"weapon of murder"
cybit friendly
news:9eej4u$bfm$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com. is a saboted projectile that
'breaks open' during flight to expose up to 10,000 metal darts that are
designed primarily to kill unsheltered enemy soldiers. These darts bend, and
break, on impact, causing additional damage. This type of ammunition causes
area, not specific, damage.
I challenge the writer of the post to substantiate his claims, and I also
ask in general, should this be condoned or condemned?
krasus
Your post is a bit vague. Who are you to get a response from ? You say the
writer of the post ? who was that ?
cybit friendly <mwgriffnOmweb'co'za> wrote in message
news:3b0ef...@news1.mweb.co.za...
Roger Perkins
flechette round. Is it any better to kill someone with concussion or the
impact of one round as compared to many?
No problem.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"cybit friendly" <mwgriffnOmweb'co'za> wrote in message
news:3b0ef...@news1.mweb.co.za...
cybit friendly
krasus <kra...@excite.comedy.com> wrote in message
news:9enh1h$aq6$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>
> Your post is a bit vague. Who are you to get a response from ? You say
the
> writer of the post ? who was that ?
This response I got from you surprised me, because YOU wrote the message,
and YOU are the writer, I referred to. As for the post being "vague" - I was
as specific as I needed to be under the circumstances. You stated in your
initial post that Israel is using this ammunition against Palestinian mortar
crews without providing any substantial clues that what you are saying is
absolutely true, although most of the facts you did provide are
independently true. I am enquiring about the relevance of what you posted.
Colin Campbell <col...@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:1faugt8f4s5soou0s...@4ax.com...
> First of all a 'beehive' round is not a saboted round.
Please explain why you say this.
> BTW, what is there to condone or condemn about this?
This flechette shot has advantages and disadvantages and it comes at a cost.
It is also significantly 'malicious' weapon to warrant international
condemnation (as the original poster rightfully pointed out) as well as an
angered and aggressive enemy reply.
> I'll give you a hint - bti internet is not someplace to go for
> reliable information.
You know, I know, we all know that.
V-Man <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote in message
news:20010525223636...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
>
> Flechettes ae NOT banned, nor should they be for any specific reason
covered
> in the Hague treaties.
> Regular artillery shells are little different. Excpet that instead of
> streamlined pieces of steel coming at you at high speed, a regular HE
shell
> sends JAGGED pieces of steel at you at high speed.
Flechettes are useless against hardened targets and are designed to kill
soft targets indiscriminately. This is seen by many as somewhat morally
deplorable and a cowardly way of fighting - something every fighter senses
instantly in a fight and naturally reacts to. IMO tanks should pick on
someone their own size anyway. Normal HE rounds make economic sense.
The original poster claimed that Israel uses this type of ammo against
Palestine. I personally doubt if it is true, because I don't see it making
economic or politic sense for the IDF to use it. I don't doubt the existence
and usage of FA, but not by the IDF and not now.
Joe Gray
news:CkSP6.144$KT5....@eagle.america.net...
> Ya know, war is killing and I don't have a problem with a beehive or
> flechette round. Is it any better to kill someone with concussion or the
> impact of one round as compared to many?
>
> No problem.
>
> Roger
> AIRBORNE!
It is, military speaking, better to injury a solider, as this may take out
more men, as they administer first aid, carry the wounded etc.. as oposed to
killing him out-right. This is why we replaced the SLR with the "SA80".
joe
--
psi13:be wary
http://www.psi13.com
http://www.psi13.freeserve.co.uk
Roger Perkins
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"Joe Gray" <jos...@psi13.please-removefreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9epg1p$mnu$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Joe Gray
> I haven't got that much finesse. Center mass works for me.
>
> Roger
> AIRBORNE!
Of course you should always aim for centre mass, not to kill, just because
it is easier, it just so happens our hearts are placed there, nice one God,
<tut>, not to shoot arms and legs like in the movies, it just doesn't work.
Even so, a round from a fire arm aimed at chest level doesn't automatically
mean a kill. That's why we use double taps, have tumble rounds and hollow
points, basically.
Walter Bjorneby
killing, not murder. There is a distinction, you know (or may
not). My weapon of choice was napalm; second choice was Mk82
high-drags. The backup was an M61 20mm gatling gun. They were
all quite effective at getting the CAS job done. Center of mass
indeed.
Walt BJ
N9NWO
: flechette round. Is it any better to kill someone with concussion or the
: impact of one round as compared to many?
:
: No problem.
The problem is that soldiers use cover and
concealment. Thus aimed fire is hard to do
if you can not see the target. Thus a number
of rounds, or artillery with shot (beehive),
is used.
Even as far back as WW2, Marines had
to be retrained from the one shot, one kill
thinking of boot camp to the fact that they
usually never see the enemy. One usually
just fires at the flash of enemy fire. Especially
at night. That is why the M16A2 has the
three round burst.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
seriously trying to massacre the rioters these would Have been deployed. At
least a tank round is an 'AIMED SHOT' not like the usual Beirut prone
position used by some troops I've seen in tv coverage.
Glyn Davies
"Joe Gray" <jos...@psi13.please-removefreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9epg1p$mnu$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> news:CkSP6.144$KT5....@eagle.america.net...
> > Ya know, war is killing and I don't have a problem with a beehive or
> > flechette round. Is it any better to kill someone with concussion or
the
> > impact of one round as compared to many?
> >
> > No problem.
> >
> > Roger
> > AIRBORNE!
>
> It is, military speaking, better to injury a solider, as this may take out
> more men, as they administer first aid, carry the wounded etc.. as oposed
to
> killing him out-right. This is why we replaced the SLR with the "SA80".
This was not one of the reasons for replacing the SLR. It was replaced
because it was outdated and the ammunition was different to most other NATO
countries.
Glyn Davies
> "Roger Perkins" <ROGE...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:20ZP6.210$KT5....@eagle.america.net...
> > I haven't got that much finesse. Center mass works for me.
> >
> > Roger
> > AIRBORNE!
>
> Of course you should always aim for centre mass, not to kill, just because
> it is easier, it just so happens our hearts are placed there, nice one
God,
> <tut>, not to shoot arms and legs like in the movies, it just doesn't
work.
> Even so, a round from a fire arm aimed at chest level doesn't
automatically
> mean a kill. That's why we use double taps, have tumble rounds and hollow
> points, basically.
Again, without any intent at winding you up, I have to take issue. We are
not taught double taps, nor do we use tumbling rounds. The British Army
is taught to take aimed shots with hollow point rounds. You can't aim
properly on a double tap.
Glyn Davies
"Walter Bjorneby" <wal...@oneimage.com> wrote in message
news:3B1078B1...@oneimage.com...
Centre of the observed mass is totally correct for any aimed shots at
individual targets. If you are talking about heavy machine guns or HE
rounds being used against multiple targets then you still aim for the centre
to obtain maximum dispersion of the projectile(s).
krasus
Try and stay with the programme.
--
Krasus the wise.
---------------------------
Walter Bjorneby <wal...@oneimage.com> wrote in message
news:3B1078B1...@oneimage.com...
Glyn Davies
"N9NWO" <n9...@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:%D2Q6.3765$pa4.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
It depends on the circumstances. Night firing, as you say, is different.
Firing from trenches at an oncoming enemy with heavy fire all around you is
also different. (just poke it over the top and let fly). 'Suppresive'
fire against an unseen enemy is, as you say, usually not aimed at
individuals but at an area.
Try artillery or tank 'smoke' rounds BTW - white phos has an interesting
effect on ground mounted infantry.
:-))
>
>
>
>
Roger Perkins
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"Joe Gray" <jos...@psi13.please-removefreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9epmli$el9$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Roger Perkins
determine what it will and will not use.
Any comments on suicide bombings against undefended civilian targets by your
Palestinian friends? You know, just to keep things in perspective?
Didn't think so.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"krasus" <kra...@excite.comedy.com> wrote in message
news:9eqncd$elf$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
Roger Perkins
has seen alot of movies. The US only teaches you to double tap in SOF units
like Delta or group. Basic Rifle Marksmanship is still the same.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"Glyn Davies" <glyn.d...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:Ya5Q6.3657$lm5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Glyn Davies
> Don't sweat it, Glyn. He meant well. He obviously hasn't "been there"
but
> has seen alot of movies. The US only teaches you to double tap in SOF
units
> like Delta or group. Basic Rifle Marksmanship is still the same.
And always will be - amen ;-)
Moglwi
>
>"Joe Gray" <jos...@psi13.please-removefreeserve.co.uk>
wrote in message
>news:9epmli$el9$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
kill, just because
rounds and hollow
>> points, basically.
>
>Again, without any intent at winding you up, I have to take
issue. We are
>not taught double taps, nor do we use tumbling rounds.
The British Army
>is taught to take aimed shots with hollow point rounds.
5.56mm Ball, 9mm Ball 7.62 ball(I am sure I have forgotn a
few calibers still in use) any other type of round is
illigal under the terms of the Geneva conventoin and are
not issued to the British army. The SAS may carry diffrent
rounds when on conter terrosit duties but that ias not
covered by the geniva concention and therefore diffrent
rules apply. (I Know there is also tracer but that is still
a ball round.)
--
"No Mr Bond I expect you to Die"
Goldfinger
mog...@tinyonline.co.uk
Glyn Davies
"Moglwi" <Mog...@tinyonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b114...@news2.vip.uk.com...
Hollow point is issued by the British army. 7.62mm is hollow point. This
is not illegal under the Geneva convention. .303 parabellum was a ball
round as is 9mm. 5.56mm I'm not sure about but I'll take it from someone
who is still serving.
The hollow point is created by the metal jacketing of the lead round on the
7.62. Tracer is not affected by the tip of the round as the trace is in a
phosphorus plug at the base of the projectile.
Joe Gray
> Your point doesn't matter. Declared war or not it's up to the government
to
> determine what it will and will not use.
>
> Any comments on suicide bombings against undefended civilian targets by
your
> Palestinian friends? You know, just to keep things in perspective?
>
> Didn't think so.
I think all here, find such actions disgusting, I know I do. I am not a
"Palestinian Friend" but I am not their enemy either. I just feel that
responsible Governments need to use more directive response; by calling out
for a war is the wrong thing to do (IMHO), maybe this is the Palestinian
terrorists' objectives? If so Israel is playing right into their hands.
joe
--
psi13:be wary
http://www.psi13.com
http://www.psi13.freeserve.co.uk
>
Joe Gray
news:Ya5Q6.3657$lm5.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
no no no, I was saying for all general firearms. Of course with rifles and
the "LSW" etc... it is a different game. Roger mentioned SF and yes they use
double taps "To knock them down and keep them down" with their side-arms and
a burst with SMG in both cases because one shot to the chest is simply no
guarantee to a kill shot, therefore the target is still a threat. As for
tumbling rounds, the SLR used them that's why we moved to the SA80 as "They"
wanted more injuries not kills.
Joe Gray
"Roger Perkins" <ROGE...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:Sm9Q6.270$KT5....@eagle.america.net...
> It does when I put it there.
LOL!! I pity the fool who would dare mug you Roger! <grin>
Glyn Davies
I take your point but must move to correct the notion that the SLR used a
'tumbling' round. The 7.62mm (long) cartridge that was used for the SLR
and was interchangable with the GPMG was an aerodynamic round fired from a
rifled barrel and did not tumble. The projectile was lead with a copper
jacket and hollow point.
The only deviation on this type of round is not 'tumble' but 'drift' (to the
right) caused by the rotation of the projectile which is imparted by the
rifling of the barrel.
One thing you can be sure of with this round as well - any hit to the upper
torso is almost certainly a killing shot. The hollow point flattens (or
mushrooms) on impact with bone and creates a massive exit wound and extreme
tissue damage.
Joe Gray
yuk! <LOL> I am just going by what a friend told me years ago, The SLR is
before my time, though I prefer the look of it, to the "SA80". <grin>
Another poster on this group also mentioned that the SLR, well its round,
7.63 was banned under the Geneva convention, I wouldn't of taken too much
interest in that, but it was what my mate said too!
Glyn, you're an old solider, or is experienced a better word? <LOL>, I was
talking about the SLR, again years ago to another mate, yes I do have more
than one mate, and he said as the SLR was only a semi-automatic rifle, he
use to stick a match stick near the sear/trigger to get a fully automatic
mode! This must of been years ago as he was an old boy when I spoke to him.
Have you heard any thing about this?
Glyn Davies
Your mate was wrong then. The hollow point round is not banned under the
Geneva convention. Even though the round has a similar effect to a Dum-dum
which is banned. There are other things banned by the Geneva convention
which we use in other forms i.e. white phosphorous is banned except for use
as smoke. Fire a smoke round into infantry and you cover them with white
phos - nasty. Cannister is banned for use against infantry and is only
supposed to be used as a defoliant - try firing it into wood where there are
infantry positions - just to strip the leaves off you understand.
Check the current 'issue' manuals for ordnance ammo and you will se these
rounds listed.
>
> Glyn, you're an old solider, or is experienced a better word? <LOL>,
Ex-soldier - not 'old' in that sense - only 42.
I was
> talking about the SLR, again years ago to another mate, yes I do have more
> than one mate, and he said as the SLR was only a semi-automatic rifle, he
> use to stick a match stick near the sear/trigger to get a fully automatic
> mode! This must of been years ago as he was an old boy when I spoke to
him.
> Have you heard any thing about this?
The Self Loading Rifle L1A1 was actually a copy (made under licence) of the
FN Fal Assault rifle, manufactured by Fabrique Nationale of Belgium. The
original was designed by Enfield in 1941 (same as the Bullpup which later
became the SA80). The designer moved to FN after the war and the weapon was
produced there in the 50's and later sold to the British army. It was a
fully automatic weapon but the British army did not see this as a necessary
requirement, preferring its soldiers to 'aim' and fire rather than blat away
with only a 20 round mag, so the L1A1 was produced with only a repeating
sear and not a fully automatic one.
Yes the sear could be blocked by a match to make it fully automatic but it
also made the weapon unsafe. Plus the fact if you were caught doing it you
were in the shit big time.
krasus
international law. And as the article says, the government is undecided
over the legality of the weapons. You are so fucking dumb its amazing.
--
Krasus the wise.
---------------------------
Roger Perkins <ROGE...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:bo9Q6.271$KT5....@eagle.america.net...
Joe Gray
> >
> > Glyn, you're an old solider, or is experienced a better word? <LOL>,
>
> Ex-soldier - not 'old' in that sense - only 42.
>
<LOL> Sorry you sound wise beyond your years!
Talking of old, it is my 29 this 6 th June, them just one more year, to the
big
3-0 Yikes!
Joe Gray
Best hit the sack, been out all day enjoying the lovely weather, knackered
now.
Nice speaking to you Glyn, take it easy.
joe
Glyn Davies
> "Glyn Davies" <glyn.d...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:1zeQ6.5463$lm5.9...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > >
> > > Glyn, you're an old solider, or is experienced a better word? <LOL>,
> >
> > Ex-soldier - not 'old' in that sense - only 42.
> >
>
> <LOL> Sorry you sound wise beyond your years!
Flattery will get you everywhere ;-))
Glyn Davies
>
> Best hit the sack, been out all day enjoying the lovely weather, knackered
> now.
>
> Nice speaking to you Glyn, take it easy.
Cheers Joe
>
> joe
>
>
>
Raymond O'Hara
the palastinian's want war , the other Arab states want war , they should be
careful for what they wish for,
krasus wrote in message <9eru6n$8vc$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>...
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Joe Gray" <jos...@psi13.please-removefreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9epmli$el9$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > "Roger Perkins" <ROGE...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:20ZP6.210$KT5....@eagle.america.net...
> > > I haven't got that much finesse. Center mass works for me.
> > >
> > > Roger
> > > AIRBORNE!
> >
> > Of course you should always aim for centre mass, not to kill, just because
> > it is easier, it just so happens our hearts are placed there, nice one
> God,
> > <tut>, not to shoot arms and legs like in the movies, it just doesn't
> work.
> > Even so, a round from a fire arm aimed at chest level doesn't
> automatically
> > mean a kill. That's why we use double taps, have tumble rounds and hollow
> > points, basically.
>
> Again, without any intent at winding you up, I have to take issue. We are
> not taught double taps, nor do we use tumbling rounds.
All modern rifle and machinegun rounds tumble. IT's not a matter
of deliberate design, merely a fact of terminal ballistics of
modern high-rotation projectiles with high length/diameter ratios.
> The British Army
> is taught to take aimed shots with hollow point rounds. You can't aim
Hollow Point rounds are a Geneva Convention violation.
If you are caught on a battle field with such ammunition, you can, and
most likely WILL be executed ON THE SPOT by your captors WITHOUT TRIAL.
> properly on a double tap.
>
> >
> > joe
> >
> > --
> > psi13:be wary
> > http://www.psi13.com
> > http://www.psi13.freeserve.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
Glyn Davies
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B119C47...@yahoo.com...
Nice speech but totally wrong. It IS a matter of design and the simple fact
is, 7.62mm NATO rounds do not tumble. You are confusing this with the
pattern of fire from a machine gun. Totally different concept and has
nothing to do with tumbling.
>
> > The British Army
> > is taught to take aimed shots with hollow point rounds. You can't aim
>
> Hollow Point rounds are a Geneva Convention violation.
No they are not. They have been in use for over 40 years and are perfectly
legitimate.
>
> If you are caught on a battle field with such ammunition, you can, and
> most likely WILL be executed ON THE SPOT by your captors WITHOUT TRIAL.
We are talking standard issue rounds here - what you in the US call 'full
metal jacket'. Used by virtually every army in the world.
<snip>
billh
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> All modern rifle and machinegun rounds tumble.
Don't know much about terminal ballistics, do you, idiot? Only an idiot
would state "all modern rifle rounds tumble". Just more Kulkis bullshit.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B119C47...@yahoo.com...
> > Glyn Davies wrote:
> > >
> > > "Joe Gray" <jos...@psi13.please-removefreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >
> are
> > > not taught double taps, nor do we use tumbling rounds.
> >
> >
> > All modern rifle and machinegun rounds tumble. IT's not a matter
> > of deliberate design, merely a fact of terminal ballistics of
> > modern high-rotation projectiles with high length/diameter ratios.
>
> Nice speech but totally wrong. It IS a matter of design and the simple fact
> is, 7.62mm NATO rounds do not tumble. You are confusing this with the
> pattern of fire from a machine gun. Totally different concept and has
> nothing to do with tumbling.
>
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
Military rifle bullet wound
patterns
by Martin L. Fackler
In addition to the full-metal-jacketed construction which makes
them "military" bullets, the pointed ogival "spitzer" tip shape is
shared by all modern military bullets. The obvious advantage of this
streamlined shape is decreased air drag, allowing the bullet to retain
velocity better for improved long-range performance. A modern
military 7.62 mm bullet (with all-lead core) will lose only about
one-third of its muzzle velocity over 467 m; the same weight bullet
with a round-nose shape loses more than one-half of its velocity
over the same distance.
More pertinent to the present discussion is this pointed shape's
effect on the bullet's yaw in tissue. The first full-metal-jacketed
bullets (1885-1910) were over four calibres long and round-nosed.
Typical of this bullettype are the 6.5 mm Carcano and the 30-40
Krag bullets; they penetrate tissue simulant travelling point-forward
for 50 cm or more before significant yaw begins (Fackler, M.L.,
unpublished data, 1987). The very minimal wounding effect
produced by these early round-nosed jacketed bullets was
remarked upon by surgeons of the time (Kocher, Markins,
Brunner, Abbott, LaGarde, etc.). Even those soldiers with
through-and-through chest wounds in which the bullet missed the
large vessels (but passed through the lung) would be fit to rejoin
their units in a few weeks.
The distance that the military-type bullet travels point-forward
before yawing is critical to wounding effects. The distance shown
on the wound profiles is the average distance at which this occurs.
However, it is important to recognise how much shot-to-shot
variation from this average distance can be expected. Taking the
M16 wound profile (Fig. 6) as an example, it shows significant yaw
starting at a 12cm penetration depth. Seven out of ten shots can be
expected to begin yaw within 26 % of this distance (between nine
and 16 cm penetration depth). This plus or minus 25 % rule is a
useful approximation that can be applied to the otherwound
profiles. Let us apply it to the 50 cm distance-to- yaw for the older
bullets; whether the bullet begins to yaw between 37 or 63 cm
penetration distance does not effect most wounds of the human
body because, in the great majority of cases, the total tissue path
will be less than 37 cm.
Conversely, inconsistent effects have been noted in wounds caused
by the M16 and other modern military bullets. Considering the
variation in length of the possible tissue path through the human
body, this "inconsistency" of effect is to be expected. Beware! This
variation can be used to dupe the unsuspecting. A series of shots
through a 14 or 15 cm block of tissue simulant or the leg of a 25 kg
animal can give enough variation so that, by selective choice of exit
wound photographs, one can "prove" any point one wishes (such as
one bullet being less "humane" than another). The author hopes, that
understanding this, will make the reader less likely prey to this sort
of deception.
Bullet mass and bullet striking velocity establish a bullet's potential;
they set the limit on the tissue disruption it can produce. Bullet
shape and construction determine how much of this potential is
actually used to disrupt tissue; they are the major determinants of
bullet effect. Far and away the most disruptive bullet of those
described is the West German 7.62 NATO round. Its fragmenting
behaviour maximises utilisation of its much higher potential (bullet
mass well over twice that of any of the 5.56mm bullets and velocity
only about ten percent less than theirs) for tissue disruption.
This author has not tested other European 7.62 NATO rounds, but
the "NATO standards" apparently allow bullet designers great
latitude in the choice of bullet jacket material and thickness. In
1979 a published high-speed x-ray photograph showed the
Swedish 7.62 equivalent to the 7.62 NATO bullet breaking in a
soap block shot at a range of 100m. Although bullet fragments
were not recovered and photographed (the importance of bullet
fragmentation in tissue disruption was not well recognised at the
time), one must suspect the same very disruptive behaviour from
this bullet as from the West German round. This is particularly
ironic since the Swedish wound ballistics program was using every
means possible to discredit the M16 as "inhumane" while, at the
same time, Sweden was producing a 7.62 mm military bullet that
caused far more extensive wounds than the M16.
Whether we like to admit it or not, the primary purpose of military
rifle bullets is to disrupt human tissue. Yet the effects of bullets on
bodies - the characteristic tissue disruption patterns produced by
various bullets - remains unclear even to many of those who design
and produce bullets. Surgeons who are called upon to treat the
damage bullets cause, with few exceptions, lack practical
knowledge of bullet effects. Attempts to fill this information void
with formulae, graphs, flawed experiments, invalid assumptions, and
theories based on half-truth (or no truth at all) have only increased
confusion.
The obvious - simply measuring, recording and describing the
disruption produced by various calibres and bullet types - has
largely been ignored in favour of more dramatic and complex
methodology. To illustrate the problem: if a neighbour told you that
a meteorite had fallen into his back yard, wouldn't you ask him how
deep and how large a hole it had made? If he replied that he had,
on good authority, an estimation of the meteor's
striking velocity and the amount of kinetic energy it had "deposited"
and gave you both these figures, you might be impressed by the
sophistication of this information, but you still wouldn't know how
big a hole he had in his yard.
Roger Frost, in his cogent editorial "Bullet holes in theories" (IDR
8/1988 p.875) suggested that the various groups interested in
gunshot wounds need to "start to talk to one another". Let's add
that the talk needs to be in terms that can be understood by all - to
inform rather than to impress.
In order to illustrate the penetrating projectile-body tissue
interaction, the "wound profile" method was developed. It is an
attempt to present a useful approximation of the pertinent, useful,
factual data to clarify bullet effects in a form that can be readily
understood. The profiles depict the maximum disruption that a given
bullet can be expected to produce in the elastic soft tissue of the
living animal. The "permanent crush cavity" indicated on the wound
profiles is the "bullethole" produced by the projectile crushing the
tissue it strikes. The "temporary stress cavity" shows the
approximate extent to which the walls of this hole were stretched a
few milliseconds after bullet passage (entirely analogous to a splash
in water).
Anyone who has ever seen a bullet hole recognises that in many
cases it is, in fact, more what might be called a potential hole; it
need not be gaping open. One can, however, easily pass a probe
through it, as is commonly done by forensic pathologists to establish
the direction or angle of the shot. How deeply the bullet penetrated
and its attitude (yawed or straight) and form (deformed or
fragmented) as it penetrated. along with the approximate distance
the walls of the hole were stretched after the bullet passed
(temporary cavity) - this is the crucial information needed to
understand the wounding mechanisms.
Figure 1. Fired bullets internal cross section from left:AK-47,
AK-74, 5,56 x 45 NATO, 7,62 x 51 NATO.
To describe wounding patterns of the common military rifle bullets
in use today, wound profiles will, along with a description of the
two characteristic wounds for each bullet, be used. A simple
abdominal wound, and an uncomplicated (didn't hit bone or large
vessels) human thigh wound caused by each bullet, will be
described to demonstrate how the material presented as wound
profiles, can be put to practical use. This should give the combat
surgeon some idea of what to expect. His descriptions of the
wounds he actually treats, if they differ significantly from the
expected pattern, might be the first indication of a change in enemy
weapon or bullet type. Patterns of bullet fragmentation as seen on
x-ray, or even the tissue disruption pattern as observed in the body,
can be compared with the series of wound profiles to estimate the
bullet type when the bullet has passed entirely through.
Current rifle bullets
Soviet 7.62x39mm - The Soviet AK-47 Kalashnikov fires a
full-metal-jacketed, boat-tail bullet that has a copper-plated steel
jacket, a large steel core, and some lead between the two. In
tissue, this bullet typically travels for about 26cm point-forward
before beginning significant yaw. This author observed, on many
occasions, the damage pattern shown in Fig. 2 while treating battle
casualties in Da Nang, Vietnam (1968). The typical path through
the abdomen caused minimal disruption; holes in organs were
similar to those caused by a non-hollow-point handgun bullet. The
average uncomplicated thigh wound was about what one would
expect from a low-powered handgun: a small, punctuate entrance
and exit wound with minimal intervening muscle disruption.
Figure 2. AK-47, 7,62 x 39 mm FMJ, 713 m/s 7,8g
Yugoslav 7.62x39mm - The Yugoslav copper-jacketed, lead-core,
flat-base bullet, even when fired from the same Kalashnikov assault
rifle, acts very differently in tissue. It typically travels point-forward
for only about 9cm before yawing. Due to the lead core, this bullet
flattens somewhat as it yaws, squeezing a few small lead fragments
out at its open base, but this does not add significantly to its
wounding potential. Referring to the wound profile of the Soviet
AK-47 bullet (Fig. 2) and blotting out the first 17cm of the
projectile path will leave a good approximation of what one might
expect from this bullet.
Since this bullet would be travelling sideways through most of its
path in an abdominal wound, it would be expected to cut a swath
over three times the dimension made by the bullet travelling point
forward. In addition to the larger hole in organs from the
sideways-travelling bullet, the tissue surrounding the bullet path will
be stretched considerably from temporary cavitation. Actual
damage from the stretch of cavitation can vary from an almost
explosive effect, widely splitting a solid organ such as the liver, or a
hollow one such as the bladder if it is full at the time it is hit, to
almost no observable effect if the hollow organs (such as intestines)
when hit contain little liquid and/or air. The exit wound may be
punctate or oblong, depending on the bullet's orientation as it struck
the abdominal wall at the exit point. The exit wound could be
stellate if sufficient wounding potential remains at this point on the
bullet path. The thigh entrance wound will be small and punctate but
the exit wound will probably be stellate, measuring up to 11 cm
from the tips of opposing splits. The stellate exit wound results from
the temporary cavity simply stretching the skin beyond its breaking
point. These stellate wounds generally bleed very little. Small-to
medium-sized vessels are certainly cut or torn, but the temporary
cavity tearing action generally stimulates the tiny muscles in the
vessel walls to constrict and clots will form in their open ends,
limiting blood loss. Being wide open, these wounds tend to drain
and heal amazingly well even in situations of limited surgical
resources. This increased tissue disruption of the leg will, of course,
temporarily limit the mobility of the person hit to a greater extent
than wounds causing less tissue disruption.
Soviet 5.45x39mm - This is fired from the AK-74, which is the
Soviet contribution to the new generation of smaller-calibre assault
rifles and which produces the wound profile seen in Fig. 3. The full
metal-jacketed bullet designed for this weapon has a copper-plated
steel jacket and a largely steel core, as does the bullet of its
predecessor, the AK-47. A unique design feature of the AK-74,
however, is an air-space (about 5mm long) inside the jacket at the
bullet's tip (Fig 1). The speculation that this air-space would cause
bullet deformation and fragmentation on impact proved to be
unfounded, but the air-space does serve to shift the builet's centre
of mass toward the rear, possibly contributing to its very early yaw.
In addition, on bullet impact with tissue, the lead just behind the
air-space shifts forward into this space. This shift of lead occurs
asymmetrically and may be one reason for the peculiar curvature of
this bullet's path in the last half of its path through tissue (Fig 3).
Only in a shot with a long tissue path, like an oblique shot through
the torso, would this curved path be evident; it doesn't really add
anything to wounding capacity, but might cause an occasional
confusing path through tissue. This bullet yaws after only about 7cm
of tissue penetration, assuring an increased temporary cavity stretch
disruption in a higher percentage of extremity hits; other bullets
need more tissue depth to yaw and in many cases cause only
minimal disruption on extremity hits.
Figure 3. AK-74 5,45 x 39 mm FMJ 935 m/s 3,4 g
The abdomen and thigh wounds expected from this bullet would be
essentially the same as those described above for the Yugoslav
variation of the AK-47 bullet.
All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue path travelling
base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward; this is their
stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the rifled gun
barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel point-forward in air (in
properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such factors as
bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
effects. The bi-lobed yaw patterns shown in the profiles of the
AK-47 and the AK-74 represent what is seen in most shots.
Sometimes the bullet yaws to 180°, or the base-forward position,
in one cycle. These variations, along with the curvature in bullet
path at or near the end of tissue path, are of far less importance
than the distance the bullet travels point-forward before significant
yaw begins.
US M193 5.56x45mm - This bullet is fired from the US armed
forces' first-generation smaller-calibre rifle, the M16A1. The large
permanent cavity it produces, shown in the wound profile (Fig. 4),
was observed by surgeons who served in Vietnam, but the tissue
disruption mechanism responsible was not clear until the importance
of bullet fragmentation as a cause of tissue disruption was worked
out and described. As shown on the wound profile, this
full-metal-jacketed bullet travels point-forward in tissue for about
12cm after which it yaws to 90°, flattens, and breaks at the
cannelure (groove around bullet midsection into which the cartridge
neck is crimped). The bullet point flattens but remains in one piece,
retaining about 60 per cent of the original bullet weight. The rear
portion breaks into many fragments that penetrate up to 7cm
radially from the bullet path. The temporary cavity stretch, its effect
increased by perforation and weakening of the tissue by fragments,
then causes a much enlarged permanent cavity by detaching tissue
pieces. The degree of bullet fragmentation decreases with increased
shooting distance (as striking velocity decreases), as shown in Fig.
5. At a shooting distance over about 100m the bullet breaks at the
cannelure, forming two large fragments and, at over 200m, it no longer
breaks, although it continues to flatten somewhat, until 400m. This
consistent change in deformation/fragmentation pattern has an
important forensic application. It can be used to estimate shooting
distance if the bullet is recovered in the body and has penetrated
only soft tissue.
[ figure 4 ]
Figure 4. M193 5,56 x 45 mm FMJ NATO, 943 m/s 3,6 g initial
mass, 2,3 g final weight, 36% fragmentation
The effects of this bullet in the abdomen shot will show the
temporary cavity effects as described for the Yugoslav AK-47 and,
in addition, there will be an increased tissue disruption from the
synergistic effect of temporary cavitation acting on tissue that has
been weakened by bullet fragmentation. Instead of finding a hole
consistent with the size of the bullet in hollow organs such as the
intestine, we typically find a hole left by missing tissue of up to 7cm
in diameter (see permanent cavity in Fig. 4). The thigh entrance
wound will be small and punctuate. The first part of the tissue path
will show minimal disruption. The exit will vary from the small
punctuate hole described for the Soviet AK-47 to the stellate exit
described for the Yugoslav AK-47, depending on how thick the
thigh is where the bullet perforates it. In a sufficiently thick thigh, the
M193 bullet fragmentation is also likely to cause a significant loss of
tissue and possibly one or more small exit wounds near the large
stellate one.
Figure 5. NATO M855 / SS109 5,6 x 45mm
Lutz Möller: Dear Reader, Here I put you little
Jampressurecalculator, so you can by yourself recon the
Jampressure at the Bullettip. From Fluiddynamic one knows the
Jampressuereformula ps = ½ * rho*v². See by yourself which
fairytalelike high pressures result upon impact. Fill in some Speeds
in m/s. When you then hit the "recon"-button, I (true: your
JavaScript) calculates the pressure
Speed: m/s Pressure: bar
The Brakeforce results from effective Pressure over the Area. As
the full Jampressure only applies on the Bullettop, from there
dimishes to the side and finally lifts off to Zero, leaving a
pressureless Cavity, one marks a bullet with a Drag Cofficient Cd,
so F = -Cd * A * ½ * rho * v²
Fackler continued
The slightly heavier and longer American M855 bullet shot from the
M16A2 assault rifle is replacing the M193 bullet shot from the
M16A1 as the standard bullet of the US armed forces. FN Herstal
originally developed this bullet type (which has a steel "penetrator"
as the forward part of its core - Fig. 1) designating its bullet the
SS109. The wound profile (Fig. 6) is very similar to that produced
by the M 193 bullet. Although the SS109 and the M866 are not
the same bullet, their differences are small and one almost needs a
magnifying glass and a side-by-side comparison to differentiate the
two. There is little difference in their performance in tissue.
The abdominal and the thigh wound produced by the M856 or the
SS109 bullets would be essentially the same as those described
above for the M16A1 M193 bullet.
Figure 6. M856 5,56 x 45 mm FMJ 925 m/s initial mass 4 g, final
mass 2 g, 50% fragmentation
The longer 5.56mm bullets (M866, SS109) need a higher rotational
velocity to maintain stabilisation in air. FN claimed that this faster
rotation also causes the SS109 to have a significantly longer path in
tissue before marked yaw occurs, thus producing wounds of less
severity. This is simply untrue (compare Fig. 6 with Fig. 6).
Additional rotation beyond that needed to keep the bullet straight in
air appears to have little or no effect on the projectile's behaviour in
tissue. However, there is a situation concerning rotation rates
whereby these longer 5.66mm bullets can cause increased wound
severity. Shooting the SS109 or M865 bullet in the older M16A1
rifle barrel (they are not intended for use in this 1-in- 12 in twist
barrel, but in the newer M 16A2 1-in-7in twist) produces a bullet
spin rate insufficient to stabilise the longer bullets. Such a bullet will
yaw up to 70° in its path through air. Striking at this high yaw angle
(essentially travelling sideways), these bullets break on contact and
the marked fragmentation, acting in synergy with the temporary
cavity stretch, causes a large (over 15cm) stellate wound with the
loss of considerable tissue (Fackler, M.L., unpublished data,
1988).
Figure 7. American 7,62x51 NATO FMJ, 862 m/s, 9,7g
NATO 7.62x51mm FMJ (US version) - This full-metal-jacketed
military bullets wound profile (Fig. 7) shows the characteristic
behaviour in tissue observed in all non-deforming pointed bullets. It
yaws first through 90° and then, after reaching the base-forward
position continues the rest of its path with little or no yaw.
The uncomplicated thigh wound might show very minimal tissue
disruption since the streamlined bullet tends to travel point forward
during the first 16cm of its tissue path. The abdominal wound, with
a sufficiently long path so that the bullet will yaw, causing the large
temporary cavity that is seen at depths of 20 to 35cm, would be
expected to be very disruptive. If the bullet path is such that this
temporary cavity occurs in the liver, this amount of tissue disruption
is likely to make survival improbable.
Figure 8. German 7.62 x 51 mm FMJ NATO left, same american
right
The design standards for ammunition that can be called "NATO"
ammunition do not specify bullet jacket material or jacket thickness.
The construction of the West German 7.62 mm NATO bullet
differs from the US 7.62 mm NATO round in that, the jacket
material is copper plated steel, whereas the US version is copper
(or the so called gilding metal alloy, which is predominantly
copper). The West German steel jacket is about 0.6mm thick near
the cannelure and the US copper jacket is about 0.8mm thick at the
same point. This design difference is responsible for a vast
difference in performance in tissue. The German bullet, after
travelling point-forward for only about 8 cm, yaws and breaks at
the cannelure. The flattened point section retains only about 66 %
of the bullet's weight, the remaining 45 % mass becomes fragments
(Fig. 8). The wound profile can be described as an enlarged M16
profile (Fig. 3), with dimensions of the tissue disruption increased
by 60 % (temporary stress cavity about 22 cm diameter;
permanent crush cavity about 11 cm diameter, penetration depth of
the bullet point about 58 cm). The uncomplicated thigh wound from
this bullet is likely to have a large exit with the loss of substantial
tissue near the exit; still, this might not be a very serious wound
since the bullet fragmentation does not occur until beyond 10 cm
penetration depth and, in most shots, the bullet will have passed
well beyond the major vessels before this occurs. The abdomen
shot, however, because of the much enlarged permanent cavity
from bullet fragmentation, is likely to prove fatal in a majority of
cases.
Sovjet and Chinese 7.62 x 54 mm R (Rimmed case) - This bullet,
although not nearly as common as the AK-47 or the others
discussed above, is included because it is currently used in the
Dragunov sniper rifle and the Communist bloc light machine-guns.
Also, since it was the standard Soviet military round in WW1 and
WW2 (in the bolt-action Mosin-Nagant), it might well be found in
considerable numbers in some Third World countries. The bullet
weighs 9,6 g; the base is hollowed out with a cone-shaped cavity -
5 mm deep for the Sovjet, 3 mm deep for the Chinese). The Sovjet
bullet has a copper-plated steel jacket and the Chinese one has a
jacket of what appears to be brass. The muzzle velocity is about
853 m/s and the wound profile closely resembles that of the 7.62
mm NATO (US version). Thigh and abdominal shots thus would
be as described above for the US 7.62 mm NATO bullet.
Martin Fackler
Betreff: [HK-L] Re: Fragmenting Bullets
Datum: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:49:37 -0600
Von: "Michael Bonomo" <mbo...@interaccess.com>
An: Chuck Santose <san...@compuserve.com>
CC: hk...@odaiko.ss.uci.edu
Hi Chuck,
I'm afraid I don't share the admiration for the 55 grain
M16 at any range beyond 100 meters. Too many first hand
close-up-and-personal experiences in rather muddy jungle areas
where they didn't get the job done for me to trust them at more than
100 meters. And even then I've seen the 55 grain do no more
damage than a .22 rifle in some cases. What a .223 is SUPPOSED
to do and what it does in real life are two different things. Ever
wonder why they put 3-shot burst devices on many of the newer
weapons? A hint...it wasn't just to conserve ammo. I'd much rather
score a single solid torso hit with a 7.62NATO (with an H&K G3
of course;) than a multiple hit with a varmit cartridge. While I agree
that "wonder bullets" like the Glaser, etc., are not ultimate
killers...they DO have applications. As in airplanes where you don't
want any misses blowing out your cabin pressure at 20,000 feet.
However, I am VERY reluctant to trust laboratories for finding the
ideal cartridge for street use. I don't give a dang if they spend the
whole budget surplus (if there still is one) to reach their findings.
Labs can NOT duplicate street situations or military combat
scenarios.
Better check that effective range info for the SS109. I think it is
superior to the M193 and not inferior.
Mike
> Date sent: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:59:32 -0500
> From: Chuck Santose <san...@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Fragmenting Bullets
> To: Michael Bonomo
<mbo...@interaccess.com>,
> HK...@odaiko.ss.uci.edu
> Mike --
> The M16 bullet (actually M193 Ball and M855 Ball) is extremely
effective to roughly 170 meters beyond which the bullet is unlikely
to fragment and cause the giant wounds these rifles are famous for.
This is why military ball ammo causes larger wounds than JHPs
from THIS rifle at THESE ranges. (M16-type carbines have less
MV and less real effective range. The darling 10" "CAR-15" bbls
used by Delta operators in Somalia proved very ineffective.)
> [M855 Ball -- the newer 62gr steel cored bullet -- has a shorter
effective range than older M193 Ball because it starts off almost
200 > fps slower.]
> Fragmentation of M16 military ball ruptures the walls of the giant
temporary cavity caused by the high velocity bullet turning it into a
very large permanent wound cavity. This cavity is located DEEP
within the target where it has great potential of damaging vital
organs.
> Pistol bullets don't move fast enough to cause temporary cavities
of any significance and none shred it with fragments.
> Bozo Bullets like MagSafes, Glasers, Tritons are designed to
fragment. So what? There's no temporary cavity to rip apart.
These bullets rarely penetrate deep enough to have any potential of
reaching vital organs. They can cause large shallow wounds which
are much less likely to incapacitate an attacker than deeper
wounds. These bullets are effective in fragmentation. They are
ineffective in incapacitation.
> Laboratories like those at the FBI and California Highway Patrol
have spent a lot of our tax dollars determining the most effective
cartridges for pistols of all calibers. Their criteria is based on what
it takes to incapacitate a determined attacker in a gun fight.
Why anyone would choose a lesser bullet (like MagSafe, Glaser, or
Triton) is a mystery to me!
> -- Chuck
The HK List is sponsored by Street Smart Professional Equipment.
For the finest in public safety equipment and tactical gear, For list
instructions goto http://www.streetpro.com/usp/list.html
Peter G. Kokalis, Editor of Fighting Firearms Magazine from
http://remtek.com/cfi/aw/awcfile.htm writes:
Both the AWP and AW CFI Limited Edition rifles chamber throats
optimized for the Federal 308M cartridge that features the superbly
accurate Sierra 168-grain BTHP Matchking bullet. Developed for
300-meter shooting in international matches, this remarkable
Boat-Tail Hollow-Point bullet has been winning competitions ever
since it was introduced in 1959. It was used by the gold-medal
winner in the 1968 Olympics and set a new Wimbledon record at
200-15 Xs in 1983 at Camp Perry. With Federal 308M I have
shot 0.25 MOA at 200 yards and 0.5 MOA at 300 yards with the
AW CFI Limited Edition rifle equipped with the AWC Thundertrap
sound suppressor. It just doesn't get any better than this. The Sierra
168-grain BTHP Matchking bullet remains far and away the most
popular bullet among law-enforcement selected marksmen in the
United States. But, is it really the best choice from a wound
ballistics'
perspective?
The hollow-point cavity in this competition target bullet does not
guarantee the type of consistent, early expansion exhibited by
hollow points and soft points designed for use on living-tissue
targets. Research recently conducted by Lucien C. Haag and
reported in the Wound Ballistics Review (Vol. 2, No. 2), the
journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association, revealed
that these bullets frequently fail to expand in tissue simulant even
after as much as 6 inches of penetration and with close range
impact velocities. Dr. Martin L. Fackler, in the same issue of the
journal, reported that these bullets will commonly break up after 7
inches of penetration. His experiments indicated that when the
cavity was increased in diameter to 0.055 inch by a drill, reliable
expansion was obtained after penetrating less than one inch of 10%
gelatin or muscle. Recent controlled testing has demonstrated that
this alteration degrades accuracy
by no more than 0.1 MOA - an insignificant amount. Winchester is
reportedly in the process of developing their own bullet for
law-enforcement use that will provide both match-grade accuracy
and reliable performance in tissue.
Quelle
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS
LITERATURE and why by M. Fackler
Sniper Use of Open-Tip
Ammunition
Submitted by Don Bain
MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, UNITED STATES
ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND SUBJECT:
Sniper Use of Open-Tip Ammunition
1. Summary.
This memorandum considers whether United States Army Snipers
may employ match-grade, "open-tip" ammunition in combat or
other special missions. It concludes that such ammunition does not
violate the law of war obligations of the United States, and may be
employed in peacetime or wartime missions of the Army.
2. Background.
For more than a decade two bullets have been available for use by
the United States Army Marksmanship Unit in match competition in
its 7.62mm rifles. The M118 is a 173-grain match grade full metal
jacket boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet, while the M852 is the
Sierra MatchKing 168-grain match grade boat tail, ogival spitzer tip
bullet with an open tip. Although the accuracy of the M118 has
been reasonably good, though at times erratic, independent bullet
comparisons by the Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard
marksmanship training units have established unequivocally the
superior accuracy of the M852. Army tests noted a 36%
improvement in accuracy with the M852 at 300 meters, and a 32%
improvement at 600 yds; Marine Corps figures were twenty-eight
percent accuracy improvement at 300 m, and 20% at 600yds. The
National Guard determined that the M852 provided better bullet
groups at 200 and 600 yards under all conditions than did the
M118. (citation omitted.)
The 168-grain MatchKing was designed in the late 1950's for 300
m. shooting in international rifle matches. In its competitive debut, it
was used by the 1st place winner at the 1959 Pan American
Games. In the same caliber but in its various bullet lengths, the
MatchKing has set a number of international records. To a range of
600 m., the superiority of the accuracy of the M852 cannot be
matched, and led to the decision by U.S. military marksmanship
training units to use the M852 in competition.
A 1980 opinion of this office concluded that use of the M852 in
match competition would not violate law of war obligations of the
United States. (citation omitted) Further tests and actual
competition over the past decade have confirmed the superiority of
the M852 over the M118 and other match grade bullets. For
example, at the national matches held at Camp Perry, OH in 1983,
a new Wimbledon record of 2--015 X's was set using the 168-gr.
MatchKing. This level of performance lead to the question of
whether the M852 could be used by military snipers in peacetime
or wartime missions of the Army.
During the period in which this review was conducted, the 180-gr.
MatchKing (for which there is no military designation) also was
tested with a view to increased accuracy over the M852 at very
long ranges. Because two bullet weights were under consideration,
the term "MatchKing" will be used hereinafter to refer to the generic
design rather than to a bullet of a particular weight. The fundamental
question to be addressed by this review is whether an open-tip
bullet of MatchKing design may be used in combat.
3. Legal Factors.
The principal provision relating to the legality of weapons is
contained in Art. 23e of the Annex to Hague Convention IV
Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October
1907, which prohibits the employment of "arms, projectiles, or
material of a nature to cause superfluous injury". In some law of
war treatises, the term "unnecessary suffering" is used rather than
"superfluous injury." The terms are regarded as synonymous. To
emphasize this, Art. 35, para. 2 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional
to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, states in part that
"It is prohibited to employ weapons [and] projectiles . . . of a
nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering."
Although the U.S. has made the formal decision that for military,
political, and humanitarian reasons it will not become a party to
Protocol I, U.S. officials have taken the position that the language
of Art. 35(2) of Protocol I as quoted is a codification of customary
international law, and therefore binding upon all nations.
The terms "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" have not
been formally defined within international law. In determining
whether a weapon or projectile causes unnecessary suffering, a
balancing test is applied between the force dictated by military
necessity to achieve a legitimate objective vis-à-vis suffering that
may be considered superfluous to achievement of that intended
objective. The test is not easily applied. For this reason, the degree
of "superfluous" injury must be clearly disproportionate to the
intended objectives for development and employment of the
weapon, that is, it must outweigh substantially the military necessity
for the weapon system or projectile.
The fact that a weapon causes suffering does not lead to the
conclusion that the weapon causes unnecessary suffering, or is
illegal per se. Military necessity dictates that weapons of war lead
to death, injury, and destruction; the act of combatants killing or
wounding enemy combatants in combat is a legitimate act under the
law of war. In this regard, there is an incongruity in the law of war
in that while it is legally permissible to kill an enemy combatant,
incapacitation must not result inevitably in unnecessary suffering.
What is prohibited is the design (or modification) and employment
of a weapon for the purpose of increasing or causing suffering
beyond that required by military necessity. In conducting the
balancing test necessary to determine a weapon's legality, the
effects of a weapon cannot be viewed in isolation. They must be
examined against comparable weapons in use on the modern
battlefield, and the military necessity for the weapon or projectile
under consideration.
In addition to the basic prohibition on unnecessary suffering
contained in Art. 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, one other treaty is
germane to this review. The Hague Declaration Concerning
Expanding Bullets of 29 July 1899 prohibits the use in international
armed conflict:
". . . 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 U.S. is not a party to this treaty, but U.S. officials over the
years have taken the position that the armed forces of the U.S. will
adhere to its terms to the extent that its application is consistent with
the object and purpose of Art. 23e of the Annex to the Hague
Convention IV, quoted above.
It is within the context of these two treaties that questions regarding
the legality of the employment of the MatchKing "open tip" bullet
must be considered.
4. Bullet Description.
As previously described, the MatchKing is a boat tail, ogival spitzer
tip bullet with open tip. The "open tip" is a shallow aperture
(approximately the diameter of the wire in a standard size straight
pin or paper clip) in the nose of the bullet. While sometimes
described as a "hollow point," this is a mischaracterization in law of
war terms. Generally a "hollow point" bullet is thought of in terms of
its ability to expand on impact with soft tissue. Physical examination
of the MatchKing "open tip" bullet reveals that its opening is
extremely small in comparison to the aperture in comparable hollow
point hunting bullets; for example, the 165-grain GameKing is a true
hollow point boat tail bullet with an aperture substantially greater
than the MatchKing, and skiving (serrations cut into the jacket) to
insure expansion. In the MatchKing, the open tip is closed as much
as possible to provide better aerodynamics, and contains no
skiving. The lead core of the MatchKing bullet is entirely covered
by the bullet jacket. While the GameKing bullet is designed to bring
the ballistic advantages of a match bullet to long range hunting, the
manufacturer expressly recommends against the use of the
MatchKing for hunting game of any size because it does not have
the expansion characteristics of a hunting bullet.
The purpose of the small, shallow aperture in the MatchKing is to
provide a bullet design offering maximum accuracy at very long
ranges, rolling the jacket of the bullet around its core from base to
tip; standard military bullets and other match bullets roll the jacket
around its core from tip to base, leaving an exposed lead core at its
base. Design purpose of the MatchKing was not to produce a
bullet that would expand or flatten easily on impact with the human
body, or otherwise cause wounds greater than those caused by
standard military small arms ammunition.
5. MatchKing performance.
Other than its superior long range marksmanship capabilities, the
MatchKing was examined with regard to its performance on impact
with the human body or in artificial material that approximates
human soft tissue. It was determined that the bullet will break up or
fragment in some cases at some point following entry into soft
tissue. Whether fragmentation occurs will depend upon a myriad of
variables, to include range to the target, velocity at the time of
impact, degree of yaw of the bullet at the point of impact, or the
distance traveled point-first within the body before yaw is induced.
The MatchKing has not been designed to yaw intentionally or to
break up on impact. These characteristics are common to all
military rifle bullets. There was little discernible difference in bullet
fragmentation between the MatchKing and other military small arms
bullets, with some military ball ammunition of foreign manufacture
tending to fragment sooner in human tissue or to a greater degree,
resulting in wounds that would be more severe than those caused
by the MatchKing. [FNaaa1]
Because of concern over the potential mischaracterization of the
M852 as a "hollow point" bullet that might violate the purpose and
intent of the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding
Bullets, some M852 MatchKing bullets were modified to close the
aperture. The "closed tip" MatchKing did not measure up to the
accuracy of the "open tip" MatchKing.
Other match grade bullets were tested. While some could approach
the accuracy standards of the MatchKing in some lots, quality
control was uneven, leading to erratic results. No other match
grade bullet consistently could meet the accuracy of the open-tip
bullet.
6. Law of War Application.
From both a legal and medical standpoint, the lethality or
incapacitation effects of a particular small-caliber projectile must be
measured against comparable projectiles in service. In the military
small arms field, "small caliber" generally includes all rifle projectiles
up to and including .60 caliber (15mm). For the purposes of this
review, however, comparison will be limited to small-caliber
ammunition in the range of 5.45mm to 7.62mm, that is, that
currently in use in assault or sniper rifles by the military services of
most nations.
Wound ballistic research over the past fifteen years has determined
that the prohibition contained in the 1899 Hague Declaration is of
minimal to no value, inasmuch as virtually all jacketed military
bullets employed since 1899 with pointed ogival spitzer tip shape
have a tendency to fragment on impact with soft tissue, harder
organs, bone or the clothing and/or equipment worn by the
individual soldier.
The pointed ogival spitzer tip, shared by all modern military bullets,
reflects the balancing by nations of the criteria of military necessity
and unnecessary suffering: its streamlined shape decreases air drag,
allowing the bullet to retain velocity better for improved long-range
performance; a modern military 7.62mm bullet will lose only about
one-third of its muzzle velocity over 500 yards, while the same
weight bullet with a round-nose shape will lose more than one-half
of its velocity over the same distance. Yet the pointed ogival spitzer
tip shape also leads to greater bullet breakup, and potentially
greater injury to the soldier by such a bullet vis-à-vis a round-nose
full- metal jacketed bullet. (See Dr. M. L. Fackler, "Wounding
Patterns for Military Rifle Bullets," International Defense Review,
January 1989, pp. 56-64, at 63.)
Weighing the increased performance of the pointed ogival spitzer
tip bullet against the increased injury its breakup may bring, the
nations of the world-- through almost a century of practice--have
concluded that the need for the former outweighs concern for the
latter, and does not result in unnecessary suffering as prohibited by
the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets or
article 23e of the 1907 Hague Convention IV. The 1899 Hague
Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets remains valid for
expression of the principle that a nation may not employ a bullet
that expands easily on impact for the purpose of unnecessarily
aggravating the wound inflicted upon an enemy soldier. Such a
bullet also would be prohibited by article 23e of the 1907 Hague
IV, however. Another concept fundamental to the law of war is the
principle of discrimination, that is, utilization of means or methods
that distinguish to the extent possible legitimate targets, such as
enemy soldiers, from noncombatants, whether enemy wounded and
sick, medical personnel, or innocent civilians. The highly trained
military sniper with his special rifle and match grade ammunition
epitomizes the principle of discrimination. In combat, most targets
are covered or obscured, move unpredictably, and as a
consequence are exposed to hostile fire for limited periods of time.
When coupled with the level of marksmanship training provided the
average soldier and the stress of combat, a soldier's aiming errors
are large and hit probability is correspondingly low. While the
M16A2 rifle currently used by the United States Army and Marine
Corps is capable of acceptable accuracy out to six hundred meters,
the probability of an average soldier hitting an enemy soldier at
three hundred meters is ten percent.
[page continues even more]
> >
> > > The British Army
> > > is taught to take aimed shots with hollow point rounds. You can't aim
> >
> > Hollow Point rounds are a Geneva Convention violation.
>
> No they are not. They have been in use for over 40 years and are perfectly
> legitimate.
> > If you are caught on a battle field with such ammunition, you can, and
> > most likely WILL be executed ON THE SPOT by your captors WITHOUT TRIAL.
>
> We are talking standard issue rounds here - what you in the US call 'full
> metal jacket'. Used by virtually every army in the world.
full metal jacket = no hollow point
>
> <snip>
billh
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> Conversely, inconsistent effects have been noted in wounds caused
> by the M16 and other modern military bullets. Considering the
> variation in length of the possible tissue path through the human
> body, this "inconsistency" of effect is to be expected. Beware! This
> variation can be used to dupe the unsuspecting. A series of shots
> through a 14 or 15 cm block of tissue simulant or the leg of a 25 kg
> animal can give enough variation so that, by selective choice of exit
> wound photographs, one can "prove" any point one wishes (such as
> one bullet being less "humane" than another). The author hopes, that
> understanding this, will make the reader less likely prey to this sort
> of deception.
LOL!!! You're an idiot Kulkis.
> Bullet mass and bullet striking velocity establish a bullet's potential;
> they set the limit on the tissue disruption it can produce. Bullet
> shape and construction determine how much of this potential is
> actually used to disrupt tissue; they are the major determinants of
> bullet effect. Far and away the most disruptive bullet of those
> described is the West German 7.62 NATO round. Its fragmenting
> behaviour maximises utilisation of its much higher potential (bullet
> mass well over twice that of any of the 5.56mm bullets and velocity
> only about ten percent less than theirs) for tissue disruption.
Fragmentation, not tumbling, idiot. Where's your proof that "all modern
rifle and machinegun rounds tumble"?
>
> This author has not tested other European 7.62 NATO rounds,
Enough said.
but
> the "NATO standards" apparently allow bullet designers great
> latitude in the choice of bullet jacket material and thickness. In
> 1979 a published high-speed x-ray photograph showed the
> Swedish 7.62 equivalent to the 7.62 NATO bullet breaking in a
> soap block shot at a range of 100m. Although bullet fragments
> were not recovered and photographed (the importance of bullet
> fragmentation in tissue disruption was not well recognised at the
> time), one must suspect the same very disruptive behaviour from
> this bullet as from the West German round. This is particularly
> ironic since the Swedish wound ballistics program was using every
> means possible to discredit the M16 as "inhumane" while, at the
> same time, Sweden was producing a 7.62 mm military bullet that
> caused far more extensive wounds than the M16.
Fragmentation, idiot. Where's your proof that "all modern rifle and
machinegun rounds tumble"?
Known as the wound channel, idiot. Not caused by tumbling.
>
> Anyone who has ever seen a bullet hole recognises that in many
> cases it is, in fact, more what might be called a potential hole; it
> need not be gaping open.
This certainly doesn't help your "all modern rifle and machinegun rounds
tumble" bullshit.
One can, however, easily pass a probe
> through it, as is commonly done by forensic pathologists to establish
> the direction or angle of the shot. How deeply the bullet penetrated
> and its attitude (yawed or straight)
If all bullets tumble Kulkis why does Faclker mention "yaw and straight"?
Where's your proof that "all modern rifle and machinegun rounds tumble"?
and form (deformed or
> fragmented) as it penetrated.
I already pointed this out to you. Where's the "all modern rifle and
machinegun rounds tumble", Kulkis.?
along with the approximate distance
> the walls of the hole were stretched after the bullet passed
> (temporary cavity) -
Again, this is the wound cavity and isn't related to the "kulkis tumble".
this is the crucial information needed to
> understand the wounding mechanisms.
>
>
>
> Figure 1. Fired bullets internal cross section from left:AK-47,
> AK-74, 5,56 x 45 NATO, 7,62 x 51 NATO.
>
> To describe wounding patterns of the common military rifle bullets
> in use today, wound profiles will, along with a description of the
> two characteristic wounds for each bullet, be used. A simple
> abdominal wound, and an uncomplicated (didn't hit bone or large
> vessels) human thigh wound caused by each bullet, will be
> described to demonstrate how the material presented as wound
> profiles, can be put to practical use. This should give the combat
> surgeon some idea of what to expect. His descriptions of the
> wounds he actually treats, if they differ significantly from the
> expected pattern, might be the first indication of a change in enemy
> weapon or bullet type. Patterns of bullet fragmentation
Fragmmentation. Where's your proof that "all modern rifle and machinegun
rounds tumble", KuKuNut?
as seen on
> x-ray, or even the tissue disruption pattern as observed in the body,
> can be compared with the series of wound profiles to estimate the
> bullet type when the bullet has passed entirely through.
>
> Current rifle bullets
>
> Soviet 7.62x39mm - The Soviet AK-47 Kalashnikov fires a
> full-metal-jacketed, boat-tail bullet that has a copper-plated steel
> jacket, a large steel core, and some lead between the two. In
> tissue, this bullet typically travels for about 26cm point-forward
> before beginning significant yaw. This author observed, on many
> occasions, the damage pattern shown in Fig. 2 while treating battle
> casualties in Da Nang, Vietnam (1968). The typical path through
> the abdomen caused minimal disruption; holes in organs were
> similar to those caused by a non-hollow-point handgun bullet. The
> average uncomplicated thigh wound was about what one would
> expect from a low-powered handgun: a small, punctuate entrance
> and exit wound with minimal intervening muscle disruption.
It ain't here. Indeed, the bullets that created these wounds didn't tumble.
You, again and as usual, are quite wrong. Many bullets do tumble while
others may tumble under the right circumstances, but lets's see you back up
your claim that "all modern rifle and machinegun rounds (your word, not
mine) tumble".
Don't tell us, you heard it from an NCO 8 years ago, but you can't recall
his name.
Only someone as stupid as you would post an article that proves you are
wrong in the blind hope it will prove you right. You need to seek some
help.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
the SLR or SA80.
All standard issue ball ammo is Full metal jacket.
That is a copper jacket surrounding a lead core from tip to base of bullet.
The SA80 5.56mm is SS109 which DOES NOT tumble and IS also full metal
jacket.
I
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
a fixed firing pin. just as effective and even more dangerous.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
air pocket at the tip and a dense materiel in the tail.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ok 7.62 is heavier. and you can carry less of them.
but SA80 is a heavier rifle. Has crap balance is badly manufactured and is
to fragile.
Bill Phillips
to those with a limited grasp of the English language.
The last post just carefull deleted everything that supported Aaron R.
Kulkis then claimed that the article did not support him.
That is lying, and clear evidence that billh is the idiot..
Glyn Davies
> Glyn Davies wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B119C47...@yahoo.com...
> > We are talking standard issue rounds here - what you in the US call
'full
> > metal jacket'. Used by virtually every army in the world.
>
> full metal jacket = no hollow point
Read it again. It clearly says the NATO round and the US round has an air
space behind the tip - thus making it a hollow point. It also describes
the mushrooming effect of the NATO round which I clearly stated.
I feel totally vindicated even though my eyes are aching after reading that.
Glyn Davies
"billh" <williamhu...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dlQ6.31758$9D5.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<snip>>
> Only someone as stupid as you would post an article that proves you are
> wrong in the blind hope it will prove you right. You need to seek some
> help.
I couldn't agree more. For a while I thought he was posting the article in
support of what I was saying, especially when I read the bit about the NATO
7.62 round having an air space behind the tip of the copper jacketing.
He's done a helluva good job of backing me up whether he meant to or not.
>
>
>
>
Glyn Davies
"Bill Phillips" <C.W.R.P...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:3b1222fb$0$15029$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> Actually the article makes considerable reference to Yawing, that's
tumbling
> to those with a limited grasp of the English language.
I agree, but the article also said that the NATO 7.62mm was a fragmenting
round, which travelled accurately in flight without yawing and that it was
unlikely to yaw because it would penetrate tissue point forward and then
mushroom. This particular round would only yaw after penetrating XXXXmm
and only if it didn't impact on bone. As this is the round we have been
discussing it does actually prove Mr Kulkis very wrong indeed.
Glyn Davies
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <mark....@dnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b11...@ni-news.utvinternet.com...
> Glynn you are talking rubbish. The UDR were never issued hollow points for
> the SLR or SA80.
> All standard issue ball ammo is Full metal jacket.
> That is a copper jacket surrounding a lead core from tip to base of
bullet.
That's where you are wrong and a very long article has just been posted
which clearly states that NATO 7.62mm ammo has an air gap behind the tip of
the copper jacket. The UDR were not part of NATO I grant you but as NATO
7.62 ammo is standard issue for ALL British units I think you could safely
say the UDR did have these rounds for use in SLR, LMG and GPMG.
The only true ball round we used in small arms in my time (which isn't that
long ago) was the 9mm Parabellum round for use in the Sterling SMG and
Browning Hi Power.
I'm confused as to why you quote the UDR in relation to my service as I
spent most of my time in the Queen's Royal Irish Hussars, however as I did
serve with 11UDR for three years I can confirm that what I have said is
true.
Glyn Davies
> the Russian 5.45mm round has interesting terminal ballistics as it has an
> air pocket at the tip and a dense materiel in the tail.
>
As do most copper jacketed rounds i.e the NATO 7.62mm
>
Bill Phillips
German rounds Yaw 90 deg then break up., US rounds yaw 180 deg then
stabalise like that. What the UK rounds do is not stated.
What is stated is "All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel point-forward
in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such factors
as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to make
it deform first.
Thus the key point is that it is impossible to make a "humain" round that
neither deforms or tumbles.
Samuel Allen
Christ, lets not get started on that one again........
krasus
>
> "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <mark....@dnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3b1200b2$1...@ni-news.utvinternet.com...
> > and boy what a bad choice.
> > ok 7.62 is heavier. and you can carry less of them.
> > but SA80 is a heavier rifle. Has crap balance is badly manufactured and
is
> > to fragile.
Oh for fuck sake - another asshole who knows fuck all about the SA-80.
Glyn Davies
The key point is that the NATO 7.62mm round used by the British is hollow
point and therefore deforms (mushrooms) on impact. Thus it does not tumble
(or yaw if you so prefer). Aaron posted this to try and illustrate
'tumbling' and to show that 'hollow points' are against the Geneva
convention - which it also failed to do.
>
>
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
lead core goes from tip to tail.
IT IS NOT A HOLLOW POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THERE IS NO AIR POCKET IN NOSE EITHER
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > Conversely, inconsistent effects have been noted in wounds caused
> > by the M16 and other modern military bullets. Considering the
> > variation in length of the possible tissue path through the human
> > body, this "inconsistency" of effect is to be expected. Beware! This
> > variation can be used to dupe the unsuspecting. A series of shots
> > through a 14 or 15 cm block of tissue simulant or the leg of a 25 kg
> > animal can give enough variation so that, by selective choice of exit
> > wound photographs, one can "prove" any point one wishes (such as
> > one bullet being less "humane" than another). The author hopes, that
> > understanding this, will make the reader less likely prey to this sort
> > of deception.
>
> LOL!!! You're an idiot Kulkis.
The author was a surgeon in the Vietnam war.
I'll trust his word more than your inane ramblings.
Hope that helps, moron.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Obviously, you didn't READ The complete citation.
Aaron R. Kulkis
despite your BLATHER, the following confirms my point:
"All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel point-forward
in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such factors
as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to make
it deform first.
Aaron R. Kulkis
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
"All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel point-forward
in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such factors
as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to make
it deform first.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B11CEEA...@yahoo.com...
> > Glyn Davies wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3B119C47...@yahoo.com...
> <SNIPS EPISTLE > >
> > > We are talking standard issue rounds here - what you in the US call
> 'full
> > > metal jacket'. Used by virtually every army in the world.
> >
> > full metal jacket = no hollow point
>
> Read it again. It clearly says the NATO round and the US round has an air
> space behind the tip - thus making it a hollow point. It also describes
> the mushrooming effect of the NATO round which I clearly stated.
>
> I feel totally vindicated even though my eyes are aching after reading that.
"All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel point-forward
in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such factors
as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to make
it deform first.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
>
> Don't know much about terminal ballistics, do you, idiot? Only an idiot
> would state "all modern rifle rounds tumble". Just more Kulkis bullshit.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> the Russian 5.45mm round has interesting terminal ballistics as it has an
> air pocket at the tip and a dense materiel in the tail.
"All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
Aaron R. Kulkis
"All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> It does when I put it there.
>
"All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel point-forward
in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such factors
as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to make
it deform first.
> Roger
> AIRBORNE!
>
> "Joe Gray" <jos...@psi13.please-removefreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9epmli$el9$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > "Roger Perkins" <ROGE...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:20ZP6.210$KT5....@eagle.america.net...
> > > I haven't got that much finesse. Center mass works for me.
> > >
> > > Roger
> > > AIRBORNE!
> >
> > Of course you should always aim for centre mass, not to kill, just because
> > it is easier, it just so happens our hearts are placed there, nice one
> God,
> > <tut>, not to shoot arms and legs like in the movies, it just doesn't
> work.
> > Even so, a round from a fire arm aimed at chest level doesn't
> automatically
> > mean a kill. That's why we use double taps, have tumble rounds and hollow
> > points, basically.
> >
> > joe
> >
> > --
> > psi13:be wary
> > http://www.psi13.com
> > http://www.psi13.freeserve.co.uk
Paul Holloway
<mwgriffnOmweb'co'za> wrote:
>
>krasus <kra...@excite.comedy.com> wrote in message
>news:9enh1h$aq6$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>>
>> Your post is a bit vague. Who are you to get a response from ? You say
>the
>> writer of the post ? who was that ?
>
>
>This response I got from you surprised me, because YOU wrote the message,
>and YOU are the writer, I referred to. As for the post being "vague" - I was
>as specific as I needed to be under the circumstances. You stated in your
>initial post that Israel is using this ammunition against Palestinian mortar
>crews without providing any substantial clues that what you are saying is
>absolutely true, although most of the facts you did provide are
>independently true. I am enquiring about the relevance of what you posted.
>
>Colin Campbell <col...@linkline.com> wrote in message
>news:1faugt8f4s5soou0s...@4ax.com...
>
>> First of all a 'beehive' round is not a saboted round.
>
>Please explain why you say this.
>
>> BTW, what is there to condone or condemn about this?
>
>This flechette shot has advantages and disadvantages and it comes at a cost.
>It is also significantly 'malicious' weapon to warrant international
>condemnation (as the original poster rightfully pointed out) as well as an
>angered and aggressive enemy reply.
>
>> I'll give you a hint - bti internet is not someplace to go for
>> reliable information.
>
>You know, I know, we all know that.
>
>
>V-Man <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote in message
>news:20010525223636...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
>
>>
>> Flechettes ae NOT banned, nor should they be for any specific reason
>covered
>> in the Hague treaties.
>> Regular artillery shells are little different. Excpet that instead of
>> streamlined pieces of steel coming at you at high speed, a regular HE
>shell
>> sends JAGGED pieces of steel at you at high speed.
>
>
>Flechettes are useless against hardened targets and are designed to kill
>soft targets indiscriminately. This is seen by many as somewhat morally
>deplorable and a cowardly way of fighting - something every fighter senses
>instantly in a fight and naturally reacts to. IMO tanks should pick on
>someone their own size anyway. Normal HE rounds make economic sense.
>
>The original poster claimed that Israel uses this type of ammo against
>Palestine. I personally doubt if it is true, because I don't see it making
>economic or politic sense for the IDF to use it. I don't doubt the existence
>and usage of FA, but not by the IDF and not now.
>
>
Your whole post pretty much reveals that you're totally clueless.
"May you always have fair winds and following seas..."
Paul Holloway
billh
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > LOL!!! You're an idiot Kulkis.
>
> The author was a surgeon in the Vietnam war.
>
> I'll trust his word more than your inane ramblings.
LOL!!! You truly are an idiot. His article shows you were idiotic to say
"all modern rifle rounds (your word, not mine) tumble". Fackler even gives
examples of bullets that neither fragment or yaw. You truly are dumber than
shit, Kulkis.
krasus
have the faintest idea what you are talking about. I doubt you have ever
seen one other than in a picture let a lone used one enough to know its good
points and bad points.
--
Krasus the wise.
---------------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mark....@dnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b1383bf$1...@ni-news.utvinternet.com...
Glyn Davies
Oh yes there is.
>
>
Glyn Davies
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > no it isn't I have a British 7.62mm bullet that has been cut in half the
> > lead core goes from tip to tail.
> > IT IS NOT A HOLLOW POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > THERE IS NO AIR POCKET IN NOSE EITHER
>
> "All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
> path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
> this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
> rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel
point-forward
> in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such
factors
> as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
> effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to
make
> it deform first.
Which is exactly what the NATO 7.62mm round does.
Thanks for proving me right again.
Glyn Davies
> Glyn Davies wrote:
> >
> > "billh" <williamhu...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3dlQ6.31758$9D5.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <snip>>
> >
> > > Only someone as stupid as you would post an article that proves you
are
> > > wrong in the blind hope it will prove you right. You need to seek
some
> > > help.
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. For a while I thought he was posting the article
in
> > support of what I was saying, especially when I read the bit about the
NATO
> > 7.62 round having an air space behind the tip of the copper jacketing.
> > He's done a helluva good job of backing me up whether he meant to or
not.
> >
>
> Obviously, you didn't READ The complete citation.
Sure did. As I said, thanks for corroborating everything I said, even if
you didn't mean to.
Replacement Tommel
>
>"Replacement Tommel" <tommel6@fookspam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ezRQ6.3980$rn5.2...@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <9f0m3i$rue$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, krasus says...
>> >
>> >Try and explain why then knob sack and i'll rip you to pieces. You don't
>> >have the faintest idea what you are talking about. I doubt you have ever
>> >seen one other than in a picture let a lone used one enough to know its
>good
>> >points and bad points.
>> >
>> >
>>
>grace.
>> The SA-80 did have an interesting habit of ejecting its magazine at
>awkward
>> times (supposedly that has been fixed),
>
>Yeah the magazine release catch was just behind the trigger guard. And it
>has been fixed.
>
>
>>and it's not very handy for lefthanders
>> either. One of my Brit friends told me that your Bug Juice (in Borneo)
>would
>> dissolve the plastic in the bally thing. In fact, it's such a piece of
>shite,
>
>Like others have said, it was improved after poor performance in the Gulf
>War.
>
>> I
>> don't think the SAS even bothers to use it preferring the M-4/M-16A2, and
>
>I don't blame them! Though in the Middle East I am sure they prefer to use
>AK47s <LOL>
McNabb and crew used the M-16A2 (w/203 gl) or the Minimi (our SAW, made by FN).
>
>>I do
>> believe that the MOD had plans to scrap it for awhile...
>
>Dunno about that, looks like they've gone beyond the point of no return, how
>long as it been in service now? At least 15years?
>
There was something about Brit patrols having to patrol on the left (or was it
right?) side in NI too, something that the IRA was taking advantage of for
awhile. I can't remember why the squaddies had to do that though.
>>
>> Sorta hard to believe that it's manufactured by a Brit subsidary of
>Heckler &
>> Koch...
>
>You're joking!! The same guys who brought us the MP5 (and all its variants)
>and the sublime G11!! Go on you're pulling my leg, 'Tom. <LOL>
>
>
Read it and weep:
http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/pw/pw_sa80.html-ssi
I had a hard time believing it myself.
I don't think the Germans designed it, but they do manufacture the damn thing...
sorta like FN and our M-16A2 (personal opinion: the Canadian C-7 was the best
version of the M-16 that I've ever shot... can't remember who made it though
Diemaco? Pretty good gun).
>joe
>
>--
>psi13:be wary
>http://www.psi13.com
>http://www.psi13.freeserve.co.uk
>
>>
>> -Tom
>> (Best issue rifle I shot was a Canadian C-7 IMHO, better than our
>M-16A2s...)
>>
>> "Anti-Americanism is the new socialism of fools." - Denis McShane, British
>> Labour Member of Parliment
>
>
"Anti-Americanism is the new socialism of fools." - Denis McShane, British
Labour Member of Parliment
krasus
5.56 x 45mm M193 (M16-A1)
Has 36 % Fragmentation.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg
5.56 x 45mm M885 (M16-A2)
Has 50% Fragmentation.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg
7.62 x 51mm NATO (UK Ball)
7.62 mm NATO Ball yaws after 15cm of penetration but remains undeformed.
Maximal tissue disruption occurs at a point 90 degree bullet yaw.
http://www.monsterworks.net/computerstuph/images/figure3.gif
The UK does not use any type of 7.62mm hollow point ammunition. The 7.62mm
round used by the UK is a solid bullet.
Glyn Davies
<snip>> > Only someone as stupid as you would post an article that proves
you are
> > wrong in the blind hope it will prove you right. You need to seek some
> > help.
>
>
>
> despite your BLATHER, the following confirms my point:
>
>
> "All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
> path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
> this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
> rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel
point-forward
> in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such
factors
> as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
> effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to
make
> it deform first.
And that's exactly the point you are missing. As the article clearly
stated - all NATO rounds deform - therefore they are not 'tumbling' rounds -
therefore all modern rounds do not tumble.
That's what I meant when I said you had proved my point without realizing
it.
Glyn Davies
And as all NATO rounds are 'deforming' rounds - they do not tumble. Your
article was quite clear on this.
Glyn Davies
again for vindicating me.
Glyn Davies
> billh wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >
> > > All modern rifle and machinegun rounds tumble.
> >
> > Don't know much about terminal ballistics, do you, idiot? Only an idiot
> > would state "all modern rifle rounds tumble". Just more Kulkis
bullshit.
>
> "All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
> path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
> this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
> rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel
point-forward
> in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such
factors
> as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
> effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to
make
> it deform first.
And as NATO uses deforming rounds, means they don't use tumbling rounds.
Thanks again.
Gee you are making this easy for me.
Glyn Davies
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > the Russian 5.45mm round has interesting terminal ballistics as it has
an
> > air pocket at the tip and a dense materiel in the tail.
>
> "All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
> path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
> this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
> rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel
point-forward
> in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such
factors
> as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
> effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to
make
> it deform first.
'Air pocket' means it is a deforming round - so they don't tumble.
This is like the 'falling plates'
Glyn Davies
> Glyn Davies wrote:
> >
> > "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <mark....@dnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3b12...@ni-news.utvinternet.com...
> > > the Russian 5.45mm round has interesting terminal ballistics as it has
an
> > > air pocket at the tip and a dense materiel in the tail.
> > >
> >
> > As do most copper jacketed rounds i.e the NATO 7.62mm
> >
> > >
>
> "All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
> path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
> this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
> rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel
point-forward
> in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such
factors
> as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
> effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to
make
> it deform first.
Hollow points deform therfore they do not tumble.
Thanks ever so much for re-inforcing this so many times.
Joe Gray
was it
> right?) side in NI too, something that the IRA was taking advantage of for
> awhile. I can't remember why the squaddies had to do that though.
Hmm, I don't know for sure, but like others have said the "SA80" can only be
fired right handed. The casing ejector is on the right of the rifle right
above the rear mounted magazine feed i.e. the ejected casing would hit you
in the head if fired left handed. A poor design flaw, IMHO, as take the M16
it has the little flap things so you can select which side the spent cartage
is ejected, and just because you are not left handed there are time you need
to fire from that position. And as you say, if you restrict you firing arc
etc.. the enemy could take advantage.
joe
--
psi13:be wary
http://www.psi13.com
http://www.psi13.freeserve.co.uk
>
> >>
> >> Sorta hard to believe that it's manufactured by a Brit subsidary of
> >Heckler &
> >> Koch...
> >
> >You're joking!! The same guys who brought us the MP5 (and all its
variants)
> >and the sublime G11!! Go on you're pulling my leg, 'Tom. <LOL>
> >
> >
>
> Read it and weep:
>
> http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/pw/pw_sa80.html-ssi
I am going to check it out, cheers!
>
> I had a hard time believing it myself.
>
> I don't think the Germans designed it, but they do manufacture the damn
thing...
> sorta like FN and our M-16A2 (personal opinion: the Canadian C-7 was the
best
> version of the M-16 that I've ever shot... can't remember who made it
though
> Diemaco? Pretty good gun).
>
Replacement Tommel
>
>"Replacement Tommel" <tommel6@fookspam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:H6TQ6.4295$rn5.2...@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <9f0t33$fi0$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Joe Gray says...
>> >
>> >
>>
>> There was something about Brit patrols having to patrol on the left (or
>was it
>> right?) side in NI too, something that the IRA was taking advantage of for
>> awhile. I can't remember why the squaddies had to do that though.
>
>Hmm, I don't know for sure, but like others have said the "SA80" can only be
>fired right handed. The casing ejector is on the right of the rifle right
>above the rear mounted magazine feed i.e. the ejected casing would hit you
>in the head if fired left handed. A poor design flaw, IMHO, as take the M16
>it has the little flap things so you can select which side the spent cartage
>is ejected, and just because you are not left handed there are time you need
>to fire from that position. And as you say, if you restrict you firing arc
>etc.. the enemy could take advantage.
>
>joe
>
I'm surprised that the Brits put up with that piece of crap. Some of the Royal
Marines I met told me that if you squeeze the receiver too tightly
during firing it will cause the bolt to bind in the action, creating an
immediate stoppage. Don't know if that is true or not (and I don't think it's
that bad, I think they were just pulling my leg...), but the Brit Army deserves
better than that piece of junk.
..and don't get me started about the U.S. Army's OICW...
-Tom
Glyn Davies
Don't talk rubbish you undereducated moron. The very fact that UK issue
7.62mm is copper jacketed means it's not solid. If you'd ever fired one
you'd know that. Go back to your ACF unit and bully the little boys.
>
>
Aaron R. Kulkis
despite your BLATHER, the following confirms my point:
"All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel point-forward
in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such factors
as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to make
it deform first.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> <snip>> > Only someone as stupid as you would post an article that proves
> you are
> > > wrong in the blind hope it will prove you right. You need to seek some
> > > help.
> >
> >
> >
> > despite your BLATHER, the following confirms my point:
> >
> >
> > "All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
> > path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
> > this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
> > rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel
> point-forward
> > in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such
> factors
> > as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
> > effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to
> make
> > it deform first.
>
> And that's exactly the point you are missing. As the article clearly
> stated - all NATO rounds deform - therefore they are not 'tumbling' rounds -
> therefore all modern rounds do not tumble.
>
> That's what I meant when I said you had proved my point without realizing
> it.
deforming does NOT preclude tumbling.
NATO rounds deform (nose bends over) AND THEN they tumble...**AND** fragment.
Hope that helps.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Bzzzzzt! Wrong.
NATO rounds first deform (nose bends over within 3 cm penetration)
AND THEN they tumble (after pentetrating few cm more)
deforming does not preclude tumbling.
One is a matter of metallurgy, the other is a matter of the center
of drag being in front of the center of mass (upon impact)...and
then flipping once the angular momentum (about the line of travel)
dissipates (which happens MUCH faster with a deformed ogive bullet
than a WW1-style round-nose)
Read the citation again...CLOSELY this time
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
Hope that helps.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B13CD14...@yahoo.com...
> > Glyn Davies wrote:
> > >
> > > "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <mark....@dnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:3b12...@ni-news.utvinternet.com...
> > > > the Russian 5.45mm round has interesting terminal ballistics as it has
> an
> > > > air pocket at the tip and a dense materiel in the tail.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As do most copper jacketed rounds i.e the NATO 7.62mm
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > "All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
> > path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
> > this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
> > rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel
> point-forward
> > in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such
> factors
> > as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
> > effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to
> make
> > it deform first.
>
> Hollow points deform therfore they do not tumble.
There are different types of deformation.
Hollow points MUSHROOM.
NATA rounds, just like ALL military rounds do NOT mushroom, because
any round that DOES is illegal under international law (anyone captured
and found to be carrying a round that mushrooms can be legally executed
ON THE SPOT, because by doing so, they lose ALL protections of the
Geneva Convention, and other agreements covering the treatment of
POW's)
NATO (and former Warsaw pact) rounds all deform, but in a DIFFERENT WAY.
NATO rounds first deform (nose bends over within 3 cm penetration)
AND THEN they tumble (after pentetrating few cm more)
deforming does not preclude tumbling.
One is a matter of metallurgy, the other is a matter of the center
of drag being in front of the center of mass (upon impact)...and
then flipping once the angular momentum (about the line of travel)
dissipates (which happens MUCH faster with a deformed ogive bullet
than a WW1-style round-nose)
Read the citation again...CLOSELY this time
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
Hope that helps.
>
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B13CD01...@yahoo.com...
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > the Russian 5.45mm round has interesting terminal ballistics as it has
> an
> > > air pocket at the tip and a dense materiel in the tail.
> >
> > "All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
> > path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
> > this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
> > rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel
> point-forward
> > in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such
> factors
> > as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
> > effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to
> make
> > it deform first.
>
> 'Air pocket' means it is a deforming round - so they don't tumble.
>
> This is like the 'falling plates'
>
There are different types of deformation.
Hollow points MUSHROOM.
NATA rounds, just like ALL military rounds do NOT mushroom, because
any round that DOES is illegal under international law (anyone captured
and found to be carrying a round that mushrooms can be legally executed
ON THE SPOT, because by doing so, they lose ALL protections of the
Geneva Convention, and other agreements covering the treatment of
POW's)
NATO (and former Warsaw pact) rounds all deform, but in a DIFFERENT WAY.
NATO rounds first deform (nose bends over within 3 cm penetration)
AND THEN they tumble (after pentetrating few cm more)
deforming does not preclude tumbling.
One is a matter of metallurgy, the other is a matter of the center
of drag being in front of the center of mass (upon impact)...and
then flipping once the angular momentum (about the line of travel)
dissipates (which happens MUCH faster with a deformed ogive bullet
than a WW1-style round-nose)
Read the citation again...CLOSELY this time
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
Hope that helps.
> >
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B13CC40...@yahoo.com...
> > Glyn Davies wrote:
> > >
> > > "billh" <williamhu...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3dlQ6.31758$9D5.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <snip>>
> > >
> > > > Only someone as stupid as you would post an article that proves you
> are
> > > > wrong in the blind hope it will prove you right. You need to seek
> some
> > > > help.
> > >
> > > I couldn't agree more. For a while I thought he was posting the article
> in
> > > support of what I was saying, especially when I read the bit about the
> NATO
> > > 7.62 round having an air space behind the tip of the copper jacketing.
> > > He's done a helluva good job of backing me up whether he meant to or
> not.
> > >
> >
> > Obviously, you didn't READ The complete citation.
>
> Sure did. As I said, thanks for corroborating everything I said, even if
> you didn't mean to.
>
There are different types of deformation.
Hollow points MUSHROOM.
NATA rounds, just like ALL military rounds do NOT mushroom, because
any round that DOES is illegal under international law (anyone captured
and found to be carrying a round that mushrooms can be legally executed
ON THE SPOT, because by doing so, they lose ALL protections of the
Geneva Convention, and other agreements covering the treatment of
POW's)
NATO (and former Warsaw pact) rounds all deform, but in a DIFFERENT WAY.
NATO rounds first deform (nose bends over within 3 cm penetration)
AND THEN they tumble (after pentetrating few cm more)
deforming does not preclude tumbling.
One is a matter of metallurgy, the other is a matter of the center
of drag being in front of the center of mass (upon impact)...and
then flipping once the angular momentum (about the line of travel)
dissipates (which happens MUCH faster with a deformed ogive bullet
than a WW1-style round-nose)
Read the citation again...CLOSELY this time
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
Hope that helps.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
Aaron R. Kulkis
There are different types of deformation.
Hollow points MUSHROOM.
NATA rounds, just like ALL military rounds do NOT mushroom, because
any round that DOES is illegal under international law (anyone captured
and found to be carrying a round that mushrooms can be legally executed
ON THE SPOT, because by doing so, they lose ALL protections of the
Geneva Convention, and other agreements covering the treatment of
POW's)
NATO (and former Warsaw pact) rounds all deform, but in a DIFFERENT WAY.
NATO rounds first deform (nose bends over within 3 cm penetration)
AND THEN they tumble (after pentetrating few cm more)
deforming does not preclude tumbling.
One is a matter of metallurgy, the other is a matter of the center
of drag being in front of the center of mass (upon impact)...and
then flipping once the angular momentum (about the line of travel)
dissipates (which happens MUCH faster with a deformed ogive bullet
than a WW1-style round-nose)
Read the citation again...CLOSELY this time
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
Hope that helps.
> >
> >
> >
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B13CCB9...@yahoo.com...
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > no it isn't I have a British 7.62mm bullet that has been cut in half the
> > > lead core goes from tip to tail.
> > > IT IS NOT A HOLLOW POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > THERE IS NO AIR POCKET IN NOSE EITHER
> >
> > "All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
> > path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
> > this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
> > rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel
> point-forward
> > in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such
> factors
> > as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
> > effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to
> make
> > it deform first.
>
> Which is exactly what the NATO 7.62mm round does.
I.e. the NATO 7.62mm round TUMBLES.
Is any of this getting through YOUR THICK, SHIT-FILLED MAGGOT-INFESTED HEAD...
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B13CCF6...@yahoo.com...
> > billh wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > >
> > > > All modern rifle and machinegun rounds tumble.
> > >
> > > Don't know much about terminal ballistics, do you, idiot? Only an idiot
> > > would state "all modern rifle rounds tumble". Just more Kulkis
> bullshit.
> >
> > "All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
> > path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
> > this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
> > rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel
> point-forward
> > in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such
> factors
> > as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
> > effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to
> make
> > it deform first.
>
> And as NATO uses deforming rounds, means they don't use tumbling rounds.
>
There are different types of deformation.
Hollow points MUSHROOM.
NATA rounds, just like ALL military rounds do NOT mushroom, because
any round that DOES is illegal under international law (anyone captured
and found to be carrying a round that mushrooms can be legally executed
ON THE SPOT, because by doing so, they lose ALL protections of the
Geneva Convention, and other agreements covering the treatment of
POW's)
NATO (and former Warsaw pact) rounds all deform, but in a DIFFERENT WAY.
NATO rounds first deform (nose bends over within 3 cm penetration)
AND THEN they tumble (after pentetrating few cm more)
deforming does not preclude tumbling.
One is a matter of metallurgy, the other is a matter of the center
of drag being in front of the center of mass (upon impact)...and
then flipping once the angular momentum (about the line of travel)
dissipates (which happens MUCH faster with a deformed ogive bullet
than a WW1-style round-nose)
Read the citation again...CLOSELY this time
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
Hope that helps.
> Thanks again.
>
> Gee you are making this easy for me.
>
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it, shithead.
Glyn Davies
Having at last done some serious research on this subject I have to
apologise to those who have been following this thread. We have been using
the term 'hollow point' for what is a copper jacketed military round.
Hollow Point ammo is actually a round with a dimple on the nose and is only
[generally] in use by Russian forces. Your standard military round as
described by Aaron in his detailed report should be referred to as "copper
jacketed" or in US terminology "full metal jacket". These rounds do have
an air gap at the tip as described by me and several others.
The difference in performance is that the 'hollow point' round is designed
to fragment, whereas the military round we use is designed to be more humane
by only penetrating tissue. True, this type of round will distort on
impact with bone but the tumbling or 'yawing' effect will take place if the
round is allowed to pass through soft tissue for long enough for the
projectile's natural balance to 'turn' it. As for so called 'tumbling'
rounds - regardless of anyone quoting 'yaw' in any aerodynamic round the
essence of this is that a true 'tumbling round' tumbles in flight which is
not desirable.
Here are the staistics reproduced from
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html
Since drag (D) is a function of velocity, it can be seen that for a bullet
of a given mass (M), the greater the velocity, the greater the retardation.
Drag is also influenced by bullet spin. The faster the spin, the less likely
a bullet will "yaw" or turn sideways and tumble. Thus, increasing the twist
of the rifling from 1 in 7 will impart greater spin than the typical 1 in 12
spiral (one turn in 12 inches of barrel).
*end of cut & paste*
One thing that has become very clear is that the military copper jacketed
round (jacketed to prevent the lead core from melting during firing and
flight) causes less of a wound because it does not expend its kinetic energy
on the target due to the high muzzle velocity of the round and because it is
less prone to 'yaw' upon contact with soft tissue - temporary cavitation
being the main emphasis of the strike.. The copper jacketing also ensures
there will be little or no flattening of the round in keeping with the Hague
Declaration of 1899. Despite the fact that many of these rounds do have an
air gap at the tip.
I have spent frigging hours sussing this out - if any one wants to follow my
research, use Excite and type in -gunshot wounds. As for now, I have had
enough of it - my eyes are sore.
Glyn Davies
> billh wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >
> > > > LOL!!! You're an idiot Kulkis.
> > >
> > > The author was a surgeon in the Vietnam war.
> > >
> > > I'll trust his word more than your inane ramblings.
> >
> > LOL!!! You truly are an idiot. His article shows you were idiotic to
say
> > "all modern rifle rounds (your word, not mine) tumble". Fackler even
gives
> > examples of bullets that neither fragment or yaw. You truly are dumber
than
> > shit, Kulkis.
>
> despite your BLATHER, the following confirms my point:
>
>
> "All pointed bullets that do not deform end their tissue
> path travelling base first, since this puts their centre of mass forward;
> this is their stable attitude. The rotation imparted to the bullet by the
> rifled gun barrel is sufficient to force the bullet to travel
point-forward
> in air (in properly designed weapons), but not in tissue where such
factors
> as bullet shape and the location of centre of mass far outweigh rotation
> effects." i.e. the only way to make a round that does not tumble is to
make
> it deform first.
This statement is totally incorrect when applied to military copper jacketed
rounds. They are high velocity rounds and can quite easily pass through
soft tissue without any yaw. The wound will therefore be cause by
temporary cavitation of the round has not expended its kinetic energy on
impact.
Glyn Davies
My recent research makes it clear that the Russian military do use, as
standard, hollow point rounds.
>
> NATO rounds first deform (nose bends over within 3 cm penetration)
> AND THEN they tumble (after pentetrating few cm more)
This will be because of the air gap behind the nose which you have
previously denied existed in NATO rounds. However the US Federal Institute
for firearms quotes NATO rounds as "likely to pass through soft tissue
without yaw"
Your statement about all modern ammunition being of the 'tumbling' variety
was totally incorrect as the 'tumbling' effect is genrally applied to a
projectile in flight and not the yaw that is possible upon the loss of
kinestic energy when passing though soft tissue.
It is easy to tiwst facts when it suits your purpose. Fortunately there is
more research material available than the one article you have posted.
>
> deforming does not preclude tumbling.
Tumbling is not a certaintly with any high velocity round unless it has
reached its terminal velocity.
>
> One is a matter of metallurgy, the other is a matter of the center
> of drag being in front of the center of mass (upon impact)...and
> then flipping once the angular momentum (about the line of travel)
> dissipates (which happens MUCH faster with a deformed ogive bullet
> than a WW1-style round-nose)
Which is partly why the military use a copper jacket round and specifically
why the Hague Declaration approves the use of such rounds - because they are
less likely to deform or yaw.
Glyn Davies
<snip>>
> deforming does NOT preclude tumbling.
>
>
>
> NATO rounds deform (nose bends over) AND THEN they tumble...**AND**
fragment.
>
>
> Hope that helps.
I have published some 'correct' research material which confirms that not
all modern rounds tumble.
Hope that helps you stop making an eejit of yourself.
Glyn Davies
Every piece of research material I have found on the net refutes your
statement that the NATO 7.62mm 'tumbles' Therefore you have been wrong all
along. Pity you have to resort to foul mouthed abuse rather than doing
the necessary searches to confirm your information.
Perhaps you better examine the contents of your own head because I have
posted my sources and pretty soon everyone else on this thread will be able
to see what a fool you are.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Try and explain why then knob sack and i'll rip you to pieces. You don't
> have the faintest idea what you are talking about. I doubt you have ever
> seen one other than in a picture let a lone used one enough to know its good
> points and bad points.
The British troops I served with a year ago weren't specific, but
they hated the thing, and were glad that their unit was in line to
get rid of it.
>
> --
> Krasus the wise.
> ---------------------------
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mark....@dnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3b1383bf$1...@ni-news.utvinternet.com...
> > WRONG I KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT SA80 TO KNOW ITS SHITE.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Replacement Tommel" <tommel6@fookspam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:H6TQ6.4295$rn5.2...@www.newsranger.com...
> > In article <9f0t33$fi0$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Joe Gray says...
> > >
> > >
> >
> > There was something about Brit patrols having to patrol on the left (or
> was it
> > right?) side in NI too, something that the IRA was taking advantage of for
> > awhile. I can't remember why the squaddies had to do that though.
>
> Hmm, I don't know for sure, but like others have said the "SA80" can only be
> fired right handed. The casing ejector is on the right of the rifle right
> above the rear mounted magazine feed i.e. the ejected casing would hit you
> in the head if fired left handed. A poor design flaw, IMHO, as take the M16
> it has the little flap things so you can select which side the spent cartage
> is ejected,
Bzzzzt! Wrong.
The M16 has a case deflector. The case is ALWAYS ejected out the
ejection port on the right-hand side of the rifle...it then hits
the deflector, and bounces forwards, away from the face of a
left-handed firer.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Wrong.
The nose deforms, which quickly bleeds off ALL the rotation from rifling,
which makes the bullet unstable (center of drag in front of center of mass),
so the bullte tumbles... usually at a depth of about 6-12 cm
> The wound will therefore be cause by
> temporary cavitation of the round has not expended its kinetic energy on
> impact.
you are an idiot.