No hollowpoints in war?

[jdberger]

If soldiers are to wound the enemy, give them .22 to play with

You mean like this?

Contrary to popular belief - we don't wage "total war". We respect civilians. We honor surrender. We don't use poison. etc. - We don't even if the other guy does.*

Reasoning being:

Some of the central principles underlying laws of war are:

*Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction.
*Wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible.
*People and property that do not contribute to the war effort should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship.

To this end, laws of war are intended to mitigate the hardships of war by:

*Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering.
*Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians.
*Facilitating the restoration of peace.

Like it or not - it's how we do things...







*There are some exceptions - most are condemned as war crimes.

[sonnyt650]

It's not a matter of being too deadly, instead it's a matter of reducing the number of crippled and maimed soldiers suffering after the war has ended. Way back then the civilized nations understood soldiers were signed up only for a short time after which they'd return to civilian life. Non-lethal hits by hollow points cause excessive damage to flesh compared to FMJ which will just go right through things like hands and limbs. As for our LEO gunning down criminals: f-ck the criminals.

[jdberger]

It's not a matter of being too deadly, instead it's a matter of reducing the number of crippled and maimed soldiers suffering after the war has ended. Way back then the civilized nations understood soldiers were signed up only for a short time after which they'd return to civilian life. Non-lethal hits by hollow points cause excessive damage to flesh compared to FMJ which will just go right through things like hands and limbs. As for our LEO gunning down criminals: f-ck the criminals.

Right - keep in mind that enemy soldiers aren't "criminals".

[Decoligny]

Why no hollow points in war? BS.

I've heard of guys pitching in and buying a box of hollow points for their side arms while in Afghanistan. Probably officers.

You get caught with them in theater and you will be serving some time.

They are a violation of International Law.

The reasoning goes back to the earliest use of "dum dum" bullets. It was common practice before the International law was passed, for some soldiers to actually use bullets with a large X carved in the front. Not to kill vampires, but to cause as much internal damage and suffering as possible. Some soldiers even went so far as to use wooden bullets. The splinters would be almost impossible to get out, and the person shot with a wooden bullet almost always died a horribly slow painful death from massive internal infection.

[Decoligny]

In self defense scenarios hollow points have proven to be extremely effective.

Are hollow points full proof that they will always expand properly? No of course not. But millions of dollars of research isn't being poured into hollow points because they are unreliable bullets that will just anger your attacker. Bullet designs are getting better and better quickly and the "issue" of improperly expanded hollow points is going away. That is another reason why I like the Hornady Critical Defense, the polymer insert is supposed to make expansion reliable and keep foreign matter from entering the hollow point.



Ya, it is a bit funny how some people think in war you can just patiently choose a part of the body to damage without killing them and then expect to win a war based on WIAs instead of KIAs. The military is and always has trained to kill. That is there point and that is how one wins wars.

The military in general is trained to kill. There are certain times when wounding is a better tactic.

There are certain situations where a well placed sniper may choose to purposely wound an enemy. Example: In order to slow the advance of a larger group of enemy combatants in order for a smaller group to gain time to prepare for the on-coming attack. The few wounded soldiers will either have to be left lying where they fell, or someone is going to have to care for them/carry them back to safety.

[jamesob]

i'm sure the taliban are using fmj.

[Army]

Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman; Google the subject. What I recall is the purpose was not really to kill the enemy soldier, just get them out of commission. Even better was if two other enemy soldiers were caught up helping one that was wounded, which caused 3 to be out of the fight. Wounding the enemy is more costly to the other side than a kill.

Ding Ding Ding Ding We Have a clear winner.

No, we don't. He's not even in 4th place.

Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman; Wounding the enemy is more costly to the other side than a kill.

^^^THIS^^^ FTW!

While costly in terms of logistics, perhaps. In terms of actual combat, no.

The more you can kill of the other side, the less that will return to the battlefield. Wounded can still fight, think, react. Dead cannot.

In no manner of US military tactics do we care to wound. Our personal weapons are not designed for it. Our aircraft would find it impossible. And our warships do not have the luxury of even seeing the enemy before engaging.

Please, tell all your friends: The US Military KILLS THE ENEMY, as often as he desires to be killed.

[smle-man]

You get caught with them in theater and you will be serving some time.

They are a violation of International Law.

The reasoning goes back to the earliest use of "dum dum" bullets. It was common practice before the International law was passed, for some soldiers to actually use bullets with a large X carved in the front. Not to kill vampires, but to cause as much internal damage and suffering as possible. Some soldiers even went so far as to use wooden bullets. The splinters would be almost impossible to get out, and the person shot with a wooden bullet almost always died a horribly slow painful death from massive internal infection.

I was following you until the wooden bullet thing. This is a legend that grew around the quantities of wooden tipped 7.92mm blanks found by our GIs in the European theater. Not knowing what the heck they were, this is the story that sprang up. The matching legend was the poison bullet from the Pacific theater where Arisaka rounds with verdigris on the bullet jacket was thought to be poison that would cause a lingering and painful death for any GI or Marine unlucky enough surviving being shot with the suspiciously skinny 6.5mm bullet.

[NYY]

You mean like this?

Contrary to popular belief - we don't wage "total war". We respect civilians. We honor surrender. We don't use poison. etc. - We don't even if the other guy does.*

Reasoning being:



Like it or not - it's how we do things...







*There are some exceptions - most are condemned as war crimes.

still makes me laugh how we have laws for war...

[2shotjoe]

the 5.45x39 is pretty good, they put a little extra weight in it to make it off balance once it makes contact with a human body. Its known be the world as "the poison bullet".

[Josh3239]

Not sure how that fits in, but I wouldn't call the 5.45mm anything special. I'd say there are are quite a few more (American) cartridges far more effective. Besides, Afghanistan isn't exactly known for their medical care.

[warkaj]

Geez. We kill, period.

Combat does not give you the luxury of deciding who gets wounded, and who gets a 1000lb JDAM up their arse.

The military did not spend millions of dollars and years of research on a devastatingly effective killing bullet, just to have has try to wound the enemy. We kill because wounded Soldiers can still shoot back and throw grenades. A few months at Basic Training or Boot Camp is NOT spent learning how to be nice to the bad guy, nor how to trick him. Soldiers learn to kill and break things.

Also: You must actually hit the target with a .50 cal. The bullet passing close by does NOT do any damage to tissue or lung capacity nor will it blind you. It will make a nasty ringing in the ears from the sonic crack, but that's all.

I have no idea how these silly rumors still live on, when on their surface they are stupid at best, and defy logic at worst.

agreed.... kill the enemy, no matter the cost. thats how I was trained.

It's war... it's hell... it's supposed to get people killed, mainly the enemy. Speaking from experience, I could care less how the enemy dies so long as he dies and stops shooting at me and my pals. The only "rule" I ever followed in war was "bring your men home with you" because in all honesty once that first bullet flies past you you really don't care about what someone wrote as a "rule" behind their cushy desk in DC. Just my opinion

[NYY]

agreed.... kill the enemy, no matter the cost. thats how I was trained.

It's war... it's hell... it's supposed to get people killed, mainly the enemy. Speaking from experience, I could care less how the enemy dies so long as he dies and stops shooting at me and my pals. The only "rule" I ever followed in war was "bring your men home with you" because in all honesty once that first bullet flies past you you really don't care about what someone wrote as a "rule" behind their cushy desk in DC. Just my opinion

i love this.

[Stoic Bacchanal]

Because back in the days of the Hague we fought civilized countries that followed the rules of war. Now we fight savages in caves. Personally, I think for those people the rules should be ignored.

[LDSGJimbo]

Because back in the days of the Hague we fought civilized countries that followed the rules of war. Now we fight savages in caves. Personally, I think for those people the rules should be ignored.

I don't know that the Marines of the Pacific theater would agree with you as the Japanese hid in caves and tunnels until they ran out of ammo at which point they would commit suicide in honor of the emperor.

Although I suppose WWII was a few decades later?

Sent from my motorola with tapatalk.