Choosing the right Ammo

I didn't know you couldn't hunt with FMJ. There is enough written about your right to have guns, and enough written by those who would take away that right (don't want to start an argument about that). Surely the why must be written down somewhere.
 
link to wiki

Because the Hague convention applies only to the use of expanding bullets in war, the use of expanding rounds remains legal, or even required, in some circumstances. Examples of this are use of appropriately expanding bullets in hunting, where it is desirable to stop the animal quickly either to prevent loss of a game animal, or ensure a humane death of vermin, and in law enforcement or self-defense, where quickly neutralizing an aggressor may be needed to prevent further loss of life, or where the bullet must remain inside the target to prevent collateral damage.[17][18]


Here is an example of a state banning the use of FMJ bullets for hunting. Other states have similar regulations:
Non-expanding military style full metal jacket bullets cannot be used to harvest white-tailed deer; only soft point or expanding bullets (including copper / copper-alloy rounds designed for hunting) are legal ammunition.

Here is a snippet from an article on choosing the proper hunting bullets:
I started in the former school, but for quite some years now I’ve been in the latter. If the former were absolutely true, we would all be shooting nonexpanding bullets like military ball or dangerous-game solids. These are actually illegal in many jurisdictions, and they should be. The effect is like punching a knitting-needle hole, with little immediate internal damage and lots of energy expended in the shrubbery behind the deer.

I suggest reading the entire articles
Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/11/21/ga-basics-choose-deer-bullets/#ixzz37RXplXPs
 
I didn't know you couldn't hunt with FMJ. ... Surely the why must be written down somewhere.
Click to expand...

The why is, essentially, because hunting (in the US) is a sport. It is a game, with licenses and rules set by the states. The state decides, where, when, and with what you may hunt game animals. And you get to pay for the privilege. The equipment you may use is restricted by the hunting regulations. Caliber, ammo(bullet) type. Number of rounds in the gun, even type of gun, in some places is determined not by what will work, or what can work, but by what the state feels is in the best interests of the sport, game management, and the public.

Lets clear up a couple of things about FMJ ammo. The military does not use FMJ ammo because it is the best thing for the job (it's not). The military uses FMJ ammo because governments have decreed that they shall.

FMJ works well enough for the military to get the job done. And remember that the "job" is not killing or stopping an attacker, like it is for you and I in a defensive situation. The job is completing the mission, what ever that happens to be. Killing enemy troops is one way to do this, but not the only way.

The Hague conventions were an attempt to limit the "horrors" of war. They come from an earlier time, and mindset, one that in some ways was still carrying some of the ideals, if not the trappings, of chivalry in combat.

FMJ ammo was considered more "humane", because, while it does kill, it is the least likely to seriously wound. It seems the underlying idea was that while it was ok for soldiers to shoot and kill each other in war, it was bad form to use ammo that would produce "horrible" crippling, permanent wounds. How they reconciled this with allowing bombs, artillery, and even poison gas is beyond me.

Kill an enemy soldier, he is out of the game. Shoot one, and he is also out of the game, at least until he recovers, if he does. Restricting ammo to FMJ gives those shot (and not killed or crippled outright) the best chance of eventual recovery. And, after all, wars do not last forever....remember that these rules were made by men who believed in the concept of "civilized" war.

While not an official signatory to the Hague (or the Geneva) conventions, the US has long had an official policy of abiding by their rules, when fighting signatory nations. And, generally, keeping to those rules when fighting anyone else.

So, the military is forced to use FMJ, because governments decree it, not because it is the best ammo possible. The side benefits of this are, #1)it is the cheapest ammo, and #2) after the general introduction of automatic and semi automatic firearms, it was learned that FMJ ammo feeds the best (most reliably) in these mechanisms. In short, the military uses FMJ because they don't have a choice, and not because FMJ is the optimal choice.

You and I, do have a choice.
 
Thank you gentlemen now we know the why.

When the Lee Enfield was adopted by the Brits, there was some concern that its lack of stopping power compared to the Martini-Henry it replaced. This proved unfounded. Part of the reason may have been that it was realized that the pointed 174gr bullet was more damaging than the round nose version. This is because all bullets are unstable in flesh, but the spitzer point encourages the bullet to tumble and cause more damage. A tumbling bullet exiting from a deer may be more dangerous than a HP round, personally I think the difference is academic.
This tumbling effect could be another reason the military are not to unhappy with FMJ.
 
Its a very rare thing for a .30-ish caliber bullet's "tumbling" to actually have an effect on a person. Yes, all bullets that are longer than they are wide will tumble in flesh. But how much flesh they pass through before they begin to tumble is an important factor.

There are, I'm sure, places you can find to check how much penetration happens before the tumbling takes place, go and look.

I', too lazy to go look, and so am just going from memory, but IIRC a .30 cal spritzer needs somewhere around a foot to a foot and a half (possibly more) of penetration before it begins to tumble. This means, that in the majority of shots, the bullet has passed through, or nearly all the way through a person, before it tumbles. SO, the tumbling, itself is not a factor in most shootings, with these rounds.

The 5.56mm tumbles within a few inches of penetration, so in that caliber it is something to be considered.
 
A tumbling bullet exiting from a deer may be more dangerous than a HP round, personally I think the difference is academic.
Click to expand...


The purpose of requiring expanding ammunition for deer hunting isn't to protect the shrubs behind the deer from a tumbling FMJ bullet. The purpose of requiring expanding ammunition is to do enough damage to the deer's tissue to get a clean kill. FMJ ammunition does a poor job of this.

This is because all bullets are unstable in flesh, but the spitzer point encourages the bullet to tumble and cause more damage.
Click to expand...


If a FMJ bullet tumbles, it still doesn't cause as much damage an expanding bullet.
 
I could discuss what happens when a bullet gets inside the target at some length (and I don't dispute anything you have written), but I won't. If I shoot something I want plenty of penetration, if an expanding bullet does that reliably then yes it is the best choice. I used to discount expanding bullets due to their unreliability. That was a mistake.
ps I have enjoyed reading the attached documents
mik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top