PDA

View Full Version : No hollowpoints in war?


NYY
10-04-2011, 7:23 PM
Okay i dont know if this could get heated or not... but. Seriously.. why are hollow points not legal to use in war.. ITS WAR! is anyone against this? really. Im puzzled...

M1A Rifleman
10-04-2011, 7:27 PM
Against the Geneva Conventions as cruel due to the expanding and maiming nature of the round.

monk
10-04-2011, 7:27 PM
I think the reason is because HP's cause more damage. IIRC something to do with a humanitarian factor. Sort of give the other side a chance.

jbolton
10-04-2011, 7:28 PM
Yep. Fmj's only. I think its part of the Geneva deal. What's crazy is we can't use hollow points against enemy's of war but police departments are full stocked with hollow points.

NYY
10-04-2011, 7:31 PM
Against the Geneva Conventions as cruel due to the expanding and maiming nature of the round.

I think the reason is because HP's cause more damage. IIRC something to do with a humanitarian factor. Sort of give the other side a chance.

yea.. i realize WHY its illegal.. but. seriously? to give the other side a chance?... uhm.. sorry but, what? what happened to FU** the other side and fight with everything youve got? just confused on what the h*ll is goin on. Just heard about that "law" recently.. so they are saying we can drop JDAMs to a certain square FOOT and BLOW UP a building, but HP's are UN-humain? so confused

Falconis
10-04-2011, 7:32 PM
Probably threw it in when they outlawed flame throwers, mustard gas, and other chemical/biological weapons. Not that that's stopped anyone.

llamatrnr
10-04-2011, 7:33 PM
Yep. Fmj's only. I think its part of the Geneva deal. What's crazy is we can't use hollow points against enemy's of war but police departments are full stocked with hollow points.

...as are Calgunners:D

Scratch705
10-04-2011, 7:33 PM
also i would rather injure an enemy combatant. cause then it takes more men out of battle to care for that 1.

plus, don't most soldiers wear some form of ballistic protection? so hollowpoints would do diddly squat if they got any kevlar or ballistic plates. or if they just hide behind a plywood board or concrete block.

M1A Rifleman
10-04-2011, 7:34 PM
Google the subject. What I recall is the purpose was not really to kill the enemy soldier, just get them out of commission. Even better was if two other enemy soldiers were caught up helping one that was wounded, which caused 3 to be out of the fight. Wounding the enemy is more costly to the other side than a kill.

Josh3239
10-04-2011, 7:39 PM
Against the Geneva Conventions as cruel due to the expanding and maiming nature of the round.

Geneva Conventions are largely about treatment of prisoners. The Hague Conventions describes the use of bullet that expand or flatten upon impact.

Probably threw it in when they outlawed flame throwers, mustard gas, and other chemical/biological weapons. Not that that's stopped anyone.

Are you sure Flamethrowers are banned from war?

jpballa
10-04-2011, 7:44 PM
That's what happens when the U.N. And the world community make laws and rules makes no sense and only helps the bad guys.

rero360
10-04-2011, 7:46 PM
Yes, hollow points are banned by the Hague Convention, however OTM (open tip match) rounds are not ;)

77gr. and 175gr. SMKs, in their respective calibers, do wonders

stormvet
10-04-2011, 7:48 PM
So we can save some money to buy more cluster bombs and besides do you really need hollow points with your .50 cal.

NYY
10-04-2011, 7:52 PM
also i would rather injure an enemy combatant. cause then it takes more men out of battle to care for that 1.

plus, don't most soldiers wear some form of ballistic protection? so hollowpoints would do diddly squat if they got any kevlar or ballistic plates. or if they just hide behind a plywood board or concrete block.

ok so i can agree with that, about it not going through walls/wood and such. but also, "most soldiers", like the enemy we are currently fighting.. dont really have armor on them.. anyways. yes i agree with wounding an enemy and having his men help him.. then again, the enemy we are fighting, dont really fight like we do? so i dont see a haji risking his life to go save another haji..

Google the subject. What I recall is the purpose was not really to kill the enemy soldier, just get them out of commission. Even better was if two other enemy soldiers were caught up helping one that was wounded, which caused 3 to be out of the fight. Wounding the enemy is more costly to the other side than a kill.

okay yeah i can agree with that. but that being the ONLY reason to keep HPs out of war? eh... but i do honestly understand your meaning.

NYY
10-04-2011, 7:55 PM
So we can save some money to buy more cluster bombs and besides do you really need hollow points with your .50 cal.

i envy your reasoning. BUT, who says that if HPs were legal, that they are the only types of bullets you can use? mix it up a bit for different uses. i dont know. just thinkin about it all

Manolito
10-04-2011, 7:57 PM
When expanding bullets were outlawed things were different. Ballistics have evolved and one of the reasons the .223 was embraced was its ability to destroy tissue. If any of you have seen what a single 50 cal round can do to a human trust me you don't need it to expand.
Todays rounds are far more deadly than hollow points. http://gizmodo.com/5055602/first-look-at-the-xm25-the-most-lethal-army-gun-ever.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/ the Corps is just now being allowed to use these rounds and there are a lot of others being used by other US forces. I wish they would publish the photos of new rounds vs old rounds it is hard to believe how far ballistics has come.
Bill

fiddletown
10-04-2011, 7:58 PM
In any case, it's been this way for more than 100 years. The Hague Convention (there were two) goes back to (1) 1899; and (2) 1907. So this is old news and pretty well settled. Maybe some nation will want to revisit the question' but unless one does, it's not going to change.

Colt-45
10-04-2011, 8:25 PM
Why no hollow points in war? BS.

I've heard of guys pitching in and buying a box of hollow points for their side arms while in Afghanistan. Probably officers.

LDSGJimbo
10-04-2011, 8:33 PM
If we were to go to war with a civilized nation, say Canada, it's nice to think that both sides will play by the same rules so that the combat isn't quite so bad with mustard gas and all.

The problem is that we rarely go to war with anyone that will play by the rules.

Sent from my motorola with tapatalk.

Josh3239
10-04-2011, 8:38 PM
I've heard of guys pitching in and buying a box of hollow points for their side arms while in Afghanistan. Probably officers.

Those guys could get in some serious s**t for that if considering they are not only breaking international law but they are using ammo not cleared by the US military. Its the same reason the military is so serious about making simple changes to issued rifles, Hague also deals with using personally owned weapons.

RobGR
10-04-2011, 8:47 PM
Just finished E.B Sledge's With The Old Breed and he often talked about how the Japanese snipers intentionally tried to wound a GI as opposed to killing him to draw out additional guys, stretcher bearers or Medics, all fair game for the Japanese. However, the Japanese are by no means the only military force to use such a tactic. If a guy was dead, they would make no attempt to retrieve him under fire, however, the marines would do everything they could, risking their lives at all costs to get a wounded GI out of harms way. He has some incredible stories in that book, it's truly staggering the conditions and carnage they were able to survive.

It is the absurdity of war though, one method of killing is more "humane" than another.

The Hague Conventions and the use of the dumdums/hollow points by the British (who protested the ban) during the Boer War make for an interesting read.

BrokerB
10-04-2011, 9:09 PM
i didnt think dumdums were HP..but just all lead- no jackets

Maddog5150
10-04-2011, 9:17 PM
Against the Geneva Conventions as cruel due to the expanding and maiming nature of the round.

WRONG

Yep. Fmj's only. I think its part of the Geneva deal. What's crazy is we can't use hollow points against enemy's of war but police departments are full stocked with hollow points.

WRONG

Geneva Conventions are largely about treatment of prisoners. The Hague Conventions describes the use of bullet that expand or flatten upon impact.



Are you sure Flamethrowers are banned from war?


CORRECT!!

Yes, hollow points are banned by the Hague Convention, however OTM (open tip match) rounds are not ;)

77gr. and 175gr. SMKs, in their respective calibers, do wonders

CORRECT!!

I have no idea why so many people keep quoting the geneva convention, it bugs me for some odd reason. Mostly because I've been forced to attend briefings on hague.

crackerman
10-04-2011, 9:31 PM
I have no idea why so many people keep quoting the geneva convention, it bugs me for some odd reason. Mostly because I've been forced to attend briefings on hague.

Because most people who have never gone to boot have never heard of the Hauge convention, I only learned about it at 21 in Leonard Wood. Geneva convention is sorta common knowledge, hell I have a Geneva classification in my wallet right now. So pretty common.

NYY
10-04-2011, 9:37 PM
Just finished E.B Sledge's With The Old Breed and he often talked about how the Japanese snipers intentionally tried to wound a GI as opposed to killing him to draw out additional guys, stretcher bearers or Medics, all fair game for the Japanese. However, the Japanese are by no means the only military force to use such a tactic. If a guy was dead, they would make no attempt to retrieve him under fire, however, the marines would do everything they could, risking their lives at all costs to get a wounded GI out of harms way. He has some incredible stories in that book, it's truly staggering the conditions and carnage they were able to survive.

It is the absurdity of war though, one method of killing is more "humane" than another.

The Hague Conventions and the use of the dumdums/hollow points by the British (who protested the ban) during the Boer War make for an interesting read.

yea thats very interesting. Ive also read about japanese (and im sure other armies) taking out medics, that they can depict from the others. smart tactics.

RobGR
10-04-2011, 9:42 PM
i didnt think dumdums were HP..but just all lead- no jackets

Dumdums are all lead with a nickel case except for the exposed tip. The Hague banned the dumdums along with the HP b/c both were considered expanding bullets that cause devastating wounds. Winston Churchill was an ardent proponent of both bullets.

RobGR
10-04-2011, 9:58 PM
Too funny, had to google dumdums to verify they were nickel cased, second guessing myself, and now I'm stuck reading about the history of the British military and the development of dumdum. It's a little more interesting than the politics of the Boer War. Well, both are interesting actually, just a lot of literature.

bassbones
10-04-2011, 10:15 PM
Google the subject. What I recall is the purpose was not really to kill the enemy soldier, just get them out of commission. Even better was if two other enemy soldiers were caught up helping one that was wounded, which caused 3 to be out of the fight. Wounding the enemy is more costly to the other side than a kill.
bINGO. .. That's what my grandfather told me WWII and father told me Vietnam and that's what the Army told me Grenada :( ...

CaliforniaLiberal
10-05-2011, 2:54 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_(1899)

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899

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.


I suspect that this was written by those who had little personal experience of war and firearms and battlefield wounds. Perhaps like Anti-Gun folks today who sit at home and imagine the horrors of "Assault Clips" and want to outlaw them. They believed they were helping to protect the world from the horrors of war. Might be interesting to walk them through WWII like "Christmas Carol" ghosts of War - Past, Present and Future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Carol

I'm not sure that bullets that expand or flatten are more than a little worse than Full Metal Jacket bullets but I'm sure they seemed that way to those nice people with white gloves who went to The Hague.

cdtx2001
10-05-2011, 6:27 AM
Google the subject. What I recall is the purpose was not really to kill the enemy soldier, just get them out of commission. Even better was if two other enemy soldiers were caught up helping one that was wounded, which caused 3 to be out of the fight. Wounding the enemy is more costly to the other side than a kill.

^^^This. Of course that is is one side follows the "rules of war" and if something is actually declared a war. Terrorists don't follow rules.

On a side note, I once had my firearm and ammo inspected/searched by a less than friendly police officer at a range. And yes, I was protesting the search. The officer found HP ammo and was threatening to arrest me for it. He said "these are against the Geneva Convention and are illegal to use". My response was "Well it's a good thing I'm not at war with anyone and therefore don't have to worry about war crimes charges". It went back and forth several times, he has em in his service weapon, but he's a cop, that doesn't make him special, blah blah blah. I asked for and got a sergeant to show up. After explaining that I, as well as everyone else at the range, didn't appreciate being searched and threatened with arrest and the sarge listened to everything we had to say. Eventually the original officer got a good arse chewing in front of all of us and told never to be seen here again unless there was an actual crime happening.

Bikertrash
10-05-2011, 7:05 AM
President Jimmy Carter banned flamethrowers for use in battle.

Army
10-05-2011, 7:20 AM
Geez. We kill, period.

Combat does not give you the luxury of deciding who gets wounded, and who gets a 1000lb JDAM up their arse.

The military did not spend millions of dollars and years of research on a devastatingly effective killing bullet, just to have has try to wound the enemy. We kill because wounded Soldiers can still shoot back and throw grenades. A few months at Basic Training or Boot Camp is NOT spent learning how to be nice to the bad guy, nor how to trick him. Soldiers learn to kill and break things.

Also: You must actually hit the target with a .50 cal. The bullet passing close by does NOT do any damage to tissue or lung capacity nor will it blind you. It will make a nasty ringing in the ears from the sonic crack, but that's all.

I have no idea how these silly rumors still live on, when on their surface they are stupid at best, and defy logic at worst.

Delta-9
10-05-2011, 8:32 AM
If soldiers are to wound the enemy, give them .22 to play with :facepalm:

monk
10-05-2011, 8:41 AM
Personally, I think it's become more about less mess no? Using FMJ is gives a cleaner thru and thru, meaning less "mess" to deal with. I mean, you guys who are in war, with all the crap you see, you really wanna see heads blown up because of HPs?

Or is there no difference given the rounds currently used?

Iskra
10-05-2011, 8:48 AM
Watch http://www.theboxotruth.com/ and you'll see that any clothing as heavy as denim can fill up the hollow point and turn it into a slower-moving version of hardball.

On the 2-way range, I'd prefer NOT to be shooting HPs.

m03
10-05-2011, 8:52 AM
If soldiers are to wound the enemy, give them .22 to play with :facepalm:

We already did.

Josh3239
10-05-2011, 9:13 AM
Watch http://www.theboxotruth.com/ and you'll see that any clothing as heavy as denim can fill up the hollow point and turn it into a slower-moving version of hardball.

On the 2-way range, I'd prefer NOT to be shooting HPs.

In self defense scenarios hollow points have proven to be extremely effective.

Are hollow points full proof that they will always expand properly? No of course not. But millions of dollars of research isn't being poured into hollow points because they are unreliable bullets that will just anger your attacker. Bullet designs are getting better and better quickly and the "issue" of improperly expanded hollow points is going away. That is another reason why I like the Hornady Critical Defense, the polymer insert is supposed to make expansion reliable and keep foreign matter from entering the hollow point.

Geez. We kill, period.

Combat does not give you the luxury of deciding who gets wounded, and who gets a 1000lb JDAM up their arse.

The military did not spend millions of dollars and years of research on a devastatingly effective killing bullet, just to have has try to wound the enemy. We kill because wounded Soldiers can still shoot back and throw grenades. A few months at Basic Training or Boot Camp is NOT spent learning how to be nice to the bad guy, nor how to trick him. Soldiers learn to kill and break things.

I have no idea how these silly rumors still live on, when on their surface they are stupid at best, and defy logic at worst.

Ya, it is a bit funny how some people think in war you can just patiently choose a part of the body to damage without killing them and then expect to win a war based on WIAs instead of KIAs. The military is and always has trained to kill. That is there point and that is how one wins wars.

emptybottle151
10-05-2011, 9:43 AM
That's funny, I was issued 120 rnds of hollow points in afgahn 08.

Iskra
10-05-2011, 10:09 AM
In self defense scenarios hollow points have proven to be extremely effective.

Are hollow points full proof that they will always expand properly? No of course not. But millions of dollars of research isn't being poured into hollow points because they are unreliable bullets that will just anger your attacker. Bullet designs are getting better and better quickly and the "issue" of improperly expanded hollow points is going away. That is another reason why I like the Hornady Critical Defense, the polymer insert is supposed to make expansion reliable and keep foreign matter from entering the hollow point.

Agreed - "In self defense scenarios"

Shooting a guy in a t-shirt from 10 yards with a 9mm pistol is not the same as shooting a guy wearing a heavy coat (at least) from 50 yards+ with a rifle.

bubbapug1
10-05-2011, 10:53 AM
They are only illegal for combatants who have signed the hague convention rules and protocals.

Josh3239
10-05-2011, 11:33 AM
Agreed - "In self defense scenarios"

Shooting a guy in a t-shirt from 10 yards with a 9mm pistol is not the same as shooting a guy wearing a heavy coat (at least) from 50 yards+ with a rifle.

With regard to hollow point, then what is the difference? If a hollow point fails to properly expand it should perform no different than a FMJ and go through the target without expansion. It isn't like its just gonna bounce off a coat because it didn't expand.

I am sure I am misreading but it sure sounds like your are saying that a pistol caliber HP will not reliable expand or even punch through a heavy coat at 50+ yards?

They are only illegal for combatants who have signed the geneva convention rules and protocals. All others can do as they please, and they do, like we did in the recent past.

Come real war all rules are off, like civil wars when governments can't mediate the differences between the classes, tribes, and religous fractions, and issues are resolved in the streets. Like Libya...and soon...the USA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

If you had read your own link you'd know the Geneva Conventions have less to nothing to do with banned ammunition/weapons and more to do with the treatment of wounded and captured soldiers and civilians.

7x57
10-05-2011, 11:43 AM
That's funny, I was issued 120 rnds of hollow points in afgahn 08.

Non-expanding hollow-point match bullets, I'd guess.

7x57

PressCheck
10-05-2011, 11:44 AM
Google the subject. What I recall is the purpose was not really to kill the enemy soldier, just get them out of commission. Even better was if two other enemy soldiers were caught up helping one that was wounded, which caused 3 to be out of the fight. Wounding the enemy is more costly to the other side than a kill.

Ding Ding Ding Ding We Have a clear winner.

:79:

ubet
10-05-2011, 11:55 AM
Wounding the enemy is more costly to the other side than a kill.

^^^THIS^^^ FTW!

bubbapug1
10-05-2011, 12:04 PM
Josh3239, I stand corrected, and apologize for the sloppy research and faulty assumptions. Sorry.

Here it is...from wikipedia...

The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in international warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body, giving as example a bullet with a jacket with incisions or one that does not fully cover the core.[14] This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the Declaration of St Petersburg in 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams.

jdberger
10-05-2011, 12:25 PM
If soldiers are to wound the enemy, give them .22 to play with :facepalm:

You mean like this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO)

Contrary to popular belief - we don't wage "total war". We respect civilians. We honor surrender. We don't use poison. etc. - We don't even if the other guy does.*

Reasoning being:

Some of the central principles underlying laws of war are:

*Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction.
*Wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible.
*People and property that do not contribute to the war effort should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship.

To this end, laws of war are intended to mitigate the hardships of war by:

*Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering.
*Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians.
*Facilitating the restoration of peace.


Like it or not - it's how we do things...







*There are some exceptions - most are condemned as war crimes.

sonnyt650
10-05-2011, 12:41 PM
It's not a matter of being too deadly, instead it's a matter of reducing the number of crippled and maimed soldiers suffering after the war has ended. Way back then the civilized nations understood soldiers were signed up only for a short time after which they'd return to civilian life. Non-lethal hits by hollow points cause excessive damage to flesh compared to FMJ which will just go right through things like hands and limbs. As for our LEO gunning down criminals: f-ck the criminals.

jdberger
10-05-2011, 12:43 PM
It's not a matter of being too deadly, instead it's a matter of reducing the number of crippled and maimed soldiers suffering after the war has ended. Way back then the civilized nations understood soldiers were signed up only for a short time after which they'd return to civilian life. Non-lethal hits by hollow points cause excessive damage to flesh compared to FMJ which will just go right through things like hands and limbs. As for our LEO gunning down criminals: f-ck the criminals.

Right - keep in mind that enemy soldiers aren't "criminals".

Decoligny
10-05-2011, 1:07 PM
Why no hollow points in war? BS.

I've heard of guys pitching in and buying a box of hollow points for their side arms while in Afghanistan. Probably officers.

You get caught with them in theater and you will be serving some time.

They are a violation of International Law.

The reasoning goes back to the earliest use of "dum dum" bullets. It was common practice before the International law was passed, for some soldiers to actually use bullets with a large X carved in the front. Not to kill vampires, but to cause as much internal damage and suffering as possible. Some soldiers even went so far as to use wooden bullets. The splinters would be almost impossible to get out, and the person shot with a wooden bullet almost always died a horribly slow painful death from massive internal infection.

Decoligny
10-05-2011, 1:18 PM
In self defense scenarios hollow points have proven to be extremely effective.

Are hollow points full proof that they will always expand properly? No of course not. But millions of dollars of research isn't being poured into hollow points because they are unreliable bullets that will just anger your attacker. Bullet designs are getting better and better quickly and the "issue" of improperly expanded hollow points is going away. That is another reason why I like the Hornady Critical Defense, the polymer insert is supposed to make expansion reliable and keep foreign matter from entering the hollow point.



Ya, it is a bit funny how some people think in war you can just patiently choose a part of the body to damage without killing them and then expect to win a war based on WIAs instead of KIAs. The military is and always has trained to kill. That is there point and that is how one wins wars.

The military in general is trained to kill. There are certain times when wounding is a better tactic.

There are certain situations where a well placed sniper may choose to purposely wound an enemy. Example: In order to slow the advance of a larger group of enemy combatants in order for a smaller group to gain time to prepare for the on-coming attack. The few wounded soldiers will either have to be left lying where they fell, or someone is going to have to care for them/carry them back to safety.

jamesob
10-05-2011, 2:34 PM
i'm sure the taliban are using fmj.

Army
10-05-2011, 6:08 PM
Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman; Google the subject. What I recall is the purpose was not really to kill the enemy soldier, just get them out of commission. Even better was if two other enemy soldiers were caught up helping one that was wounded, which caused 3 to be out of the fight. Wounding the enemy is more costly to the other side than a kill.
Ding Ding Ding Ding We Have a clear winner.

No, we don't. He's not even in 4th place.

Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman; Wounding the enemy is more costly to the other side than a kill.
^^^THIS^^^ FTW!

While costly in terms of logistics, perhaps. In terms of actual combat, no.

The more you can kill of the other side, the less that will return to the battlefield. Wounded can still fight, think, react. Dead cannot.

In no manner of US military tactics do we care to wound. Our personal weapons are not designed for it. Our aircraft would find it impossible. And our warships do not have the luxury of even seeing the enemy before engaging.

Please, tell all your friends: The US Military KILLS THE ENEMY, as often as he desires to be killed.

smle-man
10-05-2011, 7:14 PM
You get caught with them in theater and you will be serving some time.

They are a violation of International Law.

The reasoning goes back to the earliest use of "dum dum" bullets. It was common practice before the International law was passed, for some soldiers to actually use bullets with a large X carved in the front. Not to kill vampires, but to cause as much internal damage and suffering as possible. Some soldiers even went so far as to use wooden bullets. The splinters would be almost impossible to get out, and the person shot with a wooden bullet almost always died a horribly slow painful death from massive internal infection.

I was following you until the wooden bullet thing. This is a legend that grew around the quantities of wooden tipped 7.92mm blanks found by our GIs in the European theater. Not knowing what the heck they were, this is the story that sprang up. The matching legend was the poison bullet from the Pacific theater where Arisaka rounds with verdigris on the bullet jacket was thought to be poison that would cause a lingering and painful death for any GI or Marine unlucky enough surviving being shot with the suspiciously skinny 6.5mm bullet.

NYY
10-05-2011, 9:27 PM
You mean like this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO)

Contrary to popular belief - we don't wage "total war". We respect civilians. We honor surrender. We don't use poison. etc. - We don't even if the other guy does.*

Reasoning being:



Like it or not - it's how we do things...







*There are some exceptions - most are condemned as war crimes.

still makes me laugh how we have laws for war...

bloodhawke83
10-06-2011, 9:38 AM
the 5.45x39 is pretty good, they put a little extra weight in it to make it off balance once it makes contact with a human body. Its known be the world as "the poison bullet".

Josh3239
10-06-2011, 10:23 AM
Not sure how that fits in, but I wouldn't call the 5.45mm anything special. I'd say there are are quite a few more (American) cartridges far more effective. Besides, Afghanistan isn't exactly known for their medical care.

warkaj
10-06-2011, 10:36 AM
Geez. We kill, period.

Combat does not give you the luxury of deciding who gets wounded, and who gets a 1000lb JDAM up their arse.

The military did not spend millions of dollars and years of research on a devastatingly effective killing bullet, just to have has try to wound the enemy. We kill because wounded Soldiers can still shoot back and throw grenades. A few months at Basic Training or Boot Camp is NOT spent learning how to be nice to the bad guy, nor how to trick him. Soldiers learn to kill and break things.

Also: You must actually hit the target with a .50 cal. The bullet passing close by does NOT do any damage to tissue or lung capacity nor will it blind you. It will make a nasty ringing in the ears from the sonic crack, but that's all.

I have no idea how these silly rumors still live on, when on their surface they are stupid at best, and defy logic at worst.

agreed.... kill the enemy, no matter the cost. thats how I was trained.

It's war... it's hell... it's supposed to get people killed, mainly the enemy. Speaking from experience, I could care less how the enemy dies so long as he dies and stops shooting at me and my pals. The only "rule" I ever followed in war was "bring your men home with you" because in all honesty once that first bullet flies past you you really don't care about what someone wrote as a "rule" behind their cushy desk in DC. Just my opinion

NYY
10-06-2011, 5:57 PM
agreed.... kill the enemy, no matter the cost. thats how I was trained.

It's war... it's hell... it's supposed to get people killed, mainly the enemy. Speaking from experience, I could care less how the enemy dies so long as he dies and stops shooting at me and my pals. The only "rule" I ever followed in war was "bring your men home with you" because in all honesty once that first bullet flies past you you really don't care about what someone wrote as a "rule" behind their cushy desk in DC. Just my opinion

i love this.

Stoic Bacchanal
10-06-2011, 6:03 PM
Because back in the days of the Hague we fought civilized countries that followed the rules of war. Now we fight savages in caves. Personally, I think for those people the rules should be ignored.

LDSGJimbo
10-06-2011, 6:56 PM
Because back in the days of the Hague we fought civilized countries that followed the rules of war. Now we fight savages in caves. Personally, I think for those people the rules should be ignored.

I don't know that the Marines of the Pacific theater would agree with you as the Japanese hid in caves and tunnels until they ran out of ammo at which point they would commit suicide in honor of the emperor.

Although I suppose WWII was a few decades later?

Sent from my motorola with tapatalk.

CaliforniaLiberal
10-06-2011, 7:00 PM
I don't know that the Marines of the Pacific theater would agree with you as the Japanese hid in caves and tunnels until they ran out of ammo at which point they would commit suicide in honor of the emperor.

Although I suppose WWII was a few decades later?

Sent from my motorola with tapatalk.


Hague Conventions - 1899, WWII Japanese in caves - 1942 to 1945

Josh3239
10-06-2011, 7:06 PM
WW2 was definitely dirtier than people realize. Everyone knew that you didn't want to be a POW of the Russians or Japanese nor the Germans if you were a communist. There are stories of Germans pretending to be medics and then spring ambushes and the Japanese loved to shot medics. As the Germans were retreating all over Europe they left booby traps to cover their tracks, what we would call today as IEDs. The Japanese were nearly as brutal to each other as they were to the Americans and the rest of Asia. Japanese medics either slit the wounded's throats or gave them a hand grenade to set off when American medics came to help. In Asia, the Japanese would use people for decapitation contests, cannibalism, rape, and bayonet practice. And of course the treatment of POWs included beatings, withholding of food, and the occasional execution. We all know about the Bataan death march.

Bottom line is war has always been brutal and it sure seems the US and just a handful of other countries follow the so-called "rules of war."

Abenaki
10-06-2011, 8:05 PM
The banning of hollow points used in war goes way back in time.
If I correctly recall hollow points, or dum-dums were outlaw for use against Christians......By the Pope? But were ok for use against Hindus, Muslims, and other "savages"!

Take care
Abenaki

Untamed1972
10-07-2011, 7:30 AM
Part of the explanation I've heard also is that you dont want to kill your enemy, you want to would them, because a wounded man is more of a drain on resources then a dead man. So by wounding your enemies you deplete their resources of tie up personnel dealing with the wounded that would otherwise be available on the battlefield if every guy that got hit was killed.

Conversely that's why you're not allowed to use FMJ to hunt. You dont want to wound the animal, you want it to die as quickly as possible.

Mickael81
10-07-2011, 11:17 AM
I think cops use HP to prevent over penetration in case they miss the target. The U.S. Military uses the 62gr 5.56 Green tips with a steel core capable of penetrating a quarter inch steel plate. Although currently our enemies overseas don't wear armor vests, the steel core bullet will take out hadji's taking cover behind walls, doors, or inside vehecles. A HP round would not be suitable for general combat. HP or FMJ,, if the target gets hit, problem is solved.
I do know that snipers sometimes use open tip ballistic ammunition during training.

MrPlink
10-07-2011, 3:13 PM
The more you can kill of the other side, the less that will return to the battlefield. Wounded can still fight, think, react. Dead cannot.

In no manner of US military tactics do we care to wound. Our personal weapons are not designed for it. Our aircraft would find it impossible. And our warships do not have the luxury of even seeing the enemy before engaging.

Please, tell all your friends: The US Military KILLS THE ENEMY, as often as he desires to be killed.

I have to agree 100% here.

The concept of intentionally wounding an enemy on the battlefield in this matter is theoretical at best.
Furthermore, it used to be something you would hear a lot way back when, when people wanted to defend the controversial adaptation of 5.56

This concept really hedges on the opposition being organized more like a conventional military, more specifically under the assumption they even have a medic on hand anywhere near the combat zone.

While on our end, the concept is true, our boys will definitely do whatever it takes to get their fellow soldiers out of harms way and usually have a medic, corpsman,etc etc near by. Now considering the kind of forces we have been fighting for the past how many decades, this concept does not always hold true for the other side.

mjmagee67
10-07-2011, 3:47 PM
It takes more people to take care of an injured person than a dead one---that's one of the reasons for the .224 round--along with less weight so soldiers can carry more rounds.

five.five-six
10-07-2011, 3:52 PM
If I correctly recall hollow points, or dum-dums were outlaw for use against Christians......By the Pope? But were ok for use against Hindus, Muslims, and other "savages"!

Take care
Abenaki

that sounds reasonable

stormvet
10-07-2011, 6:31 PM
I think The only ones that really care if we have hollow points in the military are civilians, as a soldier at war I never cared if my rounds were FMJ or HP, a 5.56 round is most likely going to fragment anyway and if I am going to be using my sidearm in battle, well things have gone very very bad for me and FMJ or HP most likely wont make a big enough difference to worry about.
Believe me we cared a hell of allot more about Armor, artillery and air cover then we did about having HP or FMJ bullets in our M4s and sidearms.

Army
10-08-2011, 5:29 PM
Part of the explanation I've heard also is that you dont want to kill your enemy, you want to would them, because a wounded man is more of a drain on resources then a dead man. So by wounding your enemies you deplete their resources of tie up personnel dealing with the wounded that would otherwise be available on the battlefield if every guy that got hit was killed.

Conversely that's why you're not allowed to use FMJ to hunt. You dont want to wound the animal, you want it to die as quickly as possible.
It takes more people to take care of an injured person than a dead one---that's one of the reasons for the .224 round--along with less weight so soldiers can carry more rounds.
Did either of you read this thread?

Militaries do not care about wounding. We kill. It is just as much a drain on resources to kill, as an injury. But the dead do not return to the fight.

The NATO M855 5.56 bullet, while a FMJ, is engineered to tumble upon impact and begin to break apart. At combat distance, it rarely stays in one piece, creating injuries far more extensive than non-engineered FMJ bullets. The newest version, M855A1, is a bi-metal bullet, whose external penetrator is a separate part that is firmly attached to the bullet body. At impact in resistant media, the two parts break away. Hitting a hard target results in superior penetration than the older M885, and reports of hajji getting hit have been very encouraging, with wounds far in excess of the caliber.

Even the Marines are fielding a better bullet designed by Federal, that is based on the Trophy Bonded Bearclaw bullet. While the fore area is lead filled, the mass of the bullet is solid copper, resulting in a bullet that flies through solid medium like windshields and light armor/barriers straighter, yet upsets like a hollowpoint in soft tissue.

Guys, this stuff is built to kill, only.

dadoody
10-08-2011, 10:39 PM
Okay i dont know if this could get heated or not... but. Seriously.. why are hollow points not legal to use in war.. ITS WAR! is anyone against this? really. Im puzzled...

Its illegal.....for a long time. Waaaay longer than Geneva Convention. They were outlaw in 1899 @ The Hague Convention.

So NATO countries don't use hollowpoints....however, they get around it a variety of ways, like having full metal ammo where it is filled in lop sided so the round still can tumble once it hits someone.

Army
10-08-2011, 11:45 PM
....however, they get around it a variety of ways, like having full metal ammo where it is filled in lop sided so the round still can tumble once it hits someone.
No. :facepalm:

Sailormilan2
10-09-2011, 5:36 AM
http://www.codoh.com/trials/triwartrial.html

“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.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power. ”


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

rero360
10-09-2011, 8:01 AM
Its illegal.....for a long time. Waaaay longer than Geneva Convention. They were outlaw in 1899 @ The Hague Convention.

So NATO countries don't use hollowpoints....however, they get around it a variety of ways, like having full metal ammo where it is filled in lop sided so the round still can tumble once it hits someone.

Please do show an example.


No. :facepalm:

What he said


The round that I'm aware of, and I'll freely admit that there may be others, that had any sort of void inside the round (not counting HPs and OTMs) is the 5N7, the original round for the AK-74, that bullet had a small pocket of air in the tip due to the manufacturing process.

However . . . Soviet Russia was most definitely not a member of NATO.

Afterburnt
10-09-2011, 10:45 AM
The simple answer is that people are morons. I wish I didn't believe that a bunch of allegedly sane people thought that it was a good idea to ban hollow points. But they think that bashing the enemies skull in with a butt stock is ok. I heard you are not supposed to kick em in the nuts either but shooting or blowing their nuts off is ok. Yeah this all makes sense to me %^(

Josh3239
10-09-2011, 12:24 PM
Hollow points would be nearly useless for the military anyway so who cares? Just because the media is afraid of them doesn't make them any more evil. Why would the military be interested in a round that lacks armor penetration, can fail to reliably expand, and can be finicky keeping the rifle fed. A FMJ will always strip from the magazine into the chamber more reliably, a FMJ will always rip through body armor, vehicle armor, and enemy cover more effectively, and a FMJ will always hit the target the same way.

Army
10-09-2011, 3:47 PM
Josh, not necessarily. We have reliable weapons chambered for FMJ, because that is the parameter we must adhere to.

Had the Hague never happened, weapons systems would be designed to reliabley chamber and fire hollowpoints (or whatever bizarre round developed) in combat arms. I believe history shackles us to the current feed and fire system.

jdberger
10-09-2011, 9:39 PM
No. :facepalm:

Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg).

rero360
10-10-2011, 5:44 AM
Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg).

See my post above, Its not really a lopsided void, and additionally the USSR was never part of NATO.

NYY
10-10-2011, 5:57 PM
how is this still going on?!?!?

NYY
10-10-2011, 5:58 PM
Hollow points would be nearly useless for the military anyway so who cares? Just because the media is afraid of them doesn't make them any more evil. Why would the military be interested in a round that lacks armor penetration, can fail to reliably expand, and can be finicky keeping the rifle fed. A FMJ will always strip from the magazine into the chamber more reliably, a FMJ will always rip through body armor, vehicle armor, and enemy cover more effectively, and a FMJ will always hit the target the same way.

im not saying- "WHY ARENT WE USING HOLLOWPOINTS INSTEAD?!?!?!" i WAS wondering why they are banned....

Army
10-11-2011, 7:44 AM
Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartridge_Kalashnikov_AK-74.svg).
Again...NO.

A ''lopsided'' bullet would fly like a poorly thrown football. Not straight, not fast, and most certainly not accurately.

You showed a 5.45mm Soviet round. Not NATO, not 5.56mm, nor 7.62mm, nor 12.7mm, and absolutely not lopsided.

The majority of the bullet weight is in the REAR, but that does not make it lop-SIDED. Big differences.

You may be thinking of twist rate and stabilization. NATO weapons impart just enough twist for accurate shooting, but leave the bullet spinning slow enough for immediate destabilization, and tremendous upset at impact.