Full Metal Jacket ? ? ?

[deemus]

fair enough. Either way, it gets repeated often on the internet, but nobody ever knows of anyone who has actually selected a bullet for that reason. It would be a terrible idea to do so.

I have heard the same thing many times. Who knows where it started, but the theory seems correct.

 

[Havok1]

I have heard the same thing many times. Who knows where it started, but the theory seems correct.

In what way is it correct?

 

[General Zod]

In what way is it correct?

The wounded tie up more resources than the dead do.

 

[1911'S 4 Me]

Full metal jackets are too heavy and hot to wear especially in the summer,
and you can't sit comfortably in full metal pants.

 

[Sam Colt]

Wars are won in the supply chain. Tie up resources and the fighters lose their effectiveness.

 

[Havok1]

The wounded tie up more resources than the dead do.

Sounds good on paper, not in real life.

 

[General Zod]

Sounds good on paper, not in real life.

Whatever. Must be a burden being the top expert on every subject.

 

[Havok1]

Whatever. Must be a burden being the top expert on every subject.

Huh!?

 

[candcallen]

Bites tongue.

 

[Tnhawk]

The wounded tie up more resources than the dead do.

My only concern was they were no longer a threat.

 

[Lonesome Dove]

Ask those who have seen in person what FMJs do to a person. Rather than those who just read about it on the internet.

 

[Tnhawk]

Ask those who have seen in person what FMJs do to a person. Rather than those who just read about it on the internet.

Points in a video game are scored differently than in actual combat.
BTW as for over penetration, the exit holes were much larger than the entrance holes using FMJ. I can't speak as to effects of HP as we didn't have any.

 

[deemus]

In what way is it correct?

A dead guy lays there till after the fight. An injured guy will need 2-3 guys to get him to help, instead of being in the fight.

 

[jrbfishn]

Wars are won on the supply side. Sort of.
The more resources you can tie up behind the battles lines, in a conventional battle, the fewer there are to fight. In a conventional battle, if you care for your wounded anyway, each wounded uses from 4-10 persons to care for them. Plus equipment to do so. Persons that could otherwise fight you.
Originally, they were adopted as a supposedly more humane bullet. Less tissue damage than soft lead point or HPs and more survivable.
Both considerations are of use only in a conventional war or battle. In guerrilla warfare, were wounded are often left behind, both considerations are somewhat pointless. The leadership does not care about the grunts.
Either way, the game is the same. Make it so costly, in any way possible, that you break the resolve of the other side to resist you.
No matter what bullet you use, there is nothing humane about war.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

A dead guy lays there till after the fight. An injured guy will need 2-3 guys to get him to help, instead of being in the fight.

Many US service members have been killed by wounded enemy fighters. Many wounded US service members have saved the lives of other US service members and continued to kill enemy fighters. Just because someone is wounded doesn’t mean they are out of the fight. We have fought against people who will use women as shields and put bomb vests on kids. Just because we put a number of resources into treating our wounded doesn’t mean everyone else does the same. Unless someone has some sort of evidence of Any type of firearm or ammo ever being selected for this reason there is no logical reason to consider this a benefit of FMJ.

 

[Sam Colt]

 

[Tnhawk]

Wars are won in the supply chain. Tie up resources and the fighters lose their effectiveness.

I didn't see any supply people in the combat. Maybe that's the reason I didn't have weapon and ammo choices?

 

[Guns308]

Yall go look up the 1899 Hague Declaration. FMJ bullets don't expand, ones that expand are thought to cause too much damage and suffering for combatants. The US didn't sign the Hague declaration but we still abide by it...mostly.

 

[Tnhawk]

Yall go look up the 1899 Hague Declaration. FMJ bullets don't expand, ones that expand are thought to cause too much damage and suffering for combatants. The US didn't sign the Hague declaration but we still abide by it...mostly.

I must have been on kp the day the 1899 Hague declaration was covered. I did hear the Geneva Convention mentioned, but none of us ever signed it.

 

[DoubleDuty]

Many US service members have been killed by wounded enemy fighters. Many wounded US service members have saved the lives of other US service members and continued to kill enemy fighters. Just because someone is wounded doesn’t mean they are out of the fight. We have fought against people who will use women as shields and put bomb vests on kids. Just because we put a number of resources into treating our wounded doesn’t mean everyone else does the same. Unless someone has some sort of evidence of Any type of firearm or ammo ever being selected for this reason there is no logical reason to consider this a benefit of FMJ.

And every foreign war that the US has fought our adversaries have suffered a lot more casualties than we have.