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."

Yeah, artillery caused the largest percentage of casualties. The thing about rifles is that the average soldier is a) not a particularly good shot to begin with, and b) shooting while trying to present as small a target as possible.

About that article on full metal jacket bullets, it sounds to me like making the bullets tumble is one way to get around the requirement that fmj ammo be used. It provides the messiness that the fmj was supposed to prevent.

It provides the messiness that the fmj was supposed to prevent.

I'm confused now. I understand the goal is to minimise casualties (okay, that looks weird) and maximise injuries (that looks better).

Poor aiming achieves this by not hitting the fatal targets. FMJ achieves this by drilling rather than smashing.

Wouldn't tumbling an FMJ get you back into smashing territory (like hollow points) and get you back into more mortality?

But, like, Sean, there is die now, and die later.

Look at what DX said here:

The thing about rifles is that the average soldier is a) not a particularly good shot to begin with, and b) shooting while trying to present as small a target as possible.

Back when military rifles were rifled, very few soldiers could shoot well enough to kill with one shot. The rifling was removed to make them more lethal, not less.