Why has the military used round-nosed bullets?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smaug

Smaug

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
1,815
Location
SE Wisconsin
I understand that the Hague convention forbids expanding bullets. [LINK] It seems the US respected this until at least 1985.

I read one time that the original reason the US military went from 38 to 45 around 1900 was that 38 wasn't stopping certain zealous attackers soon enough, so they went to a larger diameter bullet to hit harder. (without hollow points as an option) Did they not think about wadcutters or at least flat points?

What made me think of this was that two range visits ago, I shot 230 gr FMJs from my XD-45 Tactical. You know what those holes look like; they just kind of rip through the paper without much definition. We can tell where one bullet hit, but if another bullet hits nearby, it's hard to know if one or two bullets went through the hole.

This weekend, I went again, but I had flat-nosed bullets. The flat-nosed bullets worked fine and cut much nicer holes in the paper. It made me think they would also cut much nicer holes in enemies, too, and still would've complied with the Hague Convention that we were adhering to at the time. For that matter, why not wadcutters? (as we were supplying revolvers at the time)

Later, when we went to 1911, we could've used flat nosed bullets or had the design modified to feed wadcutters, like the S&W 52. Why not?
 
This is an interesting video with Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathorn on 1911 reliability,



Interestingly, they feel due to current variations in 230 gr ball .45 Auto rounds, from the original standard, they believe the 200 gr semi-wadcutter feeds better than 230 gr ball in 1911's, with I suppose, modern magazines. I'm not completely convinced, but they've shot significantly more rounds through 1911's than I have.

The semi-wadcutter does put very clean holes in paper though.
 
Smaug said:
I read one time that the original reason the US military went from 38 to 45 around 1900 was that 38 wasn't stopping certain zealous attackers soon enough, so they went to a larger diameter bullet to hit harder. (without hollow points as an option) Did they not think about wadcutters or at least flat points?
Click to expand...

It's important to remember Army went from 45colt/45schofield to 38spl. So, going "back" to 45 was not a huge decision. The 45 schofield was functionally a 45acp, just with a rim (a 45 autorim before the fact).

In going to a self-loading pistol, reliability was key. So, a round or ogive nose was pretty essential. And, there was about a century of tradition of "ball" ammo in one form or another, too.

Also, there was nearly no perceived need to have rounds that were "one shot stoppers." Flight of Cavalry was twelve troops each with six shots. They had plenty of ammo if needed. If, in extremis, a horse needed put down, at the 3-4 foot range used, the 45acp was as sufficient as the 45colt had been.

And, much as now, the pistol was a fallback. Cavalry had lances or carbines; mounted infantry rifles. Infantry was meant to engage with rifles, and 45-70 is pretty effective across any number of bullet shapes. And jacketed round nose was part and parcel of rifle rounds until the spitzer was introduced--in 1906.

The notion of jusing fancy geometry for pistol bullets largely began in the very late 60s and 70s, and really did not start maturing until the 80s. That would be the 1980s, easily a hundred years after the Army's changing notions on pistol rounds.
 
When the German Army adopted the 9mm Luger in 1908, the original ammunition was a "truncated cone". I do not know what the thinking was for that. It was later changed to round-nosed, I believe during the First World War. I do not know the specific reason. What others have mentioned above - more reliable feeding or reduced cost of manufacture - are the obvious reasons, but history is full of unexpected answers.
 
I don't know how deliberate the decision was to adopt a round nose 45 acp, but I suspect it was partly due to reliability, partly due to a not yet fully developed understanding of terminal ballistics, and partly due to simple tradition. The army had been issuing round nose ammo for many decades and probably didn't see a reason to change that, especially in an autoloading pistol. I've had several firearms, 1911's included, that will chew up and spit out flat nose and hollow points, but will happily run all day on round nose. So I can definitely see why they would need a compelling reason to change. It seams obvious today that flat nose bullets have better terminal ballistics, but I'm not sure how well that was understood at the time. I recall reading that during the selection process when the army was trying to define its ammunition requirements, that they went to the chicago stockyards and spent a few days shooting livestock and noting the effects of different calibers and velocities. I don't remember if they tested different bullet designs or not.

8ierI58.jpg
 
The Geneva Convention stipulated FMJ bullets and it was found they worked better with the higher velocities of smokeless powder. And when were the wadcutter, semiwadcutter/Keith style bullets that we know developed ?
 
BLACKHAWKNJ said:
The Geneva Convention stipulated FMJ bullets and it was found they worked better with the higher velocities of smokeless powder. And when were the wadcutter, semiwadcutter/Keith style bullets that we know developed ?
Click to expand...

I thought the US was not a signatory to the Geneva convention?
 
CapnMac said:
…It's important to remember Army went from 45colt/45schofield to 38spl...
Click to expand...


The progression was 45 long Colt, 45 Frankford, 38 Long Colt. The failure of the 38 Long Colt is what led to the reintroduction of the 45 long Colt. And that was not a big success in the Philippines either. The 12 gauge shotgun is what was the success. But that is not what this thread is about.

Kevin
 
From all my reading WWI “Dum Dum” bullets, British Flat Nosed and Cupped bullets kept the Germans constantly complaining and suing. The Germans even sued over our use of the Trench Shotgun. I think RNL and FMJ was just a way to stay out of trouble in the International Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.455_Webley It was these bullets that caused all the problems. Ultimately the Webley round went back to RN.
 
A couple of tangential comments. The U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Convention which was primarily concerning POW treatment, etc. As near as I can tell, the U.S. was not a signatory to the Hague convention, especially concerning "dum dum" bullets (actually a misnomer), but abided by the conventions at the time. As to the Philippines failure of the.38 caliber, I think the failures were more attributable to the religious fanatic Moros tenacity than the .38 failures, but ultimately resolved with the .45... o_O

-jb, historical corrections happily invited

edit: seems wcwhitey and I hit the <send> button almost simultaneously, with similar conclusions :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
GJeffB said:
A couple of tangential comments. The U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Convention which was primarily concerning POW treatment, etc. As near as I can tell, the U.S. was not a signatory to the Hague convention, especially concerning "dum dum" bullets (actually a misnomer), but abided by the conventions at the time. As to the Philippines failure of the.38 caliber, I think the failures were more attributable to the religious fanatic Moros tenacity than the .38 failures, but ultimately resolved with the .45... o_O

-jb, historical corrections happily invited
Click to expand...

After the Philippines the US would not accept any cartridge for consideration that was less than .45 Cal, ergo the 1911 and the JMB .45 ACP. Britain had a similar mindset but .40 was their number. Just so happened that WWI broke out and they stayed with the old design of the Webley so they had a .45 anyway. Both countries differed in their idea concept of a pistol in that they liked fat and slow wanting a serious pistol cartridge. Other than Artillery and Calvalry use other countries just wanted pistols for Officers and Clerks. They were not too concerned with power that is why so many .32 Autos and other low powered cartridges were put into use. WWI was all about attrition in personnel and equipment. Few countries had a solid manufacturing base for firearms and in many cases just took what they could get.
 
During The Hague conferences England said they could maintain separate inventories of expanding rifle bullets for fighting savage tribesmen and full patch for warfare among civilized signatories.
Those civilized signatories were not convinced and hounded England into giving up the Dum Dum's successors.
England had the last laugh with the Mk VII spitzer, first of the intentional "tumbling bullets."

England also dreamed up a ballistic theory that made a lead 200 gr .38 the equal of a 265 gr .455. But were foiled by that Hague stuff and ended up with a 178 gr jacketed bullet that wasn't much punkin.
 
While it may not have been initially considered, barrier penetration is the main reason today. For civilian and LE use HP bullets stop threats faster and are less likely to over penetrate or ricochet making them safer to shoot around innocent bystanders.

The military however needs a bullet that can shoot through stuff and still do some damage after it hits an enemy soldier. Barrier penetration and the ability to defeat light body armor is the primary reason the Army dropped 45 in favor of 9mm The Army was actually disappointed in both the 45ACP and 1911 pistol after WW-2 and wanted to adopt 9mm at that time. Testing in the 1940's showed 45's bouncing off helmets and 9mm still penetrating helmets beyond 100 yards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Would having to use non-expanding ammo change what handguns you prefer?
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
Caliburn
C
R
  • Locked
Are .38 Special (SPL) wadcutters covered by the Hague convention with regards to self defense
Replies
21
Views
1K
Buckeye63
Buckeye63
Jim NE
  • Locked
Question about target results
Replies
6
Views
618
Drail
D
L
  • Locked
Do You Think This .380 Round Is Sufficient For Self-Defense?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
141
Views
9K
LookAtYou
L
Captaingyro
  • Locked
Flat Point or Round Nose for 9mm?
Replies
16
Views
19K
DanTheFarmer
D
Back
Top