[SGVLUG] hp tech support! - take this!!!

[Michael Proctor-Smith]

On 7/12/07, Dustin Laurence <dustin at laurences.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 05:04:18PM -0700, Michael Proctor-Smith wrote:
> >
> > Risking the the reeducation squad and the epa I have to say from
> > personal experiance that for "spectacular display of dismantlement",
> > throwing a printer off a multi-story building on to pavement is a way
> > better show then shooting one.
>
> There's still nothing better than a nice blackpowder charge though.
>
> > ...Plus I don't have much experiance with
> > soft targets, but I have used millary hollow-points (wierd in that
> > they where hollow point riffle ammo with a steel cores, but again they
> > were of soviet design). They did make bigger holes but still just
> > holes in the metal and wood object that we were shooting at.
>
> That's all bullets are supposed to do--make holes in things that need
> to have holes put in them. :-)
>
> That said, if said object in need of holes is a soft target the exit
> wound can be quite large.  That's why nobody uses military rounds for
> hunting; they're far too likely to wound an animal and let it run off
> bleeding from a puncture wound, because the puncture is small.
> Mushrooming bullets kill by shock, because the hole *isn't* small.  Part
> (only part) of the reason muzzleloader calibers run so large is that
> balls don't really expand well, so the bullet already needs to be large
> for maximum shock.  (The other reason is the atrocious sectional density
> of spheres, of course.)
>
> THis is related to a small theory of mine that I've never seen verified,
> but I'm convinced of it nevertheless.  "Rules of war" rarely are obeyed
> unless they don't inconvenience the war too much.  "Humane bullets" that
> don't expand are more convenient for military purposes than it seems,
> because killing a soldier in an army that cares for it's wounded is
> rather inefficient.  It creates one casualty.  *Wounding* a soldier not
> only creates the same casualty, it consumes considerable resources in
> evacuation and medical treatment.  So "humane bullets" are not so much
> of a sacrifice after all, *if the opponent has sufficiently high
> standards of casualty care*.
>
> One way to test this is to find out where the Russians wanted to use the
> "poison bullet"--I seem to recall it was in Afganistan against irregular
> troops who did *not* have to support medical or evacuation resources.
> (For those that don't know, the Russians managed to design a bullet that
> was unstable enough to tumble on contact with a soft target, and a
> bullet ploughing sideways has much of the effect of an expanded bullet
> without having to expand.)  Also I wonder who else has tried this.
> Widely deploying unstable bullets for use against a regular Western army
> (which has a high casualty care burden) would more or less disprove the
> hypothesis.

Yes, the tumble bullet is why other then a single solder being able to
carry more rounds that the US adopted the .223(5.56mm). Down sizing to
a lighter .22 caliber from the .30cal(7.62mm) rounds that had been the
standard. The claim is that the high velosity low mass .223 round
tumbles after hitting a person and acctually causes more damage then
the higher energy .30cal that they replaced.

The sad part is that all our ammo designed to wound poeple is
acctually a burden on our selves currently. As we tend to shoot the
irregular we are currently fighting and the care for them as well.