tjmga
Member
In 1966, in basic we were told the reason for FMJ is that it takes two solders to carry a wounded solder off the field. It takes no one to carry a dead solder. Also a FMJ has the potential to pass thru one man and wound a second.
Why has the military used round-nosed bullets?
- Thread starter Smaug
- Start date
- Status
wcwhitey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,814
@Jim Watson good point about the original .38-200. I had completely forgot about that. The British like to play with bullet designs.
Heir Kommt Die Sonne
Member
Did they come with lead cast projectiles? In a blue MTN box?
While this is a popular thought, it fails to account for the preponderance of projectiles that totally miss the intended targets.
Kevin
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,594
Recall that bullets had always been round. Even when modern oblong bullets were developed in the 1830s-50s, concurrently with the serious adoption of rifling by various powers’ armies, and then loaded into cartridges in the 1860s-70s, it was still referred to as “ball” ammo, as it is to this day.
It was also revolutionary to jacket the lead, in the 1890s, which was done with both rifles and new handgun cartridges as they were adapted to the higher velocities of smokeless powder.
In this context, Britain developed the “dum dum” bullet, which combined the smokeless, jacketed technology with an expanding design to reclaim the killing power of the old soft lead ball ammo as used in the black powder rifles, and the powers represented at The Hague convention voted to ban it, as being inhumane compared to the “clean and clinical” jacketed ball ammo now used by everyone else.
The Hague Convention is a fascinating story in itself. Basically you had a lot of “world peace” advocates in the late 19th century. The governments did not take them seriously, but did not want to appear cold-blooded and callous by ignoring their cries. Russia decided to use the movement for its own gain by proposing a world conference to further the cause of peace. What they really wanted was an arms limitation treaty with Austria, their rival, since they found the cost of upgrading their artillery to be cripplingly expensive. Austria (and the other powers) thought this was absurd (of course) and not a lot was accomplished. However the delegates knew they had to show something to the world and their respective governments after spending months in the beautiful Dutch countryside indulging in high-society soirées and fetes, so they found common ground in condemning British bullet barbarism (recall Britain was the world’s foremost power at this point.) The US never ratified The Hague Convention but this was more a technicality due to our party system and political process. The government felt itself obliged to abide by it in practice, as did everyone else.
It was also revolutionary to jacket the lead, in the 1890s, which was done with both rifles and new handgun cartridges as they were adapted to the higher velocities of smokeless powder.
In this context, Britain developed the “dum dum” bullet, which combined the smokeless, jacketed technology with an expanding design to reclaim the killing power of the old soft lead ball ammo as used in the black powder rifles, and the powers represented at The Hague convention voted to ban it, as being inhumane compared to the “clean and clinical” jacketed ball ammo now used by everyone else.
The Hague Convention is a fascinating story in itself. Basically you had a lot of “world peace” advocates in the late 19th century. The governments did not take them seriously, but did not want to appear cold-blooded and callous by ignoring their cries. Russia decided to use the movement for its own gain by proposing a world conference to further the cause of peace. What they really wanted was an arms limitation treaty with Austria, their rival, since they found the cost of upgrading their artillery to be cripplingly expensive. Austria (and the other powers) thought this was absurd (of course) and not a lot was accomplished. However the delegates knew they had to show something to the world and their respective governments after spending months in the beautiful Dutch countryside indulging in high-society soirées and fetes, so they found common ground in condemning British bullet barbarism (recall Britain was the world’s foremost power at this point.) The US never ratified The Hague Convention but this was more a technicality due to our party system and political process. The government felt itself obliged to abide by it in practice, as did everyone else.
OP
OP
Smaug
Member
The Wikipedia article says that the US did not sign the first Hague Convention of 1899, but signed a later one.
Good info!
CopperClad
Member
....
unspellable
Member
The Germans switched from a truncated cone to a round nose in the 9 mm Parabellum cartridge because they were a bit nervous about the Hague convention.
Heir Kommt Die Sonne
Member
Something that later reloaders (like some of us) would later discover is the perfect design for auto cartridges. Such as 357 Sig is default loaded with a flat nosed cone bullet.
Autodidactic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2021
- Messages
- 1,023
Actually, I may be wrong, but I’ve seen pics of some WWI era truncated cone .45 acp. Not quite a semi wadcutter but almost
Signing of treaties and conventions is political matter. Using ammo that abides by the treaties and conventions, and treating captured enemy soldiers as prescribed in those treaties and conventions, is a practical matter, because we want the other side to treat our prisoners with proper laws-of-war respect, even if we did not sign a piece of paper.
One cannot draw meaningful conclusions about wounding effectiveness from observations of holes in paper targets.
Monac
Member
Thanks, derek45! I've read about that ammo, but I've never seen a picture of it, at least not one that good. IIRC, Fiochhi made 9mm ammo VERY much like that in the 1990's. I don't recall how it suited my Luger, but it worked very well in a Benelli B-76, which has a similar grip angle.
C-grunt
Member
Military ammo needs to be reliable in dirty weapons. Also penetration is a big deal as the enemy is likely to be wearing equipment on their body. Ball works well for these applications. Modern weapons with modern ammunition, the benefits of ball ammo have decreased. But Im not sure if the benefits have completely gone away. I wonder how a 115-124 hollow point is going to fair against load bearing gear, magazines, radio equipment, etc.. vs old school 115 or 124 FMJ.
deadeye dick
Member
OP
OP
Smaug
Member
Great video by Wilson. I learned a lot.
They have another video about gun abuses that was also great.
They have another video about gun abuses that was also great.
To expand on this, The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 each consisted of multiple treaties, provisions and declarations.
What people in this thread are referring to is Declaration (IV,3) concerning Expanding Bullets. The Hague, 29 July 1899. Anyone interested in reading the text of this declaration can find it here. This declaration was ratified by all nations present except the United States.
The United States actually did ratify 3 of the 6 provisions of the 1899 convention, but not the one forbidding expanding bullets.
The Convention of 1907 was actually called for by the United States. Of the 14 different parts, 13 were treaties between all parties and 12 of those were actually adopted. None of the various parts of the 1907 convention addressed expanding bullets.
Jim Watson
Member
So is the .40 S&W. I think it is more to squeeze a bigger cartridge into a 9mm length action than ballistics.
I can't pin down the change from an 8 gram truncated cone to a 7.5 gram roundnose but suspect it might have something to do with the Artillery Luger and its drum magazine, also used in an early SMG.
JTQ
Member
Also probably because the common defensive round by the time .40 S&W and .357 SIG were introduced was the hollow point. The flat point bullet matches the shape of the hollow point better than a round point.
If you're starting out with a new caliber, you may as well design it with the hollow point shape in mind and no reason to have one shape for defense and another for training.
To expand (if you'll pardon the expression) on your good summary, the Article of the Hague Convention on expanding bullets was not only not ratified by the Senate, it was not even submitted for ratification because the US negotiators (the Secretary of State or his designees) refused to sign it. In spite of this, the US agreed to comply with the ban, but in the 1990s Special Ops troops hunting terrorists began using hollow points on the grounds that the ban only applied in fights with other signatory countries, not when fighting pirates or terrorists who are not only not signatories but don't obey any laws of war. However, US compliance with ban finally ended when the military announced (in 2016? 2017?) that their new general issue sidearm, the Sig P320 aka M17, would be loaded with jacketed hollow points. Which makes sense; it was dumb that soldiers weren't allowed rounds that millions of US civilians routinely carry.
I would actually argue that the new M1153 "Special Purpose" round is no different that the MK262 that I was issued and used in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008-2010, in that it is still "officially" only used for limited applications and the M1152 FMJ is the standard issue combat and training round just like the M855A1 is for 5.56 weapons. But otherwise you are 100% correct that the US delegation never even signed that portion of the Convention, but the US did, and still does officially, comply with it.
And your bringing up the M17's ammo also makes another point specific to this thread. The new M1152's bullet is a truncated cone FMJ instead of the traditional ogive shaped FMJ
eddiememphis
Member
The British used that argument in 1899.
"The British delegate agreed with their technical understanding of the effects of the dumdum bullet, but argued that “there is a difference in war between civilised nations and that against savages” and that the use of dumdum bullets was justified against “the savage” who “although run through two or three times, does not cease to advance”. This was seen by other members of the Sub-Commission as being “contrary to the humanitarian spirit”. "
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/irrc_849_coupland_et_loye.pdf
halfmoonclip
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 2,827
The dum-dum bullet, named for Dum-dum arsenal, in British India.
The Obama administration introduced lead free 5.56 ammo; no problem using it to kill people, but the good Lord knows we don't want to scatter lead pollution.
On that round, the American Rifleman declared it to be accurate and effective. Have heard nothing more of it since, and didn't want to do a hijack.
Moon
The Obama administration introduced lead free 5.56 ammo; no problem using it to kill people, but the good Lord knows we don't want to scatter lead pollution.
On that round, the American Rifleman declared it to be accurate and effective. Have heard nothing more of it since, and didn't want to do a hijack.
Moon
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
