Too Powerful Catridges?

At what point would you say that a firearm cartridge would bcome too powerful for foot soldiers? I believe that it is with anything over .50cal. If a .50cal can't stop it, you don't need a bigger gun, you need well broken in track shoes. Your thoughts?

I say exoskelleton and recoil removers of somekind.

I believe .50 BMG is classified as an anti-material weapon, so, yes, it is too powerful for the standard infantryman. I believe it is also illegal to use against human targets, under the Geneva Convention atleast.

It isn't any more humane to snipe someone with a .30 than with a .50 those rules are just silly.
What do those .xx calibre numbers really correspond to? The muzzle energy? Bullet pressure upon impact from a certain distance away?

The diameter of the inside of a round cylinder, such as a tube.
The diameter of the bore of a firearm, usually shown in hundredths or thousandths of an inch and expressed in writing or print in terms of a decimal fraction: .45 caliber.
The diameter of a large projectile, such as an artillery shell, measured in millimeters or in inches.

The Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Gun Tracing System transmits 6 characters for Gun Caliber. Currently, NCIC and NYSPIN support 4 characters. Therefore, Gun Calibers greater than 4 characters will be truncated when transmitting in those systems.

Ballistic Conundrum

I advise against getting too hung up on diameters. A 4mm flechette round may be suited for some roles, while a 20mm "thumper" slug may be suited for others.

As for .50 cal being outlawed against human targets by Geneva, never heard of that. Do you have chapter and verse?

A .50 cal slug in a battlefield rife with shrapnel, white phosphorous, IEDs, depleted uranium, cluster munitions, bioagents, chemical agents, nuclear and possible nanotech agents is probably not at the top of a future soldier's list of worries.

In simple terms, the .xx just refers to the width of the cartridge.

the .50 anti material catridge is actually about 10 centimetres long though, while desert eagle .50 (i think action express) isn't anywhere near that big.

As you can see despite haveing the same width they are completely different cartridges. The bigger the cartridge, the bigger the actual projectile and the more propellant. The more propellant the higher the muzzel velocity, so more damage. The bigger the projectile, the more damage,( like how driving a car through a wall into a building may do some damage, but a huge 18 wheeler will do alot more).

I think possibly the best current infantry rifle cartridge is 7.62x39 soviet ( as used in ak47), as its a big round with plenty of stopping power (bigger than 556 NATO, yet without the huge recoil and tendance to keep going for mile and miles and miles like 7.62 NATO.

7.62x39 the best combat round? Mate, you are way off! The round has little inherent accuracy, due to it's severe tapered case being less than fully supported during firing. Terminal ballistics fall way off after 100m, and are rather piddly after 300m. Not to mention the firing platform (AK series) foresakes accuracy over reliability. Even out of bolt action weapons, the round is very difficult to handload to reasonable accuracy.

IMHO, the 7.62 NATO is the best all around combat round in terms of terminal performance and the ability to punch through materials. However a full combat load can be very heavy, especially with todays body armor and other gear.

But....the 5.56mm in 55grain mode, is superior to other current combat rounds in use. Accurate, plenty hard hitting, useful out to 500m, and easy to carry enough magazines and extra rounds in pouches.


As for the .50BMG being illegal against personnel.......phooey. There has never been such a provision in any agreement from the Prague, the Hague, or Geneva. Prague discussed the legalities of waging and declaring war. The Hague determined, essentially, where and why war may be conducted (loosely translated). Geneva established rules of PRISONER and WOUNDED soldier conduct. Many of these agreements were established in the 1800's, when some .58 and .64 calibres were still in use.

I think something around 6.25mm would make the ideal infantry round. It's terminal ballistic performance would be superior to the 5.56mm round while the recoil would still be easily manageable for the troops (both men and women) and the overall cartridge dimensions could be kept small so that soldiers could easily carry plenty of them. The actual projectiles would be around 40% heavier and not nearly so easily deflected as the 5.56mm round. Penetration into/through light vehicles would also be better if the muzzle velocity was kept high.

Originally posted by Majic
As for .50 cal being outlawed against human targets by Geneva, never heard of that. Do you have chapter and verse?

I can't remember the verse or anything but I do remember my history teacher (a former MP) mentioning that. Of course the Geneva Convention outlawed so many things lot's of nations don't abide by it.

Anyhow my opinion on when the round is too big is when it's overkill against infantry. For assualt rifles I'd guess anything larger that 7.62 is probably unnessesary.

when you think about it, it really doesn't make much sense that the Geneva Convention would say it was illeagal using 12.7mm rounds in an infantry weapon. During battle, it really doesnt matter how big a round is because your just as likely to be hit by a 5.56mm as you are being hit by anything larger.

I think I'm right when I say that the .50 Cal rounds the Barret whacks out is mainly used against soft skinned vehicles or used against lightly armoured personnel carriers and even choppers. It's just right for the job.

Used against personnel, I can't see the point! Why waste such valuable ammo taking some git's head off with .50 (12.7 milly) when you can achieve the bursting melon effect with a 5.56 or 7.62 round?

Larger calibres such as 13.5 or 14.6 milly, are usually crew served weapons most associated with former Warsaw Pact apc's or crew mounted HAAMG's.

As for the Geneva Convention, all rounds are legal except dum-dum, explosive bullets or any round that has been 'doctored' in any way.

Bringing In The Big Guns

Originally posted by fritz
Used against personnel, I can't see the point! Why waste such valuable ammo taking some git's head off with .50 (12.7 milly) when you can achieve the bursting melon effect with a 5.56 or 7.62 round?

The allure stems from the amount of energy the .50 BMG brings to the party. There is no body armor currently made (that I am aware of, anyway) which can defeat a strike from a .50 BMG.

Also, with the .50 BMG a sharpshooter can, with the aid of thermal imaging optics, take out targets behind such things as cinderblock walls at night.

One strategy which has proven effective is having forward-deployed scouts light up a spot on a wall with an infrared laser and have a sharpshooter with an M82A1 drop a round on the dot -- and through the wall, into whatever the forward observer wanted to take out of action.

The large size of the .50 BMG projectile allows it to be loaded with interesting specialty packages, as in the case of the M8 Armor-Piercing Incendiary (API) cartridge, which works wonders against fuel tanks in depots or in light armored vehicles. Such specialty rounds are available for smaller calibers as well, but none carry the payload the .50 does.

My understanding is that many Iraqi BMPs fell victim to this round during Desert Storm. Considering the cost of one of these rounds versus say, a TOW missile, Hellfire missile or a run from a 30mm Avenger gun, the .50 BMG is a major win, and a very low-risk engagement option.

On the negative side, even the lightest .50 BMG rifles are heavy as hell, though, and thus have some limitations in the field. However, pintle-mounting rifles such as the M82A1 Barrett on vehicles makes up for this problem quite well, and can turn a Hummer scouting into mobile merchants of distant death.

It is eminently apparent to me why commanders would want to have .50 BMG rifles as an option in a wide range of combat environments.