RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 6:57:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

There is a prevalent rumor that some military ammunition is designed to wound but not necessarily kill the enemy. The rational is that wounded soldiers take considerably more resources to look after than dead ones. This theory is not only impractical and incorrect, it defies the requirements of nation-based warfare.


Interesting. That's a rumour I've often heard. I always did wonder, though, about the practicalities of it.

If soldiers used the same rounds that hunters do and that most ccw people do they would be far more lethal. If you wound a man and it takes five people off the battlefield, if you kill a man you get rid of one, the math is pretty easy.



BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 7:08:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

There is a prevalent rumor that some military ammunition is designed to wound but not necessarily kill the enemy. The rational is that wounded soldiers take considerably more resources to look after than dead ones. This theory is not only impractical and incorrect, it defies the requirements of nation-based warfare.


Interesting. That's a rumour I've often heard. I always did wonder, though, about the practicalities of it.

If they didn't find wounded soldiers more advantageous why would the military have less lethal rounds than civilians using the same caliber?



PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 7:15:20 PM)

quote:

If soldiers used the same rounds that hunters do and that most ccw people do they would be far more lethal. If you wound a man and it takes five people off the battlefield, if you kill a man you get rid of one, the math is pretty easy.


I've heard the principle of weapons designed to wound, not kill, applied to certain sorts of landmine, but not firearms.



BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 7:19:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

If soldiers used the same rounds that hunters do and that most ccw people do they would be far more lethal. If you wound a man and it takes five people off the battlefield, if you kill a man you get rid of one, the math is pretty easy.


I've heard the principle of weapons designed to wound, not kill, applied to certain sorts of landmine, but not firearms.

Strange because landmines are far more lethal. Are you talking about those that spray pellets in all directions to injure as many as possible rather than killing one person. Doesn't it stand to reason if they make mines to do that they with firearms. This principal with firearms has been known since before I was born.



slvemike4u -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 7:27:00 PM)

I get a warm fuzzy feeling when all of you gun nuts get together to discuss your fetishes ?
Tell me something,do the guys amongst you pop a little woody ?



PeonForHer -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 7:30:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Strange because landmines are far more lethal. Are you talking about those that spray pellets in all directions to injure as many as possible rather than killing one person.


Yes - those things. I thought they were called Claymores, but I'm not sure now. Anyway, they'd spring in the air a few feet then spray pellets or other things.



altoonamaster -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 7:41:00 PM)

they are called bouncing bettys



cloudboy -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 7:41:33 PM)


quote:

It means that, on impact with tissue, the 5.56 round tends to tumble and increase damage/wound cavity size. It's a "feature" of all Spitzer bullets but the high velocity and light weight of the 5.56 round exacerbates this effect. If you want to know more, perhaps our resident ballistics expert will share his opinion on the matter.


Fuck me. Is there any non-military rationale for the public distribution of such ammunition? Even the military use of such a thing seems depraved and inhuman.



Kirata -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 7:55:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

military ammunition is designed to wound, not kill.

The Hague Convention of 1899 states that military weapons are not allowed to inflict undue suffering. Therefore, while civilian ammunition can maim or wound a target (this is often the case in hunting ammunition), military ammo must be designed by international law to kill instead of wound.

Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_8401641_differences-between-civilian-military-ammunition.html

Nowhere in the Hague Convention of 1899 does it say that military weapons are not allowed to inflict undue suffering. The two most relevant prohibitions on means of injuring the enemy (note the word injuring) are excerpted below from Article 23:

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;
Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp

Article 23's prohibitions neither encourage killing, nor limit suffering.

K.



Aylee -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 8:09:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

military ammunition is designed to wound, not kill.


[/font][/size]

Really! Interesting.

I'd be genuinely interested in support/rationale for that. Thank you.

Googling offers this (no idea as to its accuracy): "Geneva Conventions go into some detail about the types of anti-personnel weapons and munitions that can be used. Specifically, they have to be designed to kill or wound with minimum maiming etc. For example a fragmentation bullet that 'corkscrews' through the body or 'tumbles' is illegal."

So killing would be fine per se, yes? Anyway, looking forward to hearing more. Discussion boards are calling this statement a myth, but I'm sure you have better sources.

There is this, though unverified by CNN: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-911286


That is what we were told in basic training. The reason being is that if you wound someone you take 2-3 people out because they want to remove their wounded.



BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 8:10:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Strange because landmines are far more lethal. Are you talking about those that spray pellets in all directions to injure as many as possible rather than killing one person.


Yes - those things. I thought they were called Claymores, but I'm not sure now. Anyway, they'd spring in the air a few feet then spray pellets or other things.

Bouncing bettys are what the allies called the German ones. Virtually everyone made some version of them. Actually the claymore is a directional remote controlled mine which sprays shot over an arc in front of it. Being remote controlled it greatly reduces the chance of harming innocents as opposed to the bouncing Betty type which works on a trip wire and gets whoever comes along.



BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 8:11:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I get a warm fuzzy feeling when all of you gun nuts get together to discuss your fetishes ?
Tell me something,do the guys amongst you pop a little woody ?

Being knowledgeable about something doesn't make it a fetish.



BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 8:13:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

military ammunition is designed to wound, not kill.


[/font][/size]

Really! Interesting.

I'd be genuinely interested in support/rationale for that. Thank you.

Googling offers this (no idea as to its accuracy): "Geneva Conventions go into some detail about the types of anti-personnel weapons and munitions that can be used. Specifically, they have to be designed to kill or wound with minimum maiming etc. For example a fragmentation bullet that 'corkscrews' through the body or 'tumbles' is illegal."

So killing would be fine per se, yes? Anyway, looking forward to hearing more. Discussion boards are calling this statement a myth, but I'm sure you have better sources.

There is this, though unverified by CNN: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-911286


That is what we were told in basic training. The reason being is that if you wound someone you take 2-3 people out because they want to remove their wounded.

If for no other reason leaving their wounded in the area of the fighting can be demoralizing to their troops.



Aylee -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 8:14:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


quote:

It means that, on impact with tissue, the 5.56 round tends to tumble and increase damage/wound cavity size. It's a "feature" of all Spitzer bullets but the high velocity and light weight of the 5.56 round exacerbates this effect. If you want to know more, perhaps our resident ballistics expert will share his opinion on the matter.


Fuck me. Is there any non-military rationale for the public distribution of such ammunition? Even the military use of such a thing seems depraved and inhuman.


Target practice?

You could hunt rabbits I suppose.

Do you even know what kind of round is being talked about?



BamaD -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 8:22:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


quote:

It means that, on impact with tissue, the 5.56 round tends to tumble and increase damage/wound cavity size. It's a "feature" of all Spitzer bullets but the high velocity and light weight of the 5.56 round exacerbates this effect. If you want to know more, perhaps our resident ballistics expert will share his opinion on the matter.


Fuck me. Is there any non-military rationale for the public distribution of such ammunition? Even the military use of such a thing seems depraved and inhuman.


Target practice?

You could hunt rabbits I suppose.

Do you even know what kind of round is being talked about?

I think he is talking about the .223 which I consider to be a good varmint round.



Kirata -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 8:58:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

It means that, on impact with tissue, the 5.56 round tends to tumble and increase damage/wound cavity size. It's a "feature" of all Spitzer bullets but the high velocity and light weight of the 5.56 round exacerbates this effect. If you want to know more, perhaps our resident ballistics expert will share his opinion on the matter.

I can link you to a couple of relevant articles, but they're wildly divergent in the views they express.

The Last 'Big Lie' of Vietnam Kills U. S. Soldiers in Iraq
Myths About the NATO 5.56 Cartridge

K.



Aylee -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 9:35:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


quote:

It means that, on impact with tissue, the 5.56 round tends to tumble and increase damage/wound cavity size. It's a "feature" of all Spitzer bullets but the high velocity and light weight of the 5.56 round exacerbates this effect. If you want to know more, perhaps our resident ballistics expert will share his opinion on the matter.


Fuck me. Is there any non-military rationale for the public distribution of such ammunition? Even the military use of such a thing seems depraved and inhuman.


Target practice?

You could hunt rabbits I suppose.

Do you even know what kind of round is being talked about?

I think he is talking about the .223 which I consider to be a good varmint round.


Well the mentioned round is the 5.56 which I take to mean 5.56 x 45mm which is the new NATO round. (It is a little longer than the .223 so you can use the .223 in the 5.56 chamber with a bit of accuracy deterioration.)

Why he is wondering about a non-military use is what makes me think he has no idea what kind of round is being talked about. Granted, I would not suggest deer hunting with it, but it is really NOT a "scary" round.

But, yeah they are great target practice and beginner rounds, mostly because the firearms are due to lack of recoil. (Although I wants to see him try a .444 Marlin [:D] At my size I can get two most excellent shots off and then. . . bupkis.)



slvemike4u -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 9:46:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I get a warm fuzzy feeling when all of you gun nuts get together to discuss your fetishes ?
Tell me something,do the guys amongst you pop a little woody ?

Being knowledgeable about something doesn't make it a fetish.

In this case,it does.



Kirata -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 10:01:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

It is a little longer than the .223 so you can use the .223 in the 5.56 chamber with a bit of accuracy deterioration.

More on that.

K.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Pluses and minuses, whatcha think? (1/24/2015 10:59:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I get a warm fuzzy feeling when all of you gun nuts get together to discuss your fetishes ?
Tell me something,do the guys amongst you pop a little woody ?



Being knowledgeable about something doesn't make it a fetish.



Well, IF it is a fetish, even in this section, it is against the rules to ridicule it. So, that might work out well?



Michael



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
9.277344E-02