cyrius@cs.utexas.edu (Juan Chen) (06/13/89)
From: ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!cyrius@cs.utexas.edu (Juan Chen) A few days ago I had the opportunity to fire and M1 from the Director of Civilian Marksmanship program in a local highpower rifle club match. A friend and former service rifle Marksmanship Unit member told me that match ammo (.30-06, .308) are hollow point because of manufacturing procedures to improve performance (allows for an easier and more uniform metal jacket), but he said this ammo is not "legal" to be used in combat and the packaging warns of this. The question is, what kind of rifle ammunition is allowed in combat, which convention or document is more widely used...Also, the "explosive" bullets mentioned in this group sound a bit expensive, if not illogical, to be given to troops in "riot" duty spraying them in full auto as was shown on TV? bound to be wrong, but hey! I'm asking... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Juan G. Chen cyrius@dopey.cc.utexas.edu University of Texas@Austin (or grumpy, or doc, or happy...) P.O. Box 8362 Austin, TX 78713 =======================================================================
kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) (06/14/89)
From: kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) In article <7392@cbnews.ATT.COM>, ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!cyrius@cs.utexas.edu (Juan Chen) writes: > > > From: ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!cyrius@cs.utexas.edu (Juan Chen) > > hollow point ammo ... is not "legal" to be used in combat > ... what kind of rifle ammunition is allowed in combat, > The kind that kills and injures people (no smiley's). Seriously, any 'rules' of war are at best fallacious, and at worst, a hinderance which keeps one side honest by trying to follow the rules which are ignored by the other side. This type of thinking, that you have to keep battle 'clean' and 'honest', can easily lead to defeat. Crying foul while you are being soundly thrashed does no good unless there is someone there to listen to you and intervene. Hypothetically, if Y percent of hits with 'honest' ammo results in dead enemy, and X percent results in disabling injuries, then you have 100-X-Y percent of the enemy casulties who will be patched up and return to battle, probably rather angry at having been hit in the first place. If, on the other hand, 'illegal' ammo increases either X or Y or both, fewer enemy casulties will end up back in the lines against you, which improves the chances of you and your men surviving. If you were an infantry commander, which would you rather use??? ********************************************************************** Norman Kluksdahl Arizona State University ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah alternate: kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu standard disclaimer implied our inherent lack of ci
rz02+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rudolph R. Zung) (06/14/89)
From: "Rudolph R. Zung" <rz02+@andrew.cmu.edu>
I can't confirm this since I read about it many years ago in a book
about firearms of the world or ammunition of the world or something
like that.
As I remember, I think the book mentioned that the US Coast Guard
uses, or used to use, an exploding bullet. The bullet was mainly
used for sharks. Any USCG peopl want to verify or deny this?
...Rudy
ARPAnet: rz02+@andrew.cmu.edu
BITnet : rz02+@andrew
UUCP : ...!{ucbvax, harvard}!andrew.cmu.edu!rz02+
BELLnet: (412) 681-4237 | 0100 < time in (EDT, DST) < 0800
USNail : CMU Box 231 \ Pittsburgh PA 15213asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) (06/16/89)
From: asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) In article <7435@cbnews.ATT.COM> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes: > >> From: ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!cyrius@cs.utexas.edu (Juan Chen) >> >> hollow point ammo ... is not "legal" to be used in combat >> ... what kind of rifle ammunition is allowed in combat, >> >The kind that kills and injures people (no smiley's). > >Seriously, any 'rules' of war are at best fallacious, and at >worst, a hinderance which keeps one side honest by trying to follow >the rules which are ignored by the other side. This type of thinking, >that you have to keep battle 'clean' and 'honest', can easily lead to >defeat. Crying foul while you are being soundly thrashed does no good >unless there is someone there to listen to you and intervene. The intent of rules of war is not to keep it clean or honest. That is already gone by the time you go to war. The intent is really self-preservation. You really don't want to get into an escalating battle with the enemy over how badly to hurt your people. Its really hard to tell your troops that odds are that with the enemy firing explosive rounds at u even if u are lightly wounded you are probably gonners. While it may seem fine from the enemy point of view odds also are that your side will start killing them with the same kind of weapons. The intention of rules of war is to prevent genocide and slaughter as much as possible. Given your perspective why not kill POWs? They'll only be a drain on manpower and take much needed troops to keep an eye on. The reason being that if u start killing people so will the other side and if you are losing its nice to have a way out by surrendering. Current conventional technology is good enough to take most injured out of the war anyway. While that is by no means true in all cases, would you, if u were a soldier like it to be that way. > >Hypothetically, if Y percent of hits with 'honest' ammo results in dead >enemy, and X percent results in disabling injuries, then you have >100-X-Y percent of the enemy casulties who will be patched up and return >to battle, probably rather angry at having been hit in the first place. >If, on the other hand, 'illegal' ammo increases either X or Y or both, >fewer enemy casulties will end up back in the lines against you, which >improves the chances of you and your men surviving. > >If you were an infantry commander, which would you rather use??? Question really is, would you like to have those same stats rationalize their use AGAINST you. If I was an infantry commander I'd like to have something left to command after suffering Y dead and X disabled in an even firefight. Ameer Z. Sulaiman.
mmm@apple.com (06/17/89)
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com Norman Kluksdahl says: > Hypothetically, if Y percent of hits with 'honest' ammo results in dead > enemy, and X percent results in disabling injuries, then you have > 100-X-Y percent of the enemy casulties who will be patched up and return > to battle, probably rather angry at having been hit in the first place. > If, on the other hand, 'illegal' ammo increases either X or Y or both, > fewer enemy casulties will end up back in the lines against you, which > improves the chances of you and your men surviving. I remember hearing that some of the bombs dropped on North Viet Nam were intentionally designed to maim, rather than kill. The idea was to sap the strength of the economy with the cost of caring for the wounded. Of course, this story may have been one of the anti-war memes which were intentionally designed to sap the political support for the war.
chris@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Graham) (06/26/89)
From: chris@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Graham) I've heard that it is better to use ammunition that will maim rather than kill because killing a n enemy only subtracts one from the other side but wounding him takes three or more in the way of medical support teams and other such. If the enemy is uncivilized enough not to repair his wounded, then he won't retain the loyalty of his troops relative to an army which does.