User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 1:12:24 PM EDT
[#1]
It has something to do with the French, if I remember correctly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 1:13:08 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: It has something to do with the French, if I remember correctly. Nope... Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 1:13:42 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: It has something to do with the French, if I remember correctly. right or wrong, it don't matter...CLOSE ENOUGH!!! lol [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 1:21:02 PM EDT
[#4]
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] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 1:38:15 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: 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] 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- |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 1:43:50 PM EDT
[#6]
-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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 2:23:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Screw the Hague Convention! Explosive fragmentation is better anyway. he he
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 2:26:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Screw the Hague Convention! Explosive fragmentation is better anyway. he he 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 2:26:50 PM EDT
[#9]
You know, we never signed either one of these documents.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 2:31:58 PM EDT
[#10]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 2:34:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: You know, we never signed either one of these documents. See my post right above ya. I clicked a second faster.... [beer] Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 2:37:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: You know, we never signed either one of these documents. See my post right above ya. I clicked a second faster.... [beer] Scott I noticed that. [beer][beer][beer] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 2:57:55 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: 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 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? [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2002 3:00:11 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: 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 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? [;)] Super cool, even. All my bandoliers of .303 are the topsy turvy Mark 7 [:D] Scott |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
