that is how modern military workarounds the ban on such cruel things like HP. The small caliber very fast round (i.e. it is usually should be less than 200-300 yards for M16, AK74) would yaw/tumble upon entering the body, and either fragments as a result or just do a lot of damage by tumbling.
Historically, US introduced that trick into mass warfare in Vietnam war with 5.56 M-16 where it was noticed by USSR which in turn produced 5.45 AK-74 which was actively used in Afghanistan. The AK-74 round was called "poison" bullet by the Afghanistan mujahideen because of those horrible quickly gangrening wounds as if the bullet was really poisoned while it was a result from that yawing/tumbling behavior of those small and fast rounds. (Such behavior was somewhat amplified by that first generation bullet design, and since then that bullet seems to have been replaced in service - though not on humanitarian grounds, it just that it did have issues in some situations due to that overly tumbling behavior, and it was fixed in the next gen, and additionally the next gen bullet has much higher, 2X+, armor penetrating capability)
The way the world stands right now, i don't see any chances for Hague convention to be updated to include modern unnecessary cruel military innovations.
All bullets yaw and tumble when they hit a person, that is a matter of physics. The idea that they are somehow specially designed to do that is an urban myth. Bullet orientation is inherently unstable, spin-stabilization is an engineering tradeoff. Too little spin and the bullet starts tumbling before it hits the target. Too much spin and the bullet erodes the barrel and may disintegrate in flight.
Explosive fragmentation, an effect the US accidentally discovered in some early versions of the M16, occurs when a bullet that is near maximum stabilization undergoes sudden structural stress. That is literally the opposite of trying to make a bullet tumble. Explosive fragmentation actually does do significant additional damage but it wasn't a design objective; US weapon and cartridge re-designs have incidentally eliminated it in pursuit of other priorities.
The reasons militaries moved to high-velocity 5.56/5.45mm cartridges had nothing to do with lethality and everything to do with logistics and ergonomics. It dramatically reduces weight, volume, and cost of ammunition relative to the 7.62mm cartridges widely used prior. Soldiers can carry twice as much ammunition with minimal loss of performance for most purposes, which is useful in the age of automatic weapons. It greatly improves accuracy under automatic and rapid fire, and the much flatter trajectory makes it easier to aim at intermediate ranges.
In other words, the move to high-velocity small-caliber cartridges can be easily explained by its many clear and obvious advantages. They aren't any more or less cruel than the cartridges they replaced.
exactly. It has to have enough speed for the yawing/tumbling to result in fragmentation. And that is what achieved with modern weapons like M16, AK74.
>The idea that they are somehow specially designed to do that is an urban myth.
For example the 5N7 5.45 AK-74 bullet, the "poison" one, had an air-pocket in front between jacket and the core. We don't know whether it was intentionally designed to enhance the tumbling upon hitting the body - we do know it did significantly enhance it.
>occurs when a bullet that is near maximum stabilization undergoes sudden structural stress.
yep, yaw upon hitting target at short up to medium distance when the speed is still close to maximum.
> That is literally the opposite of trying to make a bullet tumble.
in that in previous sentences you're conflating bullet stabilization/tumbling during flight with the tumbling upon hitting the body. It is 2 different things.
>They aren't any more or less cruel than the cartridges they replaced.
Higher fragmentation and higher tumbling makes them more cruel. There is also shockwave issue from the higher speed, yet it it is outside of the type of effects we're talking about and is a topic on its own.
>US weapon and cartridge re-designs have incidentally eliminated it in pursuit of other priorities.
and as i already mentioned in pursuit of other priorities USSR/Russia moved to more stable round. So at least we have that.
This is actually common on a lot of rifle bullets. Search for OTM or open tip match. There are some open arguments in the gun community about it's effect on ballistics etc, but it actually comes from a by product of the manufacturing of the bullet. Most FMJ bullets have the copper skin formed so that it's open in the back, OTM bullets are "backwards" and are run through a form after the lead is poured. This shrinks the area of the opening in the shell and pushes it to the center. Which makes it easier to keep things radially concentric and balanced. Something that's very important at longer distances.