GunLvrNLearner
Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 539
Why does the U.S. armed forces not use JHP in their 9mm?
Is it because of the Geneva Convention?
All info appreciated
Is it because of the Geneva Convention?
All info appreciated
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.Exactly who have we fought lately that adheres to conventions, treaties, etc?
This keeps coming up and I keep saying the same damn thing. Yes the US did sign and ratify BOTH Hague conventions.One note-the USA did not sign the Hague convention, we merely follow it.
Also, FMJ does offer better penetration, and enhanced reliability.
We stoped fighting the Iraqi armed forces 6 years ago, so the Hague convention dosn't matter there.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.
And, of course, we use FMJ anyway
No, not really.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".
Also, FMJ does offer better penetration, and enhanced reliability.
Yeah, not a lot of body armour in use in 1899.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.
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.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.