Why has the military used round-nosed bullets?

[C-grunt]

The dum-dum bullet, named for Dum-dum arsenal, in British India.
The Obama administration introduced lead free 5.56 ammo; no problem using it to kill people, but the good Lord knows we don't want to scatter lead pollution.
On that round, the American Rifleman declared it to be accurate and effective. Have heard nothing more of it since, and didn't want to do a hijack.
Moon

Talking to my boys still in and other recent vers, the M855A1 is working great.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Fancy bullet designs were never a real concern for the U.S. military. What the military wants in a bullet is:

1. Reliability.
2. Penetration.
3. Cost effective.

Weapons that don't function properly with a high degree of assurance are not weapons the military wants. Since ammunition figures highly in this concern, ammunition which has the lowest issue with reliabilty is desired.

Since warfighting involves distances and scenarios radically different than self-defense and hunting typically do, ammunition that can acheive high velocities and penetration are highly desirable. Warfighters often engage at distance, wear at least some kind of protective gear (if ony a helmet), and are trained to utilize barriers and such for protection. Bullets with a greater chance of penetrating are valued highly.

Cost effective is more than just the Dollar cost. Cost effective means not only can ammunition be bought in great quantities, but it's also easier to produce (and by a great number of sources).


It's also been a point of irony with me about the Hague convention with respect to hollowpoint ammunition. Not only it is really more of a niche ammo which detracts from the greater military concerns, its actual use could potentially free up enemy resources making the enemy logistically more formidable.

Having to deal with wounded soldiers is a huge logistic concern, much more so than dead soldiers. A battlefield full of wounded have to be dealt with. They have to be stabilized and evacuated, transported to some more secure area, and tended to medically. This incurs great risk on the personnnel who do this, requires huge expendatures in money, equipment, medical personnel, medical facilities, medicines, etc.

That's a logistical nightmare in coordination and effectiveness, to say the least. A big potential drain on the enemy's resources.

For people who would insist that hollowpoint ammunition would actually be a desired ammunition for common use on the basis of its supposed lethality on the battlefield, I would toss this out.

But since I've never actually seen anything on actual studies of of the efficacy of such ammunition on the battlefield (anecdotal stories don't count), I doubt it's really as serious an issue as people commonly make it out to be, either way.

 

[Slamfire]

For people who would insist that hollowpoint ammunition would actually be a desired ammunition for common use on the basis of its supposed lethality on the battlefield, I would toss this out.

I do remember talking to Vietnam veterans who were unhappy with the 5.56 lack of ability to go through trees. I don't know how much brush, or light trees one can be behind, and be safe from 5.56, but the 7.62 Nato penetrated brush better. And a number of those Veterans told me they never saw the VC/NVA. They knew the general origin of the incoming rounds, to a tree line, berm, etc, but not the exact location.

A hollowpoint is great on flesh, it will totally fragment on concrete, and opens up in wood.

A 20mm might not stop the fun loving martyrs driving these rolling bombs!






What do you think, just the transport for downtown Detroit?

 

[Jim Watson]

The British used that argument in 1899.

"The British delegate agreed with their technical understanding of the effects of the dumdum bullet, but argued that “there is a difference in war between civilised nations and that against savages” and that the use of dumdum bullets was justified against “the savage” who “although run through two or three times, does not cease to advance”. This was seen by other members of the Sub-Commission as being “contrary to the humanitarian spirit”. "

And 15 years later they were using gas and flammenwerfers, I am sure in a great humanitarian spirit.

The ca 1910 Mk VII .303 spitzer was hardly less wounding than a "dum dum" soft point, that showed them, by gum.