This is what I said to begin with. “Continued and concentrated fire” Get it? Also normally 4 out 4 for buildings on a downtown corner are constructed of natural stone or reinforced concrete, which means cement with rebar not concrete blocks.

From the very page that you linked, asshole: “The .50 caliber round can penetrate all of the commonly found urban barriers except a sand-filled 55-gallon drum.” You’re not very good at this. As for my “POS”: it’s a genuine Tula with the milled receiver. I could shoot you a photograph of the arrow. And I punch 7.62x39mm rounds right through concrete blocks in my back yard all day long. They go straight through the Franklin 65hp. aircraft engine block out there. Of course, you can whinge about concrete blocks not equaling your two-foot blockhouse, and that’s about what I would expect from you.

Also, congratulations on knowing a ninja spy terrorist who can MacGyver his way through a tank.

Look, asshole: my SKS can do that. Shut the fuck up.

“TGGP”: after I posted that at my place, an e-mailer rang in with convincing credentials (U.S. Army) cagily but very clearly alluding to techniques for destroying an M113 and all its content with common household chemicals.

Do you understand? There are people who are able, not afraid, and who are watching developments like this.

None of this is going anywhere good.

Is it overkill? Yes, and it’s not remotely close. Will it kill you through a conrete wall? No.

I was in the Army in the late 90′s and the M2 .50 cal was a standard crew-served weapon. Also, the Geneva Conventions did NOT deal with weapons. There are some older Conventions that addressed BC weapons, but I’m not aware of any international treaties that deal specifically with rifle calibers. I too am extremely dubious of that claim. In fact the whole idea of preferring to be shot by a SAW or M16 than an M2 is pretty silly.

And Sheriff Leon Lott (not to be confused with Leon Lett, DT) is a complete douchebag and a damn unoriginal namer of his douchebaggy toys.

I found this claim a bit hard to believe. A Google search of “geneva convention .50 caliber” results in lots of discussion of the question, with some people saying it is a violation of the Geneva Convention and others saying it is not. For the most part, none of the sites I found on either side looked very reliable and no one provided a link to anything reliable, but the anonymous posters arguing it is not a violation at least sounded more persuasive.

Nah… Drug dealers don’t wear uniforms*, therefore they’re “enemy combatants”. Geneva doesn’t apply.

*Unless you count gang colors.

“What’s the over/under on how many houses a .50 will rip through before it stops?”

It shoots through schools.

That asshole still owes me $50 for the time in that Super Bowl when he was running in for a sure TD, he decided to celebrate like a douche and Don Beebe stripped him of the ball. I was in the money for the pool if he scores. Asshole.

That’s about the only purpose for a .50 caliber belt-fed, vehicle-mounted machine gun.

These rounds will penetrate an M113 no problem because that’s what they are designed to do. Bounce off of M1′s though.

Or the .50 cal can be deployed against large quantities of things that scream and bleed…namely humans. Granted, pretty much nuttin’ will live through it.

So, if these rounds can go through another APC with little to no problems, how well will they go through a house, into another house and into another house? Kinda like a white hot poker through melted butter? Thought so.

But remember, if you can by chance get your hands on an anti-tank RPG, aim for the top of the APC, that’s the weakest part of the armor. Climb high, aim, fire, duck and run.

Mebbe that one guy said it right when he said, “Aim for their heads”.