Army switching to hollow point ammo!

I thought hollow points were not allowed according to the Geneva Convention, maybe I am wrong ?
 
I know wikipedia is not always spot on so if someone knows otherwise let us know, but I found this.

It refers to international warfare, but then where else has the US army operated in recent decades?
 
rebs said:
I thought hollow points were not allowed according to the Geneva Convention, maybe I am wrong ?
Click to expand...
Geneva Convention is for treatment of prisoners (generally), warfare is covered by the Hague conventions

Pond said:
Isn't that contradictory to the Hague convention?
Click to expand...
No. Short version; the Geneva and Hague conventions only apply between signatories of the conventions. The US did not ratify all points of either convention but has abided by them in dealings with all signatories (and so far, non-signatories).

But, both Geneva and Hague are contracts, while you and your neighbor may have 'mutual assistance agreements' to watch each other's houses and pick up mail when the other is on vacation, or even free babysitting, that doesn't mean that the Joneses from three counties over over can claim you owe them babysitting duties as well.
 
This article may be a little more informative:

The Army is considering the use of fragmenting ammunition, such as hollow point bullets, to increase its next-generation handgun's ability to stop an enemy....
 
The Hague conventions are actually binding only on the signatories (European countries); the U.S. never signed, though it declared that it would abide by them. Also, the ban covers only military use. Since many of our enemies (Al Qaeda, ISIS) are not the armies of recognized nations, they are considered simply bandits or armed criminals and do not warrant the protection of any of those international treaties.

Jim
 
I always thought it somewhat amusing that folks argued against hollow point bullets, but artilery shells that send out fragments whipsawing around to take a man's head off was O.K. Also Napalm and white phosphorus, nasty stuff.

Bob Wright
 
The Hague business was a bit silly anyhow. The only reason they agreed on the lead bullet ban was to embarrass the Brits who had been using the hollow point bullets (originally called "dum-dum" bullets) in India. They could not have gotten it through earlier, but the new high velocity rifles required jacketed bullets to hold the rifling, and a full jacket for better feeding, so no one was giving up anything they weren't going to eliminate anyway. Plus, they got a lot of brownie points with the "peace activists" who were just as foolish and naive then as they are today.

Jim
 
Guys, you're wrong.

There have been multiple Hague conventions and accords.

The one that deals with regulations for warfare on land, including use of expanding bullets, was Hague 1907, part IV, which was a continuation of work started at the convention of 1899.

(http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp)

The Hague Convention of 1907 was kicked off at the suggestion of Teddy Roosevelt.

Saying that the United States never signed on to it is INCORRECT.

The United States signed the accord on October 18, 1907, it was ratified by the United States Senate on November 27, 1909, and became binding and enforceable on January 26, 1910.

https://verdragenbank.overheid.nl/en/Verdrag/Details/003319


So the United States IS bound by international treaty on the use of small arms projectiles.
 
We should use whatever round works best. Crybabies can lodge a complaint at the Whine department. When we are the ones saving nations from the nazis or republican guard, who will complain? We could always just fire a maverick at the bad guys instead of shooting them with a JHP if that makes them feel better.


We have JHP ammo in use guys. Don't get wrapped up with what was relayed to you in boot or at the gun counter (or saw in the movies). The are several dead terorists with HST's lodged in theor abdomen. You got stuck with FMJ because it's cheap and it's in the system already. The guys who actually use and train with pistols get what works.
 
Last edited:
Also, the ban covers only military use. Since many of our enemies (Al Qaeda, ISIS) are not the armies of recognized nations, they are considered simply bandits or armed criminals and do not warrant the protection of any of those international treaties.
Click to expand...

Bingo, we are fighting a force that doesn't play by anyones rules but their own, therefore we should be able to do the same.
 
Mike Irwin said:
The United States signed the accord on October 18, 1907, it was ratified by the United States Senate on November 27, 1909, and became binding and enforceable on January 26, 1910.

https://verdragenbank.overheid.nl/en...Details/003319

So the United States IS bound by international treaty on the use of small arms projectiles.
Click to expand...
Point of order; We are bound by international treaty on the use of small arms projectiles when in conflict with signatories of the same treaty.
From the same document linked to above re: treaty 003319
The Government of the United States of America does not believe the "State of Palestine" qualifies as a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such. Accession to the Convention is limited to sovereign States. Therefore, the Government of the United States of America believes that the "State of Palestine" is not qualified to accede to the Convention and affirms that it will not consider itself to be in a treaty relationship with the "State of Palestine" under the Convention.
Click to expand...
 
micromontenegro,

See my post. The United States signed and adopted the 1907 continuation of the 1899 protocol.

The 1907 document expanded upon and clarified what had been done in 1899.

It doesn't matter if the United States did or did not adopt the 1899 version, we DID adopt the 1907 version.




"We are bound by international treaty on the use of small arms projectiles when in conflict with signatories of the same treaty.
From the same document linked to above re: treaty 003319"

When we got to war with Palestine, we can worry about that then.
 
Mike, thanks for some very informative links.

So the USA has signed and ratified, but that only applies (in law) when at war with the official army of any other country which has signed. Rebels and other revoltin' types certainly haven't signed.

Never minding the question of whether an Iranian signature in 1907 really applies to an country calling itself The Islamic Republic of Iran, or a Chinese signature in 1917 really applies to the The People's Republic of China, let's look at who has never signed:

Iraq, Korea (of either flavor), Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Yemen

It would be a lawyer's nightmare to try to keep the right ammo out of the wrong war :eek: I really wonder how they plan to keep violations of this convention from happening, should Venezuela "put its guns where its mouth is" and declare war on the Yankee Devil, for example.

Bart Noir
Who is actually not worried about micromontenegro or Venezuela going to war with USA. He was striving for an example which made its point by being ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top