bayonet improvement idea - Page 14




 
--
 
April 20th, 2008  
senojekips
 
 
Getting back on track, shotguns are not banned per se, however, if used against personnel, they do contravene the word and intent of the International Humanitarian Law (Geneva Convention).

It may seem unrealistic but "them's the breaks".
April 20th, 2008  
Del Boy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84RFK
And for those of you who think the knife is obsolete, remember the Gurkha's!

Story goes that during the Falkland war a company of Argentine soldiers took off and ran for their life when their field chaplain told them that they were facing the Gurkhas, and that they used to cut the heads of their enemy with their curved "Kukri" knifes...

Truth or not, personally I wouldn't stay around to face a Gurkha in close combat.
They had also heard that The Gurkhas would eat them.
April 20th, 2008  
FULLMETALJACKET
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
They had also heard that The Gurkhas would eat them.
joke, i would of been GONE!
--
April 20th, 2008  
Del Boy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FULLMETALJACKET
joke, i would of been GONE!

That's what happened!
April 20th, 2008  
FULLMETALJACKET
 
 
haha i ment to put NO Joke, no just didnt make it
April 21st, 2008  
justin1552
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Getting back on track, shotguns are not banned per se, however, if used against personnel, they do contravene the word and intent of the International Humanitarian Law (Geneva Convention).

It may seem unrealistic but "them's the breaks".
Ok, but what about flamethrowers and incindeiary weapons?
April 21st, 2008  
FULLMETALJACKET
 
 
i think all weapons should be allowed during war time, it's kind of a joke to say you cant use this in war.
April 21st, 2008  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Shotguns are not "specifically" banned, however they do contravene the convention when used against personnel, in that: The Hague Convention of 1899 (and subsequently the International Humanitarian Law (drawn up at the Geneva Convention) in 1949 ratified by the USA on 2 Aug. 1955 ) forbade the use of expanding, deformable bullets in wartime, this specifically states that small arms ammunition will be of a metal jacketed type so as not to cause unnecessary suffering.

United States along with many other countries became signatories on 12 Aug 1949 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?...rm&id=375&ps=P and subsequently introduced a "Declaration of Reservation" in 1957 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/D6B...0?OpenDocumentto allow such things as the death penalty.

Nowhere has the USA reserved the right too use shotguns as a weapon of war.
Issue buck shot is copper jacketed. Which makes it a multi-projectile round. Copper Jacketed 00 buck is like shooting an individual 6 times with a .32 caliber FMJ round. Doesn't deform or expand. Now was 00 lead buck being used. It would violate.
April 21st, 2008  
senojekips
 
 
Yes, O3USMC in that case their use against personnel would be allowable the way I read it.

Other than that, the whole point is moot anyway, there are many worse ways of dying in time of war than being hit with a load of 00. Just as a point of interest, in Australia 00 shells have 9 x .32" pellets in a 1 1/4 oz load, your 00 shot must be larger in diameter?
April 22nd, 2008  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Yes, O3USMC in that case their use against personnel would be allowable the way I read it.

Other than that, the whole point is moot anyway, there are many worse ways of dying in time of war than being hit with a load of 00. Just as a point of interest, in Australia 00 shells have 9 x .32" pellets in a 1 1/4 oz load, your 00 shot must be larger in diameter?
No we have 9 shot too. That was actually me thick fingering the key board.