Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: SADShooter on August 11, 2015, 02:19:38 PM
-
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/hollow-point-ammunition-the-us-army-good-idea-13549 (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/hollow-point-ammunition-the-us-army-good-idea-13549)
I haven't seen this posted elsewhere. Looks like with the competition for a new sidearm the requirements include feeding of "special purpose",i.e. hollow point, ammunition, citing reduced risk of overpenetration in urban environments as a major factor.
-
Interesting. They are just figuring this out?
-
Nah, our lawyers just now finally got around to saying that if a bullet is designed "to limit overpenetration" that's enough deniability for us to tell the Hauge* can F off and die. We expanded the Sierra Open Tip Match loophole.
* I know we didn't ratify that part anyway, but we've followed it for years.
-
How long have hollow points been considered accurate and reliable? I heard a comment the other day saying that ammo manufacturers really started looking harder at terminal ballistics more after the FBI started it's bilistic gellatin testing standards. The thinking was that current self defense ammo is a lot better than what was available 30 years ago. The army moves slow on stuff like this.
-
...The army moves slow on stuff like this.
Yeah, it took them what - 40 years to adopt repeating rifles ???
=D
-
Great. Me thinks our executive branch is just trying to further compound the ammo shortage.
-
This was news about a month ago. It seems like a pretty big story to me, but it doesn't seem to be making a lot of waves.
-
The point is that while not a signatory to the Hague Conventions the US has always "respected" the prohibition against dum-dum/expanding bullets because they are cruel and nasty and no gentleman would stoop to using them.
stay safe.
-
Could you imagine the hippy tears, had this occurred under Bush?! :laugh:
-
The United States signed the 1907 provision to the Hague Accords. It was ratified in late 1909.
The 1907 provision adopted language that was less specific than the 1899 pact -- "In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden: (e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering."
The 1899 pact:
"Hague accords Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); article 23, July 29, 1899, also is rather vague in its reference to projectiles:
"To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;"
However, that's expanded (no pun intended) on Declaration III (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp)
"The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,
Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,
Declare as follows:
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."
While the United States did not specifically sign onto the pact that included the definitions, we embraced the spirit of those definitions in our approach to small arms ammunition... while using high explosives to rip enemy soldiers limb from limb.
The 1899 pact also says that its provisions are only binding in combat between two signatories. That appears to be the out that the United States is using -- a strict reading and interpretation of the definition.
Of course, there would be bitching about it from the rest of the world...
"What, the non-signatory, non-recognized, non-nation of "Lop off the Infidel's Heads with big Knives" is bitching that we're using hollow point ammunition? What part of "not a signatory, not recognized, and not a nation" don't you understand?"
Back in the 1960s and 1970s when police in the US started moving towards hollowpoint ammunition there were some rumblings in the international community about their use.
Response (not sure if it came from State Dept. or where) was generally "this is an internal matter. If one of your nationals breaks our laws and gets shot with a hollowpoint bullet... we'll we're not at war with you, are we? No? TS."
-
When I studied international law, which had a surprising number of current and former military personnel in the class, this subject came up. Professor was a lib-tard who believed that "dum-dum" bullets were designed to enter a body and explode, ripping off limbs. Video of ballistic gel testing showed him what really happened. However, even Prof. Lib. said what Mike says above, that the Hague Accords were binding only on the signatories, and only when one signatory is engaged with another recognized military unit of a recognized nation/signatory. these days, where you have American military personnel engaging terrorists and insurgents, why not let them use more effective ammunition.
Thinking about this, I know some of the tin hat crowd will see this as more evidence of the intention to impose martial law and allow the military to use JHP ammo on Americans. Like .gov would care about the Hague accords if they were taking a leak on the Constitution...
-
I wonder what your professor would have said had he been told that the current military bullet is designed to break into several pieces on impact...
-
Just keep hammering on the fact it's meant to stop in the intended target, whereas FMJ can keep on trucking, and could hit innocents/non-combatants... if it even comes up.
-
At this point, what difference does it make? Our enemies aren't following any sort of international rules wrt treatment of POWs. Might as well give our troops something that kills the enemy dead, faster.
-
If we start using JHP 5.56, will pepole stop crying about the M4 being too weak?
-
If we start using JHP 5.56, will pepole stop crying about the M4 being too weak?
Uncle Sam's Misguided Children seem to be happy with the performance of Mk318 ammo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#Mk318
Anyone here have firsthand experience with Mk318?
-
"To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;"
I once did a write-up, including studies that showed things like that officers tend to end up shooting a suspect 1 less time with quality hollowpoints than with FMJ ammunition, another that showed that being shot 1 less time led to fewer deaths and less long term disability, on average. That hospital treatment is about the same per hole, whether it's hollowpoint or FMJ.
The conclusion that I reached is that while it might of made sense back in 1899, today's increased medical care, smaller diameter bullets, and various other factors leads to the conclusion that the conclusion that expanding bullets cause 'superfluous injury' is mistaken in today's environments, and that studies have shown that hollowpoint ammunition actually causes less 'harm and suffering' in exchange for 'more effective', which means that we SHOULD be using it over FMJ, in order to be in line with the spirit of the treaty, if not necessarily the letter.
-
I once did a write-up, including studies that showed things like that officers tend to end up shooting a suspect 1 less time with quality hollowpoints than with FMJ ammunition, another that showed that being shot 1 less time led to fewer deaths and less long term disability, on average. That hospital treatment is about the same per hole, whether it's hollowpoint or FMJ.
The conclusion that I reached is that while it might of made sense back in 1899, today's increased medical care, smaller diameter bullets, and various other factors leads to the conclusion that the conclusion that expanding bullets cause 'superfluous injury' is mistaken in today's environments, and that studies have shown that hollowpoint ammunition actually causes less 'harm and suffering' in exchange for 'more effective', which means that we SHOULD be using it over FMJ, in order to be in line with the spirit of the treaty, if not necessarily the letter.
That sort of makes sense. Also less likely to have a pass through with a hollow point, making one less hole to leak hydraulic fluid per shot.
-
It has been suggested that the safety aspect of the JHP staying in the target, and not passing through and hitting friendlies, is overblown. Innocents are much more likely to be hit by the rounds that miss the target, than by the rounds that go through the target.
Makes sense to me.
-
It has been suggested that the safety aspect of the JHP staying in the target, and not passing through and hitting friendlies, is overblown. Innocents are much more likely to be hit by the rounds that miss the target, than by the rounds that go through the target.
Makes sense to me.
Why you so hard on NYPD?
stay safe.
-
Why you so hard on NYPD?
stay safe.
You're assuming he hit his intended target. Might have been an innocent bystander.
-
You're assuming he hit his intended target. Might have been an innocent bystander.
So he's more like the "only ones"?
stay safe.
-
It has been suggested that the safety aspect of the JHP staying in the target, and not passing through and hitting friendlies, is overblown. Innocents are much more likely to be hit by the rounds that miss the target, than by the rounds that go through the target.
Makes sense to me.
Note that if you figure on a average accuracy rate of 50%, which we KNOW is high, and use studies that show that it takes, on average, 3 FMJ or 2 HP to 'stop' somebody, hollowpoints still 'win' on the 'needless suffering' scale by resulting in 1 less stray round zinging around, not to mention 1 less HIT round blowing through it's target and zinging off, potentially through somebody else.
FMJ: 6 shots to achieve 3 hits to stop
HP: 4 shots to achieve 2 hits to stop
It becomes even more extreme if you figure on NYPD accuracy.
BTW, sometimes I hate reading my previous posts after about 24 hours, because my editorial ability on my own writing kicks in and I go 'why'd I write it that way?'