8 thoughts on “I’m sorry about my self defense rifle wounds

  1. Why yes I have. And while I’m skinning the victim I do an quick autopsy on said corpse to aid in the design of doing something worse, and faster to my next victim.
    All leading to one of two conclusions. My dinner table, or the morgue.
    Where do we get these people anyway? It ain’t like death and destruction aren’t a big part of life.

  2. The is exactly why the 1899 Hague Conventions’s (alleged) proscription against hollowpoint bullets was obsolete within 15 years. At the time of the convention, smokeless gunpowder was a recent invention and no major conflicts had yet been fought incoporprating the changes in munitions that it drove.

    Black powder struggled to push rifle bullets to more than 1500 fps so black powder projectiles were not very streamlined, usually with a simple round or eliptical ojive. But all of the major belligerents in WWI had battle rifles using smokeless powder to drive their projectiles to more than 2500 fps, so it was incumbent on them to switch to a more aerodynamically efficient bullet to take greater advantage of the new cartridges’ capabilities, especially at long ranges. Enter the spitzer or “spire-point” bullet.

    The streamlining of the spitzer bullet made them considerably longer (by bullet weight) than their blunter black powder counterparts, and longer bullets are harder to stabilize (witness the fact that the black powder Trap Door Springfield rifle used a twist of 1:22 but the M1903 Springfield rifle of WWI was 1:10). This was especially evidenced by the spitzer’s terminal effects because they became extremely unstable on impact. Whereas short, thick black powder bullets would tend to remain stable and bore through tissue relatively undisturbed, the long, skinny spitzers were prone to tumbling on impact. And tumbling at such high velocity tended to produce explosive terminal effects that were every ounce as devastating as those caused by the soft lead “Dum-Dum” bullets that the Hague accords was specifically targeting, even if the spitzers were fully copper-clad “ball” ammunition.

    So basically these doctors are beating a horse that’s been dead for more than a century.

    • The Hague convention also banned the use of poison gas and dropping bombs from balloons. Within 20 years, poison gas was in frequent use on the Western Front, and bombs were dropped from Zeppelins as well as heavier than air craft. So I agree; the only reason I can see that the ban on dum-dum bullets was respected was that it made no real difference.

      After the Great War, strategists realized that, except for a few hundred yards gained by the first surprise attacks, poison gas had given no one any advantage and it went into disuse. (Perhaps WWII soldiers on all sides were fortunate that Corporal Hitler got a dose of gas in WWI.) But all advanced nations retained and improved the capability just in case their opponents were murderous idiots, and sometimes it’s been used against less advanced opponents. OTOH, it was clear that effective bombing just needed better bombers, and there’s been no discussion ever of bringing back the Hague Convention ban on bombing.

      • Correct, even though we knew that gas was not that effective it was still a major contingency for defense even in the 80s. My team was still being asked to model the airborne use and analyze experimental data related to human effort in full MOP, And the services still practiced under the assumption that gas would be used. All of that even though the US was just ramping up the effort to decommission stockpiles in various arsenals

Comments are closed.