No disrespect intended Skeet. You obviously know what you're talking about when it comes to shooting but this myth has been so repeated that even people in the military beleive it. I specifically asked this question at the USMC Carlos Hathcock Range at Camp Lejeune and was told it's not true.Skeet said:
The Geneva Conventions prohibit weapons that cause "unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury." US Naval Warfare Publication 1-14M 9.1.1 specifically states that “Use of .50 caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation of this proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury.” The US Army Field Manual 27-10 uses language from the Geneva Conventions and in Chapter 2, Section III covers "Forbidden Means of Waging Warfare." It says "It is especially forbidden... to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." I can't see anyone saying a .50BMG round causes unnecessary suffering as most everybody hit by one is dead.
I concede maybe UK lawyers interpret the Conventions differently but its not just the US that interprets it this way. Chapter 16 Section 4c of the Dutch army manual VS 2-1351 (field manual for officers and NCOs), .50 caliber weaponry is lawful for use against “troops on foot, both in cover and in the open”.
At the end of the day its all semantics because soldiers will still shoot troops w/ a .50 and just say I was aiming at the equipment they were wearing but the fact is its not illegal under international law.
And while we're at it, FM 27-10 also says: "The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law. They should not, however, be employed in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering to individuals."
) so this bullet surely would, blow someone up?
