bullets are designed to spin sloppily

All of them? Really? I'd have thought there are other pragmatic uses for bullets too.

Makes hunting seem much more cruel now.

All of them? Really? I'd have thought there are other pragmatic uses for bullets too.

No. Mostly military weapons, and not even all of those. You'd lose accuracy over distance.

I don't know all of them, but the majority of them anyway. (Not super-long-range rifles, since spin affects aim at long distances.) Most modern guns pon't back the bullet tightly into the barrel, so when it comes out its spin is as messy as a kindergartener throwing a football.

As opposed to 1890, when a standard-issue army rifle could drop a soldier dead at some hundreds of yards. It became clear, after a war or two, that dropping a man cleanly, while cute, is not nearly as psychologically devastating as making him scream and cry; and you can leave a dead body on the field, but soldiers tend to rescue their living mates, and when you're rescuing somebody, you're a lot less likely to be shooting at the same time.

eta: Yes, I mean military weapons; I don't know a thing about weapons for non-military use.

You'd lose accuracy over distance.

That's what I figured. I mean ... sniping alone would be a toss up.

Which guns are these, and really, what's the point? I think I'm shooting to kill, but really I'm just shooting to wound? Or I, by pointing at the heart, know that I'm going to just hit somewhere more messy?

I knew full metal jackets were designed to injure rather than kill -- but I didn't think that messing with aim was how they did it.

Most civilian weapons, both pistols and rifles, do not cause the bullet to spin sloppily. They have what's known as rifiling, which is spiral cut grooves along the barrel, which causes the bullet to spiral like a football when it leaves the barrel. This improves both accuracy and distance. You get bullets from civilian weapons to cause a lot of painful damage by making them dum-dum, or flatten out, when they hit the target. This is frequently illegal.

And actually, a slopilly spinning bullet, such as what comes out of the barrel of an assault rifle, is designed to do that because it's more likely to kill, not less. The sloppily spinning bullet carves out a much bigger chunk of the person it hits, and also takes unexpected paths through the body.

Military weapons really aren't designed to wound or maim. They are designed to kill.

Which guns are these, and really, what's the point?

The M-16, for one. The bullets tumble in the same manner a knife tumbles when you throw one at a target.The tumbling causes serious wounds even if it only hits an arm or a leg. If it hits someone in the chest, it's more likely to be lethal.

"Psycho" doesn't necessarily mean "liar." Also, we don't know that Ethan is a psycho. We know that he kidnapped people by force and hung one of them, but we don't know what his motives are. We don't even know what he is, except that he's unusually fast, strong enough to overpower two people, knows how to fight, and has some connection to The Others. I'm sticking with my extraterrestrial theory until further evidence is produced.

You get bullets from civilian weapons to cause a lot of painful damage by making them dum-dum, or flatten out, when they hit the target.

I thought it was the other way around -- the hollow point bullets are more likely to kill, because they expand and causes more damage going in, and the full metal jackets don't. And that hollow points are in most civilian use cases (including hunting), and FMJ in military ones.

I thought it was the other way around -- the hollow point bullets are more likely to kill,

Yeah. I meant this, not wounding. Dum-dums are more likely to kill. I mistyped, I think.