[fc417fc802]

> Who knows maybe the versions that existed in the late 1800's did too

The ones now and back then aren't any different. They do inflict greater suffering when the injury isn't immediately lethal. They essentially maim the target.

There's a legitimate case to be made for home defense because they won't penetrate common building materials nearly as far. It makes them much safer to anyone in the surrounding area.

There are also cases where the additional stopping power is invaluable, for example against a pack of dogs.

[EA-3167]

You can argue that any GSW that isn't immediately lethal inflicts suffering, I'm not sure how an expanding head changes that. In a handgun round mushrooming is absolutely about terminal ballistics rather than protection against over-penetration, but it is true that expanding .223 and frangible rounds are focused on over-penetration

But again the biggest reason you don't see expanding rounds in war is (especially modern) armor defeats them far more easily than standard .223.

[fc417fc802]

An argument that modern body armor has largely negated the incentive does not imply that the ethical concerns don't exist. They are entirely separate points of discussion.

> You can argue that any GSW that isn't immediately lethal inflicts suffering, I'm not sure how an expanding head changes that.

It's a matter of intent and degree. If we collectively threw up our hands every time we encountered a grey area we'd never be able to agree on anything.

The point is that in the event that a weapon fails to kill the target, there are ethical concerns if it does more damage, particularly long term damage, than absolutely necessary. There's no need to make warfare even worse than it already is.