It is strange that it is perfectly acceptable to use hollow-point ammo on your own citizenry, but not on your enemies. In a country putting down an uprising within its own borders (e.g. "Arab Spring" countries or anywhere engaged in a "Civil War"), at what point would the police and security forces have to switch from HP's to FMJ's to comply with the Geneva Convention?
It was the Hague Convention; Declaration III, not Geneva. Not to detract from the topic at hand, but, the reason that it is acceptable is:
At the time of the Hague Convention July 2 1899 Europe didn't want the US to use the same rounds against "civilized" countries as she had against "savages" inside her own boundaries. This had more to do with the US fighting on foreign soil (specifically Europe) than it did anything else.
The text reads:
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.
Police and SF do not have to shoot FMJs, even in an uprising. In fact, our own military uses JHPs from time to time. I have read it several ways, but I do not believe that we're bound to the Hague Convention the way that most people think we are.
In either case, DHS using JHPs instead of FMJs in not only legal, it is preferred. DHS ordering JHPs instead of FMJs isn't a point worthy of any consideration at all.
There's not much to any of this. The contract IS real. The deliveries start in June, but, they haven't purchased 450M rounds. ATK won a contract to supply DHS with UP TO 450M rounds or UP TO 5 years, which ever comes first, at the price specified in the contract.
It's not that big of a deal and certainly no different than a DOD contract for larger contracts that flow by us every day unnoticed.
On the bright side, there's likely to be an overflow of 40SW on the market when DHS realizes that we're broke and can't afford all 450M rounds.
