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.
And you're sure this isn't just some fanboy thing? 'Cause I've fought more than a couple pimply, overweight vamps that called themselves Lestat.
Buffy ,'Lessons'
Lost: OMGWTF POLAR BEAR
[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.
Sean K - Dec 09, 2004 11:16:01 am PST #3693 of 10000
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty
Nutty - Dec 09, 2004 11:20:41 am PST #3694 of 10000
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."
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."
DXMachina - Dec 09, 2004 11:21:45 am PST #3695 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
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.
§ ita § - Dec 09, 2004 11:25:39 am PST #3696 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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?
Sean K - Dec 09, 2004 11:27:36 am PST #3697 of 10000
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty
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.
DXMachina - Dec 09, 2004 11:28:37 am PST #3698 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Wouldn't tumbling an FMJ get you back into smashing territory (like hollow points) and get you back into more mortality?
Yes, along with more serious wounds. Everybody wins!
Sean K - Dec 09, 2004 11:28:44 am PST #3699 of 10000
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty
Wouldn't tumbling an FMJ get you back into smashing territory (like hollow points) and get you back into more mortality?
Not exactly. A tumbling fmj assault rifle round doesn't smash. It carves a very large and very nasty path through the body.
§ ita § - Dec 09, 2004 11:30:20 am PST #3700 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
It carves a very large and very nasty path through the body.
How does that not up the mortality rate, though? It's precisely why hollow points kill better, no?
Sean K - Dec 09, 2004 11:32:31 am PST #3701 of 10000
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty
How does that not up the mortality rate, though? It's precisely why hollow points kill better, no?
Sorry. The "not exactly" was referring to the "smashing." You are correct in that it's back into the higher mortality rate.
Actually, I think DX, Nutty and I are all arguing from more or less the same position, we're just quibling about the design intent, just not very successfully.
§ ita § - Dec 09, 2004 11:42:57 am PST #3702 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I was using the word smash to convey not drilling, but the whole large nasty non-precise damage inflicted thing. Sounds like everyone is almost in agreement.