Quantcast

New Ammo For U.s. Military

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by golden, Feb 7, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. golden

    golden Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,467
    In the new issue of GUNS magazine, Massad AYOOB stated that the U.S. military was buying an EXPANDING FULL METAL JACKET round for use in AFGHANISTAN and IRAQ.

    It is called the LP FMJ or LIMITED PENETRATION FULL METAL JACKET and will be issued only for use against irregular combatants(read AL QAIDA) and others who are NOT COVERED by treaty conventions.

    It is supposed to be a development of the EFMJ (EXPANDING FULL METAL JACKET) round that is made by FEDERAL.

    I have no experience with this ammo, but it sound like it might be an improvement over the ball ammo they have been issuing.

    Jim
     
  2. legion3

    legion3 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    867
    In violation of treaties? Irregular combatants.

    What happens if they suddenly have to take on Iranian regulars or Syrian regulars do they stop, say wait till I get the correct ammo, and then resume the fight? Hoping the supply base is close by. Or carry two sets of mags filled with treaty and non-treaty ammo?

    Sounds good on paper but let the current congress find out and this plan will wobble into the sunset.

    Maybe this ammo will then find its way to us ;)
     
  3. DENALI

    DENALI member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    539
    Location:
    Northwestern Wisconsin
    My understanding was SOP were already using hollow point ammo..........
     
  4. CWL

    CWL Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    6,523
    FACT:
    The United States DID NOT sign the 1899 Hague Accord banning specific designs of bullets (hollowpoints, dumdums, etc.).

    FACT: The United States DID SIGN the 1907 Hague Agreement which banned arms, projectiles or materials "calculated to cause unnessary suffering..."
    There was no specific definition of bullet design.

    The USA can use whatever it wants.
     
  5. legion3

    legion3 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    867
    Fact : I bet congress would disagree with the "USA can use whatever it wants".

    At least if it became public ;)
     
  6. CWL

    CWL Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    6,523
    "can use" is not the same as "does use", however the USA has deployed plenty of weaponry not used by other nations such as shotguns, cluster munitions, napalm, white phosporus, air-deployed mines, aerial gun platforms, antimissle technologies etc. -Of course this is because most other countries do not have these technologies available to them.
     
  7. DENALI

    DENALI member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    539
    Location:
    Northwestern Wisconsin
    I'm positive I was told by my nephew(west coast SEAL)they were using Remmington 185gr JHP's +P in the H&K tactical pistol. Is that correct?
     
  8. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    The US government considers the ban on the use of JHP ammo to be part of the customary laws of land warfare, even if we are not party to the specific agreement that established the precendent.

    On the battlefield over in Iraq/Afghanistan? Or on certain very specifically JAG-reviewed and uncommon special operations mission sets? The answer to the question would depend heavily on which you're referring to.
     
  9. MASTEROFMALICE

    MASTEROFMALICE member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    711
    Does it bother anyone that it's O.K. to kill your enemy, as long as you do it nicely?
     
  10. USMCDK

    USMCDK Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    620
    Location:
    New England
    I for one, being in the military still, do have a problem with that. Since when if the war nice??? Since when did terrorist CARE about if they are being nice and killing you by non-suffering means???

    Answers: It has never been nice, that's why it's called WAR and they don't CARE if you suffer or die quick, actually they preffer you suffer before you die.

    I don't understand why NATO and other organizations have come up with the BS laws and regs. that state you can't do this and you can't do that, in order to kill.. I say again (KILL) your enemy.

    let me quote a line from the movie "Aliens"

    Hudson: "So what should we kill then with harsh language???"

    I will tell you this. when I was "Over There" I was told by my Sgt. "LCpl, I don't give a Damn what NATO says, if you see someone other than ICP or Iraqi Army holding/pointing a gun our way, you better blast HIM with that M2 .50cal. We will back you up in the court of law."

    So I will bring up an oldie but goodie. "Some times in order to defeat the bad guys you must think, act, and become the bad guy."

    How does everyone else feel about this??? You know Kill or be killed, survival of the fitest.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2008
  11. golden

    golden Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,467
    Iranians?

    I have not heard of a single attack by IRANIANS IN UNIFORM on western forces since the U.S. went into the middle east during DESERT SHIELD.

    If the IRANIANS get involved, they will be in plain clothes, trying to murder someone, not launching a military attack that will get them bombed night and day for a month.

    That might just topel the IRANIAN government.

    Just my opinion.

    Jim
     
  12. USMCDK

    USMCDK Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    620
    Location:
    New England
    I am not sure if you are replying to me or someone else, but... I do blieve I did say...

    Sorry if I am wrong. But I agree with you. I haven't heard of them shooting at us or anything else like that since then either.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2008
  13. jaydubya

    jaydubya Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    512
    Location:
    Sandy Eggo
    If I may, I would mention three things:

    1. The United States did not sign the Geneva Convention regarding fmj vs "dum-dums." We have just gone along with it for close to a century.

    2. None of those our troops face in combat anywhere qualify for Geneva Convention coverage.

    3. The standard 5.6mm rifle round tends to tumble while sojourning through a human body, so we don't need rifle dum-dums. (though 7.62 is better)

    As for handgun dum-dums, I think we are comfortably legal using them against our current enemies. I recommend 9 mm +p 124gr Speer Gold Dots.
    Cordially, Jack
     
  14. DENALI

    DENALI member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    539
    Location:
    Northwestern Wisconsin
    I have no idea as to mission sets or such there horsesoldier just that I was told they were using certain JHP .45 ammo.............I imagine it would of course be significant as to which circumstance is being contended with, but does it not suffice to say that they are at the least in use from time to time................
     
  15. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    I've got mixed opinions on the idea.

    On the one hand, I'm with you entirely -- if I've got a bad guy in front of me, I want to put him out of the fight -- dead, dying or incapacitated -- as fast as possible. If I can do it better with a JHP round, or EFMJ, or whatever else, then I want it.

    On the other hand, while our current enemies don't care about niceties of international law, they get their ammunition from people who do (China, Russia, various European nations . . . not to mention us, in some cases). If we toss international law out the window, various other nations will follow our lead, and so in pretty short order the bad guys will be slinging non-Hague compliant bullets right back at us. I'm not really keen on more guys coming home crippled and maimed because they got zapped with some improved bullet from China they fielded and marketed internationally in response to our improved bullet.

    Rather than EFMJ or the like, which clearly escalates things beyond the current agreed standard, I'd say a better approach would be to work on rounds that fragment better like Mk 262 if we're looking for enhanced lethality. Internationally there seems to be agreement that as long as the bullet is FMJ it's okay to have it designed to tumble or break up in tissue. Even if this definitely violates the spirit and intent of the Hague rules, most everyone (aside from a few NGOs) is happy to call it legal.

    (Note, I'm not critical of fragmenting and tumbling rounds, just pointing out that they're not technically Hague compliant. But then you could also argue that spitzer bullets are also a violation . . .)
     
  16. Shell Shucker

    Shell Shucker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    189
    The Hague restriction on expanding bullets is an outdated joke. Why is it OK to make every other killing device more effective while at the same time handicapping the man on the ground? I don't understand the mentality that says cluster bombs, napalm, advanced artillery rounds, mines, ect. are fine and humane.......... then saying that expanding bullets are "cruel and unusual" and should not be used by our troops to stop an enemy at close range, possibly saving an American soldiers life!
     
  17. Nomad101bc

    Nomad101bc Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    593
    Location:
    CT
    LOL noooo the soldiers still get hit with incindairy rounds and other unconventional ammunition. Hollow points would be an improvement; since they suck at penetrating body armor they would be a bad chioce for insurgents to use against us but good for us against them.
     
  18. Bezoar

    Bezoar member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,616
    from checking the us navy websites, their guard units carry jhp for terrorist targets, and standard fmj for military non terrorist personel. Both are carried at the same time and the magazine is switched depending on what type of fecal material hits the atmospheric aerotor.

    Sure have not seen a field manual but it sounds right judging by past military ideology in past wars.
    Its an irony isnt it, under geneva its LEGAL to devolop an antipersonal mine that poppes up and detonates at waist height blowing your crotch apart, but jhp isnt..
     
  19. CPshooter

    CPshooter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,420
    Whatever.. they probably get their hands on whatever ammo gets sent to them at whatever time they can get ahold of it. This is the real world we live in people. I doubt anyone actually regulates or gives a hoot about it when it comes down to it. I know I don't care.
     
  20. MASTEROFMALICE

    MASTEROFMALICE member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    711
    And who, may I ask, is the Medical Examiner wandering the battlefield checking to make sure the terrorists were shot appropriately?
     
  21. Onmilo

    Onmilo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,773
    Location:
    Illinois`
    Considering Police and Security forces in the US routinely issue hollowpoint ammunition and Special Operations personnel assigned to Diplomatic Security details routinely field hollowpoint ammunition I don't see where this bit of news is going to be some major brew ha-ha to anybody but the ill informed,,,,

    Oh yeah, the Us Military has not been fielding Mines in an offensive role.
    These weapons have been used strictly for the purpose of defense.
    In situations where artillery or guided missles and bombs have been utilized these weapons have been targeted at selected known groups of hostile individuals.
    These weapons have not been intentionally fielded at random for the purpose of opportunity murder of unknown, unrecognized, non-hostile individuals.

    The folks fielding specialized improvised explosive devices have not demonstrated an ability or desire to be quite as selective in their killing.
    In other words, fair's fair.
     
  22. birdbustr

    birdbustr Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    We always have to do anything above and beyond reasoning to be the good guy. You can thank the American press for that. Everyone is afraid of not killing our enemies in a "politically correct" way because there is always a camera waiting to see something that will come across as "shocking" to the bleeding heart liberals in the US. The military can be a much more effective killing machine if we could get our hands untied from our balls.
     
  23. Chipperman

    Chipperman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    4,572
    Location:
    Essex Co, MA
    Well, I think shooting the guy before he shoots you is an excellent defense. :D
     
  24. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    Military police/USAF security forces/etc routinely carry JHP ammunition in their sidearms when they are conducting regular law enforcement operations. When conducting operations on the battlefield, they're issued ball ammo to be Hague compliant.

    I always thought there was something curious about that -- it's legal, to, say, shoot a terrorist trying to get access to Ft Bragg with JHP ammo, but illegal to shoot the same guy with the same bullet if he's trying to gain access to BIAP or the Green Zone.
     
  25. MarcusWendt

    MarcusWendt Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    648
    Location:
    Ventura County, CA
    I thought the Navy Seals used the Sig P226 9MM. Have they changed to .45?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice