one that prevented dum-dum bullets, its stated as:

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."
The matchking was not designed to easily expand or flatten and has been ruled "okay". But, the funny thing is that the USA never signed that portion of the Hague. But the USA did sign an annex that reads:

"...it is especially forbidden -

To employ arms, projectiles, or material {sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"
Anyway, just some interesting tid-bits

MEL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
K2 said:
Yes, there are boundaries set by the Geneva Convention, but the U.S. and NATO seem to be the only ones that adhere to these rules.
K2
Sorry, but I feel I should point out that the US does not have a reputation for keeping to international law.

The US government wouldn't even officialy call the Vietnam war a war, on the assumption that in such circumstances the rules of war do not apply, hence why you were using shotguns and flamethrowers which would otherwise be illegal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
Yimmy said:
Sorry, but I feel I should point out that the US does not have a reputation for keeping to international law.

The US government wouldn't even officialy call the Vietnam war a war, on the assumption that in such circumstances the rules of war do not apply, hence why you were using shotguns and flamethrowers which would otherwise be illegal.
In Vietnam they certainly were not following any of those rules. As with most major combat situations. We go in and try to stick to all the R.O.E.'s but end up changing tactics based upon our enemys. Just like WWII, Nazi snipers use to purposly target medic helmets.....I hate to say it.....but sometimes you have to play dirty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Yimmy:

Shotguns and flamethrowers were used in WWII also, and I believe that one WAS a war. I honestly don't recall whether the Geneva Convention or Hague Accords outlawed the use of shotguns, flamethrowers, etc. or not and I'm really not motivated to look it up. Must be a sign of age! As to Vietnam not being a war, I'm SO relieved! Being a pacifist at heart :wink: I can now go to bed and sleep at night knowing that my country NEVER officially took up arms against the peaceful people of North Vietnam. I can also let go of this guilt I have been carrying about being a U.S. soldier "invading" the "neutrality" of the lovely countries of Cambodia and Laos. Now I can say "I wasn't an invading soldier, I was just a tourist with attitude!" Does this mean that I need to avoid going to the local VFW post?

As for our "reputation" for not following international law, you've been paying WAY too much attention to the Katie Courics, Dan Rathers and Koffie Annans of the world! We are also viewed as "The Great Satan" by numerous nations around the world despite the fact that the U.S. spends more on humantiarian aid internationally than the rest of the world combined! The more the rest of the world screams foul, the harder our politicians try to pacify them. No matter how straight we play, no matter how much we give, no matter how much we do, it will never be enough to get the global pat on the back that our politicians desire. Our willingness and desire to "play by the rules" and engender global goodwill is IMHO our nation's Achille's Heel in today's world. I'm not suggesting that we should steamroll over the international community, I AM saying that we need to remind the world that we are a sovereign nation and will be bound to international rules only as far as it serves our best interests.

Sorry! I'm venting again. Guess that Yimmy's not the only one that's been seeing too much of Katie, Dan and Koffie lately. I'll go shoot at coyotes or something until I cool off again. Hear that PETA! Come and get me!

K2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Yep! The UN is the "un" in un-American. Hey! That's pretty good! I think I'll use that again!! Sorry Mel, got off subject again. Maybe you should start a "Let Off Steam" section in this forum. I know that I"ll use it. Often!

K2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
As for our "reputation" for not following international law, you've been paying WAY too much attention to the Katie Courics, Dan Rathers and Koffie Annans of the world! We are also viewed as "The Great Satan" by numerous nations around the world despite the fact that the U.S. spends more on humantiarian aid internationally than the rest of the world combined! The more the rest of the world screams foul, the harder our politicians try to pacify them. No matter how straight we play, no matter how much we give, no matter how much we do, it will never be enough to get the global pat on the back that our politicians desire. Our willingness and desire to "play by the rules" and engender global goodwill is IMHO our nation's Achille's Heel in today's world. I'm not suggesting that we should steamroll over the international community, I AM saying that we need to remind the world that we are a sovereign nation and will be bound to international rules only as far as it serves our best interests.
And you people WONDER why no one likes you. You are TRYING to justify breaking rules here. "But I hit her because I LOVE her". And on the Sovereign nation bit; Iraq was a sovereign nation. You want the UN to remember that they are a sovereign nation? (Even though they wouldn't be able to do jack anyways)

Oh, i'm not particularily for or against that war, it's just that Bush's continual press on the "THEY HAVE WMDS" front was nothing but lies, and continues to be supported by the administration, despite the 1 (There was only 1 report on the WMDs in Iraq, and it basically said "Iraq is trying to aqquire WMDs, and may or may not have a nuclear program going". Kinda weak for the 1000 American lives it costed) report on the matter. If Bush had said "We are going to Iraq to remove Saddam from power, and give freedom to the Irai people", I would have been fucking applauding that moron.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top