Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 6/9/2002 1:09:33 PM EDT
Since some people felt my last trivia question was mean and sneaky, cause it was a trick question: Why do we use the slang term "dum-dum bullet" to refer to most any non-FMJ expanding round? Scott
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 1:12:24 PM EDT
It has something to do with the French, if I remember correctly.
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 1:13:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar10er: It has something to do with the French, if I remember correctly.
View Quote
Nope... Scott
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 1:13:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar10er: It has something to do with the French, if I remember correctly.
View Quote
right or wrong, it don't matter...CLOSE ENOUGH!!! lol [:)]
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 1:21:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/9/2002 1:28:08 PM EDT by AR-15gal]
The dum-dum bullet was a full metal jacketed .303 bullet, changed to one having a small amount of lead core exposed at the tip, creating in effect a soft-nosed bullet which expands in flesh. It was first created in Dum-Dum arsenal in India, hence the name. It was the Hague Convention which, among other things, specifically bound nations at war to refrain from using bullets which would “expand or flatten easily in the human body...” and which was specifically aimed at soft or hollow nosed bullets. [blue][i]Do I win a prize?[/i][/blue] [:)] [i]Edited because I mistakenly credited the Geneva Convention with banning these bullets. On further research, I found that it was, in fact, the Hague Convention in 1899.[/i]
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 1:38:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR-15gal: The dum-dum bullet was a full metal jacketed .303 bullet, changed to one having a small amount of lead core exposed at the tip, creating in effect a soft-nosed bullet which expands in flesh. It was first created in Dum-Dum arsenal in India, hence the name. It was the Hague Convention which, among other things, specifically bound nations at war to refrain from using bullets which would “expand or flatten easily in the human body...” and which was specifically aimed at soft or hollow nosed bullets. [blue][i]Do I win a prize?[/i][/blue] [:)] [i]Edited because I mistakenly credited the Geneva Convention with banning these bullets. On further research, I found that it was, in fact, the Hague Convention in 1899.[/i]
View Quote
Quite right. And don't worry the reference book I have on .303 ammo also incorrectly blames the Geneva Convention of 1899, instead of the Hague Accords.... From "Identification Manual on the .303 British Service Cartridge- Number One: Ball Ammunition" by B.A. Temple (ISBN # 0 9596677 2 5, B.A. Temple 392 Prout Road Burbank 4123 Australia): Cartridge, S.A. Ball. .303-inch, Mark II*. Solid case, all .303-inch SA and MG's. Introduced: Circa 1896-7 Approved: Circa 1896 Obsolete: Circa 1900 Bullet: Description: RNSP with C-N envelope containing a lead core. There is a cannelure near the base. Crimping: 3 indents in case neck into bullet cannelure, and case mouth coned onto bullet. Weight: 215 grains. Charge: 31 grains cordite size 3 3/4. -CONTINUED-
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 1:43:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/9/2002 1:44:30 PM EDT by DScottHewitt]
-CONTINUED- Remarks: The only difference between this pattern and the standard Mark II cordite ball was it bullet, which was a special expanding design from the Dum Dum Arsenal in India. This bullet was known as the "DUM DUM", and the cartridge commonly was called the "DUM DUM MARK II SPECIAL". It was produced in response to complaints that the standard Mark II bullet was ineffective against insurgents in the North West Frontier sone of India. This form of bullet was banned from warfare by the Geneva Convention in 1899 (COMMENT: See above posts), so cartridges of the type were withdrawn from service, and probably used up in target shooting. Scott
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 2:23:59 PM EDT
Screw the Hague Convention! Explosive fragmentation is better anyway. he he
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 2:26:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: Screw the Hague Convention! Explosive fragmentation is better anyway. he he
View Quote
Actually, the United States never signed the Hague Accords. We are the only nation who can legally use non-FMJ first in a conflict. Once the United States enters a conflict, and uses said ammo, the Hague Accords are suspended for the duration of that conflict... Scott
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 2:26:50 PM EDT
You know, we never signed either one of these documents.
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 2:31:58 PM EDT
The British had other similar rounds approved for the Lee-Enfield in the same time period. Mark III had a hollow point, with parallel sides. A metal cup three milimeters long was seated in the cavity, to help expansion. The cup was inserted base up.... Mark IV had a hole 2.5 milimeters in diameter and 9 milimeters deep.... Mark V was like Mark IV, but used a 98% lead/2% antimony core, for less likelyhood of projectile disintergration in the air... Scott
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 2:34:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar10er: You know, we never signed either one of these documents.
View Quote
See my post right above ya. I clicked a second faster.... [beer] Scott
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 2:37:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt:
Originally Posted By ar10er: You know, we never signed either one of these documents.
View Quote
See my post right above ya. I clicked a second faster.... [beer] Scott I noticed that. [beer][beer][beer]
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 2:57:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: The British had other similar rounds approved for the Lee-Enfield in the same time period. Mark III had a hollow point, with parallel sides. A metal cup three milimeters long was seated in the cavity, to help expansion. The cup was inserted base up.... Mark IV had a hole 2.5 milimeters in diameter and 9 milimeters deep.... Mark V was like Mark IV, but used a 98% lead/2% antimony core, for less likelyhood of projectile disintergration in the air... Scott
View Quote
Ah....but they withdrew all hollow points due to political pressure, and went back to the drawing board. It wasn't until the Mark 7 that they actually had something. It had an aluminum tip under the point, one third the length of the bullet. The additional length and lighter weight enhanced the long range performance. This also shifted the center of gravity to the rear, which made it tumble on impact. With this bullet, they got the same (actually better) results as the dum-dum, and they were still following the letter of the law with the full metal jacket. Cool huh? [;)]
Link Posted: 6/9/2002 3:00:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR-15gal:
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: The British had other similar rounds approved for the Lee-Enfield in the same time period. Mark III had a hollow point, with parallel sides. A metal cup three milimeters long was seated in the cavity, to help expansion. The cup was inserted base up.... Mark IV had a hole 2.5 milimeters in diameter and 9 milimeters deep.... Mark V was like Mark IV, but used a 98% lead/2% antimony core, for less likelyhood of projectile disintergration in the air... Scott
View Quote
Ah....but they withdrew all hollow points due to political pressure, and went back to the drawing board. It wasn't until the Mark 7 that they actually had something. It had an aluminum tip under the point, one third the length of the bullet. The additional length and lighter weight enhanced the long range performance. This also shifted the center of gravity to the rear, which made it tumble on impact. With this bullet, they got the same (actually better) results as the dum-dum, and they were still following the letter of the law with the full metal jacket. Cool huh? [;)]
View Quote
Super cool, even. All my bandoliers of .303 are the topsy turvy Mark 7 [:D] Scott
Top Top