military handgun ammo

[gringolet]

Gentlemen, here is the question...a buddy has a son going into harm's way
with special forces in the mid-east...the military is restricted in handgun ammo...but a person may bring their own sidearm...if you were packing a 45acp as your personal sidearm...what ammo (other than GI ball) would be permissible, if any? I am confident the boy will get an answer from his CO...but, I am looking for some advice from the vets out there! thanks...

 

[Sunray]

The Geneva Conference or The Hague Conference, I forget which one, outlaws the use of any ammo other than ball. Using any other ammo by any military personnel would be a war crime.
The SF may have different rules, and likely do, but nobody is permitted to take personal weapons either. It creates a logistics nightmare.

 

[DorGunR]

The SF may have different rules, and likely do, but nobody is permitted to take personal weapons either. It creates a logistics nightmare.

We were not supposed to have personal weapons in Vietnam either but logistics had little or nothing to do with it.

 

[Lupinus]

I believe all ammo used by military is supposed to be FMJ

 

[hso]

SF gets what they want and uses what they want. He needs to get advice on "acceptable" ammo from his A team weapons NCO.

 

[TMM]

what about flat point?

 

[entropy]

If it's FMJ, and Ok'd by his CO. SF sometimes also uses enemy weapons well behind the lines for several reasons. A familiar sound wouldn't alarm as much, creates confusion when that familiar sound is being fired at you, and it makes resupply easier. Then there is the 'sanitary weapon' aspect also; plausible deniability. So maybe a Tariq (Iraqi copy of the Beretta 951) with 124 gr. FMJ might be in order.

 

[The Drew]

The US isn't a signatory to the Hague convention... Although we generally abide by rules... There are plenty of examples where we (The US) don't.

 

[cookekdjr]

No matter how many types of .45 ammo I was allowed to use, I would choose 230gr ball. .45 does not need expansion, and even if it did, it travels too slow to expand anyway. This ammo penetrates very well, and often yaws, that is, tumbles, once its inside human tissue. Ball ammo also typically feeds more reliably than any other type. I think its the perfect round.
If I did not choose .45, I would choose a gun/ammo combination that is widely available in enemy territory. Like one poster said, that may include something in 9mm. In which case I'd choose ball again, but 147gr if I could.
-David

 

[WT]

You might want to look into General Order No. 1 promulgated by US Central Command for the Iraq-Kuwait theater of operations. And I quote .......

"PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES: a. Purchase, possession, use or sale of privately owned firearms, ammunition, explosives, or the introduction of these items into the USCENTCOM AOR.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/regulations/go1a.pdf

 

[ShelbyV8]

If he is Special Forces is already trained with the weapons and ammo he will use. If he is special forces he doesn't need any help we can give him.

 

[reality]

I got news for you, .45 DOES need expansion,

and if you reload the 185 gr Silvertip to 1100 fps in the 5" barrel, it expands as well as you could ever hope for.

 

[dasmi]

The Geneva Conference or The Hague Conference, I forget which one, outlaws the use of any ammo other than ball. Using any other ammo by any military personnel would be a war crime.

Except the US never signed it.

 

[Jim Watson]

And we are not at war.

I have read on what my 'smith calls the World Wide Web of Misinformation that he might have little difficulty taking a personal weapon TO the sandbox, but will be closely checked to keep him from bringing home any souvenirs, including a non-issue weapon even if he bought it in the first place. So take a serviceable but non-sentimental .45 and leave it with a friend.

Of course a by-the-book CO could make things tough on him.

 

[gringolet]

thanks

appreciate the information...

 

[Jeff White]

General Order Number 1 prohibits personally owned weapons. Regardless of what the rumor mill says. He's going to end up in big trouble if he gets caught and most probably he will.

Jeff

 

[Sunray]

"...The US isn't a signatory to the Hague convention..." Yes, you are. Mind you, neither the Hague nor Geneva are/were a one time thing. They've been going on since 1899 and 1864 respectively.
The U.S has signed and ratified the following plus others. Relating to the Treatment of POW's. Ratified and proclaimed in 1932. For the protection of Children in 1994. The 1949 Conventions in 1954. Rules of Land Warfare in 1902. Convention IV in 1909(more land warfare rules). Rules of Maritime Warfare in 1900. Plus all of these. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/Pays?ReadForm&c=US
"...And we are not at war..." Tell that to the families of the 2,000 dead troopies.

 

[Onmilo]

If your friend is deploying through Special Operations channels worry not.
He will be issued all the ammunition he will need.

 

[confed sailor]

well damn, i wanted to pop'em with my "insert odd gun"

and no bring-backs? another soldier's right gone "pffffttt"

 

[Joe Mamma]

U.S. special forces in Afganistan and Iraq have gotten some Speer Gold Dot 200 gr +P hollow points.

Joe Mamma

 

[BluesBear]

The Hague Conference... outlaws the use of any ammo other than ball.

Yes but ONLY in an actual declared war between signators.
We didn't sign the Hague. I don't believe the Taliban signed it. And either way, war has not been declared.

We are not legally at war. We are involved in yet another one of our infamous "police actions".

So IF individual combatents, in the sandbox, were allowed to carry personal weapons (something which HAS been allowed in all of our wars and in several of our police actions) they would NOT be limited to non-expanding ammo unless war was formally declared.

And as has been pointed out there has been some issuance of expanding ammo to select troops over there.

 

[possum]

Hornaday Xtp, Remington Golden Sabers, no more or no less that is all you need! I promise!

 

[Joejojoba111]

He's right, original version specifies bullets that deform and whatnot, the version signed uses the more lenient 'geivous suffering'. So bullets that cause un-necessary grievous suffering are prohibited. But HPs are allowed.

For 1 thing you can make the case that a HP bullet will kill quicker, thus relieving suffering.

For another thing you can make the case that they can be more accurate, thus avoiding grievous suffering.

Argument #2 was accepted by JAG for sniping, (matchking iirc), so I doubt they tried to use #1 yet.

About getting caught with your own (reliable and trusted) pistol, I wouldn't have thought it very likely. But ever since US soldiers turned in half a billion$ US cash they found in the middle of the desert I've had to re-evaluate my preconceptions. F'ing snitches.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/17/iraq/main549905.shtml

 

[Dr.Rob]

'war on terror' = not a 'war'. JSOC has been issuing 'specialty ammunition' (read hollow points) for 'anti terrorist' units for years.

The rules are different, he'll get issued what he needs.

 

[Rob1035]

[Insert obligatory 'Extreme Shock' ammo joke here]