Geneva Conventions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pistolosaur

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
7
I'm interested in early 20th century pistols and I found out a long time ago that the Geneva Conventions forbids naked lead bullets.

Does anyone of you know the reason why ?
 
I did not know that. Be interesting to hear the answer. Perhaps it has something to do with dum-dum bullets?
 
I'm interested in early 20th century pistols and I found out a long time ago that the Geneva Conventions forbids naked lead bullets.

Does anyone of you know the reason why ?
Here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

If you read the first paragraph closely you'll see that it re-directs you to the Hague Conventions as, "because the Geneva Conventions are about people in war, the articles do not address warfare proper — the use of weapons of war — which is the subject of the Hague Conventions."

One of the articles of the Hague Conventions did prohibit the use of bullets designed to expand inside the body, such as soft-points or others where the jacket did not cover the nose of the bullet. (Due to the higher velocities of modern rifle cartridges, just about all common military bullets were copper jacketed by this point.)

The idea was to reduce the severity of wounding, so that a wounded soldier out of the action might have a better chance of healing rather than suffering extensive, non-repairable damage from a less-than-lethal hit. In other words, to make war more "humane."

This only applies to "great powers" who are at war with each other, and the US never did ratify this section of the pact.

But it did become customary to use non-expanding full-metal-jacket ammo for all war-fighting issue.

(Though not police work or other domestic or law-enforcement tasks, putting down revolts in a nation's colonies, etc.)
 
Last edited:
We're nicer to our enemies than we are to our citizens.

I never understood the "humane" aspect of the Conventions. I've always looked it as, war shouldn't be "humane"... it should be bloody, violent, destructive and as terrible as possible. It should make the strongest and the proudest of men wretch uncontrollably at its sight. Maybe then people would stop going to "war" so much. If you're going to "wage war" then wage it full on; remind the survivors why war is a bad thing. Maybe more people would be willing to talk. Taken to a national scale...

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -- Robert A. Heinlein
 
Of course, but war isn't "humane" and wouldn't be measurably less so if we all used hollowpoint or soft-point bullets.

Some aspects of the Hague Conventions were entirely the sorts of silly pompousness that the Victorian era was known for. (Like the temperance movement, Prohibition, and the artificial and hypocritical excesses of prudishness that hung on even in America until at least the 1960s.) The last gasps of the high-minded and blinkered way that "civilized" "gentlemen" should behave toward one another.

Remember that the great powers were all still (or in recent memory had been) ruled by monarchs who were all intermarried and related to each other. One big squabbling family, as it were. As much as one might hate a European enemy and be willing to kill him if ordered to, he was still a fellow civilized white man, not a heathen aborigine or savage from some undeveloped backwater colony like India or China or Borneo or South Africa or any other place where the little dark people got unruly.
 
Last edited:
Having said that, the Geneva Conventions from a few decades later on were a bit of an improvement one might say. They deal with treatment of POWs, civilians and non-combatants, and similar "humanitarian" niceties. Now, if we could just get our enemies to follow the rules... ;)
 
There is a lot of misinformation out there when it comes to the rules of land warfare.
Believe me, we treat our enemies much better than the rules call for.
As far as soft lead bullets go, we allow of LEO's to carry hollow points dont we?
I can assure you it was customary for a couple hundred rounds of specialty ammo to change hands for handguns carried in country by fellow NCO's as you cycled in and out.
 
And our snipers use expanding bullets since their intent is to kill and hollow point rifle bullets have an accuracy edge over FMJs.
 
Trying to dredge this up from memory... wasn't there an issue of FMJ .22 LR cartridges for survival use by our air crews at some point? The idea was if they were captured, they could not be punished (executed, prosecuted, whatever) for using expanding bullets?

Seems to me this cartridge was linked to the original Armalite .22 survival rifle which could be broken down and packaged in its own stock and would float.

Terry, 230RN
 
Following the Geneva and Hague Conventions has practical benefit to the US military. When things go badly for an opposing military they surrender to us in droves. This is a cheaper way to secure a victory in terms of American lives than being forced to fight fanatical resistance to last man by a clearly beaten foe.

This does not apply in every case (the Japanese in WWII did not surrender very often and the direct link between battlefield victory and not using hollow point bullets is weak at best) but the overall trend is for following the laws of war resulting in cheaper US military victories.

Technology does change and makes these old treaties seem outdated but these are not insurmountable obstacles for the US military.

It is odd the fmj bullets are prohibited for deer hunting in my state for humanitarian reasons while those very same prohibited bullets are required by the Hague conventions for humanitarian reasons.

I recommend reading the Geneva Convention treaties on POW's. They are very relevant to today's "enemy combatant" controveries. The treaties treat non-uniformed "sabateurs" much more harshly than uniformed enemy soldiers. The commonly heard claim that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists is flat wrong in my opinion. When the treaties were signed they may have been thinking of bomb throwing anarchists and calling them sabatuers while today we have IED detonating terrorists but the language of the treaties applies just as well.

Dan
 
And our snipers use expanding bullets since their intent is to kill and hollow point rifle bullets have an accuracy edge over FMJs.

That's not actually the case. It's a match grade bullet with a hollow tip as a manufacturing relic. Buddy of mine tried some on deer and was very disappointed.

Here's a good link to the subject:

http://thegunzone.com/hague.html
 
I have been plodding through five volume “Reports of (American) military observers in Manchuria” during the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese war. It is a very lengthy read I downloaded for free to my Kindle from: https://archive.org/details/reportsmilitary00stafgoog and http://digital.library.yale.edu/cdm/...d/68663/rec/19

Rather surprised at all the observer's writing as to how humane both antagonists treated the wounded and POW's of the enemy.

They also refer to the bullets used and wounds produced by them. They wrote the 6.5 bullet of the Japanese produced less lethal wounds than the 7.62 one used by the Russians. US Army medical corps doctor Captain Morrison, also noted the worse and most lethal wounds were produced by bullets fired at over 1500 yards, (from the Russian tactic of plunging volley fire) as they more often than not entered the body sideways.
 
wasn't there an issue of FMJ .22 LR cartridges for survival use by our air crews at some point?
No.
All of the officially adopted aircrew survival rifles were chambered in .22 Hornet.

.22 Hornet M4 - Made by Harrington & Richardson
M4_Survival_Rifle_sketch.gif

.22 Hornet/.410 shotgun M6 - Made by Ithaca..
main.php?g2_view=core.jpg

Armalite developed the AR-5 .22 Hornet bolt-action to replace the M6 in 1956. It broke down and stored in the floating stock, but it was never adopted into military service.

.22 Hornet AR-5 - Made by Armalite.
AR5A.jpg


The later Armalite AR-7 .22 LR semi-auto was never adopted by the U.S. Military for survival use.
It was strictly a civilian sale survival weapon.

However, there was G.I. issue FMJ .22 LR ammo available during & after WWII.
My feeling is it was available for clandestine use with silenced .22 LR pistols.

rc
 
And our snipers use expanding bullets since their intent is to kill and hollow point rifle bullets have an accuracy edge over FMJs.

That's not actually the case. It's a match grade bullet with a hollow tip as a manufacturing relic. Buddy of mine tried some on deer and was very disappointed.

And quite a few others have used them and found them to be the most dramatic deer killers they have ever tried. So much so that Berger has tweaked their match bullet design and offers a slightly different bullet specifically designed for hunting.

It is true that the sniper bullets hollow tip was not designed with expansion in mind and it is just there because of the manufacturing processes. It's main purpose is that it greatly improves accuacy and the bullets BC. But it does indeed cause quite violent expansion.
 
JMR, I should have said "168 grain Sierra Matchkings" as opposed to a generic term, my mistake. :eek:

FWIW, we did find the 52 grain Matchking to do exactly as you describe. Especially out of a .22-250. :eek:
 
Some aspects of the Hague Conventions were entirely the sorts of silly pompousness that the Victorian era was known for. (Like the temperance movement, Prohibition, and the artificial and hypocritical excesses of prudishness that hung on even in America until at least the 1960s.) The last gasps of the high-minded and blinkered way that "civilized" "gentlemen" should behave toward one another.

That certainly hit the nail on the head. It's led to some interesting dynamics for military ammunition, such as 'fragmentation range' considerations, etc, since 'expanding' is bad, but nobody said anything about 'fragmentation', so we use that in our 5.56 instead of expansion. I'm not an expert of those rules by any stretch, but man they seem silly (not the humane treatment part, but the technical part for the ammo).

It's actually very reminiscent of the goofy stuff we hear from gun control advocates today, when they talk about the 'lethality' of certain weapons. Hmm, ok. What do they want? Nerf bullets?
 
The hypocrisy was especially evident in the Germans.

They signed the Hague conventions of 1899 prohibiting the use of poison gas.
And they signed the 1907 conventions prohibiting the use of expanding bullets.

Yet they were the first to use Mustard gas, Phosphine gas, and Chlorine gas in WWI.
Then protested us using 1897 trench shotguns.

rc
 
The hypocrisy was especially evident in the Germans.

They signed the Hague conventions of 1899 prohibiting the use of poison gas.
And they signed the 1907 conventions prohibiting the use of expanding bullets.

Yet they were the first to use Mustard gas, Phosphine gas, and Chlorine gas in WWI.
Then protested us using 1897 trench shotguns.

LOL, politics man, politics...

I actually think in some dictionaries, 'hypocrisy' and 'politics' have the same definition.
 
Exposed lead is to easy too modify deliberately or upon accident to a configuration either simply outside of the allowed configuration or even to a configuration deliberately disallowed.

.22 is a survival/game round.
Shot in 12 gauge is not easily accessed nor is there an expectation that an altered configuration would be tempting.
"Sniper" rounds do not have a hollow tip for terminal ballistics but rather for intermediate ballistics.
 
What exposed lead does when tampered with is destroy the ballistic properties of the shape and create inaccuracy. Kids doctoring bullets on the battlefield with ignorant pet theories isn't the best place for it to happen.

Since the 1940's, most actions have been self loading - and that has had a bigger effect on bullet design than recognized. What happens when the bolt strips the cartridge from the magazine is that the bullet frequently contacts a loading ramp that has only be factory machined - not hand polished - and controlled feed isn't happening. It's a like hitting it with a hammer and then pounding it into battery with the bolt face. The bullet needs a jacket to protect it - or the buildup of shavings from being scraped would eventually add to jamming the action.

There is also the unreasonable and entirely preposterous notion the Army continues to foster that bullets fired from combat weapons might need to penetrate something other than human flesh. Like, anything in between - dirt berms, logs, sand bags, solid core doors, adobe, light frame construction, sheet metal automobiles, magazine carriers, or body armor.

Open tip and hollow point bullets don't do well with any of that, they expand much too soon and dump all the energy into the barrier material, and then fail to penetrate the enemy standing behind it.

The Army doesn't need or want a bullet that flattens out and creates superficial or even cosmetic damage when it impacts something a lot tougher than a human ribcage - like, say, a chest harness filled with double stacked AK mags. So they plan to stick with a jacketed bullet that can fragment and do it all - be shock loaded into a an automatic weapons breech, penetrate intermediate barriers, and then create enough wound to stop an enemy from firing back - in a 2MOA window.

There's a lot more to it than deer hunting or a trip to the target range.
 
There is also the unreasonable and entirely preposterous notion the Army continues to foster that bullets fired from combat weapons might need to penetrate something other than human flesh.
Preposterous???
I think not!

Talk to a combat vet from Belleau Wood in WWI, the Battle of the Bulge in WWII, the Frozen Chosin in Korea, or anyone who fought in the jungles of Vietnam.

There were lots of things a bullet had to shoot through before it did any good at all on the human flesh hiding behind it.

rc
 
Actually the idea of conventions in warfare has it's roots in the mercenary armies of the Swiss and Italians of the 1400-1700's. Since armies allegiance depended on who was paying bill and the armies were assets not to be wasted. The general idea was a big show for the prince or duke or whomever you were working for and to have minimal damage to your assets(soldiers). It was an economic, not humanitarian goal originally. History is not like you were taught in school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top