Buffy ,'Get It Done'
[NAFDA] This is where we talk about the show! Anything that's aired in the US (including promos) is fair game. No spoilers though -- if you post one by accident, an admin will delete it.
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.
I'll have to find you references, ita -- I read about this in the context of standard rifle issue to the British Army, circa 1899. (I'm pretty sure I have the book at home.) It was in part an explanation for a spike in the deaths per casualty rate in war, which went back down again as rifle range decreased after that point.
(I heard a radio segment this morning about a NEJM article, which chronicles the incredibly low deaths per casualty rate in Iraq right now. The secret: roving trauma surgeries really close to the front lines, and really fast evacuation to Germany.)
Military weapons really aren't designed to wound or maim.
I think the idea is that if it is only going to wound, make it a messy one. I once read an article on how few casualties were actually caused in WWII by rifle bullets (as compared to things like artillery).
I think the idea is that if it is only going to wound, make it a messy one.
Yeah, this. They aren't designed to wound or maim, but if they strike a glancing, rather than direct hit, they are designed to wound much more than a rifled bullet would.