kcub,
Assuming these are legitimate questions instead of trolling....
How do we define "fragment" and how do we define "military ball loadings"?
1, Fragment, during tissue interaction when the heavier base attempts to flip forward (as all spritzer rounds do in soft tissue) the bullet will split, generally along the cannelure. In the case of M855A1, along the seam between the penetrator and rear slug. All spritzer bullets will try to flip in tissue, and the fragmentation happens when lateral shear forces overcome the jacket.
2, Hague convention compliant by legal review from relevant national defense ministry. Hence why Russian 5.54mm projectiles with steel core and air gap are compliant ball ammunition.
Does fragment mean fragment or splitting in two along the cannelure?
Fragmentation starts with splitting in two along the cannelure, it is a non-intentional failure of jacket integrity. It continues with the pealing back of the jacket, and possible disintegration of a lead core should it meet bone.
Is military ball loadings just fmj or whatever the legal department has defined to be ok such as having an open tip match or metal penetrating tip design such that it wasn't manufactured to be a "hollow point/dum-dum" expansion intended round per se or at least have plausible deniability in a castrated UN hearing. There's no such thing as war crimes trials against the prevailing party.
You can look up the ICRC opinions if you like, but the legal standard is that the bullet must not be designed to
intentionally expand. It can be designed for accuracy, designed for penetration through body armor, but not designed to expand in flesh.
And what does fragment mean in the context of these newer designs?
Since these aren't explosive shells the point of the design for the M855A1 and Mk318 is to be "barrier blind." The deformable head on the Mk318 was shown to produce wound channels similar to existing ball ammunition. The on again/off again relationship between HBPT match bullets and military usage has come down on the side of "use" because the bullets aren't designed to expand.
Although I have seen a legal review of a 115gr 6.8 OTM projectile that was bisected in order to show the internal lead slug had a forward facing central cavity and was denied legal review because such a cavity will act as a hollow point in liquid tissue.
The ICRC has been campaigning to get the Raufoss 50 cal round declared illegal for use against human beings because it is possible for the round to explode due to impact with a human body. So far this argument has not gained any traction simply because 1, detonation isn't a certainty and 2, getting hit by any 50 cal is probably going to kill you even if it doesn't detonate so the "grievous wounds" argument doesn't really apply.
So there are plenty of arguments on either side for what causes something to be compliant with international norms for the Law of Land warfare.
Jimro