Military use of FMJ

It's not the Geneva Convention, but rather the Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III.

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

I also think it may do with the fact that soldiers would most likely be wearing body armor, and you'd need better penetration.

Of course, this doesn't apply to non-uniformed terrorists

And, of course, we use FMJ anyway............

Exactly who have we fought lately that adheres to conventions, treaties, etc?

One note-the USA did not sign the Hague convention, we merely follow it.
Also, FMJ does offer better penetration, and enhanced reliability.

Exactly who have we fought lately that adheres to conventions, treaties, etc?

Click to expand...

Good question. Germany(most of the time), Italy(don't know if they captured any Americans), Japanese(anything goes). The treaties and stuff went out the window in WW2 and no-one actualy follows them exept for us.

9mm FMJ won't penetrate body armor better than premium JHP ammo.

We use it because there is an antiquated, internationally recognized standard. If we flagrantly toss this rule out the window, it would be held against us as an example of how we have no regard for human life. (Some people think we actually have a lot to lose to those who would actually listen.)

IT'S NOT WORTH IT to change, because to strategic planners, it is entirely inconsequential. No war has ever been won or lost based on a given choice of sidearm or the ammunition it fires. THEY JUST DON'T CARE.

I agree with MLJ.

As far as guns in warfare go, nothing is consequential than sidearm ammo.

FMJ gives better penetration and reliability. Remember war isnt self defense. If you think someone is in a house, shoot it a few times before going in. FMJ does that better.

FMJ-2 holes, entry and exit (for 9mm and above in most cases)

JHP-1 hole, expansion, typically stops inside

If you're bleeding from 2 holes instead of 1, you're losing blood pressure much more quickly. In a way, JHP is more "humane".

TehK1w1 said:

One note-the USA did not sign the Hague convention, we merely follow it.
Also, FMJ does offer better penetration, and enhanced reliability.

Click to expand...

This keeps coming up and I keep saying the same damn thing. Yes the US did sign and ratify BOTH Hague conventions.

If you go to the Permanent Court of Arbitration
http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1038

You can see the signatory powers, and the US signed both the 1899 convention in 1900 and the 1907 convention in 1910. The 1899 contained the verbiage about expanding bullets, as Declaration 3. However it is only binding in cases of war between two signatories of Hague 1. The US and others could use hollow points in Afghanistan, Iraq is a signatory however logistically this isn't going to happen, since the supply chain would need to be altered and there would be a significant time lag, probably leading to large surpluses of hollow points that can't be used in any regular future conflict. Then of course there's also the question of feeding, FMJ is less likely to have feed issues than hollow point, especially on a rifle that's been refined for 40+ years of combat service to fire an FMJ round.

<correction> you're discussing service sidearms. Ok same applies, except the 40 years of refinement, and no one really cares. It's a sidearm. I never used one in 10 years with the Military, except on the range.

The US and others could use hollow points in Afghanistan, Iraq is a signatory however logistically this isn't going to happen, since the supply chain would need to be altered and there would be a significant time lag, probably leading to large surpluses of hollow points that can't be used in any regular future conflict. Then of course there's also the question of feeding, FMJ is less likely to have feed issues than hollow point, especially on a rifle that's been refined for 40+ years of combat service to fire an FMJ round.

Click to expand...

We stoped fighting the Iraqi armed forces 6 years ago, so the Hague convention dosn't matter there.

And, of course, we use FMJ anyway

Click to expand...

Since the 9mm round is used soooooo often in combat, I'm sure it would make a big difference if we switched. (And I am a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan.)

On a side note, I saw a guy once as a convoy was ready to roll out. All he had was a Beretta...and about 15 magazines in pouches arrayed all over his body armor. Pretty comical.

FMJ feeds most reliable in just about any weapon under just about any conditions. And it's cheaper to produce.

I also think it may do with the fact that soldiers would most likely be wearing body armor, and you'd need better penetration.


It has to do with forbidding ammunition that increases the severity of the wound. Nothing to do with penetration or feeding. It may have been addressed due to the research the British did at the Dum Dum Arsenal in India with expanding bullets. I never did understand why this applies to small arms ammo but it's okay if you get hit with a jagged piece of shrapnel from an artillery round.

I've given this much thought, because I initially thought it was dumb. Then I realized a few things after talking to some knowledgeable people.

Several Reasons for FMJ:

Hague Convention
It's supremely cheap
Very abundant
It's gives supremely reliable feeding
Better penetration

It's the most practical option for a large military force. Although for SD, it makes very little sense. You have over penetration to worry about, the enemy is very close so stopping power is even more important and you don't need much ammo so you can easily fund good jhps.

FMJ-2 holes, entry and exit (for 9mm and above in most cases)

JHP-1 hole, expansion, typically stops inside

If you're bleeding from 2 holes instead of 1, you're losing blood pressure much more quickly. In a way, JHP is more "humane".

Click to expand...

No, not really.

Whether one has only an entry hole or both an entry and an exit hole really doesn't have much effect on the lose of blood pressure.
What matters is exactly what was hit while the bullet was (or is) inside the body.

For example:

Scenario 1:
The bullet enters the right side of the chest, passes between the ribs, punches through the right lung, passes through the right scapula, and then exits the body.

Scenario 2:
The bullet enters the chest, punches through the sternum, tears a hole in the aorta, and then stops just before reaching the thoracic spine, staying inside the body.

Which scenario do you think will cause the target to bleed to death faster?

This is why shot placement is of the utmost importance.

Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.



Nothing to do with cost, penetration, or some of the other things hashed about. See b and e above.

The solution to the problem comes in the form of the .45 Auto Colt Pistol..."the 9mm may expand properly, but the .45 never shrinks".

Not to "wound treacherously" what does that even mean? How vague.

We "destroy and seize enemy" property ever chance we get.

You bet that cost has something to do with it. The military does have a budget. They also have more important things to spend money on besides expanding bullets. Penetration does also have something to do with it. Enemies on the modern battlefield more often than not utilize cover.

It is not a decision made just because of a bunch of rules and regulations. If that were the case special forces wouldn't be allowed to use jhps, and break other rules of the Anti-Sovereign Army Convention (Hague).

Also, FMJ does offer better penetration, and enhanced reliability.

Click to expand...

I always figured that was enough reason to stay with FMJ. It just feeds better.

GRIZ22 said:

I also think it may do with the fact that soldiers would most likely be wearing body armor, and you'd need better penetration.


It has to do with forbidding ammunition that increases the severity of the wound. Nothing to do with penetration or feeding. It may have been addressed due to the research the British did at the Dum Dum Arsenal in India with expanding bullets. I never did understand why this applies to small arms ammo but it's okay if you get hit with a jagged piece of shrapnel from an artillery round.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not a lot of body armour in use in 1899.

Memory is a little fuzzy, but didn't the Brits hold off signing the treaty until the Boer war ended?

A handgun is used so rarely in combat, either for defence or offence, that it is a non point really. As for the .45 lovers, well, I would rather have a High Power in 9MM for combat carry than all the 1911's in the world. Been there,, done that. I will add that the main reason to carry a handgun in a combat situation is mental reasons. It makes you feel safer, it adds nothing to the mission accomplishment.

"I also think it may do with the fact that soldiers would most likely be wearing body armor, and you'd need better penetration."

When I suggested that they use it today for better penetration, I meant TODAY, not back then. As many have already suggested, there are legal, and practical reasons, and this is what I believe to be a practical reason.

As for the .45 lovers, well, I would rather have a High Power in 9MM for combat carry than all the 1911's in the world.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about a 1911, I would opt for a modern design in .45ACP (lightweight, still rugged, DA capability, greater capacity), even if it isn't typically employed.