guyfromohio
Member
I'm pretty sure the Army can be jailed for saying "hollow points" in New Jersey.
aragon said:It also makes .45/9mm discussions for military use rather moot:
It does violate the Hague Convention of, IIRC, 1899, but the US was never a signatory of the Hague Convention.
steveracer said:AND we already use hollow point ammunition in DMR and Sniper rifles all the time for BETTER ACCURACY.
TimSr said:Even so, if our allies have been abiding by this agreement, and we have also, to some extent, then to unilaterally, suddenly announce to the world, that you have decided to now ignore it, without consultation of other foreign leaders, especially our allies, would be an incredible foreign policy blunder.
Since when has the U.S. ever abided by the rules when it comes to fighting war? We make them up as we go along and it's been a do as I say, not as I do thing for ages.The Geneva Convention............. Rules of war.
The military cannot use any expanding bullet in warfare.
But they can use it if no war is declared.
Korea was a 'police action'. So was Vietnam. In fact we have not been in a declared war since WW2. Hence the military can, if they want to, use hollowpoints.
Deaf
I don't guess anyone has stopped to think why the US military doesn't use a lot HP ammo. It's not because they can't, it's because they would rather use armor piercing rounds for most combat situations. LE agencies and military police use HP because their targets generally aren't wearing body armor and they limit collateral damage to bystanders.
It's not because they can't, it's because they would rather use armor piercing rounds for most combat situations. LE agencies and military police use HP because their targets generally aren't wearing body armor and they limit collateral damage to bystanders.
Aragon,
Re your post #24.
I mentioned the next generation pistol because you mentioned it in the OP #1. The "sources" you quoted predicated a switch from ball to hollowpoint on adopting a "next generation handgun."
So, as Deus Machina also pointed out, the new pistol needs to happen before the ammo switch can happen. And I made the case that the new pistol ain't gong to happen, so we can forget about the switch to JHP for general use.
This is not exactly accurate. IMHO, and I have written on the topic, the distinction is not declared war or not it is they type of conflict, to wit international armed conflict versus non international armed conflict. Those are specific terms with specific definitions. Different international laws apply to each. I will post more after work. I see more misinformation spewed on this topic than on any other firearms related topic I read about online.
Although this is pretty much just Internet rumor, this interested me because I have been toying with the idea of doing a scholarly article on the subject of the Hague Conventions.
As others noted, there are actually two Hague Conventions dealing with small arms ammunition - the 1899 convention which prohibits expanding projectiles, or projectiles with an exposed core and the 1907 convention which more broadly prevents "To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"
I think one important factor to keep in mind when reading the Hague Conventions is that they were devised and written prior to the discovery of antibiotics, or modern terminal ballistics for that matter. Up until WWII, the U.S. lost more soldiers to disease and accidents than it did to bullet or bomb. Lack of sanitation and proper hygiene was a bigger killer than any artillery.
At the time, a clean wound without ragged edges was notably more survivable than a ragged wound with debris in it. The types of wounds created by expanding bullets of the day were more prone to infection and a long, slow lingering death by sepsis. It wasn't the death that the powers that be objected to; but the suffering leading up to an inevitable death that the medical technology of the time could do little about. Although even then, it was a bit hypocritical since things like artillery shrapnel and bombs created wounds just as bad or worse than any expanding bullet. And even then, interpretations differed - for example the Germans felt that the use of shotguns in WWI trench warfare violated the Hague Conventions.
As noted, the U.S. has not ratified either provision of either convention; but despite that has observed both of them as part of the Laws of Land Warfare. Another point of note, the prohibitions do not apply universally, and arguably you'd have to go back to WWII to find a combatant we have fought where they might apply.
My thought is a good argument can be made that modern hollow point ammunition is actually more in keeping with the original intent of the Hague Conventions than FMJ ammo (which is one reason the police forces of practically every signatory of that convention use hollow point ammunition - because it is safer for non-combatants and more humane).
While this is technically true, the type of "hollow point" ammunition approved by JAG is boat-tail hollow-point or more accurately, open-tip match. There is a tiny open tip at the front of the bullet due to the reverse-drawn jacket (which provides better accuracy). This is allowed because the bullet is not designed to expand or flatten and there is no exposed core of the bullet. So while it is sometimes described as a "hollow-point" it is not a "hollow-point" in the sense that term is typically used to described hunting or self-defense ammo (or in the way the Hague Conventions defined it).
Actually, almost all of our allies interpret the Hague Conventions differently and even among signatories there isn't universal agreement about what is and is not allowed. For example, both the British and the Swiss took the view that the United States 55gr M193 FMJ ammo and 62gr M855 FMJ ammo were prohibited by the laws of war because they were too prone to fragment. Both countries intentionally made their 5.56 ammo with thicker jackets so as to reduce the likelihood of fragmentation as the bullet yaws in accordance with their own views on the laws of war.
So while most Western countries claim to abide by the laws of war, there is some significant variation even among allies about what that means.
While this is technically true, the type of "hollow point" ammunition approved by JAG is boat-tail hollow-point or more accurately, open-tip match. There is a tiny open tip at the front of the bullet due to the reverse-drawn jacket (which provides better accuracy). This is allowed because the bullet is not designed to expand or flatten and there is no exposed core of the bullet.
Nice post,One point no one seems to have brought up yet, the Geneva and Hague Conventions are both "agreements between the signatories".
As an example BigBox and LargeSack have agreement with ProduceProviders and MigrantManagers to purchase orangellos $10/bushel. They are all signatories the "Orangello Convention"; a contract.
Along comes CutThroatComestibles and it wants to buy orangellos from ProduceProvides but PP will only sell at $11.50/bushel. "Hey, that's unfair, the Orangello Conventions say you'll sell at $10! What gives?"
"BigBox and LargeSack all agreed to purchase a least a minimum number of bushels each year; to label the produce as being from either ProduceProviders or MigrantManagers; and to provide medical insurance for anyone who works over 12-hours a week.
You want to purchase an amount that's not worth our time, to label it as your own produce and you won't offer insurance to anyone who works less than 36-hours a week."
"But the Convention says you'll sell at $10/bushel!"
"But you're not a signatory to the contract."