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

[sixgunner455]

Different twist on the subject, but what was the FMJ designed to do?

Poke holes in people and things, and punch through barriers on the way, while complying with the laws of war.

 

[Justin Holder]

The FMJ bullets that the military is required to use ARE more likely to wound when compared to expanding hunting bullets. Any hunter will tell you a fmj bullet is a very poor killer. One exception being the "poison pill" of the 5.45x39 witch I believe was purposely designed to tumble after hitting a target thus doing considerable damage.

Maybe "designed to take out of the fight" is a better way of saying it. In a military context you don't necessarily have to kill the enemy, just remove him from the fight.

 

[mgmorden]

The basic idea, not primary, but rather somewhat secondary or "behind-the-scene," was also the idea that if it wounded more often than kill that would tie up resources.

Those are denial words from someone unwilling to give up the myth . Unofficial, official, secondary, or whatever you want to call it, the whole "others will take care of them draining resources" is a concept that doesn't even hold water.

Wounded are a secondary concern on the battlefield. If you're already winning a fight, and you have the resources to do so, then they will be cared for, but NOBODY drops everything to tote every wounded soldier back to the rear for treatment.

The reality is that for any intense battle, the only difference between a wounded solider and a dead soldier is the wounded one will lay there and yell while the dead one stays silent. Other than that - same outcome. Nobody is going to spend time tending them if they could otherwise make a difference in the outcome of the battle.

 

[Castr8r]

For what it's worth (or fuel for the fire...), when I was in Basic training (US Army, FT. Leonard Wood, Mo.; July 1963) we were told taught that the purpose of the full metal jacket was to stop the enemy soldier from participating; hopefully wounding him so it would take two or more to take care of him. We were also informed that the Geneva Convention prohibited the use of expanding bullets as "inhumane" as they were designed to make grievous wounds. There is the possisibility that my memory may be faulty- lessee; 2011 minus 1963 = 48 years! (Damn, I'm gettin' old!)

 

[Sunray]

"...what was the FMJ designed to do?..." Reduce the horrific wounds caused by lead bullets.
"...designed to be the original PDW..." Nonsense. It was designed as a replacement to a sidearm. It's far easier to train a non-shooter, like most W.W. II troopies were, despite the rhetoric, to be competent with a rifle than it is a handgun. Nothing whatever to do with wounding or anything else.
Neither was the 5.56. The 5.56mm M16 was adopted because McNamara wanted it. Strictly a political decision.

 

[Harley Quinn]

30 Carbine revolver...I remember when shooting this, right after came out 40 years ago, a handgun range at some steel targets...Boy did the owner get hot

Not sure it can pierce at 100 yds or not, but sure did do some mangling of 1/8 " at 30 feet

The 30-06 and 308 for that matter...Killing machine in the hands of a Marine

 

[AirForceShooter]

All military rifles and rounds are designed to kill. The problem is most are really bad at killing and wind up wounding.

Want to make sure you kill an enemy.
Artillery or Air Power. Works every time.

AFS

 

[rocky branch]

As stated a myth that will not die.

I have personally witnessed badly wounded guys that were able to keep firing and reloading their weapons.
A friend was killed by a wounded VC.
Wounded are usually taken out of the fight, but that don't mean they can't fight if they have to.
Many wounded are unable to continue, but it's not something to plan or rely on.

 

[AirForceShooter]

That myth also assumes the enemy gives a damn about their wounded.
When civilized nations fought that was the case.
Not any more.

AFS

 

[Tommygunn]

Those are denial words from someone unwilling to give up the myth . Unofficial, official, secondary, or whatever you want to call it, the whole "others will take care of them draining resources" is a concept that doesn't even hold water.

Wounded are a secondary concern on the battlefield. If you're already winning a fight, and you have the resources to do so, then they will be cared for, but NOBODY drops everything to tote every wounded soldier back to the rear for treatment.

The reality is that for any intense battle, the only difference between a wounded solider and a dead soldier is the wounded one will lay there and yell while the dead one stays silent. Other than that - same outcome. Nobody is going to spend time tending them if they could otherwise make a difference in the outcome of the battle.

This is what I said;

But it is also true, IMO, that there never was any official policy that stated it was better to wound. "...(N)ot all of our enemies have had the resources ... or really interest ... in patching up wounded conscripts"~~Sam1911....

As I stated, I heard this from my father, who had served in Korea. What I said was that the "wound" theory was around. If it had never been around, how would my father have heard it back in the 1950s? ? ? ? ?
I never said it was "official policy" to develop a cartridge that wounds instead of kills. I never said that, and it never happened. It really is a practical impossibility anyway. Even a .22 Rimfire will kill with good shot placement. How do you make a "wounding" bullet? Make one that only bruises?
If you're saying it is a "myth" this concept was ever officially adopted or pursued I agree -- in fact that was the gist of my earlier post.
But if you're saying it never existed anywhere, you're just plain wrong.
And those aren't "denial words from someone unwilling to give up the myth," they are words stemming from what I was told by someone who'd "been there, done that."
If you wish to continue claiming it was never an idea that had been thrown out then I await your "words from someone unwilling to give up the myth" that the idea of a "wounding" bullet, albeit both "unofficial" and "shortsighted," wasn't something that was "making the rounds," back then. Explain why my father had heard of it from that era. Can you?

 

[metalman8600]

Just wounding an enemy in war is a bad tactic. Death can have a psychological effect on the other combatants. While a good tactic might be to wound 1 guy in the legs, and then kill all the guys who rush over to help him.

 

[mgmorden]

Explain why my father had heard of it from that era. Can you?

Because that's likely when the rumor started. It's been around a long time, and just because it was being circulated amongst soldiers of the time (who were likely looking for reasons to justify the step DOWN in power first from .30-06 to .308 and then to 5.56 NATO) doesn't mean that there was any link - whatsoever (not even unofficial) to this "goal" with respect to the DESIGNERS. Soldiers don't design the weapons nor the bullets, and they're as susceptible to rumors as any other group.

 

[SaxonPig]

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.

 

[LibShooter]

Maybe FMJ ammo was designed to kill the first guy AND the guy behind him?

Seriously, I figure FMJ was designed to kill, it's just not as effective at it as hollow points are.

I suspect the rules codified in the Hague date back to a time when war was thought to be more civilized. European nations expected to start a war in the fall and have the soldiers back in the fields by planting time... so why not give a wounded soldier a fighting chance at survival. The medical state of the art at the time was unlikely to get him back in the fight at hand.

Besides, with the tactics at the time a serious wound was as good as a kill.

 

[Cosmoline]

This is a strange myth. I think it emerged as a POST-HOC JUSTIFICATION for the absurdities of the Hague Convention. Way, way back before even WWI, some suited gentlemen in Europe had the idea that hollowpoint rounds being used against certain dark natives in the colonies should not be permitted to be used against Europeans.

The justification was NOT that these bullets killed better. In fact ballistic science in the 1890's was in its infancy and it was not clear that expanding rounds did kill better. The justification was that the WOUNDS WERE INHUMANE. They could not be treated by medical science of the era, and let to real horror shows. Keep in mind that this was before WWI rendered something like a dum dum bullet rather quaint on the scale of horror shows**. So ironically their concern was that the hp's and sp's would wound worse than the FMJ's, which would be more likely to kill or not kill leaving a "clean" wound without fragments. Remember that this was the day and age when it was the infection that killed you provided you survived the hole.

Now fast forward past two world wars and countless lesser conflicts, culminating in a sum total of carnage unlike anything the globe had seen to that point. Because civilian leaders and military brass are by definition idiots, they had never rescinded the absurd doctrine from Hague. Soldiers were left to try to figure out why the devil they were being issued ammo with bullets that had been out of date for half a century. I suspect that this "wound but not kill" justification came from their experiences--to try to explain this strange rule they had to operate under. They could see that their ammo was less effective than the .30-30 SP's back home. So, the thinking went, they must be getting intentionally inferior bullets because the brass cleverly plans to wound the enemy. Alas, the brass just didn't give a flying nun about any of them. It was and remains easier not to rock the boat.

We still see other justifications cropping up, such as the claim that SP's and HP's won't feed well or can't penetrate barriers, etc. Bullet design technology can create pretty much any projectile you can imagine these days, so there's no reason our guys couldn't have access to many types depending on the mission. It's a shame.


**This was also an issue with earlier "exploding" bullets of the pre-cartridge era, going back at least to the American Civil War. Some claimed them to make inhumane wounds.

 

[parsimonious_instead]

That myth also assumes the enemy gives a damn about their wounded.
When civilized nations fought that was the case.
Not any more.

AFS

At the very least, we do. I just googled for "treating enemy wounded in Iraq" and came up with stories about how well we treat both our own wounded, and theirs.

There's also the 2005 story about an Army medic that survived being hit by a sniper, shot the man who shot him, and administered lifesaving first aid.

 

[mortablunt]

It's a load of bull. All weapons are meant to kill. I actually asked my Economics teacher today (he was a Ranger) if any of the combat rounds he used were meant to wound. He said "No, and I always aimed right here." HE pointed to his forehead. They are not meant to wound, for that is a very dumb idea to try on a lethal opponent who is full of adrenaline and is much safer dead.

 

[metalman8600]

There's also the 2005 story about an Army medic that survived being hit by a sniper, shot the man who shot him, and administered lifesaving first aid.

Illogical absurdity!


Plus, everyone knows there is only 1 rule of war... to win.

 

[Cosmoline]

I've also heard the excuse that we stay with FMJ because small arms no longer matter in a war. It's all artillery! LOL

At the very least, we do. I just googled for "treating enemy wounded in Iraq" and came up with stories about how well we treat both our own wounded, and theirs.

So wait.. we're issuing FMJ because we want to tie up our OWN medics?

There is no valid excuse for the old rule. It stays in place because of a combination of inertia and lack of concern for the front line troops.

 

[hammerklavier]

If you are winning the battle, then the wounded will be taken prisoner, which means they'll be tying up more of your resources -- not the enemies.

 

[LibShooter]

I think there are a few reasons for the persistence of FMJ.

A) FMJ is the rule, therefore the guns are designed to work with FMJ therefore they work better with FMJ so the next generation is deigned for FMJ and so on for a hundred years.

B) "It was good enough for us at Normandy... It's good enough for you in Iraq."

C) Hardly anybody gets fired for ordering what the guy before him ordered.

 

[Cosmoline]

That toon actually brings up another point--these are not actually soldiers we're fighting. They belong to no recognized military and fight for no recognized nation. There's a very good argument that Hague doesn't even apply to them, and was never intended to. They're just criminals, and there's no reason troops shouldn't use the same kind of expanding rounds law enforcement use world-wide. Furthermore, the rules of engagement limit our troops to what amounts to a modified right to self defense. And Hague never prevented the use of ANY weapons in self defense. There was a memo from DOD lawyers to that effect floating around early in the Iraq war IIRC. The more tissue destruction a bullet does to a potential suicide bomber, the better.

 

[Ramone]

The .30 Carbine round is in the same ball-park as a .357 Magnum, speaking in broad terms. Was the .357 Mag designed to "wound but not kill" anything?

As I understand, Coming from a USMC family, and having had the honor of counting among my father, uncles and Grandfather, Veteran Marines of every conflict since the Great War, the rumor of the 'underpowered' .30 Carbine came out of the Korean Conflict- where operations were conducted in Arctic conditions ( when Major General OP Smith lead the retrograde assault from the Chosin*, Temps were lower than -30f). In these conditions, ANY ammunition will fail to perform- especially when actions are freezing shut/open.

The .30 Carbine was designed as a replacement or alternative to a sidearm for drivers, officers, and other troops who's primary duties were other than shooting at the enemy.

Again, to my understanding, correct- according to familial wisdom, the M1Carbine was issued in hopes that butterbars and Rear Echelon Pogues would be less likely to shoot themselves in the foot or their friends in the back.

That toon actually brings up another point--these are not actually soldiers we're fighting. They belong to no recognized military and fight for no recognized nation. There's a very good argument that Hague doesn't even apply to them, and was never intended to. They're just criminals, and there's no reason troops shouldn't use the same kind of expanding rounds law enforcement use world-wide.

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.

*one of my late uncles was with the 1st Marines at the Chosin- if I used the word 'retreat' he would rise up out of the ground and beat me to death with my own spine.

 

[EddieNFL]

Reduce fouling at higher velocities, feed reliably, and (when compared to some other designs) to stay within the bounds of the Hauge Convention guidelines. (But I haven't read any official documents that say so. Curious what they did cite as the reasons for that change, especially in handgun cartridges?)

IIRC the FMJ existed before Hague Convention of 1899. Developed for the reasons you mentioned and required by the convention because the Germans complained softpoints used by the British in Africa (and elsewhere) caused more severe wounds than FMJs.

 

[Millwright]

Cosmoline,

At last a sensible answer !! One encompassing ballistics, history and political ethos extant at the time !!

Well done !! >MW