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.

I poked around wikipedia, and it agrees with your larger point, Nutty (wound, not kill, on the battlefield), but not with the mechanism -- aim isn't mentioned, just the lethality of the bullets mandated.

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

Except, as DX mentions, an M-16 round through your upper arm will basically remove most of that arm; whereas a tightly-spinning bullet through your arm? Tiny hole, less carnage. If you miss the core with a 1899 rifle, you can hurt but can't maim. If you miss the core with an M-16, you're still causing damage.

(The point also being, an 1899 shot can target the heart and kill you dead in an instant; a modern M-16 can target the core, and bounce all around your insides, but you'll take a nice long, loud time to die, and waste your army's resources in the meantime.)

once read an article on how few casualties were actually caused in WWII by rifle bullets (as compared to things like artillery).

Yeah, a lot of bullet hits were wounds that one could recover from and be back on the front lines rather quickly. The really grizzly wounds and deaths in WWII were from artillery shells. That's how guys would lose legs in the war. Flak hits on airplanes were another horrible maiming attack, because the flak was designed to heavily damage the plane, without much regard to how that same damage would injure the people inside.

Really, being in a plane or tank opens you up to much different and more horrible types of firepower, because the enemy is no longer shooting at you, but at your equipment.

If you miss the core with a 1899 rifle, you can hurt but can't maim. If you miss the core with an M-16, you're still causing damage.

I think my point is that this wound is still inteded to kill. You loose a lot more blood from this type of wound.

But, like, Sean, there is die now, and die later. Die later is messier and takes up more resources, like the people who are busy evacuating you from wherever you are. I've yet to hear of an army that looks at a guy bleeding from the femoral artery and says, "Oh, don't bother with him; he'll die in ten minutes."