The Guns and Ammo Thread

[valcik]

Well, according to his biography, Britons not only accepted his invention, they granted him 25K pounds in royalties and offered him a knighthood on top of it:
http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/pomeroy-john-8073

His first explosive bullet was invented in 1902 but New Zealand army experts, although impressed, did nothing about it. Disappointed, Pomeroy left for Australia and later England where, as early as August 1914, he submitted his design to the British War Office. After an initial rebuttal, Pomeroy was recalled from Melbourne to develop his idea. On 2 September 1916 Pomeroy's bullets, together with new Brock ammunition, first proved their effectiveness against the growing menace of the German Zeppelin. After the war the British government granted Pomeroy £25,000 in royalties and reputedly offered him a knighthood which he refused.

In fact, these bullets haven't exploded, expanded, of flattened within human body, since they were designed to explode right on impact. Haague convention did not apply.

 

[Fins]

Well, according to his biography, Britons not only accepted his invention, they granted him 25K pounds in royalties and offered him a knighthood on top of it:
http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/pomeroy-john-8073

In fact, these bullets haven't exploded, expanded, of flattened within human body, since they were designed to explode right on impact. Haague convention did not apply.

Nonsense. If they wouldn't expand inside a body, how you think this would be the results of testing of those bullets - direct quotes from the above linked article:

"Testing first occurred in Invercargill, where local legend has it that the first victim to fall to his explosive bullet was a cow. It was either shot in Pomeroy’s backyard or locally at Thompson’s bush. Accounts of the location differ but agree on one fact: with one bullet the cow was blown to pieces";

"This time kerosene tins filled with water were used instead of cows. When struck, the water in the tin was thrown a height of twenty feet in the air, and, on examining the tin it was found to be literally riddled with small ragged holes, and the whole tin was torn open at the seams".

 

[Risewild]

Nonsense. If they wouldn't expand inside a body, how you think this would be the results of testing of those bullets - direct quotes from the above linked article:

"Testing first occurred in Invercargill, where local legend has it that the first victim to fall to his explosive bullet was a cow. It was either shot in Pomeroy’s backyard or locally at Thompson’s bush. Accounts of the location differ but agree on one fact: with one bullet the cow was blown to pieces";

"This time kerosene tins filled with water were used instead of cows. When struck, the water in the tin was thrown a height of twenty feet in the air, and, on examining the tin it was found to be literally riddled with small ragged holes, and the whole tin was torn open at the seams".

That doesn't contradict what Valcik said though. It doesn't expand inside the body. It explodes on impact and then sends the force of the explosion and shrapnel into the body. It is the explosion and the shrapnel that destroy the body quite violently (just like a Rocket Propelled Grenade for example, and those are not in breach of the Haague conventions).
Haague conventions forbid the bullet from expanding inside the body, but the explosive bullets expanded on contact, so outside the body.

 

[Fins]

I'm not an expert anyhow. Still if you insist that it's "outside" the body, i would argue that "on contact" assumes that the bullet actually went into the body at least a little - because however little, there is still time needed for the primer to blow up the charge, you know. But, whatever, i guess.

But it's just way inhumane, and you know what i mean, i bet. You can imagine those bullets would be very effective to use by, say, WW2 snipers, - but there is a reason it wasn't done. It's just too cruel, me thinks. Back in the day, almost all military commanders still had more than enough dignity to not resort to any means available...

 

[Hassknecht]

It seems that they were used in WW2, but one of the main reasons wasn't any convention but the fact that these bullets were rare and costly.
http://www.grantcunningham.com/2014/11/the-exploding-rifle-bullets-of-world-war-ii/
They were apparently originally intended as a more stealthy alternative to tracer bullets used for artillery spotting, but snipers also used them, albeit rarely.
The russians and germans against each other, at least, not on the Western Front.

 

[Fins]

Cost was not such an issue. Such bullets were used in much greater numbers in aviation, by the way - during WW2 i mean, intended to inflict massive "surface" damage to aircraft skin. Ground forces didn't use those for anything other than spotting relatively distant and hard targets for artillery and such - normally and any much, - not because of any convention, of course. It was down to commanders and personnel in the field to decide what kind of ammunition they need.

Considering production capacities of involved countries back then, it was total easy to make many dozens millions of explosive bullets for their snipers, in like no time, should the need be. Times more than enough to make every sniper have those and those only for the whole war. Heck, both germans and soviets made dozens thousands tanks and planes each, and each one of those had thousands various kinds of bullets and shells provided for it - armor-piercing+incendiary ones, high-explosive ones of all imaginable calibers from ~13mm all the way to 152mm, etc etc. You think they'd have any problem making say ~50 million 7.92mm or so HE bullets, each side, if they'd need it? I really doubt it. They could easily do it. They just didn't want to use those in that role. Normally.

In particular, when germans were pressed real bad near Stalingrad, russians started to report getting many terribly wounded soldiers as germans went desperate and mad enough to start using those kinds of bullets not to spot some big target for artillery from a great distance, - but to massively wound and kill enemy soldiers.

Note that as far as i know, russian used incendiary filling for their spotter's "PZ" bullets, while germans used explosive filling. With predictable difference in results if those bullets hit someone.

I've read one about one russian soldier who survived WW2, returned home, made some kids, - all the while having ~1.5 kg of mostly muscle tissue missing from one of his legs. His son described it this way: "i could put my whole fist into this father's wound, so big it was". So you see, even many years after getting shot by one of those german "spotter" bullets, people who survived such a hit - often remained significantly disabled by the shot. And i think, nobody benefits from that. Not even the attacker - as those who survive this will hate the attacker for so much more and for so many years. It'll get back to the attacker ten-fold in the end, i think.

Just wrong thing to use those on people, see.

 

[Risewild]

Just wrong thing to use those on people, see.

It is wrong to use any weapon or bullets made for killing, on people in my opinion.
I still consider landmines worst than those bullets though.

 

[SuAside]

It's not "cool" though. It's a war crime using such ammunition vs any target where such a bullet can hit anybody, per Hague conventions since 1899 - this particular part of those, to be exact. Any sort of explosive ammunition qualifies as "easily expandable within human body". UK ratified it, as did all other major countries of Europe.

So firing those against any Zeppelin sure qualifies - there were people in and outside of Zeppelin's hull during any combat situation involving taking fire, since it was needed to patch up any bullet holes quickly.

To be honest, i also am quite puzzled why exactly brits had to use those bullets vs Zeppelins in the 1st place. Stated purpose - to take out Zeppelins, - was easily and obviously doable without any new kind of machinegun ammunition, because Zeppelin is such a big and relatively static target. So you can just blow it up to hell simply flying an WW1 airplane over it and throwing couple contact mines right down. By hand. Heck, probably even simple Molotovs would do in good number. And that'd be available pretty much any moment, without any need to make new ammunition, without all those delays to file the invention, etc.

The Hague convention does not ban use of such ammo against material and materiel.

And zeppelins do not explode when shot with regular ammo. You can riddle them with bullets, but the likelihood of them leaking enough to crash is slim.
That's why they used tracers (to ignite the gas) or explosive ammo (doing the same more violently and more effectively).

Literally every nation with a military these days has .50cal ammo called APEI. Armor Piercing Explosive Incendiary. It's used against vehicles (such as armored APCs) or light materiel.
Literally no one has ever been brought up on charges for using explosive rounds against personnel by the way. Why would you? You can throw 40mm high explosive grenades at them, but not bullets? Come on, that's retarded.

The joke in the army about the Hague convention by the way is that you're not shooting people with APEI, you're trying to destroy their uniforms. Which is materiel, and thus allowed by the convention.

 

[Fins]

The Hague convention does not ban use of such ammo against material and materiel.

And zeppelins do not explode when shot with regular ammo. You can riddle them with bullets, but the likelihood of them leaking enough to crash is slim.
That's why they used tracers (to ignite the gas) or explosive ammo (doing the same more violently and more effectively).

Literally every nation with a military these days has .50cal ammo called APEI. Armor Piercing Explosive Incendiary. It's used against vehicles (such as armored APCs) or light materiel.
Literally no one has ever been brought up on charges for using explosive rounds against personnel by the way. Why would you? You can throw 40mm high explosive grenades at them, but not bullets? Come on, that's retarded.

The joke in the army about the Hague convention by the way is that you're not shooting people with APEI, you're trying to destroy their uniforms. Which is materiel, and thus allowed by the convention.

1st, nowhere in this topic did i propose to use regular ammo against Zeppelins. So, whom are you talking with about it? Just curious.

2nd, nowhere in this topic did i say that militaries these days have any dignity left in them. Well, there are bits and pockets of it left here and there, to be entirely honest, but all the top brass is rotten to the core. As a rule with few exceptions.

3rd, it's not retarded at all. Shows you never seen any war. The difference is simple: when you throw 40mm HE at 'em, they will either be hit directly, which nearly guarantees quick death without suffering, or they'll not be hit directly, means they won't get those ugly huge wounds i talked above about. They could get shrapnel piercing wounds and that's bad enough as it is, but it least they won't have big chunks of their flesh torn out and away - while still surviving. Which is exactly what explosive bullets of small calibers often do.

4th, said joke, as well as most personnel in modern armies, are both stupid. This is present zeitgeist - no personal offense meant to anyone in particular.

It is wrong to use any weapon or bullets made for killing, on people in my opinion.
I still consider landmines worst than those bullets though.

People are different. There are exceptions. Landmines differ too. Those which are designed to kill reliably and instantly are not that bad. But cheaper ones which sometimes cripple instead of killing - yep, same deal. Bad.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Despite your 12/31/17 join date, you seem very familiar, Fins. Since you have determined that SuAside has never seen any war, and that most personnel in modern armies are stupid, I am very curious about your own first hand experience with war. Myself, Carib, Gonzo, and a few other folks in this thread have been 'personnel in modern armies', in service to a variety of nations. It's an interesting move to come into a thread about interest in firearms and ammo and lead off with war crime accusations and aspersions to those who serve, particularly 10 or so days in as a brand new member of a forum dedicated to a computer game. Seems more like a shill thing to do.

But since we are on the topic of ammo, I burned through a sizeable amount of 10mm between USPSA and Bowling Pin this year. I've also started shooting Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC) class, which is relatively new to USPSA, and I needed some heavier 9mm ammo. So I picked up 2k of 10mm and 1k of Fiocci's 158gr subsonic 9mm:

Fiocchi has run pretty well in my 9mm carbine

Every now and then I will get a couple rounds in a box of Privi 10 that have a little too much OAL to chamber in any of my 1911s, although they do chamber in my Glocks and Sigs. Occasionally, I find this out in the middle of a pin shoot. But it is still the cheapest halfway decent loading I have found for the volume of 10 that I shoot.

Nice to see the ready stock relinquished. It will go quick this year, particularly if I am going to try and step up to the regional level in USPSA again.

 

[SuAside]

1st, nowhere in this topic did i propose to use regular ammo against Zeppelins. So, whom are you talking with about it? Just curious.

I was explaining the primary use case for the newfangled explosive rounds at the time. If normal full metal jacket ammo worked fine, it would make no sense to invent something more expensive to do the same thing.

2nd, nowhere in this topic did i say that militaries these days have any dignity left in them. Well, there are bits and pockets of it left here and there, to be entirely honest, but all the top brass is rotten to the core. As a rule with few exceptions.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to have it.

3rd, it's not retarded at all. Shows you never seen any war. The difference is simple: when you throw 40mm HE at 'em, they will either be hit directly, which nearly guarantees quick death without suffering, or they'll not be hit directly, means they won't get those ugly huge wounds i talked above about. They could get shrapnel piercing wounds and that's bad enough as it is, but it least they won't have big chunks of their flesh torn out and away - while still surviving. Which is exactly what explosive bullets of small calibers often do.

Grenades work through either fragmentation or concussion.

Fragmentation riddles your body with shards & shrapnel. It's almost certainly lethal to a person standing 5 meters from it. Depending on the design it will have high probability of injury up to 15 to 30 meters.

Concussion gives a blast wave of pressure which severely fucks your brain and internal organs. In open air, it will kill up to 2-3 meters. In confined spaces like buildings or bunkers, it is likely to be lethal in whichever room it goes off in. Further out it will cause popped ear drums, brain hemorrhaging, etc.

I'm somewhat at a loss how a direct hit with explosive rounds (because you need a direct hit with these to have any decent effect, unless you're talking about 20mm or 30mm, which classify as grenades more than actual cartridges) is somehow less humane or dignified.

No grenade or bomb ever "guarantees" a quick death without suffering. You tell me I've never seen war first hand (which is entirely correct), but I can also tell you have never seen the aftermath of combat...

But since we are on the topic of ammo, I burned through a sizeable amount of 10mm between USPSA and Bowling Pin this year. I've also started shooting Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC) class, which is relatively new to USPSA, and I needed some heavier 9mm ammo. So I picked up 2k of 10mm and 1k of Fiocci's 158gr subsonic 9mm:

I quite like Fiocchi. Especially the revolver ammo.
I prefer Geco 124gr for my 9x19 due to price point, which tends to be well below Fiocchi.
The only Fiocchi I've had issues with (and that is a decade ago) is their "non-tox" line ("clean" propellant and no lead). It failed to properly ignite all propellant pellets and would cover the internals of my pistols with yellow pellets. So I never bought that again.

 

[Hassknecht]

One thing about airships in the early Great War has to be noted, too: Shooting them down with planes wasn't actually that easy because in the early stages of the war airships were actually just as fast or even faster than contemporary airplanes.

 

[Fins]

Despite your 12/31/17 join date, you seem very familiar, Fins. ... I am very curious about your own first hand experience with war. ...

I don't remember ever having any prolonged interaction with you, but it may be my memory is at fault. Can't be helped, if so. As for my experience with war - it's very little. But then, it's more than enough, too.

 

[MutantScalper]

I don't remember ever having any prolonged interaction with you, but it may be my memory is at fault. Can't be helped, if so. As for my experience with war - it's very little. But then, it's more than enough, too.

So you're a Russian, eh? Chechen war images in that war? Nasty wars.

As a Finn I hope there can be some kind of nice relations with Russia and Finland. We prefer peace.

 

[SuAside]

One thing about airships in the early Great War has to be noted, too: Shooting them down with planes wasn't actually that easy because in the early stages of the war airships were actually just as fast or even faster than contemporary airplanes.

At the start of the war, they were also "out of range" of ground based anti-air artillery and of many fighter planes simply because of the extreme altitude (for the time) the airships could reach.

 

[Fins]

So you're a Russian, eh? Chechen war images in that war? Nasty wars.

As a Finn I hope there can be some kind of nice relations with Russia and Finland. We prefer peace.

I am, but does this matter? I doubt. As for what russians prefer, it is one widespread and lasting illusion in the West that we russians want to make war. It is being continuosly cultivated by western elites, for obvious reasons. But you can see what we russians feel about it, if you want - here's one small piece i made english subtitles for:

 

[MutantScalper]

I am, but does this matter? I doubt. As for what russians prefer, it is one widespread and lasting illusion in the West that we russians want to make war. It is being continuosly cultivated by western elites, for obvious reasons. But you can see what we russians feel about it, if you want - here's one small piece i made english subtitles for:

Well Russia is no. 2 weapon exporter in the world, no. 1 is US, not saying they're any better. If your country makes and exports that much weaponry, there is a certain case to be made that that country isn't 100 % pro-peace.

 

[Fins]

Well Russia is no. 2 weapon exporter in the world, no. 1 is US, not saying they're any better. If your country makes and exports that much weaponry, there is a certain case to be made that that country isn't 100 % pro-peace.

Nope. Making and exporting weaponry does not in any way indicate how pro-peace a country is, - by itself. No case could be made. Because you can't have peace without weapons, this fact was well understood even thousands years ago, as per still widely known roman saying which goes: "Si vis pacem, para bellum".

I doubt you could blame russians for inventing this wisdom, since it was coined back when russians simply did not exist at all - only numerous small tribe-like communities from which the nation formed up much later.

But enough history. Modern times, there is one and one only thing which so far prevented WW3 with all-out nuclear exchange, and this thing is called MAD. Thing is, for this MAD to actually work - you need weapons. And not "on paper" weapons, but real ones, deployed and operational, and ones which can do their job if need be despite any possible counter-measures, with that. MAD only works if all involved sides are actually capable of that "D" part against any of their potential enemies.

Let me know if you'll find any better alternative mechanism to _guarantee_ large-scale peace on the planet. So far, best minds of the Earth failed to find one, afaik - but who knows, may be you will?

 

[MutantScalper]

Nope. Making and exporting weaponry does not in any way indicate how pro-peace a country is, - by itself. No case could be made. Because you can't have peace without weapons, this fact was well understood even thousands years ago, as per still widely known roman saying which goes: "Si vis pacem, para bellum".

I doubt you could blame russians for inventing this wisdom, since it was coined back when russians simply did not exist at all - only numerous small tribe-like communities from which the nation formed up much later.

But enough history. Modern times, there is one and one only thing which so far prevented WW3 with all-out nuclear exchange, and this thing is called MAD. Thing is, for this MAD to actually work - you need weapons. And not "on paper" weapons, but real ones, deployed and operational, and ones which can do their job if need be despite any possible counter-measures, with that. MAD only works if all involved sides are actually capable of that "D" part against any of their potential enemies.

Let me know if you'll find any better alternative mechanism to _guarantee_ large-scale peace on the planet. So far, best minds of the Earth failed to find one, afaik - but who knows, may be you will?

Well that might illustrate how you think over there in Russia. Over here in Finland we do have arms manufacturing and sales, as does Sweden, but it's not our main export nor do we want it to be. Countries like US and Russia both seem to have a significant 'military industrial complex' and the whole nations and their domestic and foreign policies are influenced by it, I'll continue to prefer to be more like a real democracy.

 

[Fins]

Well that might illustrate how you think over there in Russia. Over here in Finland we do have arms manufacturing and sales, as does Sweden, but it's not our main export nor do we want it to be. Countries like US and Russia both seem to have a significant 'military industrial complex' and the whole nations and their domestic and foreign policies are influenced by it, I'll continue to prefer to be more like a real democracy.

Russia exports ~45 billion USD worth of "not exactly specified or indicated" items (which i guess would include weapons export, among other things), but over 134 billion USD worth of oil and mineral fuels. Source. As for what Russia wants to have as its main export article - that's IT, and it's not a secret at all. If you can't even get those simple things right about one of world's largest countries and economies, how exactly am i expected to respect your opinion about such things? But i'm still trying. For now.

So, for now, i read your "real democracy" term, and i respectfully ask you to reconsider. What's "real democracy"? By definition, it's "rule of the majority". As far as i know, both our countries are not real democracies. Nor should they be ones, that is. Nor could they be ones, too.

But suppose for a moment that you're right and Finland is "more like a real democracy". Ok. But then, can you explain to me how, exactly, majority of people of Finland could allow this, this, this, this and this to happen, if it is said majority of Finns who de-facto rule the country? Do you think people of Finland just approved those things and gave 'em "go ahead", or would you rather think those things happen because people of Finland, whole nation i mean, - is not the force which ultimately rules the country and therefore had no say on those matters?

I am sorry for being somewhat bad news to you, if it's that. But truth is truth, however unpleasant. You shouldn't get angry about someone just sharing what he sees around, me thinks.

Real democracies are only possible small scale. I think, a city-state tops. Like Venice at some point of its history. Anything larger than that - just can't be ruled by all the people. Because it's too big, too complex, too difficult to know everything about. Because it gets way too possible for "bad guys" to do nasty things while pretty much noone else's watching. That piles up and grows into certain "elite circles", and quite soon and inevitably, select groups and sometimes individuals end up being supreme rulers. With or (more often) without most people of the country knowing anything about it. "Gray cardinal" is not a term without real-world meaning. Etc.

P.S. Noam Chomsky is one US citizen who's among world's brightest people. ~8th or so most-often-quoted scientists of all times, too (means he's about on par with Einstein and such). So how do you think he estimates power structure of United States? Democracy? Nope. He says it's "inverted totalitarian state". See, this is pretty much the same in every major country out there: democracy is only a spectacle, an illusion to have masses distracted and pacified. And it is very needed and very proper thing to have it this way - practically possible alternatives are much worse. But any time i see someone say "real democracy" about any big country, i just can't help but smile (sadly), 'cause you know, that's not how things work in real life.