Shoot a Scuba Tank?

[ereediver]

You don't need a stinking plastic gun!!! Any firearm can be used underwater IF it is properly prepared. By "prepared", I mean every last air bubble in the barrel is removed. Guns and Ammo magazine had an article about this back around 1980 or so, before Gaston Glock was known for anything other then plastic knives and entrenching tools. A semi-auto usually will not cycle and is of no benefit since you must remove the bubbles, caused by the gunpowder, before the next shot is fired.

REMEMBER, if God had intended man to use a plastic gun, he would have had John Moses Browning design it!!!!!!

Another Glock hater.....Eh? Well they work and they work well and you can't take that away. Anyway shooting under water is impractical anyway so I quess in the long run it's a moot point less a spear gun or bang stick, but this has been a fun thread. And being a diving site I guess we have digressed a bit.

 

[mdb]

From a purely military perspective, wounding is better than killing because it consumes more of the enemy's resources, right?

Tell that to the soldier or Marine who has someone coming @ that them with an Ak-47 or RPG.

 

[Wayward Son]

The claim is that if you wound one guy, it takes 2 more to make pickup on him so tactically a wounding is better than a killing.

I've heard that all my life. It *can* work that way, but some things must be assumed.

1st, you must assume that the enemy will act like we do, and make pickup. Not always true.

2nd, you must assume that in wounding a soldier, you remove his ability to fight. This is not always true. He may be hit, may even be unable to walk, yet still be able to fight. If he has ammo & can shoot or even throw knives, he's a threat & can not safely be ignored. A man with the right attitude & one working arm or leg is potentially deadly.

If he's dead, it's a safer bet that he is no longer going to be able to contribute to his side of the fight.

It's also not necessarily true the FMJ ammo will simply drill through without doing much damage. It is less predictable than expanding bullets, but has produced incredibly devastating wound channels. It often tumbles on impact, and this frequently causes the jacket to shear & the bullet to fragment. Pieces go every which way. Even if it holds together, a rifle bullet tumbling end over end on the way through makes a mess.

We don't usually use them for hunting bc they're unpredictable. In many states they're illegal for hunting for this reason. But in some states they are legal & have been used, and game animals from squirrels & rabbits on up to deer or even larger have been taken & examined, as well as what's known from treatment of battlefield injuries.

Getting shot with an FMJ round is not a safe bet to live through.

 

[mdb]

The claim is that if you wound one guy, it takes 2 more to make pickup on him so tactically a wounding is better than a killing.

I've heard that all my life. It *can* work that way, but some things must be assumed.

1st, you must assume that the enemy will act like we do, and make pickup. Not always true.

2nd, you must assume that in wounding a soldier, you remove his ability to fight. This is not always true. He may be hit, may even be unable to walk, yet still be able to fight. If he has ammo & can shoot or even throw knives, he's a threat & can not safely be ignored. A man with the right attitude & one working arm or leg is potentially deadly.

If he's dead, it's a safer bet that he is no longer going to be able to contribute to his side of the fight.

It's also not necessarily true the FMJ ammo will simply drill through without doing much damage. It is less predictable than expanding bullets, but has produced incredibly devastating wound channels. It often tumbles on impact, and this frequently causes the jacket to shear & the bullet to fragment. Pieces go every which way. Even if it holds together, a rifle bullet tumbling end over end on the way through makes a mess.

We don't usually use them for hunting bc they're unpredictable. In many states they're illegal for hunting for this reason. But in some states they are legal & have been used, and game animals from squirrels & rabbits on up to deer or even larger have been taken & examined, as well as what's known from treatment of battlefield injuries.

Getting shot with an FMJ round is not a safe bet to live through.

Nice theoritical reply. I doubt you have ever been in combat.

 

[Wayward Son]

Nope, my service was peace time. My dad's spanned 3 wars though.

I have no idea how old the "wound one" is, nor what it's origins are. But I've heard it since I was a kid & I'm 44.

 

[renpirate]

It's the psycological effect and it can be devestating. When you see one of your fellow soldiers in great pain, it affects you.

 

[mdb]

Nope, my service was peace time. My dad's spanned 3 wars though.

I have no idea how old the "wound one" is, nor what it's origins are. But I've heard it since I was a kid & I'm 44.

You are correct. In some instances, snipers for instance, prefer to wound so they can draw others into their field of fire. What I should have said is that, in most cases, no Marine or Soldier is firing to wound. Even today Soldiers and Marines complain about the lack of stopping power w/ the M-16. When I served in Vietnam we had just transitioned from the M-14 to the M-16. Several Plt. commanders prefered to carry the M-14 for its range and stopping power. In any case, enough war stories. The real reason the FMJ is used is due, as stated previously by another board member, to the articles of war in the Geneva convention which prohibits hollow point rounds and requires the FMJ. mdb

 

[Wayward Son]

Yes, we were never trained to shoot to wound. Not once was that mentioned to me while in service.

Have you read about the new round under testing? I think Remington cooked it up, it's basically a short-action .270, I'm drawing a blank on the actual designation they're using. Looks like it should be a substantially better combat round than the 223 without carrying too much of a penalty in terms of weight & space to carry a decent amount of ammo.

 

[renpirate]

Yes, we were never trained to shoot to wound. Not once was that mentioned to me while in service.

They don't mention it for direct fire, but the basic design of weapons like the bouncing betty(m16a1) anti personel mine are created to wound, not kill.

 

[DavidPT40]

A big design influence on U.S. bullets was the ability to penetrate body armor and steel. For instance, one of the requirements for the M-16s ammo is to be able to penetrate a steel helmet at 400 yards.