Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: willner%cfa183@harvard.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Alternatives to Explosive Bullets
Message-ID: <7597@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Jun 89 03:47:00 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: willner%cfa183@harvard.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
When the M-16 was first put into use, wasn't one of its characteristics
an abnormally small amount of rifling twist?  The idea was to make the round
nearly unstable, so it would tumble when it hit and do more damage.
Supposedly, M-16's to be used in the arctic needed a bit of extra twist
because of the greater air density.

Does anyone know whether the above is correct?  Is low twist still used 
on the M-16?  On what other weapons?  And how much does the damage
increase?

On a slightly different subject, one controversial weapon type used by
the US in Vietnam exploded into plastic instead of metal fragments.  (I
believe these were used only in aerial bombs, but they might have been
used in artillery shells as well.)  Being transparent to X-rays, these
fragments were far harder to remove from wounds than metal fragments.
As far as I know, such weapons are not specifically prohibited by the
Geneva Conventions, but they do seem to come awfully close to the line
of "causing unnecessary suffering."  (My source for usage of these weapons
is contemporary newspaper accounts, so apply an appropriate reliability
factor.  More information would be welcome.)