U.S. Army Switching to Hollow Point Ammunition

[4thPointOfContact]

I'm fairly sure the groups we're fighting against in the Middle East aren't signatories to the Coventions, so why aren't they using them now?

 

[AKElroy]

I don't guess anyone has stopped to think why the US military doesn't use a lot HP ammo. It's not because they can't, it's because they would rather use armor piercing rounds for most combat situations. LE agencies and military police use HP because their targets generally aren't wearing body armor and they limit collateral damage to bystanders.

Pretty simple really.

Maybe I'm cynical to a fault, but this administration would only agree to this change if this somehow disadvantaged legal civilian gun owners, (supply and price, maybe?) and also somehow made our military less effective. (Yep, I said it). Can someone cite any decision in the last 7 years that has improved combat readiness? Much less any administration decision that has helped gun owners?

Nope, this one has to hurt both somehow or these folks woudn't be doing it.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

I don't guess anyone has stopped to think why the US military doesn't use a lot HP ammo. It's not because they can't, it's because they would rather use armor piercing rounds for most combat situations. LE agencies and military police use HP because their targets generally aren't wearing body armor and they limit collateral damage to bystanders.

Pretty simple really.

That might be true for long gun ammo, but pistol ammo?

 

[herrwalther]

A Law Enforcement officer on the street of any city in America is far more likely to encounter body armor than a soldier fighting your traditional guerrilla fighter in Iraq or Afghanistan. So calling our current ammo armor piercing is a pretty moot point. Where HP rounds would shine is Afghans and Iraqis are very thin, not large like their American counterparts loaded up with fast food.

I am willing to bet the military has stuck with FMJ ammo this long for logistical reasons than whether or not we play by the rules based off international treaty. When NATO was the big kid on the block, everyone wanted to standardize rounds. This is why ammo is called 9mm NATO and 5.56 NATO. The French could use our stuff, ours theirs etc it just simplified logistics in a SHTF (military wise) situation. Never really happened. NATO lost some pull and the member countries started getting off the NATO standard of ammo. Our move to HP and possible a different caliber is our own version of that.

 

[Aragon]

A Law Enforcement officer on the street of any city in America is far more likely to encounter body armor than a soldier fighting your traditional guerrilla fighter in Iraq or Afghanistan. So calling our current ammo armor piercing is a pretty moot point. Where HP rounds would shine is Afghans and Iraqis are very thin, not large like their American counterparts loaded up with fast food...

Not a matter of "fast food." It's a matter of having adequate protein throughout one's growing years.

 

[Jim Watson]

The Army is planning to lay off 40,000 troops and 17,000 civil service.
If Budget Sequestration kicks in again - as our free spending leaders pretty much guarantee - they would have to lay off another 30,000 over the next three years.

They can't afford to change ammo, much less guns.
They shouldn't have to pay the wonks and REMFs who do the studies, either.

 

[45_auto]

They can't afford to change ammo, much less guns.

That's like saying you can't afford to buy ammo to go shooting because your cable TV bill is $300 per month.

They could easily afford it, it's just a question of priority on where the budget is spent.

 

[TimSr]

Maybe I'm cynical to a fault, but this administration would only agree to this change if this somehow disadvantaged legal civilian gun owners, (supply and price, maybe?) and also somehow made our military less effective. (Yep, I said it). Can someone cite any decision in the last 7 years that has improved combat readiness? Much less any administration decision that has helped gun owners?

Nope, this one has to hurt both somehow or these folks woudn't be doing it.

Sad to say I have no argument or evidence that would rebut your speculation.

 

[JustinJ]

Justin,
imagine the use of 7.62 soft point hunting ammo in the battlefield. My ignorant mind says that it would be significantly more lethal than the thru-and-thru of the big FMJ, and more lethal than a 5.56 hollow point.
As far as armor penetration goes, I don't think it makes a difference considering the plates worn in combat are supposed to stop a 7.62 FMJ anyway. (again taking a wild guess)

Agreed. The US military would probably gain more advantage if both sides started using HP since most enemies we currently fight lack body armor and the 5.56 round would probably see a greater increase in effectiveness than 7.62 would going to HP. But, at the end of the day i'm skeptical that going to 5.56 would really be much of a deciding factor in outcomes of military endeavors. If not, is exposing soldiers to more egregious wounds seems hard to justify.

In the event of a conflict with a sophisticated, state sponsored army, like that of China or Russia, HP might become more of a liability as well if the enemy soldiers also wear body armor and use 22 caliber projectiles.

 

[22-rimfire]

That's like saying you can't afford to buy ammo to go shooting because your cable TV bill is $300 per month.

They could easily afford it, it's just a question of priority on where the budget is spent.

This is true for most. But many people feel "cable" is necessary and other expenditures bend around it just like a telephone. The problem with priorities in government is deciding when the priority exists. I think with the world the way it is now, we don't have time to train 10 divisions of men before reacting to a crisis. It shows in Iraq. No time. We're just getting weaker..... ISIS will win.

 

[herkyguy]

Too bad Jihawg Defensive Ammunition closed its doors......

 

[CoalTrain49]

That might be true for long gun ammo, but pistol ammo?

I'm not sure if there us such a thing as armor piercing pistol ammo.

I could be wrong.

 

[Jim Watson]

Yes.

 

[cheygriz]

The army has developed a 62 grain hollowpoint that retains the steel penetrator of M855 ball.

Whether or not it will ever be "general issue" is anybody's guess, but it is available.

9MM JHP is already being used by some SpecOps operators in clandestine missions.

IMHO, general issue of both is probable eventually

 

[CoalTrain49]

Yes.

Is that the stuff that shoots through houses, refrigerators, cars and the people inside them?

 

[4v50 Gary]

If it's not used in war against other nations, no Geneva Convention violation.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

I'm not sure if there us such a thing as armor piercing pistol ammo.

I could be wrong.

I might be wrong about this but I thought the 5.7 was supposed to be an armor defeating pistol ammo?

 

[cheygriz]

The 5.7 will defeat SOFT body armor. But not military plate carriers.

 

[Drail]

So how many people think that hollow point ammo might cause problems in full auto weapons? Would you run HP ammo in your full auto weapon? Just curious. Maybe we are only discussing handgun ammo here - I am not sure. I am still of the opinion that our military's use of ball ammo is totally based on feed reliability and not wounding potential.

 

[Aragon]

If it's not used in war against other nations, no Geneva Convention violation.

The "Geneva Convention" deals with imprisonment and not combat during a time of war.