Maverick223
Member
Yes, the USA has ratified the Hague Convention as well as all Geneva Protocols with the exception of some additions made in the last revision (amendment to the 4th) in 1977.
Holowpoints & Softpoints in Combat
- Thread starter SharpsDressedMan
- Start date
- Status
praharin
Member
is there a citation you can provide for that? I believe you, the way you speak of it tells me that you know. I would prefer to have concrete evidence for future reference though.
Cosmoline
Member
Where are you getting this idea that FMJ from a 5.56 will penetrate hard targets better?
By restricting ammunition to FMJ only, the military has cut itself off from a hundred years of ballistic advances. It's as if they rejected aircraft for military use. There's no good reason for it other than hidebound apathy and a tight purse when it comes to supplying the guys on the ground with the best equipment.
A modern expanding round will kill much more effectively than an FMJ bullet. Every hunter knows this. You can visually see what a SP round will do to tissue when it hits. They're extremely effective, and the technological advances have long since made it possible to fire them through an automatic weapon without jam problems. They feed like an FMJ.
In the current WOT, we are not fighting signatory nations or nations at all. These conflicts aren't even part of the Hague Convention, and if they were we'd still be permitted to deviate because the other side has never followed any of those rules.
Standard FMJ isn't AP. Besides, how many of the people we've been fighting for the past decade wear body armor?
By restricting ammunition to FMJ only, the military has cut itself off from a hundred years of ballistic advances. It's as if they rejected aircraft for military use. There's no good reason for it other than hidebound apathy and a tight purse when it comes to supplying the guys on the ground with the best equipment.
A modern expanding round will kill much more effectively than an FMJ bullet. Every hunter knows this. You can visually see what a SP round will do to tissue when it hits. They're extremely effective, and the technological advances have long since made it possible to fire them through an automatic weapon without jam problems. They feed like an FMJ.
In the current WOT, we are not fighting signatory nations or nations at all. These conflicts aren't even part of the Hague Convention, and if they were we'd still be permitted to deviate because the other side has never followed any of those rules.
Standard FMJ isn't AP. Besides, how many of the people we've been fighting for the past decade wear body armor?
Last edited:
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
They tend not to follow the rules also!
Target civilians, Not wear uniforms, Use the polulation as cover, Suicide bombers, etc, etc......
Target civilians, Not wear uniforms, Use the polulation as cover, Suicide bombers, etc, etc......
Maverick223
Member
No problem...well kind of, had to do a little looking to find a good source (I had to look up the 1977 amendment earlier but I didn't save the source). Here is a good book...and here is an additional site that has noteworthy and, more importantly, correct information. Most people are misinformed that we didn't sign Hague and the Geneva Protocols, when in reality there are but a few amendments that were not ratified by the US.
noob_shooter
member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 348
there are rules to follow in a war? ***? Might as well not even have a war at all if that's the case. if i was in the war, doesn't matter which side, i would totally use HP/SP bullets...
Maverick223
Member
Why don't you organize that for everybody.
praharin
Member
Thanks Maverick
noob: have fun in that Federal penitentiary if you do that on the US side and get caught. You can (and will, if caught) be charged with murder if you use unissued firearms or ammo in combat.
noob: have fun in that Federal penitentiary if you do that on the US side and get caught. You can (and will, if caught) be charged with murder if you use unissued firearms or ammo in combat.
praharin
Member
If that is indeed the case, wait until they try to come back. I friend of mine in Marine Recon Battalion had to throw his USP 9 into a compactor after his first tour in Iraq (in OIF 1) when they did the customs inspection. He had been given permission to take it from the lower end of the CoC, but that didn't matter when it was time to go.
Besides that, why did they pool their cash? They could have simply bought their own. This part smells a little fishy to me.
Besides that, the text you quoted (from me) isn't relevant at all to what you said.
Besides that, why did they pool their cash? They could have simply bought their own. This part smells a little fishy to me.
Besides that, the text you quoted (from me) isn't relevant at all to what you said.
Maverick223
Member
No problem.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
There is no substitution for shot placement.
I don't think it would be a big difference, but even more importantly, I don't think that the Hague accords bind us to using only FMJ right now in these types of "wars".
I don't think it would be a big difference, but even more importantly, I don't think that the Hague accords bind us to using only FMJ right now in these types of "wars".
After 30+ years of hunting I've made quite a few observations on bullet shapes. I'm not a fan of a hp for hunting, in my experience I found that at times they are unpredictable on expansion.
I've shot animals and found at times a hp can do terrific damage. But I've also had times where the hp went completely through an animal without ever opening.
For most hunting purposes I've found the Spitzer style to be unsurpased for creating damage. On varmint bullets a spitzer literally explodes on contact where a hp may or may not. On larger game I've found that in most cases an animal hit with a spitzer style doesn't go far.
I'm really glad the military does not use either. When you see the difference on an animal that has been shot you understand that the bullet construction creates the maximum damage compared to a FMJ.
The reason for using a FMJ is to incapacitate and not maime someone.
I've shot animals and found at times a hp can do terrific damage. But I've also had times where the hp went completely through an animal without ever opening.
For most hunting purposes I've found the Spitzer style to be unsurpased for creating damage. On varmint bullets a spitzer literally explodes on contact where a hp may or may not. On larger game I've found that in most cases an animal hit with a spitzer style doesn't go far.
I'm really glad the military does not use either. When you see the difference on an animal that has been shot you understand that the bullet construction creates the maximum damage compared to a FMJ.
The reason for using a FMJ is to incapacitate and not maime someone.
Shadow Man
Member
Ever heard of the Chechens? They came out in force to fight jihad against the foreign devils. And they came prepared, too.
Gungnir
Member
For US Laws of War you need to use RULAC
http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/national_legislation.php?id_state=64
For Hague information from the Permanent Court of Arbitration...
http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1038
Here's the Wiki for the Geneva Conventions and Protocols
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions
http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/national_legislation.php?id_state=64
For Hague information from the Permanent Court of Arbitration...
http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1038
Here's the Wiki for the Geneva Conventions and Protocols
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions
The_Hammer_Man
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong but were'nt OT and HP rounds tested for "consistency" in the original (early 60's) trials for the AR-15/M-16 platform? I seem to remember something about it. I could be wrong though....
But the one thing FMJ has over OT or HP rounds is consitency of loading,firing,ejection during automatic fire. The one thing a soldier needs from his weapon is constency.. the knowledge that his weapon will do it's job everytime he squeezes that lil trigger thangy.
If he doesn his job, ie, keep his weapon clean and in good repair that is.
The previous statement is based on personal experience not.. "my buddy's brothers friend" kinda info sourcing.
I'm not going to claim experience I don't have.. but from what experience I DO have I've had numerous occasions of misfeed,double feed, FTF, FTE and so on with OT's and HP's in the AR's I personally own. I'm not going to claim that OT/HP's WON'T feed through an M-16 but I HAVE experienced feeding/extraction issues with that bullet/cartridge type more often than with FMJ.
Now flame away.. ya know ya wanna.. it's ok.. I have my nomex undies on
YAY for nomex!
But the one thing FMJ has over OT or HP rounds is consitency of loading,firing,ejection during automatic fire. The one thing a soldier needs from his weapon is constency.. the knowledge that his weapon will do it's job everytime he squeezes that lil trigger thangy.
If he doesn his job, ie, keep his weapon clean and in good repair that is.
The previous statement is based on personal experience not.. "my buddy's brothers friend" kinda info sourcing.
I'm not going to claim experience I don't have.. but from what experience I DO have I've had numerous occasions of misfeed,double feed, FTF, FTE and so on with OT's and HP's in the AR's I personally own. I'm not going to claim that OT/HP's WON'T feed through an M-16 but I HAVE experienced feeding/extraction issues with that bullet/cartridge type more often than with FMJ.
Now flame away.. ya know ya wanna.. it's ok.. I have my nomex undies on
YAY for nomex!
Cosmoline
Member
That's about the soundest argument I've heard against making a change. But even so, there's plenty of variation between *existing* ball ammo types. So it wouldn't be too difficult to introduce a new expanding round. Call it an anti-terrorist round if you want. And I'm sure it could be made to feed well with the existing AR platform. To the extent anything feeds well with that platform.
Somebody's not up to speed.
JAG has reexamined the intent of the conventions against dum dum bullets and found that designs to improve the aerodynamics by including a hollow point are not prohibited.
Hollow points are OK. Things change.
JAG has reexamined the intent of the conventions against dum dum bullets and found that designs to improve the aerodynamics by including a hollow point are not prohibited.
Hollow points are OK. Things change.
Maverick223
Member
True, but the HPs (that I know of) that are being used are not expanding type HP, they are match bullets typically used in sniper platforms.
Despite the fact that the military is not supposed to use a HP or Spitzer style bullet I can tell you that it happens.
A long time ago I had the misfortune of being drafted and sent to Viet Nam. I was also in rotary aviation and saw a lot of things. Some of the people that flew in the aircraft (particularly the observer) carried a .38 Spl issued by the ARMY. A few that I know had gotten their hands on Blackhawks and S&W .357 mags as a personal gun. I'm sure they did not use fmj bullets in these. The military .38 Spl's fired a 158 gr lead round nose bullet supplied by the US. Don't know how that last one fits in today.
A long time ago I had the misfortune of being drafted and sent to Viet Nam. I was also in rotary aviation and saw a lot of things. Some of the people that flew in the aircraft (particularly the observer) carried a .38 Spl issued by the ARMY. A few that I know had gotten their hands on Blackhawks and S&W .357 mags as a personal gun. I'm sure they did not use fmj bullets in these. The military .38 Spl's fired a 158 gr lead round nose bullet supplied by the US. Don't know how that last one fits in today.
Maverick223
Member
Really?...I am not aware of any small arms rifle bullet that any respectable army uses that is not a spitzer design.
Shadow Man
Member
Can't use spitzers eh? I'd love to see the ruling on that...
OK. Blew the dust off what is left of my brains......
It was Clara Barton (of Red Cross fame) and Abe Lincoln who set the US
Onto the eventual path of the US being a signatory to the Geneva Accords
In 1882 or 1883.
This due to the horrific acts and toll of the American Civil War,
Along with certain European atrocities happening at very
Nearly the same time.
If I remember correctly, the original impetus was focused on the
Humane treatment of prisoners and enemy wounded,
Not the type of projectile.
Somewhere along the line dumdums became
An international cause celebre. Remember, the lead was
A lot heavier in those days and if you cut that crisscross
Into the tip of the slug it did savage damage.
Those Accords, along with a bunch of civil stuff, turned into the
Hague Convention in the late 1800's (1899?).
The Geneva/Hague path continues to this day, with various countries
Partially agreeing, and partially abstaining.
Dubya's refusal to accept certain Afghans as enemy combatants
But as "International Terrorists", thus justifying the
Creation of Gitmo, in defiance of the Hague Convention
Being the latest, loudest point of argument I remember.
It has been years since I was up to speed on this piece of history,
So forgive me if I'm a little vague.
Secondly, I don't really see how this has anything to do with THR,
Unless THR has a thread I've missed called "Warfare, International
Treaties, and Politics."
just my .01 (devalued per the Euro)
isher
It was Clara Barton (of Red Cross fame) and Abe Lincoln who set the US
Onto the eventual path of the US being a signatory to the Geneva Accords
In 1882 or 1883.
This due to the horrific acts and toll of the American Civil War,
Along with certain European atrocities happening at very
Nearly the same time.
If I remember correctly, the original impetus was focused on the
Humane treatment of prisoners and enemy wounded,
Not the type of projectile.
Somewhere along the line dumdums became
An international cause celebre. Remember, the lead was
A lot heavier in those days and if you cut that crisscross
Into the tip of the slug it did savage damage.
Those Accords, along with a bunch of civil stuff, turned into the
Hague Convention in the late 1800's (1899?).
The Geneva/Hague path continues to this day, with various countries
Partially agreeing, and partially abstaining.
Dubya's refusal to accept certain Afghans as enemy combatants
But as "International Terrorists", thus justifying the
Creation of Gitmo, in defiance of the Hague Convention
Being the latest, loudest point of argument I remember.
It has been years since I was up to speed on this piece of history,
So forgive me if I'm a little vague.
Secondly, I don't really see how this has anything to do with THR,
Unless THR has a thread I've missed called "Warfare, International
Treaties, and Politics."
just my .01 (devalued per the Euro)
isher
Maverick223
Member
Try reading a post that is a paragraph composed of 50 lines.
Uhmm, guns shoot bullets...guns used in combat...type of ammo used in combat, what is confusing about such a thread on a gun forum?
P90Puma
Member
Wow, that was hard to read. Almost As Bad As Capitalizing Every Single Letter In A Sentence.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
