50 cal vs personel question
In the 1990s the interpretation we got ( this was deduced from official NATO legal positions by our Norwegian GHQ) was that the type of rounds used were the critical point.
.50 BMG ( FMJ rounds) were accepted, soft nose,multi purpose etc were not.
Those were applicable to material targets
When someone pointed out that lacing a soft armoured vehicle with .50 MP would mean subjecting crew and passengers to a pretty raw deal, the legal dept. guys kinda froze for a few seconds and the repeated the initial interpretation of the rules.
The ammo rules in the Genevea conventions are ignored by and large today.
The velocity of the 5.56 itself or the 5.45 means that the round could inflict damage on par with many outlawed rounds,such as soft nose lead rounds in other cals.
At least most armies use FMJ as a result of the rules ,meaning that there has come something tangible good out of the legislation.
So imho ( h= humble as always) the caliber is not essential, the round configuration is. I guess you can also argue that the efect of the round is also a factor - say a liquid core fmj round in a standard caliber that spins and yaws so that the wounds are greater and more terrible would be ilegal , but a 75 cal rifle with a solid fmj round could be legal.
|