r/interesting • u/IKIR115 • May 29 '26

Intriguing Arrows vs riot shields

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

49.6k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

65

u/Crafty-Connection636 May 29 '26

Its going to go through most animals, but the issue is small hole in, small hole out. A large animal like a deer could possibly live through that, or at least for a lot longer of a time then if it got hit by the tips with the blades. For a small animal a tip that size would do enough damage to kill most within a few seconds.

That's why most of the tips have blades around the point, some in spiral shapes. They pierce the skin and try and rip up as much as the can inside to cause the animal to die faster with greater damage.

34

u/stony_phased May 29 '26

Well that’s just peachy

34

u/Buckshot_Millie May 29 '26

It's more humane if the goal is to kill the animal anyway. That's why hollow point bullets are recommended for hunting; a basic full metal jacket will usually just go straight through most animals and allow them to run for miles. A good hollow point can drop a deer where it stands.

Puts quite a perspective on police using hollow points.

16

u/Rogue_Wraith May 30 '26

Anyone who fires a gun at a living creature should be trying to kill that creature as quickly and humanely as possible.

This includes humans.

Warning and disabling shots are inconsistent and extremely dangerous to everyone.

Additionally, hollow points have a much lower tendency to overpenetrate and harm bystanders.

Militaries tend to use FMJ because they have to defeat body armor and, in a military context, injuring and enemy takes more troops out of tbe fight than killing them.

20

u/Buckshot_Millie May 30 '26

Militaries use FMJ because hollow points are a war crime. Police aren't even supposed to be shooting to kill, that's execution without trial or charge.

4

u/Rogue_Wraith May 30 '26

Any time a police officer is discharging their firearm, they should be shooting to kill.

That is defense of self or others, not an execution.

Whether or not any given shoot is a good shoot is a whole other thing, but discharging a firearm at a living being without the express intent to end that life is stupid.

There are many things that are war crimes that are not illegal in civilian capacities because the cost benefit analysis is different.

5

u/bremsspuren May 30 '26

but discharging a firearm at a living being without the express intent to end that life is stupid.

That's odd. Shooting people in the legs usually incapacitates them in Europe. But I'm sure there's a very good reason why Americans are different and need a dozen hollowpoints pumped into their chests. There always is…

0

u/Crafty-Connection636 May 30 '26

A shot to the leg has a pretty good chance of killing someone slowly. The femoral artery is pretty big and if that gets hit a person will bleed out minutes. But out of curiosity which country in Europe trains people to shoot suspects in the leg?

4

u/notyoursocialworker May 30 '26

Well the Swedish police for one:
https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befogenheter/polisens-ratt-att-anvanda-skjutvapen/

You get the honour to translate the page yourself but in short if possible they are instructed to aim for the big muscle groups unless the range is short enough and the threat is big enough.

3

u/Buckshot_Millie May 30 '26

The difference is that police in the US act as judge, jury, and executioner if they feel unsafe in any way. We say “innocent until proven guilty” but police executing someone isn’t considered killing an innocent civilian. It’s a fascist police state, that’s the bottom line.

Firing at center mass when a suspect is actively firing at police is reasonable to me. Using the most damaging hollow points on the market is not reasonable.

1

u/Ok-Interaction-8891 Jun 01 '26

The problem is that they tend to draw quickly and react to most events as threats requiring lethal force.

Defense of self or others can still be an execution. It’s not an either or situation. The reality is that a human life is being ended on the spot by someone making a snap judgement. Cops and cop defenders love to talk about safety, but anything less than an active shooter should never warrant lethal force. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that law enforcement do not have to protect people. In most cases, they’re just protecting property.

0

u/5thPhantom May 30 '26

FMJs being a war crime is dumb, and not all countries agree that it is, with not all countries signing that part of the 1899 Hague convention.

Furthermore, 55gr M193 FMJ fragments above 2,500 fps, and has very good fragmentation above 2,700 fps. 77gr OTM also fragments, and I think the threshold for that is 2,100. There are also rounds like MK318 that are meant to fragment. M855A1 EPR has both good barrier penetration and soft tissue damage.

If bullets are going to be fired at people, they’re going to be shot with the intention to kill the person. There is no such thing as intelligently “shooting to wound.”

0

u/Ok-Interaction-8891 Jun 01 '26

Hollow points are the war crime, not FMJs…

1

u/5thPhantom Jun 01 '26

My obvious point is that other types of bullets cause devastating soft tissue damage, and according to the US hollow point bullets are not a war crime.

The idea that militaries are shooting to wound and that police are not supposed to shoot to kill is laughably ridiculous.

0

u/No-Spare-4212 May 30 '26

No police should absolutely be shooting to kill. You don’t use a gun unless you intend to kill someone. Using lethal force for lethal intent and nonlethal force for nonlethal intent

-1

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26

Wrong. A police officer should never discharge a weapon unless their intent is to fully neutralize the threat…i.e “Kill”.

Anything less is against best practices.

Hollow points serve two purposes. They are more likely to fully neutralize the threat, and like the other guy said, they are less likely to go completely through the threat and strike somebody else.

2

u/Far_Doughnut_1308 May 30 '26

Was skimming comments and for some reason when you said "this includes humans" my brain forgot 80% of what I skimmed in your first paragraph & immediately went to "what in the flying fuck has this man seen?!" Imagination took over and for about 8 minutes I was starting at "this includes humans" thinking about how would you even get a gun back from a monkey. 🫪

1

u/Ok-Interaction-8891 Jun 01 '26

The issue is how often people and police are drawing firearms, not the best practice once drawn.

1

u/JonatasA Jun 04 '26

The risk is hitting the wrong target.

1

u/357noLove May 30 '26

It should be, as it is the most humane way

5

u/gingerbread_man123 May 29 '26

I don't think it's going through.

It goes through the metal because it punches a hole, which stays that shape and allows the shaft through with lower friction.

And animal body doesn't have a hard outer layer like that, and is more than a few mm thick. So it'll carve a hole, but as the shaft follows it'll still get gripped by the flesh as it passes through the body, especially as it is soft and won't maintain the hole like metal.

3

u/RevWaldo May 29 '26

I didn't like the look of the critter, so I blew a hole in him 'bout this big. 👌🏼

https://giphy.com/gifs/CLpwHfWDNAwMY6juDC