"The gun was designed to wound, not kill an enemy"

[Ole Coot]

I was given a bad rifle in '64, think I should sue? All the firearms I own now have the same defect. Wonder if anyone told Gunny Hathcock and the men he trained back when I was a youngster "Be careful and don't kill anyone". I never met the man, wish I had. Like most things I was told it went in one ear and out the other picking up speed. Simple, you are the enemy I kill you or if you get lucky you may get me, but not back then.

 

[goon]

Current military thinking is that it's better to wound an enemy soldier. Wounded he requires care, uses resources, and is out of the fight. Dead he is far less costly to the enemy.

I have had this discussion before and many get violent in their dissent but this is not my philosophy, it's the Army's.

I doubt that.
We were trained to shoot center mass. Lots of organs in that general region and poking holes in them tends to lead to blood loss that will kill the recipient.
No one ever trained me to just shoot him in the knee cap.

 

[Tim the student]

Goon, I doubt SaxonPig's assertion as well. We were trained to shoot center mass as well. Two rounds there, not just one.

Not only that, but I treated way more enemy than friendlies (and we had plenty of friendlies wounded as well). If that is what the Army wants, they are doing it wrong.

It must just be a conspiracy from way up high.

 

[Deus Machina]

I doubt anything is specifically designed to wound.

What guns are designed to do is stop an enemy.

This usually means reasonable power to kill him, but if he takes two to the chest and drops, as long as he's not shooting at you it's all good as far as the military is concerned.

 

[makarovnik]

Since the .30 carbine uses a box magazine, why wasn't the bullet profile a pointed or spitzer type? It would have better penetration then right?

 

[boatmanschneider]

Wether a weapon or ammunition was designed to be more likely to wound than kill does not have much bearing on how it is used.

As I recall when clearing a room/house, every man puts(that has a clear shot) two rounds in the enemy before they pass. Once passed a wounded enemy is a pow. We were trained not to leave wounded enemy in the room behind us. Very unsafe. To leave a man with him would break up the momentum of the attack and limit rooms cleared.

When assaulting an objective. The every man in the assault element puts two rounds in the enemy bodies as they pass(+general muzzle awareness, don' endanger fellow soldiers).

When the assault element has reached LOA the Support element assaults across the objective doing the same thing.

A status of the friendly unit is taken. Aid an Litter Is called if needed POW/Search team searches enemy bodies(carefully) and collect intel.

Then move off objective a specified distance to reduce chance of enemy firing on own grid when they hear of the action. Det team will blow any thing they are told too and the PSG or FSG is last man out counting every man as objective is cleared.

But I was infantry. Maybe the enemy get stress cards now and can pull them out when the feel they need a time out?

I am sure there are weapons designed to incapacitate and/or shooters trained to do so. People with the training and weapons access to take advantage of those tactics. I think they call the Special Forces or something like that.

 

[Owen]

Current military thinking is that it's better to wound an enemy soldier. Wounded he requires care, uses resources, and is out of the fight. Dead he is far less costly to the enemy.

I have had this discussion before and many get violent in their dissent but this is not my philosophy, it's the Army's

The Army documents their philosophy (aka doctrine) pretty regularly. Can you point me to a document stating this?

 

[Harley Quinn]

If you were in the Marines, it was told to all of us at one time or another wounded takes 3 outMentioning one wounded takes others to care and therefore not in the fight...

Right or wrong it has been told over and over...Those never in the service might think the above story is a myth, to say that small arms weapons, are made to wound

 

[merlinfire]

If any rifle or pistol caliber has ever been designed to wound but not kill......

I'd say the inventor was not very good with his design. Because they still kill with a vengeance.

 

[farson135]

MtnCreek- "Which military firearms were not?"

Not a firearm but the m14 anti-personnel mine (other countries had their own versions).

OT- The .30 is not a great round and I sure as hell wouldn't use it, but it did the job.

 

[DesertVet]

Anybody who went through Basic Training with the M-16 was told this story by a Drill SGT. The story goes that if you wound an enemy soldier, it takes TWO enemy soldiers to carry the wounded soldier off the battlefield. Now..whether this is just repeating a "myth" or if it was EVER the US Military's thinking behind the use of 5.56 mm, I have no idea! I just know pretty much EVERY PVT Joe Snuffy was told that story by a Drill SGT in Basic with the M-16 that I ever trained or deployed with.

 

[Cosmoline]

It doesn't matter who we are fighting- our soldiers are still soldiers, and as such, are bound by the rules of warfare. We hold the high ground, as we should, as the greatest nation. If the Hague or the Geneva Convention does not apply to them, it still applies to us.

But Hague, by its own terms, applies solely to inter-nation warfare among signatory nations. Remember it was set up to prevent the use of "colonial" weaponry against "civilized" uniformed troops. I suppose the UCMJ might be amended to force troops to use FMJ everywhere, from MP duty to predator control, but I've never heard of such a law. Furthermore there's nothing "low road" about using the most effective projectile for the task at hand.

As criminals I believe they should be tried in civilian courts and duly executed or sentenced, but there's no doubt whatsoever that they have to be treated as armed and extremely dangerous criminals until they're actually in custody. In the circumstances given their known tactics that means shoot to kill, not shoot to stop. The rules of warfare would only apply to them if they formed a government, formed a military force, wore uniforms and agreed to follow those rules themselves. Maybe then there would be an argument to avoid shooting them with SP's. But in such a case they would have long since given up the fight and signed documents of surrender. Because this is a criminal gang, that's a non-sequitur.

FYI, here's the Hague Convention itself:

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions. The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

 

[Vern Humphrey]

One commenter spoke about a relative's experiences with a .30 carbine, which according to this person was "designed to wound, not kill an enemy, because wounded men take more resources to deal with."

Now, let him prove it.

Military design starts with a document called "Required Operational Capability" or ROC. If it ain't in the ROC (or amended versions thereof), then it wasn't designed to merely wound. Let him produce the ROC and show us that capability was specified in black and white.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Larry Ruth in "M1 Carbine: Design, Development and Production", The Gun Room Press, 1979, cites Major H.P. Smith and William H. Davis, "History of Small Arms Material U.S. Carbine, Caliber .30", Small Arms Branch, Industrial Division, Ordnance Department, 1945.

In a letter of March 25, 1938, from Rapp Bush, Lt Col, Infantry, Subject: Weapons and Ammunition carriers, to: The Chief of Ordnance, Lt Col Bush goes over the large number of personal who would ordinarily not be armed with the rifle but with the pistol, and the combat load of such personnel being close to what is humanly bearable, and ends with a specification:

The Chief of Infantry considers that the type of weapon required for ammunition carriers is one fullfilling the following general characteristics:
a. Weight (weapon and 20 rounds of ammunition)--not to exceed five pounds.
b. Range--Effective at 300 yards.
c. Magazine Fed.
d. Operation --Automatic desirable; semi-automatic essential.
e: Method of carrying--Over shoulder with sling.

To get the weight of a usable automatic rifle under five pounds they looked at the 1905 .32 WSL Winchester Self-Loading as a candidate cartidge. The .30 Carbine was developed from that older round before any carbines were designed.

The design goal was rifle+20 rounds at five pounds total (all the extra weight an ammunition carrier for .50 M2, 60mm or 81mm mortar, or 37mm antitank gun, could reasonably be expected to carry).

Nothing about must only wound enemy to tie up additional enemy personnel.

Added: wouldn't a .45 1911, web belt, holster, magazine pouch and three loaded magazines push that magic number of 5 pounds?

 

[Maverick223]

If the .30 M1 Carbine was designed to wound instead of kill it was an utter failure...same for the 5.56NATO and the M16/M4.

 

[LibShooter]

Back in basic training for the Navy in 1943... my father's instructor told him the Japanese sometimes used wooden bullets to wound sailors because it took three men out of the fight. He also told him the tactic wouldn't work against the Imperial Navy because they wouldn't take the time to rescue their shipmates during a battle.

I'm sure that was period inspired racism, but that's what he said.

But Hague, by its own terms, applies solely to inter-nation warfare among signatory nations.

Maybe that's the letter of the law. This country should abide by the spirit of the treaty against all enemies, IMHO.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Hey, it isn't limited to one weapon, I was told as a kid, by a family friend that 'commie China 7.62' was steel cored so it would pass through and just wound....

 

[Maverick223]

Maybe that's the letter of the law. This country should abide by the spirit of the treaty against all enemies, IMHO.

Let me play devils advocate for a moment. So we should always hold ourselves above the enemy even if they don't abide by the conventional laws of war?...What about nations that threaten us with the use of NBCs...should we bring our proverbial sticks & stones to the gunfight?

I agree with you in theory...but as with the example mentioned above, war might not always (or often) be as clear-cut as one might believe.

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

I was just reading a comment about the basics of rifle shooting on a general interest men's site.

was it "GQ"?

 

[metalman8600]

I see a lot about "rules of war" here, and I have to say something about it.

There is no such thing as laws of war. Only law is to win. Think about it.

The "laws of war" were made up by the people who won the previous wars using any means necessary. Plus, if you do break the "rules of war", does it make that war less ok than one where you followed the "rules"?

"Daddy UN, that country is at war with me!"
"Did they break the rules?"
"No"
"Then its ok, play ball."


If a country doesnt follow the "rules of war" and wins, does that win get retracted? Does the UN or something step in and say "Since you used hollow-points in this war, your win doesn't count." Or since they won the war, they make the "rules" now?

War isn't a game, it's not soccer or football, it's war. War is war. The only rule is to not loose.

The only reason a side might abide by a certain moral standard is in hoping the enemy does the same. They aren't rules, they are courtesies which hope to be reciprocated.

Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for. If you a side feels like their motivation isn't enough to use hollowpoints or other methods for, then why are they fighting for it?


Here is a hypothetical question, say for instance very modern, very powerful country is getting absolutely smashed by the massive militaries of foreign armies. And there is a very high possibility that this country will loose the war. Now this country likes to pompously think of itself as being a moral high horse with all it's "rules of war" and stuff like that. Yet this country's military is getting crushed by invading forces. Do you think that country will keep to it's "rules of law" moral code? Hell no. They are going to do anything they can in order to win, to survive. They will break out the hollowpoints, they will shoot the enemy medics, they will use guerilla tactics, they might even send a couple nukes over to the invading country. That is why "rules of war" is such a farce, because everyone knows that all political power comes from the barrel of a gun and that politically, might equals right.

 

[Shadow 7D]

There is no such thing as laws of war. Only law is to win. Think about it.

FAIL

http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm

Seems the MILITARY would disagree with you, and guess what, if you break it, YOU WILL BE PUNISHED... so it makes it a HUGE deal, even if the other side doesn't abide by it, we, the US will, cause we are like that.

So, please, don't make yourself sound even more uninformed.

 

[metalman8600]

Shadow 7D, you don't seem to understand my post.

 

[Cosmoline]

Shadow 7D, look at what that booklet says:

It is especially forbidden * * * to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. (HR, art. 23, par. (e).)

By that logic, standard soft and hollow points would be A-0K. They are most certainly not intended to increase suffering. They decrease it, in point of fact. That's why they're usually mandated when we're taking medium or large game. EVERYBODY knows this. Everyone posting here certainly does. But nobody in the brass or civilian leadership has the guts or cares enough about the front line troops to do anything about it. So it goes on and on and on.

Maybe that's the letter of the law. This country should abide by the spirit of the treaty against all enemies, IMHO.

Does that mean police officers need to switch to FMJ only? There's also the fact that the treaty's ban is nonsensical, and that there is nothing wrong or inhumane about using expanding rounds. If you're going to shoot them, you presumably want them to be stopped and that means doing the maximum tissue damage possible. If that's immoral, then every one who carries and every LEO in the nation is immoral.

Think of it this way. Hague's ban is an early version of Teddy's "Cop Killer Bullet" ban. It identifies certain projectiles as inherently unethical to use against a white man. Are you sure you want such a rule enforced beyond the strict limits of the treaty? Is it really that near and dear to your heart?

We're not talking about some bullet designed to inject WP into a torso. These are the same rounds everyone EXCEPT the organized military has been using for several generations now.

 

[Heretic]

The people we are fighting are a military force. If they were criminals, operations would be carried out by INTERPOL.

I have always been an advocate of arming our soldiers with at least a .30 cal battle rifle and a .45 cal sidearm. If this "wound instead of kill" thing doesn't exist, I can't figure out why the 5.56 or 9mm.

 

[Maverick223]

If this "wound instead of kill" thing doesn't exist, I can't figure out why the 5.56 or 9mm.

Ever heard of anti-gravity devices for the front line infantry?...they haven't either, so they figured it might be handy to have something that they are capable of carrying along with enough ammo and provisions to complete the task.