Army switching to hollow point ammo!

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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is not correct. Even if it was, the Declaration, as such, is totally independent, and as far as I know it is the only international document in the scope of the Hague agreements that deals specifically with expanding bullets. And the US is not a signatory.

International agreements are VERY complex documents, and everything in them must be specifically agreed and ratified. It is not uncommon to be a part of an agreement only respect to certain articles.
 
Article 4 of the 1907 accord that I pointed out earlier states it very clearly. The latter replaces the former. Further, if the U.S. were bound by anything in the accord we need only give 1 years notice as provided by article 8 to denounce the whole thing!
 
Signed, or not, legally bound, or not, the US has a history or, and official sanction adhering to the practice of using FMJ in combat.

WE do it as a practical matter, FMJ works more reliably than anything else in all weapons in the worst conditions.

The fact that this lines up with the Hague accords is a bonus.

Mike says we signed the 1907 accord, and gives evidence, so despite the "information" given by my sgts and other "fully informed" soldier types back when I was in the service, I shall believe him.
(they said we never signed, but chose to comply voluntarily)

SO, we signed, where does that put us now, regarding hollowpoints??

Nowhere different than where we have been since 1907.

The Accords only forbid HP ammo when fighting signatory states. We are not doing that. We are not breaking any law, or treaty by using JHP ammo against those who are not members of the military force of signatory states.

We would not be breaking anything but custom to use JHP (or anything else) against irregulars, bandits, revolutionaries, or any other name for fighters not belonging to the regular military of recognized nation states.

I do find it somewhat amusing that there was no real interest in JHP pistol ammo use when the military was still using the .45acp. Now, after some years of combat use with the 9mm FMJ, NOW they are looking at using hollowpoints....

I wonder why that might be....:rolleyes:
 
The Hague agreements only ever held for combat between other nations which have signed the agreement. It purposely left out combat between nations that did not sign the agreement and for "police actions" or combat with non-governmental forces or for suppressing revolutions. No holds were barred in the latter case.

It was also aimed at rifle bullets and not revolver or pistol rounds. At the time there were no jhp pistol or revolver rounds.

At the time the agreement was signed lead nosed rifle bullets were on the way out. Fully jacketed spitzer bullets using smokeless powder were on the way in.

If you think about it you can also see why the Germans were irritated about the U.S. using 12 guage shotguns in WWI with soft lead shot.

The U.S. has used FMJ ammo ammo, as have others, simply because it's best in combat and transport.

jhp has always been an option available to snipers and special forces when needed.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
I would not like to be captured with hollow point ammunition in my possession by enemy combatants.

Several years back I was showing a bit of my collection and ammo to an Israeli Army captain. He was aghast I possessed hollow point ammo for self defense. He thought it was barbaric.
 
I'm a bit sketchy about this report anyway.

First, what guns does the U.S. have now that won't feed jhp? I don't think any.

Second, they have had access to jhp pistol ammo for a long time any time they wanted it. Special forces can use it at any time. The CIA can use it. SEALS etc.

Third, what battlefield benefit does it get them?

Fourth, the additional expense in procurement will be considerable. So will the testing process for the ammo. (Imagine the teenage gun lovers dream that will be, fodder for forums for years and years.) The extra paperwork will be massive. Extra care will have to be taken in transport so not to damage the hollow points. For what end?

At this stage it sounds like more smoke and little fire.

tipoc
 
Tipoc, You got it! Heap big smoke screen with no factual supporting data. If they did change how would that impact the average persons day to day existance? Now if there was a drive to change the type of bean in WW II C rations we would have a real issue to discuss.
 
Not saying I care one way or the other, but what would qualify as "factual supporting data" other than hollow points in army handguns? What purpose would there be for a smoke screen? There was some type of meeting that required military lawyers to argue the point for not being legally bound from switching to hollow point bullets. That's all we know for now. I don't see any possible reason for subterfuge by the army in that.
 
Ibemikey wrote: If they did change how would that impact the average persons day to day existance?
Click to expand...

Considering where HP pistol ammo has gone from 1970 to present, and considering which would be the likely companies to manufacture 9mm HP for the .mil crowd.....give it a few years and see where the price of decent HP ammo is when all of that surplus and overrun ammo hits the .civ market place!!!
 
What purpose would there be for a smoke screen? There was some type of meeting that required military lawyers to argue the point for not being legally bound from switching to hollow point bullets. That's all we know for now. I don't see any possible reason for subterfuge by the army in that.
Click to expand...

I said more smoke in the report (and discussion here) than there is fire. Meaning few facts and a good deal of speculation and "what ifs".

I made no mention of a "smokescreen". The latter would imply deliberately concealing some motion. But I don't see that. They have no reason to deliberately conceal what they openly say they are doing and have been doing for some time now.

The "Army Times" has a rep for sometimes sensationalist reporting. It is not a publication of the Army but a commercial magazine aimed at Army personal, vets and interested folks.

http://www.tegna.com/separation-of-gannett-into-two-public-companies-completed/

Reread the piece. Other than the news about possibly expanding the use of jhp ammo in some situations there is little new factually there. Or new that folks here did not know of.

Can the U.S. use jhp ammo? Yes it says and says some about that.

Are they using it now? Yes the article says.

Could they maybe use more? Yes the piece says. Then it discusses maybe a new gun which has been spoken about for a couple of years now.

So we'll see.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/mili...gun-system-solicitation-hollowpoint/29886907/

tipoc
 
I wouldn't worry of Jihad Jerry catches you with JHP pistol ammo. They're going to cut your head off anyways,


JHP won't make a difference for general issue anyways, nor would .45acp, or 5.7x28mm, because the military doesn't spend a fraction of the time it should on arms handling let alone handgun marksmanship. It's just going to cost more to load guns that won't get used for much, and will be more expensive misses in the rare even that they do get used.


The SOF or other special duty guys who actually train and use handguns will not be affected by this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top