TallPine
Member
Well, I sure as heck wouldn't wear blaze orange!
Might be fun though; I bet those folks aren't very good shots
And who says I can't/won't use an AK for deer hunting?
"Would you use a 22 caliber FMJ on whitetail? Then why people?"
- Thread starter natedog
- Start date
- Status
Might be fun though; I bet those folks aren't very good shots
And who says I can't/won't use an AK for deer hunting?
210 rounds is just the "basic" load, most on the sharp end carry far more, 13 to 15 magazines worth. Since the sniper is using a non expanding, non fragmenting .30 caliber bullet I would imagine that it is his shot placement, not the bullet, which is responsible for the elimination of the target. Most folks do not hunt deer with .308 FMJ. And running out of ammo really sucks when people are trying to kill you.
longrifleman
Member
The issue of wound vs. kill was setteled a long time ago with the adoption of FMJ rounds instead of soft point or hollow points. If the purpose of small arms was the most kills/ rounds expended you would be using Nosler partitions alternated with FMJ for penetration.
You're also dealing with the difference between stragedy vs. tactics. The guys in the rear think it is good stragedy to wound as many as possible. The guys in the trenches think it is good tactics to end the threat premanently. Guess who is in charge of buying equipment?
You're also dealing with the difference between stragedy vs. tactics. The guys in the rear think it is good stragedy to wound as many as possible. The guys in the trenches think it is good tactics to end the threat premanently. Guess who is in charge of buying equipment?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Design?
"Designed to wound"?? Who said that? Military smallarms are designed to
create casualties...Casualty by itself doesn't discern between kill and wound, and the fact that the 5.56 doesn't kill as often as the 7.62 with
a thoracic shot is a function of its terminal ballistics...not its design.
Ending the threat permanently is probably born of a desire for revenge,
or intese emotion.
How many members of a unit who are engaged in fending off a human wave attack would be yellin': Wound'em! If they can't walk, they can't fight!" Nah...It's more like: "KILL THE ROTTEN SOB'S!" Of course, none of the Field Manuals mention any of this either...
Out!
"Designed to wound"?? Who said that? Military smallarms are designed to
create casualties...Casualty by itself doesn't discern between kill and wound, and the fact that the 5.56 doesn't kill as often as the 7.62 with
a thoracic shot is a function of its terminal ballistics...not its design.
Ending the threat permanently is probably born of a desire for revenge,
or intese emotion.
How many members of a unit who are engaged in fending off a human wave attack would be yellin': Wound'em! If they can't walk, they can't fight!" Nah...It's more like: "KILL THE ROTTEN SOB'S!" Of course, none of the Field Manuals mention any of this either...
Out!
Vern Humphrey
Member
Quote:
-----------------------------------------------
The issue of wound vs. kill was setteled a long time ago with the adoption of FMJ rounds instead of soft point or hollow points. If the purpose of small arms was the most kills/ rounds expended you would be using Nosler partitions alternated with FMJ for penetration.
-------------------------------------------------
FMJ rounds were NOT adopted in order to wound rather than kill.
They were adopted as a result of the Hague Convention of 1899, and subsequent outcry over the British use of hollowpoints in the Boer War, which was painted by the Germans as a violation of the Convention's prohibition against "weapons designed to cause unnecessary suffering."
US small arms and ammunition are NOT intended to wound rather than kill.
-----------------------------------------------
The issue of wound vs. kill was setteled a long time ago with the adoption of FMJ rounds instead of soft point or hollow points. If the purpose of small arms was the most kills/ rounds expended you would be using Nosler partitions alternated with FMJ for penetration.
-------------------------------------------------
FMJ rounds were NOT adopted in order to wound rather than kill.
They were adopted as a result of the Hague Convention of 1899, and subsequent outcry over the British use of hollowpoints in the Boer War, which was painted by the Germans as a violation of the Convention's prohibition against "weapons designed to cause unnecessary suffering."
US small arms and ammunition are NOT intended to wound rather than kill.
DMK
Member
Weapons designed to wound
Not to insult anybody, but it is a pretty dumb argument if you think it through.
1) Our the military is concerned with stopping power just as much as civilians with CCW and for the same reasons. If you have the enemy charging your position, you need to put them down RFN and stop them from obtaining their objective which may include throwing a sachel charge into the company commander's bunker, knocking out our artillery, blowing up aircraft, etc,etc.
2) Yea, wounded soldiers tax the logistics of the enemy, but since that wounded soldier was not incapacitated immediately, there's a good chance he also wounded one of our guys before collapsing. This puts an equal tax on our logistics. 1 for 1 is not a good way to win battles.
Not to insult anybody, but it is a pretty dumb argument if you think it through.
1) Our the military is concerned with stopping power just as much as civilians with CCW and for the same reasons. If you have the enemy charging your position, you need to put them down RFN and stop them from obtaining their objective which may include throwing a sachel charge into the company commander's bunker, knocking out our artillery, blowing up aircraft, etc,etc.
2) Yea, wounded soldiers tax the logistics of the enemy, but since that wounded soldier was not incapacitated immediately, there's a good chance he also wounded one of our guys before collapsing. This puts an equal tax on our logistics. 1 for 1 is not a good way to win battles.
longrifleman
Member
We may be into a semantic argument here, but why are FMJ bullets outlawed for hunting if the stated intent for the hunter is the quickest kill possible? The unintended consequence of FMJ is more wounds instead of kills due to the transfer of energy that is the objective of an expanding bullet.
It's not so much energy transfer per se, but what the bullet accomplishes as it passes through. Lightly constructed bullets used on inappropriate game can "transfer" all of their energy w/out doing much substantive damage at all, for example. OTOH, controlled expansion provides for both penetration to vital areas and increasing the wound channel. The .223 FMJ in military form performs best when it fragments extensively (and only a few loads on the market actually meet mil spec), and when you get below that velocity performance drops off. At longer ranges, heavier bullets and a SP construction seem to be helping somewhat, but at the heart of the matter the .223 seems to be best at modest distances, as was the original intent as I understand it.
pauli
Member
creating casualties (meaning, in this instance, wounded opponents) is the lemonade made from swiss lemons (the rules that lead to us fielding fmj).
Vern Humphrey
Member
Quote:
----------------------------------------
We may be into a semantic argument here, but why are FMJ bullets outlawed for hunting if the stated intent for the hunter is the quickest kill possible?
-----------------------------------------
Softnose and hollowpoint bullets are considered "designed to cause unnecessary sufferening" under International Law, specifically the Hague Convention of 1899.
The Army is not allowed to use them -- and, in fact, when dealing with certain classes of people NOT covered under the Hague Convention (criminals, terrorists and so on) we DO use softnose and hollowpoint bullets.
----------------------------------------
We may be into a semantic argument here, but why are FMJ bullets outlawed for hunting if the stated intent for the hunter is the quickest kill possible?
-----------------------------------------
Softnose and hollowpoint bullets are considered "designed to cause unnecessary sufferening" under International Law, specifically the Hague Convention of 1899.
The Army is not allowed to use them -- and, in fact, when dealing with certain classes of people NOT covered under the Hague Convention (criminals, terrorists and so on) we DO use softnose and hollowpoint bullets.
grendelbane
Member
Time for my $0.02 worth here.
Artillery is not ballistically superior to a 5.56mm bullet fired from a long, or even a short barrel. Unless, of course, you are right where it explodes.
The shell fragments, or splinters, which produce most of the battlefield casualties, (and have at least since the Great War), are quite unimpressive ballistically. (The old nylon flak jackets stop most of them. Helmets were adopted in WWI because they prevented head injuries. Neither the steel pot, or the nylon flak jacket would protect against even pistol bullets. (Usually! )
These fragments, or splinters, (not Shrapnel, which has not been used since WWI, in spite of what my mother and father said.), are the acme of the wound philosophy.
After the McKinley assassination, Congress considered appropriating funds for silk vests. Since the cost of each vest was about equivalent to an ounce of gold, this idea was dropped. Shrapnel was still king at the time of that decision. If they could have fast forwarded just a few years, the silk vests might have prevented many casualties in the trenches.
I understand more than a few British officers reported for duty wearing centuries old chain mail beneath their uniforms. I am not sure how much protection this would have afforded from shrapnel, (which was used early in the war), or shell splinters. It would have provided decent protection from bayonets, swords, and knives in trench combat. Still, a good thrust with a bayonet mounted on a Mauser would possibly have pierced chain mail. Pointed weapons were usually capable of piercing chain mail, provided enough force was used.
Artillery is not ballistically superior to a 5.56mm bullet fired from a long, or even a short barrel. Unless, of course, you are right where it explodes.
The shell fragments, or splinters, which produce most of the battlefield casualties, (and have at least since the Great War), are quite unimpressive ballistically. (The old nylon flak jackets stop most of them. Helmets were adopted in WWI because they prevented head injuries. Neither the steel pot, or the nylon flak jacket would protect against even pistol bullets. (Usually!
)These fragments, or splinters, (not Shrapnel, which has not been used since WWI, in spite of what my mother and father said.), are the acme of the wound philosophy.
After the McKinley assassination, Congress considered appropriating funds for silk vests. Since the cost of each vest was about equivalent to an ounce of gold, this idea was dropped. Shrapnel was still king at the time of that decision. If they could have fast forwarded just a few years, the silk vests might have prevented many casualties in the trenches.
I understand more than a few British officers reported for duty wearing centuries old chain mail beneath their uniforms. I am not sure how much protection this would have afforded from shrapnel, (which was used early in the war), or shell splinters. It would have provided decent protection from bayonets, swords, and knives in trench combat. Still, a good thrust with a bayonet mounted on a Mauser would possibly have pierced chain mail. Pointed weapons were usually capable of piercing chain mail, provided enough force was used.
Wildalaska
member
For anyone who thinks the 5.56 out of a M4 is ineffective or innacurate, I invite you to let me pop one, just one, off at ya at 200 yards...
Guarantee...
1. I will hit ya, even with my 50 year old eyes.
2. It will hurt. Absent immediate professional care, you will probably vivist St Peter.
WildthisisgettinsosillyAlaska
Guarantee...
1. I will hit ya, even with my 50 year old eyes.
2. It will hurt. Absent immediate professional care, you will probably vivist St Peter.
WildthisisgettinsosillyAlaska
Blackhawk 6
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2003
- Messages
- 439
With regard to the intial question:
As has been previously stated, the objective of hunting is a quick, clean kill. Deer generally do not hang around (or go on the offense) after they have been shot. It would be inhumane for a deer to be running around the woods with a grotesque but non-fatal gunshot wound.
All of the people I have shot/shot at hung around for a while. I honestly could have cared less whether they left with a grotesque but non-fatal gunshot wound, though I did hope for infection.
With regard to the notion that military bullets are designed to wound enemy personnel and thereby overload the enemy's logistics system:
I have found no basis in any of the official documentation I have examined. When I spoke with the Combat Development people last year, they were pretty interested in how well the 5.56mm was killing people. Wounding was not mentioned.
Make a quick review of the standard service calibers when the prohibition against expanding ammunition was adopted. Many are/would be regarded as effective man-stoppers. Also, consider the level of medical sophistication at the time. My inclination is that the concern was to balance the damage inflicted by peripheral hits to the extremities to avoid large numbers of amputies. Most soldiers accept the fact that they might die and have made there peace with it, but fear coming home a cripple. Having seen the damage inflicted by a rifle to an extremity on more than one occassion, I can only imagine what expanding ammunition would do.
Wounded, screaming men are a fact of life on the battlefield. They have been for thousands of years and will continue to be so for the forseeable future. The demoralizing effect a screaming enemy soldier has on his comrades is an unintended, unavoidable consequence not the goal.
As has been previously stated, the objective of hunting is a quick, clean kill. Deer generally do not hang around (or go on the offense) after they have been shot. It would be inhumane for a deer to be running around the woods with a grotesque but non-fatal gunshot wound.
All of the people I have shot/shot at hung around for a while. I honestly could have cared less whether they left with a grotesque but non-fatal gunshot wound, though I did hope for infection.
With regard to the notion that military bullets are designed to wound enemy personnel and thereby overload the enemy's logistics system:
I have found no basis in any of the official documentation I have examined. When I spoke with the Combat Development people last year, they were pretty interested in how well the 5.56mm was killing people. Wounding was not mentioned.
Make a quick review of the standard service calibers when the prohibition against expanding ammunition was adopted. Many are/would be regarded as effective man-stoppers. Also, consider the level of medical sophistication at the time. My inclination is that the concern was to balance the damage inflicted by peripheral hits to the extremities to avoid large numbers of amputies. Most soldiers accept the fact that they might die and have made there peace with it, but fear coming home a cripple. Having seen the damage inflicted by a rifle to an extremity on more than one occassion, I can only imagine what expanding ammunition would do.
Wounded, screaming men are a fact of life on the battlefield. They have been for thousands of years and will continue to be so for the forseeable future. The demoralizing effect a screaming enemy soldier has on his comrades is an unintended, unavoidable consequence not the goal.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Quote:
---------------------------------------------
I have found no basis in any of the official documentation I have examined. When I spoke with the Combat Development people last year, they were pretty interested in how well the 5.56mm was killing people. Wounding was not mentioned.
-----------------------------------------------
And there is the definitive answer to the question, "Are American small arms and ammunition designed to kill, or merely wound?"
---------------------------------------------
I have found no basis in any of the official documentation I have examined. When I spoke with the Combat Development people last year, they were pretty interested in how well the 5.56mm was killing people. Wounding was not mentioned.
-----------------------------------------------
And there is the definitive answer to the question, "Are American small arms and ammunition designed to kill, or merely wound?"
sevenpoint62mm
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 218
I agree. Its like comparing a .32 pistol cartridge to a 7mm mag round. More grains and hella more powder behind the bullet.
Only if I get to fire my mosin nagant at you first.
RON in PA
Member
When I'm not tending the still up in the hills and hiding from the revenuers, I might be poaching a deer with my little .22 LR so my little ones have meat with their gravey.
- Status