The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Military & Military Surplus We know that 5.56mm ball ammo does not usually drop bad guys first shot,...Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| We know that 5.56mm ball ammo does not usually drop bad guys first shot,... | Login/Join |
one of us |
Military ammo is not made to kill, but it is made to injure, because injured one need much more resources than killed one. Simpy strategy . . . (I am not sure yourammo, but our and russian was made to that)\ Jiri | |||
|
| one of us |
I've never seen any military gun or ammunition spec which calls upon the weapon not to kill, but only to wound. The design aim of a weapon is to take the enemy out of the fight. If it kills, fine, if it completely disables, that's fine too. The military aren't bothered. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum [ 06-23-2003, 16:48: Message edited by: Tony Williams ] | |||
|
| one of us |
I can't say for west, but east ammunition (like 5.45x39 round) was made primary for injuring, not for killing. It is really simple to understand, that injured one need much more resources from enemy that killed one, this is why so small caliber with thumblink or direction changing bullet. Not enought diameter or meplant to kill imediatly, but enought to make big injure (with death after hours or days) Jiri | |||
|
| one of us |
The purpose of the hollow tip in the 5.45x39 bullet is to make it bend, so the bullet will tumble more easily and inflict the maximum damage, thereby taking the victim out of the fight as thoroughly as possible. It takes a lot less bullet power to kill somebody than it does to disable them immediately. ISTR reading once that more deaths are caused by .22LR rimfires (usually accidentally) than any other cartridge. Yet no-one would suggest that the .22LR would be a suitable military rifle cartridge, because it is very unlikely to disable the victim immediately - they just die some time later. The only military weapons I know which are designed to disable and to avoid killing are the rubber and plastic bullet guns used for riot control. And even they have been known to kill... Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum | |||
|
| one of us |
I have often heard the argument that Jiri is making. But it seems to me I would rather have the enemy dead from being shot than merely badly wounded, not to mention really pissed off, and still able and likely highly motivated to return fire at the first opportunity. It is certainly hard to be a potential threat when you are no longer breathing! | |||
|
| one of us |
The wound, not kill is an SLA Marshallism, and is reiterated in several studies post-WWII. Tony, surely you've seen some of the data on this? From WWII to present, it is treated as dogma in the service, though the line doggies don't like it much at all. | |||
|
| one of us |
Marshall and others may well have observed in passing that a wounded enemy takes a couple of friends out of the immediate battle as well, which is all to the good, but that is very different from saying that armies specifically design weapons to wound but not kill. As I said before, this contention defies logic because to kill someone requires a LESS powerful cartridge than is needed to immediately disable someone, which is what the military want to achieve. If someone can show me an official military spec for a gun or ammunition which calls on it to wound but not kill, then I'll admit I'm wrong. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum | |||
|
one of us |
Anyone remember anti personel mines?? They where desined to wound but not kill. Some spring up just high enuff to cut your leg of. Most mines where designed to wound. A screaming solider with a cut of leg quicly halt any advanse of the enemy. It's not the millitarys of the world that wanded to stop using them. If you are hit by a 5.56mm bullet and wounded, very few inded keep on fighting. Wounded men requier medical atentinon. They scream and demoralse the enemy more than dead men can. It can be done with cheap fmj bullets without breaking any rules of war. Johan | |||
|
| <eldeguello> |
But this forum is about guns, not mines!! [ 07-13-2003, 20:02: Message edited by: eldeguello ] | ||
|
| one of us |
It is a very good example of a weapon meant to wound, but not kill. Millitary weapons are much more than guns. Accurate fire from a rifle doesn't take a big part of the casualties in moder warfare. Most modern rifle bullets used in millitary small arms are fmj, meant to go trough with minimal disturbans on the bullet, no tumbling. I belive this because they are meant to both wound and kill, and that in most cases a wounded man will be better than a dead one. Also a bullet that goes straight trough have the potensial to wound or kill more than one person. It's not just that softpoints are illigal but that in war a wounded enemy is better than a dead one. This is not hunting, it's war. Johan | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Military bullets are FMJ so they will meet the requirements of the Hague Convention. It has nothing to do with their wounding or killing capability. | |||
|
| one of us |
ALL pointed FMJ bullets tumble, because their CG is way aft of the centre. How fast they tumble depends on a number of factors, but tumble they do. That is why hunting bullets designed for deep penetration, such as in elephant guns, have parallel sides and blunt round noses. That's the best shape for keeping straight on. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum | |||
|
| one of us |
Exuse my poor english. When they went from 7,62 to 5,56 there suddenly became a problem because the bullets tubled when the hit flesh. I have no problem swallowing that all bullet tuble but to witch degry and how often. I know Sweden adopted a bullet in 5,56 less likely to tumble than the present US and nato version. I belive that had problems with the geneve convention. A bullet that always tumble and tumble extremly are not legal as I understand. And I would think that penetration suffers and that's important. My father was a leutenant in the Norwegian army, and from him I here that the woinding one, takes out three is doktrine used by our army, and our army is quite close to the other western armies. I see it this way that standard millitary ammo is not made for instant kill and that the wounding is a bonus and not a drawback inforced just because of the genve convention. Johan | |||
|
| one of us |
As a matter of interest, the British .303 inch Mk VII ball (used in both World Wars) had the front of the jacket filled with aluminium rather than lead. The reason? To move the CG further aft so that it would tumble more quickly and inflict heavier and more lethal wounds. There is nothing in the Geneva Convention that bans tumbling bullets. There couldn't be, because they ALL tumble. Don't always believe what army instructors say either. I am told that US troops have for decades been told that it is illegal to fire .50 MG at people (you are supposed to be aiming at equipment...). There is no legal basis for this story at all. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum | |||
|
| <eldeguello> |
quote:Absolutely true!! Great Britain got into a lot of hot water during the boer War for allegedly using flatnose softpoint "Dum-Dum" bullets to shoot white folks. These bullets, developed at DumDum Arsenal in India, were intended to increase the STOPPING POWER of the .303 when used against "fuzzy-wuzzies" and other wild tribesmen that the issue jacketed bullets would eventually kill, but not before they had stuck an Assegai in your belly! So to overcome the charges that they were using banned "expanding bullets", the Brits designed a "legal" FMJ that was almost as deadly as the softnose variety-the Mark VII with the clay or aluminum filler in the nose of the jacket. The original M16/round was also pretty effective because it had a relatively slow (1/12") twist, and the 55-grain FMJBT bullets did tumble more often than not. But once the longer bullets were adopted and the twist quickened commensurately, this effect was lost to a great extent. Today, the "little black gun that makes the big hole" (per Victor Charlie) no longer makes the big hole. It makes .224" holes in most everything it hits! The idea that if you wound an enemy, you are tying up two or three others who have to take care of him, is valid to some extent. But only if you are fighting a relatively "civilized" opponent, who has the wherewithal and motivation to try to treat the wounded. This doesn't apply when fighting someone who thinks dying for whatever cause they may espouse is the quickest way to paradise, or those who have no medical support capabilities!! [ 07-14-2003, 23:01: Message edited by: eldeguello ] | ||
|
| one of us |
Well first, it was the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 that established the "Laws of War". NOT the Geneva Convention. This (Hague) convention is the one that laid out the rules, which ban the use of bullets that expand or flatten. If you do a little research, you will find a ton of information confirming this. Tony is right . ANY bullet, whose length is greater than its' diameter, WILL tumble. That is a simple matter of physics. As the rate of twist slows, the bullet becomes unstable and the tumbling will begin. And once again, I recommend www.ammo-oracle.com over at AR-15.com if you really want to learn about the characteristics of the 5.56 round, and its wound ballistics. Lots of good info there. [ 07-15-2003, 07:23: Message edited by: LZ ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Hello, The Washington D.C. sniper case is a good example of what the 5.56mm will do. I don't know if they used surplus military or commercial hunting ammo. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Tony, Well not in the British Army he wouldn't, at least in conventional war. Soldiers shot or wounded in an attack are left where they fall otherwise the attack might fail through lack of numbers. Wounded are treated after the position is taken (reorg) or if a big attack by reserve troops/medics. That's not to say that care doesn't occur in lulls etc but the platoon sergeant is going to give Tommy Atkins a big kick up the backside if he catches him tending to his mate and not going forward. Actualy the use of resources occurs later with troops needed to carry the casualty back, the supply of the Regimental Aid Posts, the moving of casualties back on roads/routes where equipment needs to be moved forwards, tying up of helicopters etc etc. | |||
|
| <El Viejo> |
Re: FMJ I remember reading somewhere that a M193 55gr fmj would break into pieces at the cannelure, with the part in front tumbling, and the rear spliting in to pieces and moving radially, provided the impact velocity was at least 2800fps. This is about 180 yards from a 20" M16 barrel. | ||
|
| one of us |
quote:There is an enormous difference between fatally injuring an unsuspecting civilian, and instantly putting down a hyped-up attacker. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:You read it here: http://www.ammo-oracle.com/ Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum | |||
|
| Moderator |
1894 is correct as fars as us Brits are concerned. The scenario he outlines is also who of the arguments I have heard against woman being in frontline infantry squads...but that is another issue! *S* | |||
|
one of us |
All the vets I've dealt with during my military career, some of whom had experience with .30-06, 7.62mm Nato AND 5.56 Nato preferred the M14 7.62 Nato to shoot somebody with and the 5.56mm Nato M16 series to carry. HOWEVER, all would admit that if the bullet from any of the three was actually placed where it should be, all did the job. The 2 or 3 who had used the .30-06 preferred the M14 due to mag capacity. Some had carried either the M14 or Garand when available as a matter of preference and with the ready consent of their commanders. This was with the 55 gr. 5.56mm round not the round used currently. Interestingly, only two even admitted to liking the .30 carbine round and then only in the M2 (full auto capable) due to it's weight and full auto capability. However, both those guys were not WWII European theater vets but Korean War vets and admitted that their mentors were Pacific theater vets. I think there is a big difference in the way combatants acted in the 2 theaters. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Military & Military Surplus We know that 5.56mm ball ammo does not usually drop bad guys first shot,...
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |