Since somebody raised the "meant to wound" in another thread, I thought I give my two-cents.
The impetus to wounding the enemy as oppose to killing them outright because it took more men and logistics to take care of the wounded, thus sapping fighting strength of the enemy, in my opinion, has its root in the set-piece style of warfare, i.e. the Civil War, WW I, and to lesser extend, WW II (not the actual practice, mind you, but the source of the idea years later). Back then armies, for most parts, march in large groups, had defined battle lines, and each soldier had other buddies around him, plus logistic support such as field hospital behind the soldiers. If a soldier is wounded, his fellow soldiers would felt obligated to help him. Failing to do so would be very detrimental to the morale and group cohesion (would you fight knowing the man next to you would let you bleed to death?)
Things changed when fighting style and soldiers' mentality changed. In the Pacific Theater, the Japanese soldiers were fighting for their emperor, not mere survival, plus the jungle environment made taking care of their wounded impractical. Thus if a Japanese soldier is seriously wounded, he's probably give a grenade and told to say "Banzai" before pulling the pin as American soldiers approach. Dead Japanese soldier can't do that.
I do not know enough about the Vietnam War to make comments on it, but I'd imagine there were similar incidents of suicidal wounded. The communist North and gurellas were quite motivated by their ideologies.
Fast forward to modern time. There were several incidents in Afghanistan where wounded soldiers blew themselves up or kept on fighting (i.e. those buggers holed up in that hospital) Another problem with these Talibans is that if you do wound and capture them, they may be unrepentent and cause further trouble in your rear end, witness uprising in Kandahar. The Japanese, Vietnamese, and Afghans all have one thing in common: they were all motivated by, for lack of better words, "higher calling" for which they were willing to die.
Long gone are the days of clashes of great armies in open fields, and with it the strategy of "meant to wound" weapons. For the forseeable future we will be dealing with localized religion/ideology motivated insurrections: Chechens in Russia, Maoist in Nepal, and assorted Muslim extremists in Philipine and Malaysia. For these, wounding them will not stop them from coming back, killing them outright will.
A little piece of historical tidbit: .45 ACP was created because the issue revolver (.38Special?) would not stop the natives in Philipine. Certainly the smaller revolver rounds would wound, but the .45ACP would put them away. Then we came around back to the similarly calibered 9mm (I know they are not the same, but you get the idea).
These are my takes. Feel free to expand on or dispute them.