223 FMJ designed to tumble (explained)

Think we are all over looking one main thing. The military uses FMJ ammo because in combat there is a high volume of fire and you need the rifles to cycle (feed) reliably. FMJ ammo feeds more reliable than other types of ammo. There are also no leading problems with high temperatures that the barrels reach. Plus FMJ ammo has better armor piercing capabilities than HP ammo. Just my two cents, I was also taught one shot one kill in the Infantry and if he is still wiggling put another one in him, Unless he has surrendered of course.
 
Does anybody on this blog (or anywhere else for that matter) actually believe that any manufacturer of ammunition or military service of the US is going to put in print (or admit), that they manufacture or use ammunition that is designed to tumble thereby causing horrific injury to the enemy? Think about it folks, we live in a country where we preach and supposedly fight wars according to the rules of the Geneva Convention. Many believe we live by the highest standards and the principle that we ONLY kill our enemy humanely. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
 
I'm not in the military, but I do know a few things about rifles. The slower rate of twist used in many older rifles, and some not so old, will not stabilize a .223 55 grain bullet. If the bullet isn't stablized, then at some time during it's flight it's likely going to start tumbling. Whether intentional or not, design flaw or design success, that's just the way it flies. I've got a single shot .223 that WILL NOT stabilize a 55 grain bullet. I get keyholes in paper at any distance much over 100 yards, and has very poor accuracy. With 40 grain bullets I can shoot cloverleafs with it all day long, no keyholing.
 
Originally Posted By: OKRattlerssgt walsh-I thought about that so I was'nt sure if that was exactly true or not.I just wish I could remember where I heard that.
I think I probably heard this in the same place but whoever told me about the FMJ's also told me that police officers use hollowpoint bullets because they are after one shot kills all the time.A hollowpoint is more destructive than an FMJ and they are less likely to go through or bounce and hit someone that does'nt deserve to get hit.I dont know if thats the reason for that or not either.But after I thought about it I really could'nt understand why it would be any different for the military.If a person is wounded that does'nt necessarily mean they aint gonna shoot back as you already mentioned.
I said earlier than a hollowpoint causes more damage than an FMJ and you said that FMJ's cause alot of damage and kill more humanely.I've also never shot a human being and hope I never do.All I've shot are critters and I know that FMJ's are'nt good for shootin coyotes.So I assumed it was the same way with a person because I just figured people were tougher than yotes.But then again.....like I said I've only shot yotes and stuff like that.I'll take your word for it but thats just somethin that crossed my mind.

the 5.56 rounds that we use have in them what is called a steel penetrator in the tip. its basically a small piece of steel fitted into the tip of the round in front of the lead core. upon impact (theoretically) the steel tip punches through the fmj allowing for many small pieces of the fmj and the lead core to open up and cause instense damage. they are also good for taking out guys wearing light body armor. they will go through thin metal but not well. as was stated before if they hit bone then they will cause some serious damage as this allows the steel penetrator to punch through the fmj and start plinking around inside. now we are taught to shoot for three diffrent areas that will more than likely kill the opposition. these ares are the "t"box (area from right above both eyes going across and then down through the nose), the chest cavity, and the groin area (where you are more likely to hip the pelvis). the newer weapons that we use stabilize the round much more effectively than the previous vietnam era M16A1 due to better barrels with much more refined twist. hollow points upon hitting a hard target (car, wall, etc.) will more than likely shatter, and they have less chance upon exiting soft tissue once they enter due to the way they mushroom or expand upon entering. i personally wish we would go back to using 7.62X51 rounds (.308) since they have more kinetic energy, punch through armor better, and are more accurate and less affected by the wind down range.
 
Originally Posted By: ShynlocoDoes anybody on this blog (or anywhere else for that matter) actually believe that any manufacturer of ammunition or military service of the US is going to put in print (or admit), that they manufacture or use ammunition that is designed to tumble thereby causing horrific injury to the enemy? Think about it folks, we live in a country where we preach and supposedly fight wars according to the rules of the Geneva Convention. Many believe we live by the highest standards and the principle that we ONLY kill our enemy humanely. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

i take it that you think we do not follow these rules. let me put it this way. i work in a job wher we deal with the big weapons (simply put i build and configure bombs, missiles, rockets, etc that are utilized by the AV8B Harrier aircraft) and i can tell you first hand that we follow these rules. we are not allowed to use nor do we use weapons that are not allowed by the geneva convention. and before you say that is not the way we do it when we are at war, i will tell you that it is the way we do it, since i just returned from my second tour in afghanistan in november. i cannot say the same for the opposition, since i have seen some of the things that they do and it is very much less than humane. so if you still think that we do not follow the geneva convention then i suggest you step into the local recruiters office, sign the dotted line and go and see for yourself.
 
Originally Posted By: CutleryotehunterThink we are all over looking one main thing. The military uses FMJ ammo because in combat there is a high volume of fire and you need the rifles to cycle (feed) reliably. FMJ ammo feeds more reliable than other types of ammo. There are also no leading problems with high temperatures that the barrels reach. Plus FMJ ammo has better armor piercing capabilities than HP ammo. Just my two cents, I was also taught one shot one kill in the Infantry and if he is still wiggling put another one in him, Unless he has surrendered of course.

very well put and you are very correct. it does feed much better than the other ammo, unless you get a bit of dirt in your weapon and then it jams like and SOB.
 
You guys are all over the map on this one.. It is not in the Geneva convention. But it is in the Haugue convention of 1907.. and it states:
"…it is especially forbidden -

To employ arms, projectiles, or material{sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"

 
I read an artical from a German firm years ago testing the lethality of various military projectiles. Acording to them a conventiomal fmj entering unobstructed (bone) tissue will yawl 180 degrees after a certain depth and continue its path base first because of it being heavier in the rear (swapping ends) and if it retains sufficient energy will exit base first. Is this physics, or some type of fluid mechanics I don't know but they all do perty much the same thing. The two exception to this and it was a very scientific test were the German/ Austrian military Hirtenberger brand in 7.62 x 51 and the Yugoslovian 7.62 x 39 which almost always broke into 2 pieces at the cannelure and produced far more wounding potential. I assume the did this when they were in the middle of there turn and the resistance on the side of the bullet was greatest. Most projectile remained essentialy intact. As I remember they did not give the 5.45 x 39 a whole lot of credit for that deforming tip. Hetzer
 
well said,ssgt walsh....B R A V O Z U L U....if that still means anything in this current military generation.
FWIW to others- let's not tarnish another generation with myths &suppositions......
thank you,walsh,for serving & protecting us....share this with ur buds....thank you.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: zilla...."cause unnecessary suffering;"
lawyer speak again....they even go back to 1907....think the opposite....necessary suffering...i'd like to see the debate between 2 REMF's over what's necessary suffering....
my apologies,zilla....thats a good link-thanx for posting.
 
SSGTWALSH,
First thank you for your service to our country. Secondly you COMPLETED jumped to an incorrect conclusion in my meaning. I am very familiar with the Geneva Convention and the fact our country lives by and follows those rule. If you read what I wrote, you could see it in plain print. Perhaps my sarcasm may have confused you. My reference was intended for striking conflicts in idelogy.

And as to your suggestion about going down to the Recruiting Station and signing on the dotted line, I did EXACTLY that in August, 1966. And ever heard of a conflict called Vietnam? I left a bunch of my buddies there because Charlie didn't follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. And just for further clarification, I served on active duty for 4 1/2 years. And after I got out, I spent the next 31+ years as a Police Officer. Many of those years I worked as a Homicide Investigator and have seen more than my fair share of death and mangled bodies. So before you try and put me down IN PUBLIC with bold statements on an internet blog, I might suggest you check and see what exactly was said and the background of the person stating his opinion.

Finally, I am extremely pleased you returned home safely. I have two son's who have served in Iraq, one presently in Afghanistan and a son-law- who is about to go to Afghanistan for the first time after two tours of Iraq. You see my entire family has and does serve our country proudly. We always have because this remains to be the finest country on the planet of this earth.

Happy shooting and reloadin!
 
Originally Posted By: zillaYou guys are all over the map on this one.. It is not in the Geneva convention. But it is in the Haugue convention of 1907.. and it states:
"…it is especially forbidden -

To employ arms, projectiles, or material{sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"




So where do the videos floating around on the internet of people being blown to pieces like Praire dogs with a 50BMG in Afganistan fall into that? Video's with arms and legs flying hundreds of feet up in the air and falling back down. Not being disrepectful to the military folks in this thread, just intrested.
 
Last edited:
Can't say I've seen any of those videos, but I wouldn't be surprised by them. You see that is some of the difference between ideolgy and reality. Sometimes it gets real ugly.
 
Originally Posted By: MPFDOriginally Posted By: zillaYou guys are all over the map on this one.. It is not in the Geneva convention. But it is in the Haugue convention of 1907.. and it states:
"…it is especially forbidden -

To employ arms, projectiles, or material{sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"




So where do the videos floating around on the internet of people being blown to pieces like Praire dogs with a 50BMG in Afganistan fall into that? Video's with arms and legs flying hundreds of feet up in the air and falling back down. Not being disrepectful to the military folks in this thread, just intrested.
MPFD.....that falls into the "necessary suffering" aspect of combat.
as paul simon once sung...."still DINKY DAU after all these years"
crazy.gif
 
Quote:...people being blown to pieces like Praire dogs with a 50BMG in Afganistan fall into that?

That's a good example of "no suffering". That's not like getting gut shot and laying in the mud for 2 days before they can drag you out to an aid station.

The Hague Convention only applies during times of war between countries, carried out by their uniformed troops. In that type of war, artillery causes far more casualties than small-arms fire, and a lot of money was spent to make artillery shells as "inhumane" as possible.
 
Originally Posted By: ShynlocoDoes anybody on this blog (or anywhere else for that matter) actually believe that any... military service of the US is going to put in print (or admit), that they...use ammunition that is designed to tumble thereby causing horrific injury to the enemy? Think about it folks, we live in a country where we preach and supposedly fight wars according to the rules of the Geneva Convention. Many believe we live by the highest standards and the principle that we ONLY kill our enemy humanely. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
my apologies to the original intent of this thread but......

shynloco....your words.....
are you stating that as a viet nam veteran you were instructed in the use of ammo designed to tumble and were issued that ammo by the us army?.....in 1966 or whenever you were incountry?
and are you also stating that your sons and son-in-law have gone thru a similar training regiment?
and are you implying that other VN vets and subsequent combat vets were issued such ammunition?


my quals....may 1969 - may 1971....4 corps...I corps...tonkin gulf...719 days

would everyone please locate a copy of STOLEN VALOR and read it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jack RobertsMost times those REMFs are more your enemy than who occasionally shoots at you.

Jack
correctomundo,jack......especially when they hand picked over new replacement gear and the better chow...
 
Only one way to resolve this. Turn this over to Johnny Knoxville and Stev-o of Jackazz.. Or maybe give it to myth busters..
 
Tell ya what...too much is getting read into my comments and the answer to your question is NO, thats not what I'm saying. But this will be the last I have ANYTHING to say about this issue. Those who've been in combat perhaps have different perspective and experienced different combat conditions. The one thing I know is whenever I stand in front of "The Wall," I still cry for those we lost and left behind. My friends meant more to me than just their names carved in stone. But sometimes, there wasn't much left to bury. That my friends is reality. Ideology will live on and people will believe whatever they want. There are standards and guidelines we all should follow. But there comes a time when we are forced to deviate from the standards whether right wrong or indifferent. Each must choose for themselves and live with the consequences.

Now lets get back to having fun reloading and leave ideological thinking to whomever want to believe.
 
Back
Top