Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/26/2001 7:33:42 AM EDT
Why not? I know there are conventions against such things but these laws where made when wars where fought differently then they are now. Why limit weapons design? Many country's have broken much more important areas of the conventions so why not break this one to send some towel heads and extra gift?
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:36:35 AM EDT
I'm not sure what sort of "explosive bullet" you have in mind, but the problems with fusing and storing explosives inside a bullet that small seem rather daunting. Can anybody more technically inclined weigh in?
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:38:39 AM EDT
and what soldier wants to carry a load of explosive ammo around while being shot at? [:)]
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:39:10 AM EDT
it's not logical.The .223's awesome anti-personnel capabilities are due to it's super-high velocity.The sheer velocity of .223 cartriges are enough to cause an "explosive" effect on most baddies and other targets. That,and the fact it would be UBER expensive,and probably low-yield,and maybe a little unstable.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:41:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:43:27 AM EDT
Ok, How about some poison of some sort?
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:43:53 AM EDT
He probably meant more like a ballistic tip design of projectile as opposed to one with explosives in it.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 7:55:32 AM EDT
No I meant explosives.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 8:04:23 AM EDT
For anti personnel use, explosive bullets would limit penetration. When shooting at live targets carrying gear, weapons, backpacks and body armor, you want all the pentration you can get. For any other use, such as anti-vehicle or aircraft, the tiny bullets just don't have the mass needed to penetrate hard objects when the steel/lead core is replaced with the much lighter explosive material. And as pointed out above, you couldn't get enough material in the bullet to be worthwhile. All of the .30 and .50 caliber "explosive" bullets loaded for military use were intended to be directed against hard targets like vehicles and aircraft, where the resistance at impact is sufficient to detonate the explosive material without a fuse. They were usually an armor piercing/incendiary type of bullet, sometimes combined with a tracer element. They most likely wouldn't detonate against soft tissue, or even bone. Most shells 20mm and above use a mechanical fuse that is too large for the smaller bullets, and must travel a short distance (certain number of revolutions) before it arms.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:09:18 AM EDT
I read somewhere that exploding bullets are against the Geneva Convention. Something about being inhumane force or something. Could be wrong.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:52:07 AM EDT
the bullets so small you couldn't get enough of anything into it... maybe a lady finger firecracker sort of effect...
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 9:58:35 AM EDT
What cerberus said. The parameter of the 5.56 that is most marginal, IMO, is penetration in soft tissue. Exploding bullets will reduce penetration. Not a good thing.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 10:18:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Waldo: Really, just how much explosive you going to get in that little thing? How about a tiny partical of anti matter? [smoke]
View Quote
I prefer acid, or plutonium, depending on the situation...
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 10:28:38 AM EDT
There are Spotter/Tracer rounds available for 5.56. Not sure what they're used for, maybe marking targets for a SAW. Hi-Tech Ammo has some quantity. We shoot M48 Spotter/Tracer with the AR50 and it's always a good show with the flash and smoke on target. The .50 cal S/T round was used to mark targets for the 107mm recoilless rifle. Not really EXPLOSIVE! and the .50 only travels about 1700 ft/sec but I wouldn't want to be hit with the thing.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 10:32:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Scarecrow: Ok, How about some poison of some sort?
View Quote
Lead is poison, especially at 3000 fps.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 2:11:53 PM EDT
drfcolt, the use of explosive and incendiary projectiles weighing under 400g against unprotected living force was forbidden already in the 1867 St. Peterburg treaty, the Geneva part is an common error. The use of soft point bullets was forbidden in 1899 and again in 1907. The U.S and Great Britain had signed the St. Petersburg treaty but did not sign the Haag treaty, so no one really made a fuss about the use of soft points in WW1. And because the use of explosive and incendiary projectiles weighing under 400g against [b]unprotected[/b] living force was forbidden, every one reasoned that the people in reconnaisance balloons and aircraft were "protected", the explosive and incendiary bullets were used in airwarfare.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 2:19:12 PM EDT
how about herpes or AIDS, they are probably pretty small.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 2:29:51 PM EDT
simple solution would be to make a small hollow spot within the bullet as in the 5.45x39. Very simple, very cheap solution, very effective.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 2:37:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Waldo: Really, just how much explosive you going to get in that little thing? How about a tiny partical of anti matter? [smoke]
View Quote
But then you would need to surround the bullet with huge magnets creating a suspending magnetic field so the anti particle does not prematurely touch the rest of the bullet? tin foil hat on..
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 2:54:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2001 2:55:07 PM EDT by e8ght]
Depends upon your desired terminal effect. A hollow 12 gauge slug would be much better for sheer explosive punch. A V-Max or other lightly constructed varmint bullet would give nearly equivalent explosive effect as stuffing a .22 with explosive of some sort. AP would give better penetration than a 20 grain .22 shaped charge. It might be OK for an incendiary or observing round, but again .22 doesn't carry much payload. I suppose it would be technically possible to disassemble primers then smear the resulting !WET! paste into a big hollowpoint, sealing it with a dollop of epoxy. Accuracy would suck at normal rifle ranges. The explosive round idea is more applicable to large caliber, especially slow bullets. Say .44 special, 45 acp and the like, where some extra oomph would be useful just to expand the tip of the slow moving bullet. A big 200g hollowpoint swc with a deep primer diameter hole, filled with bullseye then topped with a primer and a dollop of epoxy, would seem to do the job nicely. Check local laws first - impact-initiating rounds are likely considered to be prohibited ammunition in our fair country. You'll need special licenses and even with the licenses will likely be permitted to make these only for government/military use. The poison idea would also tend to be more useful in applications other than 3K+ fps centerfire rifles. A .25 ACP or .22 short certainly don't have much effect as a bullet by themselves, and are too tiny to accept HE warheads with any degree of utility. Anticoagulants perhaps? HEY, I just thought of a great reactive target shooting game - tracer ammunition and hydrogen-filled balloons. Anyone tried it?
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 3:11:53 PM EDT
In "The Day of the Jackal" (the original book) I believe his exploding bullets were hollow, and filled with mercury. Is this correct/possible? BP
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 3:21:22 PM EDT
How about putting a small piece of a razorblade inside the bullet facing towards the rear with a small amount of uranium 232 on the tip of the blade. Hopefully when the bullet impacts its target the razorblade would be pushed back with enough force to split one of the uranium atoms causing a low yield nuclear explosion! Just imagine terrorists falling all over the battlefield with small mushroom clouds protruding from their chest. Think I should patent the idea? Michael
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 3:31:26 PM EDT
How about hollow points filled with bacon grease or pig fat. Ought to be just the thing for radical muslims.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 4:04:41 PM EDT
Actual "Explosive" would be kinda limited effect, I've heard mention that the 50BMG is around the size limit where the bullet is just large enough to have enough capacity to carry an explosive charge that's worth bothering with. In a .224 diameter bullet it likely wouldn't achieve much of anything and what would it's intended use be? Against flesh? That's already been mentioned. As for explosive terminal performance, a FMJ round that acts like a Vmax could definitely be created just look at what the Russian 5.45 rounds do. Wouldn't be conventional hollow point and if you wanted to get technical I guess you could say it's a full metal jacketed round. The fragmentation effects of a 5.56mm design based upon that of the 5.45mm would be even more draumatic than the effects of the current use 5.56mm rounds.
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 5:56:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2001 5:57:05 PM EDT by tc6969]
I shot some yellow box UMC the other day. It was exploding rather nicely against the dirt backstop. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that! Pretty "draumatic"
Link Posted: 9/26/2001 6:14:08 PM EDT
The assassin that killed Kennedy claimed to use a mercury filled bullet. You gotta rent the movie "Confessions of an Assassin". The man, James E. Files, was interviewed in Joliet State in Illinois. He was working for Giancana with 2 other shooters Charles Nicoletti and John Roselli. He claimed to be firing a Remington XP100 from the grassy knoll that although built for 221 fireball, was rechambered in .222 Rem. This guy knew what he was talking about, but anyway he claimed to be there to fire only if Nicoletti missed from behind. He fired and removed the spent cartridge, bit it and set it on the fence. The projectile was a 40 grain lead sedative that had been filled with mercury. Nicoletti was firing a 30.06 and although the two fired and hit the Presidents head simultaneously, the grassy knoll shot catapulted the President backwards. the brain is missing because of the presence of mercury? Rent the movie.
Top Top