5.56 round inhumane? - Page 5




 
--
 
June 20th, 2004  
1217
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent_Grunt_jb
wow the 5.56mm round inhumane lol guess I shouldn't have accidently hit him with the 40mm then (joking) . 5.56 is about humane thus the reason it takes 3 people away from the battle instead of just killing you. next thing you know some swedish commision will have us out on a battlefield with pellet guns and still say we are being inhumane. I say screw what they have to say.
Now that's not very nice. They have a right to their opinion too....
June 20th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Well as far as that is concerned, yes they have the right to their own opinion, but when they try to force the rest of us to agree with them, the gloves are off.
June 24th, 2004  
Silent_Grunt_jb
 
 
Yes I agree they have the right to have their own opinion as long as it doesnt get me killed on the battlefield. why are civies worried about this stuff. oh sgt barnes is being inhumane to some terrorist who is shooting at him oh booo hoo. its called I kill him or he kills me and a smaller more humane round aint going to change that it only changes how many holes I have to put in him to stop him. reality suck then you join the army.
--
June 26th, 2004  
Anonymous
 
This is how it goes when you have to live in a socialist society and all major dictators have been right. Gun control really works!

Sweden sucks!
EU sucks!

Thats why I gonna move out of this place as fast as I get my 12 millions.

The only unhumain that is when you send out young soldiers with crap ammo. That is something this peoples rights movements donīt give a damn about. Because there is allways a little sorry civilian in the way. Heck... War is bloody and you canīt please everybody. Win or loose. Fire for effect that is my motto.

June 30th, 2004  
kouryu
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamoni
The problem with high velocity low caliber ammo is that it doesn't transfer energy efficiently to the target. That means it either goes right through you, or cuts you up real bad inside, but it takes a relatively long time to do it, so there is little shock value.
The other extreme is something like a .45 ACP, which is slow, but super heavy, and high caliber. When it hits, almost all of it's energy is transfered at once to the target, meaning massive localized damage. this produces shock symptoms faster and more reliably, and that's why it's a "stopper".
It's like the difference between being stabbed or hit with a baseball bat: Both will kill you, but one will knock you on your ass first.
I may be wrong here, but the impact felt by a target would be no greater then the recoil of the gun. Most people that describe being shot find the actually impact no greater then a hard punch.
The recoil from the gun has a greater surface area to distribute its energy - namely the gun butt against your shoulder while the bullet has quite a smaller surface area (the bullet) with more energy. The only reason it feels like only getting punched is because the bullet's impact is forceful enough to penetrate their body.
July 1st, 2004  
Lil Hulk 1988
 

Topic: Kinetic Energy


In any rifle, pistol or other kinetic energy weapon, the forces are equal. It is Newton's 3rd law of physics, for every reaction there is a equal and opposite reaction. The frontal area of a bullet is a fraction of the butt, so the pressure, pounds per square inch, is much higher with the bullet. If the bullet does not deform, the penetration is based on the point area of the bullet vs. the strength of the target. If the target has a high penetration strength, then the bullet will not enter the target, but the force is transferred. If the bullet has a small enough area and passes through the target, much of the energy is transferred to the target, but some is lost since it has penetrated through the target. Kinetic Energy and Momentum are the key and are basic physics problems.

Examples:

http://www.aeroballisticsonline.com/...letenergy.html
July 3rd, 2004  
SerbianFMJ
 
I think saying a whether a weapon is humane or not is really stupid and goes against common sense. I mean, what kind of WEAPON is "humane", weapons were made to kill and do structural damage to human body and other things how is that humane?
And also I think 5.45x39mm round is more "inhumane" because it produces very nasty wounds because it goes in then most immedietly tumbles bouncing around you and has been shown in Afghanistan and Chechnya to be very easily infected and hard to treat.
July 3rd, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SerbianFMJ
I think saying a whether a weapon is humane or not is really stupid and goes against common sense. I mean, what kind of WEAPON is "humane", weapons were made to kill and do structural damage to human body and other things how is that humane?
And also I think 5.45x39mm round is more "inhumane" because it produces very nasty wounds because it goes in then most immedietly tumbles bouncing around you and has been shown in Afghanistan and Chechnya to be very easily infected and hard to treat.
I agree, every weapon is inhumane! But we can all agree that there are less and more inhumane weapons.
July 16th, 2004  
Silent_Grunt_jb
 
 
you know humane or inhumane weapons will never disappear . its all about effieciency and easy of production.