tjmga
Member
In 1966, in basic we were told the reason for FMJ is that it takes two solders to carry a wounded solder off the field. It takes no one to carry a dead solder. Also a FMJ has the potential to pass thru one man and wound a second.
I saw 40 caliber ball that was SWC flat nosed issued in the mil, but definitely not as a "standard issue" item.
…For civilian and LE use HP bullets stop threats faster and are less likely to over penetrate or ricochet making them safer to shoot around innocent bystanders...
The Wikipedia article says that the US did not sign the first Hague Convention of 1899, but signed a later one.[...] The US never ratified The Hague Convention but this was more a technicality due to our party system and political process. The government felt itself obliged to abide by it in practice, as did everyone else.
truncated cone to a round nose in the 9 mm Parabellum cartridge
Actually, I may be wrong, but I’ve seen pics of some WWI era truncated cone .45 acp. Not quite a semi wadcutter but almostI understand that the Hague convention forbids expanding bullets. [LINK] It seems the US respected this until at least 1985.
I read one time that the original reason the US military went from 38 to 45 around 1900 was that 38 wasn't stopping certain zealous attackers soon enough, so they went to a larger diameter bullet to hit harder. (without hollow points as an option) Did they not think about wadcutters or at least flat points?
What made me think of this was that two range visits ago, I shot 230 gr FMJs from my XD-45 Tactical. You know what those holes look like; they just kind of rip through the paper without much definition. We can tell where one bullet hit, but if another bullet hits nearby, it's hard to know if one or two bullets went through the hole.
This weekend, I went again, but I had flat-nosed bullets. The flat-nosed bullets worked fine and cut much nicer holes in the paper. It made me think they would also cut much nicer holes in enemies, too, and still would've complied with the Hague Convention that we were adhering to at the time. For that matter, why not wadcutters? (as we were supplying revolvers at the time)
Later, when we went to 1911, we could've used flat nosed bullets or had the design modified to feed wadcutters, like the S&W 52. Why not?
One cannot draw meaningful conclusions about wounding effectiveness from observations of holes in paper targets., I shot 230 gr FMJs from my XD-45 Tactical. You know what those holes look like; they just kind of rip through the paper without much definition. We can tell where one bullet hit, but if another bullet hits nearby, it's hard to know if one or two bullets went through the hole.
This weekend, I went again, but I had flat-nosed bullets. The flat-nosed bullets worked fine and cut much nicer holes in the paper. It made me think they would also cut much nicer holes in enemies, too, and still would've complied with the Hague Convention that we were adhering to at the time. For that matter, why not wadcutters? (as we were supplying revolvers at the time)
This is an interesting video with Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathorn on 1911 reliability,
Interestingly, they feel due to current variations in 230 gr ball .45 Auto rounds, from the original standard, they believe the 200 gr semi-wadcutter feeds better than 230 gr ball in 1911's, with I suppose, modern magazines. I'm not completely convinced, but they've shot significantly more rounds through 1911's than I have.
The semi-wadcutter does put very clean holes in
paper though.
The US never ratified The Hague Convention but this was more a technicality due to our party system and political process. The government felt itself obliged to abide by it in practice, as did everyone else.
The Wikipedia article says that the US did not sign the first Hague Convention of 1899, but signed a later one.
Good info!
Such as 357 Sig is default loaded with a flat nosed cone bullet.
World War One 9mm Luger ammo
Also probably because the common defensive round by the time .40 S&W and .357 SIG were introduced was the hollow point. The flat point bullet matches the shape of the hollow point better than a round point.So is the .40 S&W. I think it is more to squeeze a bigger cartridge into a 9mm length action than ballistics.
To expand on this, The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 each consisted of multiple treaties, provisions and declarations.
What people in this thread are referring to is Declaration (IV,3) concerning Expanding Bullets. The Hague, 29 July 1899. Anyone interested in reading the text of this declaration can find it here. This declaration was ratified by all nations present except the United States.
The United States actually did ratify 3 of the 6 provisions of the 1899 convention, but not the one forbidding expanding bullets.
The Convention of 1907 was actually called for by the United States. Of the 14 different parts, 13 were treaties between all parties and 12 of those were actually adopted. None of the various parts of the 1907 convention addressed expanding bullets.
To expand (if you'll pardon the expression) on your good summary, the Article of the Hague Convention on expanding bullets was not only not ratified by the Senate, it was not even submitted for ratification because the US negotiators (the Secretary of State or his designees) refused to sign it. In spite of this, the US agreed to comply with the ban, but in the 1990s Special Ops troops hunting terrorists began using hollow points on the grounds that the ban only applied in fights with other signatory countries, not when fighting pirates or terrorists who are not only not signatories but don't obey any laws of war. However, US compliance with ban finally ended when the military announced (in 2016? 2017?) that their new general issue sidearm, the Sig P320 aka M17, would be loaded with jacketed hollow points. Which makes sense; it was dumb that soldiers weren't allowed rounds that millions of US civilians routinely carry.
... in the 1990s Special Ops troops hunting terrorists began using hollow points on the grounds that the ban only applied in fights with other signatory countries, not when fighting pirates or terrorists who are not only not signatories but don't obey any laws of war...