Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/3/2007 3:22:16 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:23:37 PM EDT
If it kills better than ball ammo....yes Im for it....the geneva convention was written last century....a whole new battlefield in the 21st century
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:24:31 PM EDT
if it works better, use it

efficiency is key
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:24:47 PM EDT
Would've been nice when I was in.


Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:24:54 PM EDT
I think they should be allowed to use heat seaking child killers if it means they kill the fucking enemy.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:31:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2007 3:33:32 PM EDT by The_Beer_Slayer]
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:33:34 PM EDT
I'd like to see them using the best possible ammunition for the current mission. If that is HP, then by all means-- use it.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:34:47 PM EDT
Whatever works best for them to get the job done effectively.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:34:48 PM EDT
IIRC, Marines here have said said theyre using HP rounds in 5.56
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:34:53 PM EDT
Yes, expanding ammo is good for miliary use.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:36:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2007 3:36:54 PM EDT by Possum-Sandwich]
How about this: The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III: "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."

The whole intent behind that was to ban "unnecessary suffering". So, we can destroy a grid square with MLRS, use flame throwers, toe popper land mines, and other such fun things, but hollow points are a no-go? It's outmoded and dead, but it's specifically in the treaty.

At this point, the custom of warfare would probably allow hollow points. But, we'd have to pull out of the Hague treaty or sign a new one.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:36:14 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:43:20 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:47:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kylaer_:
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.


Doesn't the fact we never signed it make it null and void for any conflict/war/uprising/bar fight the United States gets involved in regardless if we follow the rules or not?

I recall something to that effect.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:48:11 PM EDT
Hence the tacticool renaming of hollow point boat tail match bullets to OTM - Open Tip Match. No hollow point, less flamesuit needed.

And tacticools love acronyms!

To me, they will always be MHPBT

Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:49:06 PM EDT
... only if the bullet cavities are packed with bacon grease.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:49:28 PM EDT
None of our enemies care about the Geneva Conventions, why should we?
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:54:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:

Doesn't the fact we never signed it make it null and void for any conflict/war/uprising/bar fight the United States gets involved in regardless if we follow the rules or not?

I recall something to that effect.


Err, yeah. If you don't sign a treaty, you're not covered by the treaty and don't have to abide by its rules. We follow it even though we didn't sign it, regardless.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:55:01 PM EDT
I think we should employ 500 megaton hollow points. That would end the conflicts faster. J/K

HPs would be a great advantage at ranges over 125m, and Ballistic Tips would also be a good choice IMO.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:55:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By UH_SALT_RIFLE:
I think they should be allowed to use heat seaking child killers if it means they kill the fucking enemy.


man after my own heart
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 3:58:26 PM EDT
What do you think 168 Sierra's are?

We use them, but they're "not designed for expansion."

Like previously mentioned, it's outdated and antiquated.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:00:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2007 4:01:01 PM EDT by Darkstar117]
The correct LOAC answer would be "Hollowpoints are not allowed", but that answer is utter bullshit.

The current enemy is not a flag country, and does not fall under the Hague Convention. Insurgents do not have the protection of the HC. So hollowpoint expanding rounds would be legal, and I would support that decision wholeheartedly.

Against the military of another country they are not allowed.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:00:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By skinnysarge79:
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...
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:05:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kylaer_:
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.


Erm might want to double check that.

Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:07:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2007 4:07:39 PM EDT by Grug]
Depleted Uranium 5.56mm rounds..
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:07:20 PM EDT
Just let them use whatever kills Hadjis best.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:07:39 PM EDT
HP ammo would probably help A LOT with the problems we've been having with the FMJ stuff we use now...
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:08:50 PM EDT
I've always wondered what the moral difference is between shooting someone with expanding ammo and blowing someone to pieces with a bomb.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:09:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silence:

Originally Posted By Kylaer_:
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.


Erm might want to double check that.



Signed, but not ratified.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:11:16 PM EDT
Abso-friggin-lutely!!!! We are not fighting a war against a nation, our enemies have no conscience, the least we can do is kill them more quickly errr humanely
For example, the 9mm pistols carried by our soldiers would be much more effective if they were using Rangers/Gold Dot etc.....
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:11:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By badfish274:
IIRC, Marines here have said said theyre using HP rounds in 5.56


I would like to see some proof of this. The only military weapons I've seen loaded with 5.56 was the M9s that our MPs carry here in the Lejeune area. The M16s at the gates are loaded FMJs.

A lot of folks seem to forget that those conventions and treaties usually only apply when fighting UNIFORMED members of another nations military. Last I checked insurgents aren't exactly uniformed members of any nations military.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:12:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kylaer_:

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:

Doesn't the fact we never signed it make it null and void for any conflict/war/uprising/bar fight the United States gets involved in regardless if we follow the rules or not?

I recall something to that effect.


Err, yeah. If you don't sign a treaty, you're not covered by the treaty and don't have to abide by its rules. We follow it even though we didn't sign it, regardless.


What I ment was, there is a provision in the treaty that states, if a non signer enters a war the treatry is non binding to the signers.

Here's the text


It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.


Even though we are playing by the rules our "allies" and enemies are under no obligation to do so.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:15:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2007 4:16:57 PM EDT by Darkstar117]

Originally Posted By jeepinbanditrider:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
IIRC, Marines here have said said theyre using HP rounds in 5.56


I would like to see some proof of this. The only military weapons I've seen loaded with 5.56 was the M9s that our MPs carry here in the Lejeune area. The M16s at the gates are loaded FMJs.

A lot of folks seem to forget that those conventions and treaties usually only apply when fighting UNIFORMED members of another nations military. Last I checked insurgents aren't exactly uniformed members of any nations military.


???

MK262, and M118LR ammo both have "Hollow points", although they are not designed to expand.


I have taken up this issue with the AF 3 times to get the LOAC training to show facts rather than the "generally accepted regulation". All three times I was told while I was "technically correct", I was still expected to follow what the training said.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:16:26 PM EDT
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..
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:17:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By type56:
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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:18:23 PM EDT
It has a purpose. OTOH so does FMJ.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:19:50 PM EDT
We can use a fucking nuclear weapon....

But we can't use hollow point bullets...

Gotta love the logic
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:20:45 PM EDT
Doesn't the hague convention ban Balloon dropped bombs? I'm pretty sure they meant any form of air dropped bomb, but planes hadn't been invented yet. Didn't it say something along those lines?
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:21:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jeepinbanditrider:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
IIRC, Marines here have said said theyre using HP rounds in 5.56


I would like to see some proof of this. The only military weapons I've seen loaded with 5.56 was the M9s that our MPs carry here in the Lejeune area. The M16s at the gates are loaded FMJs.

A lot of folks seem to forget that those conventions and treaties usually only apply when fighting UNIFORMED members of another nations military. Last I checked insurgents aren't exactly uniformed members of any nations military.


I believe it was cincinnatus that said he'd been using HP in Iraq.

I'd rather have the shit in a counter-insurgency. Less chance of over-penetration (right?) and 77gr HPBTs would be oh so fucking sweet in an SPR.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:21:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Darkstar117:

Originally Posted By type56:
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)
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:26:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By type56:

Originally Posted By Darkstar117:

Originally Posted By type56:
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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:26:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2007 4:27:33 PM EDT by freerider04]
USCG shoots Ranger JHP's out of our Sig 229's for LE missions.

If we are involved in any DOD mission, we have to use Ball.

But that doesn't matter since a handful of units still have M9's, mine included. We have to shoot up a few million rounds of A363 before we get Sigs.....or so I've heard.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:35:29 PM EDT
Here's the archived thread about the USMC using JHP.

archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=575084
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:36:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lougorilla:

Originally Posted By skinnysarge79:
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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:38:47 PM EDT
Why would anyone here be against it??
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:59:24 PM EDT
Some of our SOF use hollowpoint ammunition in their pistols quite frequently.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 5:06:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LVMIKE:
I'd like to see them using the best possible ammunition for the current mission. If that is HP, then by all means-- use it.



Exactly.

5sub
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 5:08:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2007 5:08:52 PM EDT by TNROBOCOP]

Originally Posted By Darkstar117:

Originally Posted By type56:

Originally Posted By Darkstar117:

Originally Posted By type56:
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.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 5:08:17 PM EDT
War is Hell. Use everything in your arsenal to effectively destroy the enemy(with out starting a full fledged nuclear war of course)
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 5:10:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2007 5:15:32 PM EDT by Bob1984]
Ideally, soldiers would have JHP's in their pistols and FMJ in their rifles. In a military setting, the penetrative ability of rifle fire is very important, justifying the use of FMJ. If you need to shoot through something, you are probably going to be using a rifle or a machine gun to do it with.

If a soldier is using a pistol in a fight, it means that something has gone very wrong. He's going to need every edge he can possibly get. A lethal wound with JHP would be just as lethal if it were made with FMJ. It is the incapacitation time that is key. JHP's typically incapacitate targets faster. In simple terms, JHP's can stop a threat quicker. This is exactly what is needed in a pistol self-defense situation.

In my opinion, JHP's and JSP's would make the most sense for MP, SOF and other units who do CQB-type activities as part of their normal duties. I would imagine that designated marksmen and the like would be able to benefit from the use of JSP hunting loads. Those are the people who are most likely going to need the advantages offered by expanding bullets.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 7:19:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WinterBorn:

Originally Posted By lougorilla:

Originally Posted By skinnysarge79:
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?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top