Explosive Ammo
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
What are the advantages and disadvantages of explosive rounds, and why don't we use them today?
I just watched this video by the Forgotten Weapons guys testing vintage WW2 stuff, and it looks pretty devastating.
https://www.full30.com/video/82efb579fd3c93d177205966ef3d3c9d
I'm sure we could improve on the design with modern machining and materials. Imagine explosive .338 Lapua Magnum.
They're expensive to make and the only people we ever fight these days are unarmored, untrained dunecoons driving Toyotas. No need for fancy exploding rounds.
Advantages:
>blows up
Disadvantages:
>blows up
>expensive
>>29511305
Mostly, it's a bit less lethal than steel jacketed lead rounds. The bullets are less dense so it's going to loose velocity quicker. Likewise, penetration suffers. The explosive charge is a little more than a firecracker due in no small part that the detonator takes up much of the bullet. Even without a detonator we're talking less bang than a really shitty hand grenade with no shrapnel.
Sure, you can kill infantry but regular bullets kill infantry. Maybe you get more performance when dealing with body armor but the explosion alone isn't going to reliably kill. At most you'll annoy most armored vehicles and good luck hitting any aircraft with that kind of ballistic performance.
I think that's everything, did I miss anything?
>>29511305
>>Geneva Convention
>>29511658
It's funny, the only people that ever bring up the Geneva Convention are the people that don't know a single thing about the Geneva Convention.
>>29511669
>Hauge Convention
>>29511658
I got you senpai.
>>29511683
Cheers bro. Knew it was one of those pieces of paper.
>>29511305
>why don't we use them today?
Because humanity isn't fighting monsters. Seriously, it's fucking expensive to produce, dangerous to store/transport and regular steel core rounds punch through body armor anyway. In addition, the round is rather useless against anything but soft targets and most conventional rounds already work fine against them. It could be useful as a self defense anti-bear round but that's about it.
>can't buy explosive 12 gauge slugs at LGS
why even live?
incidentally, explosive rounds are legal in my country if larger than 15mm
Nobody's gonna bring up Raufoss rounds? Day/k/are please
>>29511807
What is that?
>>29511813
Anti-material round. The complete opposite of the round in question.
>>29511828
>Raufoss
>exploding multipurpose ammunition
>the complete opposite of exploding ammunition
wut
>>29511828
It's a .50 BMG round, that's armour piercing, incendiary, and explosive.
>>29511305
I'd love to see this fired from a machine gun
>>29511858
The round from the OP is a pure anti-personnel round while the Raufoss is a anti-material round. Besides, isn't the use of .50 bmg against soft targets considered a war crime? I think i read something like that years ago.
>>29511692
One of the pieces of paper that the US has never signed
>>29511807
The Mk. 211? isn't that a specialty sniper round that's like $20 a pop?
>>29511807
>>29511892
That's why you can only found those type of ammo in the US
>>29511892
US never signed it but have to do as if on warfield though
>>29511957
Or what?
>>29512019
Something to do with the ONU or OTAN or both. Long time since I learned that in school
>>29512050
*UN
*NATO
Inb4 >damn French speaking faggot
>>29511794
They used to sell a screw top hollow slug with a massive primer on the front.
Wonder if impact could create a diesel reaction? Little two part piston slug?
Im just waking up and throwing out crazy ideas (in a few threads).
Ever clip off a chunk of wire with snips and have the piece shoot across the room?
Imagine a prickly two part slug that when it hits a plate, compresses snapping the prickles off like a chisel. Aim for center mass to take out the limbs.
Lot of force from impact so redirect it eliminating the need for explosives.
Just spit ballin...
>>29511891
Not a war crime, just fuddlore.
>>29511891
i could never understand some of the criteria for a war crime.
>objective of war is to defeat the enemy forces
>shooting them with big bullets is a no-no!
>>29511305
>mfw Forgotten weapons made me search for cutaway images of rifle rounds.
And I found this.
https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=527033
I wonder how the B-32 ShKAS round looks like inside.
>>29512566
You have to shoot to hurt not to kill so explosive rounds or shit like that is forbidden
>>29512704
But blinding lasers are a war crime. What sense does that make?
>>29512911
Same reason ap mines, flamethrowers and nerve gas are considered inhumane. A bullet to the brain from 500 meters away is fine but a .50 bmg to the leg is undue suffering. In the end it all comes down to how you argue your case tho.
>>29512704
[citation needed]
>>29513086
Every army manual ever since WW1.
>>29512911
Because they are specially designed to blind the eye which makes you disable for life.
Weapons are only supposed to hurt and not do irreversible damage like blindness or death
>>29512050
Well, since we run and find both the U.N. and NATO, what are they gunna do if we just decide to say fuck it and do what we want?
>>29511658
>>29511683
St Petersburg declaration. Basically the russians found a way to make exploding musket bullet and they were scared shit at its (potential) effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_Declaration_of_1868
https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/130?OpenDocument
>>29513302
>US running the UN
You're funny anon.
Just so you know, the current president of the UN is a Danish man and the USA never were in charge of the UN since 1946
Repercussion ranges from embargo to expulsion of the Council trough trial for war crimes/crime against humanity. Don't don't know every detail, like I said: long time since politic lessons
>>29511794
Canadabro stop stealing my splosive shell ideas
>>29513299
>Weapons are only supposed to hurt and not do irreversible damage like blindness or death
>>29513664
That's fucking retarded
>>29513299
>>29511692
Fuck off back to your island, m8.
>>29513249
No. You don't shoot to wound, that's cruel.
You kill.
>>29513307
the St Petersburg declaration was only signed by a few nations so it doesnt apply to murrica, and is succeeded by the Hague convention and other treaties from the past century. Hague actually states you can use small explosives on personell.
>>29513401
>president of the UN
No
>embargo to expulsion of the council trough trial for war crimes/crime against humanity.
Hilarious. Please, elaborate on how the country would be tried for using those munitions, and subsequently embargo'd.
>>29512704
>You have to shoot to hurt not to kill so explosive rounds or shit like that is forbidden
that's horse shit. cite one treaty which states this.
>>29513664
>>29513684
Depends on how you choose to see it
>>29513686
It's not my own personal statement but the one from army manuals and instructions
>>29513722
Maybe you think that but that's not how the Countries think. You don't shot to kill
Before anyone starts...
There has been much debate over whether the Mk 211 projectile is legal to use against personnel, or if it is strictly anti-matériel ammunition. The International Committee of the Red Cross has sought to have the ammunition banned, due to concern over the incendiary and explosive components and their effect on personnel. Under the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 the "military or naval" use of explosive or incendiary projectiles with a mass of under 400 grams is forbidden.[6] Very few nations were parties to the St. Petersburg Declaration, however, and that declaration does not govern the conduct of non-signatory parties. Further, the Hague treaties of 1899 and 1907 – which superseded the St. Petersburg Declaration, and were signed by a far wider circle of nations – do permit the use of such ammunition for auto-cannons and heavy machine guns. Machine guns firing .50 cal/12.7mm ammunition are heavy machine guns. At best, the ICRC's position can be applied to only a small group of nations that were parties to the St. Petersburg Declaration; at worst, the ICRC's position is made moot by more than 100 years of subsequent international treaties.
>>29513830
Trials conducted by Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt (Norwegian Defence Research Establishment) have concluded that the ammunition most likely does not have an unlawful effect if unintentionally used against personnel, as the round will have penetrated the body and exited on the other side before the explosive and incendiary components of the round are initiated.[7] Upon hitting a person the round will detonate about 50% of the time; if the target is wearing body armor a higher detonation frequency is to be expected (as shown by the ICRC tests carried out in 1999).[8] If detonated, the round will have a significant fragmentation and incendiary effect in a 30-degree cone behind the struck target, and this might affect others standing in the vicinity. The distance the round will travel from ignition to detonation is 30–40 cm, so if the target is hit at very specific angles the round may still be inside the target at the time of detonation.
>>29511305
these guys really didn't get the point of this bullet.
Target can be behind corner(or any semi hard cover) of the wall and they could just shoot at wall, brick parts would neutralize the enemy.
>>29513759
>>president of the UN
>No
What are you trying to say here?
>Hilarious. Please, elaborate on how the country would be tried for using those munitions, and subsequently embargo'd.
Like every other time there has been something like that: every country part of the UN can't sell nor fournish for free any ressources to the given country. For the trial, the given country is judged by the other members of the UN.
You could have look on the Internet before asking though, it would probably be explained better there
>>29513722
no, basically, point is to make enemy unable to fight, be it psychological or psychical .
If soldier dies or not is totally irrelevant.
>>29513898
>what are Free Trade Acts
the UN can't embargo those nations
>>29513772
Geneva convention. It bans nearly every weapons that does huge damage or that creates wounds that cannot be patched like that three sided knife
>>29513923
Those can be bypassed by the UN. Maybe you should inform yourself before taking about a subject you don't really know
>>29513918
Finally someone who gets it
>>29513991
how the hell would the UN bypass it? It's not enforceable by any means.
>>29514046
It's a world council, they can do pretty much everything if there is a majority
>>29514097
You mean like be useless or straight-up counter-productive?
>League of Nations 2.0
>>29514119
Except UN decisions are actually applied/respected
>>29514171
Until they aren't and then the UN collapses like the League did at the beginning of WW2 when it proved it could not prevent aggression because how the fuck could it?
>>29513401
>Expelling the US from the council
kek, good luck.
>>29511891
No what people are confusing is us soldiers were told not to use coaxial ranging guns as anti personnel weapons
>>29513918
Yep gotta win those wars fuck the enemy fuck their wives fuck their babies
Why not just buy a grenade launcher like the XM-25
>>29514977
>coaxial ranging guns
I'd like to hear more about this.
>>29515419
If we're talking about using explosive weapons for anti-personnel use, I'd rather something like the Neopup PAW-20.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5oMcn_5X4
>>29513885
>What is 7.62
Just shoot through the brick
>>29511305
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST THAT VIDEO
Imagine getting hit by an mg loaded with those.
>>29511891
Downvote
>>29516605
I know right.
I'd love to see what ballistic gelatin looks like after being hit with exploding ammo. There's a difference between the temporary wound chamber and the permanent damage done.
Also some better high speed camera cinematics would be nice.
What an amazing round. I wish I could experiment with them.
>>29511669
This.
