• 17 February 2011 by David Hambling
• Magazine issue 2799. Subscribe and save
• For similar stories, visit the Weapons Technology Topic Guide

THE US army is planning to field “rubber bullets” for machine guns. Military officials claim the ammunition will allow them to more effectively quell violent protests without loss of life, but human rights campaigners are alarmed by the new weapon.

The final design for the XM1044 round has not been selected, according to an order placed on the Federal Business Opportunities website last month, but the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate has been working on a ring aerofoil projectile for some years. The round is a hollow plastic cylinder 40 millimetres across, looking something like a short toilet-paper roll. In flight its shape generates lift, giving it a longer range.

The army’s existing crowd-control rounds are single shots fired from handheld grenade launchers with a range of about 50 metres – the XM1044 would double this range. It would be supplied in belts for the Mk19 grenade launcher, a truck-mounted weapon that can fire almost six rounds per second. The Mk19 has been exported to some 30 countries, including Egypt.

“The US army has a requirement for a rapid-fire non-lethal capability,” says Ken Schulters, project manager for close combat systems at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. “All currently fielded non-lethal ammunition is single shot.”

Firing rapidly at long range is likely to be dangerously inaccurate, says Angela Wright of Amnesty International. “Such a weapon system would allow for a burst of non-accurate fire at a crowd, with high risk of hitting bystanders, ricochets and of hitting vulnerable areas of the body,” she says.

Despite being hollow and plastic, if a round were to strike someone in the head, it could severely injure or kill them, she adds.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927995.600-army-wants-rapidfire-rubber-bullet

The term “rubber bullet” itself is largely a misnomer, often referring to a range of kinetic impact projectiles (KIPs) made from plastic, foam, or rubber-coated metal. Proponents consistently label these as “less-lethal,” a carefully chosen term designed to distance them from conventional deadly force while still acknowledging a risk. Yet, the history of their deployment, from the streets of Belfast to Ferguson and beyond, is replete with documented cases of severe injury, permanent disability, and even death. The Army’s push for rapid-fire variants signifies a worrying escalation, moving beyond the pretense of precision targeting to a capability designed for area denial and mass suppression.

A rapid-fire system changes the calculus entirely. Instead of individual projectiles aimed at specific threats, the technology suggests a volume of fire capability – a barrage intended to disperse, intimidate, or incapacitate large groups quickly. This isn’t merely an upgrade; it’s a fundamental shift in doctrine. The British Army’s use of single-shot baton rounds in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 80s, which resulted in at least 17 deaths and countless injuries, served as an early, tragic warning. Decades later, despite technological advancements, the fundamental physics of kinetic impact on human flesh remain unchanged. Introducing the capacity for high-volume delivery only multiplies the potential for catastrophic outcomes when deployed against civilians exercising their right to assembly.

Official justifications for such weaponry invariably cite “de-escalation” and “public safety.” However, history shows that the introduction of more potent crowd control tools often has the opposite effect, escalating tensions and provoking more aggressive responses from both state actors and protesters. Furthermore, the military’s involvement in developing and potentially deploying such tools for domestic crowd control blurs the already tenuous lines between police and military functions. This “mission creep” undermines democratic principles, militarizes civilian spaces, and erodes public trust in institutions ostensibly designed to protect them.

The focus on “rapid-fire” also raises serious questions about accountability. In the chaos of a large-scale deployment, determining who fired which rounds, and at whom, becomes exponentially more difficult. This opacity can shield individual officers or soldiers from consequences, further eroding faith in justice. Equipping state forces with ever-more sophisticated and potentially damaging “less-lethal” weapons creates a dangerous feedback loop. It incentivizes force over negotiation, suppression over dialogue, and ultimately, pushes us further down a slippery slope where the right to protest is met with an increasingly militarized response. Independent analysis must scrutinize not just the technology, but the underlying philosophy driving its adoption.