Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

Not sure that I agree with this: 

The Metropolitan Police is to issue all its firearms officers with ammunition described as "unsurvivable".

Hollow point bullets flatten on impact, causing maximum damage to vital organs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13364365

What do you think?

[Gaffers]

Their use in war is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, so what is the rationale behind the met getting them

[tigers_gonads]

If you have somebody out of his scull on crack and waveing a Mac 10 at you, you want him to  drop him instantly 

With these people, the adrenaline is pumping that much that they just don't feel pain so it makes sence to make sure he goes down as quickly as possible 

The same if some bast*rd has his finger on a button 

If I remember correctly, some of the police are being trained up to a higher level and re armed because of the continuning threat from the curly slipper brigade  :-/

[cem_devecioglu]

deadly weapons/bullets will bring deadly/disastrous effects.. what happens if you shoot an innocent by mistake..  wrong..

[tigers_gonads]

deadly weapons/bullets will bring deadly/disastrous effects.. what happens if you shoot an innocent by mistake..  wrong..

What is wrong ?

[Banjax]

people trust the police with guns nowadays?? 

[hotel21]

deadly weapons/bullets will bring deadly/disastrous effects.. what happens if you shoot an innocent by mistake..  wrong..

Understand your viewpoint Cem but, unfortunately, its the world we currently live in.

Whether the bullet used is a standard 9mm semi/fully jacketed round or a compressive round, they still kill people.  Its a fact that the latter round is harder hitting, hence their banning by the Geneva Convention for general Monday to Friday wartime use.  (sorry to sound frivolous but the subject requires perspective, I feel.)

Thinking of the use or exposure that Met Officers have as regards potential suicide bombers in public (UK) spaces where loss of civilian life is potentially very high compared to the number of rounds actually discharged. 

Then take similar circumstances as in Afghan.  Comparing NATO forces deployed militarily in a peacekeeping role and the local populace versus rebels.

Admittedly, I know not the comparative numbers between Afghan and the UK but I would hazard to guess that the shots expended ratio is a lot higher in Afghan.

Kinda witterring, reading back the above, but I think that the Met may well have to act in an instant to prevent a mass disaster whereas the military are more likely to get into a firefight with insurgents rather than a suicide bomber.

Or am I getting the completely wrong end of this??   

[Sixstring]

Can I throw some light on this subject (with some first hand experience)?

"compressive trauma rounds" are designed to give a potentially fatal trauma shock to the individual, releasing any nerve activated grip the individual may have on an object, and causing such a severe exit wound (if indeed the projectile actually exits and doesn't hit the spine or a bone) that death is almost certain.

Yes, indeed they are banned for general issue useage by the Geneva Convention, but the SAS and other Security forces have had the availability for years, for Counter terrorism and similar uses, but its obviously NOT general knowledge.

Having shot some of these rounds at a "trauma model" on a range at 30 yds, I can confirm that the bodily damage is massive, and in all probability unsurvivable in a lot of cases.

In the instance of a terrorist with a bomb trigger, or a knife to the  throat of a hostage, I can see the potential for an immediate removal of threat, but can see no other real use for these "special" munitions. :-?

[cem_devecioglu]

lets increment the bet a "bit more" and give bazookas, so no miss is guaranteed 

I hope I understand correct.. they plan to give for police use right.. probably they decide to use police in war  :-? :-?


seriously I cant think of a scenario that police use those bullets in public


if you think a bit , all actions will have a reaction.. if you use those things, the terrorists will start to use more heavy guns and you will face 3rd world war in front of your door

[Martin_1962]

deadly weapons/bullets will bring deadly/disastrous effects.. what happens if you shoot an innocent by mistake..  wrong..

It has happened

[Broomies Mate]

1.  Specialised Firearms units will only attend a scene when absolutely necessary.

2.  Specialised Firearms units will only fire their weapons after every other attempt to regain control has failed.

3.  Specialist Firearms units are trained extensively, so whatever ammunition they use will probably be fatal if deemed necessary (a leg or arm shot is preferred).

Just a few things I thought of when reading initial post. 

[Entwood]

A further thought for consideration....

The "killing range" of a "normal" full/semi jacketed round is far higher than you might consider, even after hitting its target.

For example ... the SLR 7.62 round of the 70's could pass straight through 2 sheep at one mile, even if the sheep were 2 feet apart, such was the effect of the muzzle velocity and the jacketing.

The SA 80 5.56 round can do the same at a 1/2 mile range.

The Browning 9mm SLP can do the same at 30 yards

The met have to consider working in crowded environments. The "soft" round which deforms highly on impact will either not exit the body it hits, or if it does exit will do so at a very low velocity. It will also deform on hitting any solid object and not ricochet as much

This will reduce the possibility of secondary victims considerably.

[cem_devecioglu]

1.  Specialised Firearms units will only attend a scene when absolutely necessary.

2.  Specialised Firearms units will only fire their weapons after every other attempt to regain control has failed.

3.  Specialist Firearms units are trained extensively, so whatever ammunition they use will probably be fatal if deemed necessary (a leg or arm shot is preferred).

Just a few things I thought of when reading initial post. 

if you use those bullets its not important where you hit, the person will die because of enormous blood loss wthin a short time ..

[bigegg]

I would hope that firearms are are only used by the police as
a last resort in a "lethal" situation.
Even more so now that CS gas and tasers have supplemented the truncheon [1].

Personally I would hope that any firearms officer who discharges his firearm IS aiming to kill.
Otherwise he should be using the non-lethal alternatives.
If the officer *IS* aiming to kill, then anything which improves the lethality is a good thing, IMO, especially if the nature of the ammunition is such that bystanders are endangered less.

[1] yes I know its a "side handled baton"

[Dishevelled Den]

It was inevitable that such a development was necessary.

For police purposes the choice of the ammunition to be used is as important as the weapon itself.

In city/urban environments, over penetration of a discharged bullet can be as undesirable as discharging the weapon in the first place. This is remains uppermost in my mind, and in the minds of those others who are required to carry weapons.

The purpose in bringing fire to targets is to render the threat null - by in large there is little chance in incapacitating the threat by wounding, so the most efficient projectile must be used in these environments (along with accurate placement of fire) to achieve the goal.