Guns designed to kill?

[Ryokan]

Do you disagree with the OP, claiming that guns are not designed to kill?

The gun I'm used to, being ex-military, is the H&K G3, which is, as I mentioned earlier, the standard Norwegian army rifle.

Not only is it high-caliber (7.62), it has a pretty long cartridge (51mm - to compare it with another well known 7.62 rifle, AK cartridges are only 44mm long).

Not only is the bullet pretty big, all the powder in the cartridge makes it pretty high speed, so when it hits something, it spins wildly.

If one of those bullets hits a human being, it causes massive damage, with a small entry wound and a crater on the other side.

I promise you, at least that gun is designed to kill.

 

[Freakshow]

The gun I'm used to, being ex-military, is the H&K G3, which is, as I mentioned earlier, the standard Norwegian army rifle.

Not only is it high-caliber (7.62), it has a pretty long cartridge (51mm - to compare it with another well known 7.62 rifle, AK cartridges are only 44mm long).

Not only is the bullet pretty big, all the powder in the cartridge makes it pretty high speed, so when it hits something, it spins wildly.

If one of those bullets hits a human being, it causes massive damage, with a small entry wound and a crater on the other side.

I promise you, at least that gun is designed to kill.

Absolutely. No argument here.

I think a car analogy is pretty good here. Some cars are designed for racing. Not all of them are. Some cars instead are designed for carrying lots of people. We call them "buses". Not all cars are designed to carry lots of people. Some even seat just two. Some cars are designed to carry lots of stuff. We call them "trucks". Not all cars are designed to carry lots of stuff. Etc...

 

[Bjorn]

Some guns are designed specifically for killing.

I certainly think so, which is why the general statement "guns are not designed to kill" is either too simple or just wrong.

 

[Freakshow]

I certainly think so, which is why the general statement "guns are not designed to kill" is either too simple or just wrong.

I agree that it is far too simple. It's like saying "Cars are designed to go really fast." Not necessarily. And, in keeping with the post I made previously, cars might be able to go really fast even though speed was not given much consideration in the designer's thinking. Even a lot of pickup trucks can go pretty fast, if you're just willing to mash down the gas pedal and keep it there. But that's not necessarily what the designers were thinking of when they made the truck.

 

[CFLarsen]

What is the purpose of a gun?

 

[Freakshow]

What is the purpose of a gun?

Purpose of its usage? As I said, it varies.

 

[Kerberos]

You see, it is never the objective of an army (who probably have been the driving force behind most firearms development) to kill. Never, ever. The objective is to impede and marginalize an opposing forced. The dead are dead. Sunk, done. The wounded require infrastructure, bodies and resourses. The objective of an army is to create the maximum number of wounded in order to create the maximum drain on an enemy state.

That depends entirely on the situation. If you expect the conflict to be short term then a wounded soldier might very well be preferable to a dead one. If on the other hand you expect the conflict to be long term then the wounded soldier might recover and fight another day, the dead ones, on the other hand, seldom recover. Of course a permanently disables soldier is still preferable but that might be harder to arrange.
In some conflicts dead enemies might even be preferable to disables ones, In Iraq the purpose of the insurgency is presumably to throw the US out. Obviously they haven't got a prayer of militarily defeating you, so the real target is the US public opinion, and the number I hear most in the debate, and which I'd think is therefore most likely to influence public opinion, is the number of dead, not the number of wounded or disabled. The US forces too, as far as I can see, would have little need of crippled insurgents,

 

[Jon_in_london]

Re: Re: Guns designed to kill?

One is to use small caliber slow-moving bullets that wound rather than kill, so that if you hit one enemy, it takes two enemies to drag him off the battlefield. The US use this tactic, which is why they use 5.56 rifles (M16 and its cousins).

The other is to use large caliber fast-moving bullets, to kill the enemy as fast as possible. Norway uses this tactic, which is why we use 7.62x51 rifles (H&K G3). If you get hit by one of those suckers, you're done for.

As has been said before, the 556 is NOT a slow moving round. The reason the NATO round is small is that a soldier can carry a lot more 556 ammo than he can 762 ammo. There are other advantages like reduced recoil leading to greater accuracy and smaller magazine size making it easier to fire prone with a 30-round magazine.

No sensible army would use a slow moving round- the simple fact is that they dont have the range- sub sonic rounds arent much good at more than 100m......

 

[Jon_in_london]

What is the purpose of a gun?

Which one?

 

[epepke]

I certainly think so, which is why the general statement "guns are not designed to kill" is either too simple or just wrong.

It's a matter of ambiguous grammar. Up until around 30 years ago, "not" was usually interpreted as modifying the verb phrase. Now it is often interpreted as modifying the entire sentence without the "not." When I was growing up (I'm 44), the latter usage in a paper would result in the drop of one letter grade.

It's still ambiguous, though. Formal specifications in English nearly always have a section on definitions that describe how "must not" is used.

 

[Cain]

Yes, yes, and home exercise equipment is designed for hanging clothes, not burning calories.

One cannot meangingfully object to the notion that guns are (generally speaking) for killing. Strictly speaking, guns are designed in a way to maximize private profits. This does not necessarily mean they have to be any more effective at killing assailants than a Bow Flex ultra gold with power-rod resistance can effectively flatten your stomach. People may buy guns and fitness equipment to satisfy strong emotional desires, however the the comfort and assurance of a powerful weapon, or the self-esteem that comes with a healthy appearance are each derived from something a bit more fundamental.

 

[Ladewig]

f an army (who probably have been the driving force behind most firearms development)

Even if this assertion is true (which I am not entirely convinced of) then what about all the other sources of firearms development. Hunting, self-defense, law enforcement (both general and specialized), etc. -- shouldn't their influences on gun (and bullet) design be considered as well before leaping to your conclusion?

 

[Tmy]

If death were the objective, all armies would use some sort of hollow point/expanding bullet, they don't. I would be curious if anyone knows of any (modern) military round that is loaded with anything other than FMJ (full metal jacket).

Dont hollowpoint maim rather than kill? Woudlnt a standard bullet be more effiecent in killing?

Bullets are definately designed to kill. Guns were created for the purpose of killing. Kinda like the bow n arrow.

 

[shanek]

How about this: It's not the guns that are "designed to kill," but the ammunition? You can get relatively harmless ammunition even for 9mm semiautos (such as rubber bullets). I know a guy who swears by those for home defense.

 

[epepke]

How about this: It's not the guns that are "designed to kill," but the ammunition? You can get relatively harmless ammunition even for 9mm semiautos (such as rubber bullets). I know a guy who swears by those for home defense.

That is dangerously close to an intelligent comment in the politics section. You may be reported to the moderators.

 

[patchbunny]

How about this: It's not the guns that are "designed to kill," but the ammunition? You can get relatively harmless ammunition even for 9mm semiautos (such as rubber bullets). I know a guy who swears by those for home defense.

I am not an expert, but I was following wound ballistics research during the 90's.

First, some quick definitions.

The permanent cavity is the physical hole made by the bullet crushing tissue as it pushes its way through the target. This tissue is toast.

The temporary cavity is formed when the bullet imparts its momentum to the tissue as it passes, and the tissue moves away from the bullet's path. The amount of stretch depends on what the bullet is doing. If it's still travelling point forward, there's very little stretch (picture a diver making a clean entry into the water - the movement of the water is a temporary cavity). If the bullet is yawing, the efect is more like the diver doing a cannonball. This "stretch" has little potential to damage tissue, as most tissue is elastic (there are some exceptions, naturally). This tissue heals nicely if harmed at all (and is an example of why shooting water jugs, though pretty, tells you nothing about the wounding ability of the bullet).

Rifle bullets have their center of gravity towards the base, making them unstable in flight. This is compensated for by the barrel's rifling, which imparts a spin to the bullet. When the bullet hits a medium denser than air (like Infantryman Bob over there), the spin stabilization no longer works and the bullet is now unstable. It will try and rotate 180 degrees and finish its travel base-first (it does not keep tumbling end-over-end). How long it takes to do this depends upon the particular bullet design.

The 5.56mm NATO FMJ bullet (either the old M193 or the newer M855) does this within a few inches. This is a fast moving bullet (over 3000fps), and when this bullet rotates it has a tendency to fragment. These multiple fragments punch holes in the tissue, weakening it so that when its stretched by the temporary cavity it tears, creating a much larger wound. You can get a small entry wound and a large exit wound in an extermity with this round.

However (and there's always a however), this only happens when the bullet is still moving fast. Out of a standard 20" barrel, you will only get this effect under 200 meters. If you're firing a shorter barrel weapon, such as the M4 you see some grunts carrying, you won't get it at all. At this point, you're getting a small permanent cavity with some stretching from the temporary cavity.

The 7.62mm NATO bullet moves slower than the 5.56mm, and rotates much further in the target. This bullet typically rotates after about 12 inches of travel, but creates a much larger temporary cavity than the 5.56mm. With this bullet you can easily get small entrance and exit wounds on hits to the body.

However (once again), I do know that during the 80's West Germany was using a 7.62mm FMJ round with a thinner jacket than used by the US. This bullet yawed early, much like the 5.56mm, and also fragmented. Quite nasty. I do not know if it is still used, or what other countries used similar designs.

Now, off to breakfast. Mmm... pancakes...

--Patch

 

[Earthborn]

How about this: It's not the guns that are "designed to kill," but the ammunition?

Yes, very clever. However, we can also turn that around and say that rubber bullets are designed not to kill when used in a deadly weapon.

If we want to know what "guns are designed for" we may have to ask ourselves what came first: guns shooting deadly bullets, or guns shooting rubber bullets.

We can also ask ourselves how effective guns with rubber bullets are at not-killing. If guns are not 'designed to kill' and only the ammunition is, we can expect that when loaded with ammunition that is specifically designed not to kill, you'll end up with a combination that makes it very difficult to kill someone with.
However if guns are designed to kill, their killing power might still be pretty good, even if used with ammunition designed to minimise killing.

Perhaps there is a reason why rubber bullets are called 'less lethal' more often than 'relatively harmless'.

 

[patchbunny]

We can also ask ourselves how effective guns with rubber bullets are at not-killing. If guns are not 'designed to kill' and only the ammunition is, we can expect that when loaded with ammunition that is specifically designed not to kill, you'll end up with a combination that makes it very difficult to kill someone with.
However if guns are designed to kill, their killing power might still be pretty good, even if used with ammunition designed to minimise killing.

Rubber bullets, as well as beanbag rounds, have minimum engagement ranges to reduce the possibility of lethal damage. For beanbag rounds that's usually about 25 feet. The smaller your minimum range, the shorter your maximum range.

Since you're trying not to kill someone who is armed with a dangerous weapon (such as a knife), you don't want short tactical ranges. Thus, there's going to be some distance where "less than lethal" ammo results in serious injuries. It's all about the velocity at point of impact and where you hit them. I know of at least one fatal shooting involving a beanbag round, and one involving rubber buckshot. Since you're trying to balance pain vs. serious injury with a projectile weapon, things can go wrong. However, fatal injuries are rare.

Perhaps there is a reason why rubber bullets are called 'less lethal' more often than 'relatively harmless'.

I suspect it's an alliterative marketing campaign. Can you imagine trying to sell "relatively harmless" weapons to the police?

--Patch

 

[Jon_in_london]

One cannot meangingfully object to the notion that guns are (generally speaking) for killing.

Target rifles and pistols are NOT designed for killing.

Some shotguns are only designed for clay pigeon shooting.

Hunting rifles and most other shotguns are only designed for game hunting.

Only military guns are actually weapons.

 

[epepke]

Yes, very clever. However, we can also turn that around and say that rubber bullets are designed not to kill when used in a deadly weapon.

If we want to know what "guns are designed for" we may have to ask ourselves what came first: guns shooting deadly bullets, or guns shooting rubber bullets.

The answer, of course, is that the first guns were used to shoot fireworks. The development of cannon and mortars to shoot lethal projectiles came later.

Rifles, handguns, and blunderbusses came even later, after smelting and working iron had progressed to the point where it was feasible to produce a barrel that was strong enough but light enough to carry. Most original cannon, of course, were brass or bronze. However, Mythbusters did a show where they made a wooden cannon with a stone ball to test some medieval story. It worked quite well. However, there's no evidence that the Chinese used wooden cannon, and a wooden gun would still be too heavy to carry.

Of course, arrows and atlatl spears long preceeded guns with lethal shot. Some of the early cannon fired arrows. This is not entirely a stupid idea; many modern military weapons fire projectiles more like arrows than bullets.

The Chinese did use rockets in warfare, but this was mostly to disorient and frighten the enemy, not kill them directly. Besides, a rocket isn't exactly a gun anyway.