Army switching to hollow point ammo!

Article 23 of the Hague states:
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden-To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
Click to expand...

I don't think this pertains to hollow point bullets.
 
Sources tell TTAG that the United States Army is switching from ball to hollow-point ammunition for its next generation handgun.
Click to expand...

Ah, sources. What sources? They don't name any.

Oh, and the Army's replacing the M9, even though they just ordered a bunch more?

There seems to be a wishful fantasy that the Army will switch to a domestic pistol chambered for a domestic cartridge. That fantasy is so compelling that somebody circulates an unsubstantiated claim like this on a seemingly monthly basis. Usually, that somebody is a paid blogger scavenging for click-throughs.
 
The only section of Hague 1907 that deals with 'bullet' types, is Section II, Chapter I, Article 23, Part (e)

"CHAPTER I
Means of injuring the enemy, sieges, and bombardments

Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden

(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"

Full text PDF bottom far right column:

https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/195

Web page full text:

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/0/1d1726425f6955aec125641e0038bfd6
 
Where do Raufaus rounds fall on Hauge/Geneva agreements?
Click to expand...


In theory they are only for anti materiel applications, though we all know that to not quite be the case. Of course if there ever are any complaints, the guy on the trigger was only seeking to destroy the ammunition bandoleer that was being carried across the other guys chest:D
 
Hague accords Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); article 23, July 29, 1899, also is rather vague in its reference to projectiles:

"To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;"

However, that's expanded (no pun intended) on Declaration III (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp)

"The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

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 present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them...."


As I noted earlier, the Hague sessions of 1907 were a CONTINUATION of what was agreed to in 1899, NOT a replacement.

As such, by signing the 1907 Hague Accords, the United States agreed to be bound by the general terms of the 1899 Accords, as well.
 
The obvious out is that WWII was the last declared war in which we have been engaged. Korea was never declared, nor Viet Nam nor all the mid-east foolishness we have found ourselves in.

I doubt we will let a silly thing like a 100 year old convention slow us down when we can drop a drone without so much as a by your leave.

SpecOps are using HPs routinely, arent they?
 
Art. 4.

The present Convention, duly ratified, shall as between the Contracting Powers, be substituted for the Convention of 29 July 1899, respecting the laws and customs of war on land.

The Convention of 1899 remains in force as between the Powers which signed it, and which do not also ratify the present Convention.
Click to expand...

The one that we signed says this about the 1899 convention which expressly forbids expanding projectiles. It is a replacement, not a continuation.
 
Didn't the dept of homeland security buy a massive amount of hp's ? Who are those intended to be used against "our own citizens" ? If that is the case then perhaps the army is planning to use them on the same people.
 
Didn't the dept of homeland security buy a massive amount of hp's ? Who are those intended to be used against "our own citizens" ?
Click to expand...
DHS is a domestic law-enforcement agency. They are not military, nor do they operate in theaters of war.

Let's not venture into unfounded conspiracy theories.
 
I stand corrected on the U.S. being a signatory to the Hague Accords, but the U.S. has fought no "signatories" since WWII. North Korea was not a signatory. The Viet-Cong were internal rebels, not a nation. The same is true of Al Qaeda and ISIS, though the latter's American supporters are pushing for a declaration of war, which would give them recognition as a nation and greater protection against use of certain weapons.

Jim
 
DHS bought them in .40 for their homeland security armed units. They practice with he same ammo they shoot, so don't pretend that it's all for carrying or sending into your neigh it's abdomen. (Unless they are resistant terrorists). But I hear that enough tinfoil will block them from penetrating.
 
Here is the Army Times article where the quotes in the WaPo article are taken from
Click to expand...
The Army Times can be hit or miss on this stuff. A few months back, they were reporting that we'd be replacing the M9 with the Sig P250 any day now.

If this was credible, we would be seeing something more than unsubstantiated allegations on a few blogs.
 
I stand corrected on the U.S. being a signatory to the Hague Accords, but the U.S. has fought no "signatories" since WWII.
Click to expand...

The US hasn't fought a declared war since WWII, much less any treaty signatories.
 
Salmon, that's just a bunch of make-work projects to keep brass busy until retirement (and connect with their future employers). This has happened a bunch of times over the years.

The military should invest in learning how to maintain the M9's they already have. (They might as well teach people to shoot them while they are at it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top