Willow ,'Storyteller'
[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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
Secret message to beathen, although, really, anyone can look if they want to:
Don't worry about it. Reading will just slow down the typing. I should have both 3 and 4 for you this weekend. Sorry I'm so slow!
Yeah, I think we're all in agreement and just not seeing it very well. I know I have perhaps not expressed myself as well as I'd have liked.
I originally entered this discussion to quibble with Nutty's characterization that switching from a design that caused a small, tidy wound to one that causes a large, messy wound was going from more to less lethal, but I also suspect I may have misunderstood the point she was trying to make.
Thanks for all your help libkitty!