Military use of hollopoints. For or against it? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Military use of hollopoints. For or against it? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 12/3/2007 7:40:48 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Think of all of that Russian surplus that's being shot at American troops in Iraq. If we hadn't stuck to FMJ throughout the Cold War, the other side wouldn't have either.

Just a thought.

Would our boys rather be shot at with FMJ or Hollowpoints? If it were me, I'd say hollowpoints because of the armor that our troops are currently sporting. But then again, a good leg shot with an HP is not as nice as an in and out shot

, but I'd say there's less likelihood of any sort of penetration of light armor with HP's. It would be a tradoff.

War is so fucked up. Why do we make it even more compicated by making rules about it?!

Of course, there are very important international treaties that ban the use of torture which I believe are very necessary. That's about the only thing I see eye to eye with that McCain feller...

I'm sure the enemy abides by them every time they have our guys?

Wait, you mean they don't?!?!

You mean that in terms of the Geneva conventions, the NAZIs were the best behaved enemies we've fought since they were written?

If it'll serve a valid purpose, I'm all for any means necessary used on EPWs. Maybe if they started treating our prisoners like human beings (or stopped committing other war crimes) I'd feel differently. But the situation is as it is.

Torturing soldiers is wrong. And illegal. Torturing these RIF barbarians is neither.

Torturing insurgents is bad press. Remember how bad the Abu Ghraib scandal was to our image around world? Whether you agree or disagree, you have to admit that the ramifications go far beyond the walls of the prison facility they are conducting their "interrogations". Also, recognizing torture as a valid tool in our toolbox is further demonizing our nation to the insurgency and giving them fodder for propaganda, which further swells their ranks with eager young men looking to appease the will of Allah.

If we torture captured insurgents, and word gets out, a retaliation against ground forces will be probable. Israel has been through this a lot. They capture enemy soldiers, Hezbollah captures some of theirs. It's a copycat game. If we torture their fighters, they will do worse to ours on a wider scale.

It's best to take the high road, even if your enemy does not. If we stoop to their tactics, then how can we say we are any better than them?

[red dawn] BECAUSE WE LIVE HERE![/red dawn]

Honestly, we didn't start this war. We weren't the first to abuse prisoners. Given that being captured by terrorists WILL result in torture and death for American personnel, I fail to see why we should worry about "retaliation".

For us to torture and execute captured terrorists wouldn't be escalation, it would be reciprocity. Such a move would be acceptable under the applicable treaties the US has signed on and ratified (Cliff's notes: No uniform, No country OR Disrespect for the laws of war= NO protections under said laws of war... its a "any of the above" and the terrs are generally 3 for 3). This would definitely fall outside of the perception of the laws in common use, but it would be legal in terms of the letter of the law.

How much more demonized can we get than the "Great Satan" anyway? Can we be the superduperultraSatan or would that just sound stupid?

If we aren't going to be loved, we might as well be feared Someone wrote that "maybe what it takes is for the consequences of terrorism to be so brutal that Islamic parents beat the shit out of little Achmed the first time he says "Allahu Akbar" a little too enthusiastically"

Why not, it's worth a shot.

Posted: 12/3/2007 7:45:11 PM EDT

[#2]

dude no way. hollowpoints are evil. when we shoot someone we dont REALLY want to kill them. thats whay we use bullets that are less lethal.

seriously though I assume the penetration of the FMJ is worth loosing the expansion of the HP, in the military.

Posted: 12/3/2007 7:52:32 PM EDT

[#3]

I just wish they would design s better shaped FMJ. Something like a SWC would give better results.

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:09:54 PM EDT

[#4]

Whatever has the best terminal ballistics be it some HP or some heavier ball ammo.

The ban on HP ammo is outdated.

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:19:50 PM EDT

[#5]

If you can make .50 hole in someone with a solid 700gr 50 cal round, then you should be able to make a ~.40 hole in the same someone with an expanding .224 projectile.

ETA: I think it's stupid that as an LEO, I can shoot an American Citizen with a hollowpoint round in self defense, but a member of our military can't shoot an enemy soldier or combatant, or terrorist with one.

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:22:47 PM EDT

[#6]

I voted it hurts more, however there is a thing called the Geneva Convention, that if we don't follow by the letter, alot of people are not going to be happy.

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:23:32 PM EDT

[#7]

Without going into the suitability of one type of ammo over another, I'll just say this:

Our soldiers should be supplied with whatever they need to win the war.

If hollowpoints are necessary (or would improve their odds) for a particular mission's success, then by all means, they should have them. Same goes for ball, tracer, etc.

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:26:04 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Do you think our armed forces should use hollowpoint ammunition or not?

Most people think that it is forbidden under international law, and they will reference the geneva convention, but I wonder if many people really know what the "law" or treaty is and can they give a specific reference that bans its use?

Would it even be beneficial for our armed forces to be using hollowpoint ammunition in their current battlefield setting, or are they better suited with their FMJ ammo?

Here's an interesting article I read about it. What are your thoughts?

www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

1) The treaty being referenced bans any weapon or ammunition 'designed or re-designed to cause un-neccicary suffering'.

We did not sign it, but we observe it anyway because it is now 'customary'

2) JHP ammo is good when engaging soft targets, but sucks for penetration and antivehicle use... So if you're going to load one round to do it all, a FMJ variant is the one to use...

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:26:25 PM EDT

[#9]

i think they should use whatever works best
personally i would prefer fmj for rifle for penetration issues, but i would prefer jhp for pistol

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:28:24 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
None of our enemies care about the Geneva Conventions, why should we?

Because it helps us win the war...

If we fought like the enemy, the locals would be killing us like the enemy....

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:29:00 PM EDT

[#11]

Ballistic tips or bonded bullets

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:29:45 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I voted it hurts more, however there is a thing called the Geneva Convention, that if we don't follow by the letter, alot of people are not going to be happy.

Don't you mean the Hague convention (when refering to expanding projectiles)?

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:30:21 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Think of all of that Russian surplus that's being shot at American troops in Iraq. If we hadn't stuck to FMJ throughout the Cold War, the other side wouldn't have either.

Just a thought.

Would our boys rather be shot at with FMJ or Hollowpoints? If it were me, I'd say hollowpoints because of the armor that our troops are currently sporting. But then again, a good leg shot with an HP is not as nice as an in and out shot

, but I'd say there's less likelihood of any sort of penetration of light armor with HP's. It would be a tradoff.

War is so fucked up. Why do we make it even more compicated by making rules about it?!

Of course, there are very important international treaties that ban the use of torture which I believe are very necessary. That's about the only thing I see eye to eye with that McCain feller...

I'm sure the enemy abides by them every time they have our guys?

Wait, you mean they don't?!?!

You mean that in terms of the Geneva conventions, the NAZIs were the best behaved enemies we've fought since they were written?

If it'll serve a valid purpose, I'm all for any means necessary used on EPWs. Maybe if they started treating our prisoners like human beings (or stopped committing other war crimes) I'd feel differently. But the situation is as it is.

Torturing soldiers is wrong. And illegal. Torturing these RIF barbarians is neither.

Torturing insurgents is bad press. Remember how bad the Abu Ghraib scandal was to our image around world? Whether you agree or disagree, you have to admit that the ramifications go far beyond the walls of the prison facility they are conducting their "interrogations". Also, recognizing torture as a valid tool in our toolbox is further demonizing our nation to the insurgency and giving them fodder for propaganda, which further swells their ranks with eager young men looking to appease the will of Allah.

If we torture captured insurgents, and word gets out, a retaliation against ground forces will be probable. Israel has been through this a lot. They capture enemy soldiers, Hezbollah captures some of theirs. It's a copycat game. If we torture their fighters, they will do worse to ours on a wider scale.

It's best to take the high road, even if your enemy does not. If we stoop to their tactics, then how can we say we are any better than them?

[red dawn] BECAUSE WE LIVE HERE![/red dawn]

Honestly, we didn't start this war. We weren't the first to abuse prisoners. Given that being captured by terrorists WILL result in torture and death for American personnel, I fail to see why we should worry about "retaliation".

For us to torture and execute captured terrorists wouldn't be escalation, it would be reciprocity. Such a move would be acceptable under the applicable treaties the US has signed on and ratified (Cliff's notes: No uniform, No country OR Disrespect for the laws of war= NO protections under said laws of war... its a "any of the above" and the terrs are generally 3 for 3). This would definitely fall outside of the perception of the laws in common use, but it would be legal in terms of the letter of the law.

How much more demonized can we get than the "Great Satan" anyway? Can we be the superduperultraSatan or would that just sound stupid?

If we aren't going to be loved, we might as well be feared Someone wrote that "maybe what it takes is for the consequences of terrorism to be so brutal that Islamic parents beat the shit out of little Achmed the first time he says "Allahu Akbar" a little too enthusiastically"

Why not, it's worth a shot.

Because it would cause us to LOSE the war...

Because Al Queda's tactics - the same ones you advocate - are causing THEM to lose the war...

Inciting a civillian revolt against your own troops is NOT how you win a COIN campaign...

Inciting a civillian revolt against the evil brutal mean enemy troops IS how you win a COIN campaign....

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:31:02 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
None of our enemies care about the Geneva Conventions, why should we?

Because it helps us win the war...

If we fought like the enemy, the locals would be killing us like the enemy....

Plus the USA is center stage of the world on just about everything. If we screw up on something everyone knows it, and will criticize.

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:31:51 PM EDT

[#15]

LOL!!! Rules in WAR

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:32:12 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I voted it hurts more, however there is a thing called the Geneva Convention, that if we don't follow by the letter, alot of people are not going to be happy.

Don't you mean the Hague convention (when refering to expanding projectiles)?

I don't know, I've always thought it was the Geneva.

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:49:18 PM EDT

[#17]

I work with a Marine who was in the 3/1 as a weapons platoon squad leader in Fallujah. We were talking tonight about what they were using and he said when clearing houses they were using jacketed soft points in civilian wrappers. He is not one to brag or embellish stories but I have no first hand knowledge.

He said his combat loadout when working in Fallujah was 4 mags of JSP and 8 mags of m193.

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:51:36 PM EDT

[#18]

HP has issues with barriers before flesh , screws up the performance, as i have read..

I like the +P FMJ 9mm ,, almost 450lbs ME ..

If it were up to me the troops would have penetrator pistol rounds of some kind, better yet exploding 45s..

The Tokarev 7.62x25 has good penetration, in a polymer long frame it would be interesting..

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:52:12 PM EDT

[#19]

Whatever puts them down for good.

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:54:42 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
if it works better, use it

efficiency is key

that sums it up pretty well. i don't know if hp would be more effective or not for the battles we are likely to fight, but if it is we should use it.

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:58:25 PM EDT

[#21]

Not so much HP's and expanding pistol rounds. Like those Winschesters that flatten out

Posted: 12/3/2007 9:59:30 PM EDT

[#22]

I said no, but only because I would think the targets they would be up against would be more likely to be lightly armored.

But if they think JHP would be better for some use, more power to them. It is perfectly suitable for a police force I think.

Posted: 12/4/2007 8:18:50 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I was informed that Airforce ravens use hollow points in thier M9's. Dont know how true it is,but one of those thing that ya hear. Maybe a zoomie can verify this..

No, they get issued M882 and M855 like the rest of us.

They fire 5.56 out of a M9????(M9 is the 9mm beretta)

M855 out of the M16A2 or the M4

M882 out of the M9

They get the same ammunition as the rest of us.

Wrong answer. We carry hollowpoints in our M9's for stateside SF duty. Not sure if the Ravens carry it on overseas missions. I am not a raven, but am Security Forces in CATM. And Air Guard at that. Can't remember who makes it though but I can find out.

That's funny because every base I have been to the SPs have always carried M882 in the M9s.

Posted: 12/4/2007 8:59:15 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
The U.S. never signed the Hague Convention. We just follow it out of nicety. We could start using hollowpoints tomorrow and all that would change would be the requisition forms and whatnot.

Very good!

Posted: 12/4/2007 9:01:17 AM EDT

[#25]

silver HP bullets with cyanide and garlic in the HP cavity if it gives our .mil an advantage

Posted: 12/4/2007 9:38:15 AM EDT

[#26]