Hollow point bullets ? Restricted some states?

T

TexasJustice7

New member
I was reading in an article in "The Concealed Handgun" where the author of an article, stated that some states like New York do not allow one to have Hollow Point bullets. I carry 44 S&W Spl for my CA 44 Spl and got to wondering if any other States might restrict these, I call self defense rounds?
I don't plan on going to New York ever, but wondered about other States where it might be a problem. The author of the article recommended not even taking a gun to New York and a couple other states.:eek:
 
Isn't it also true that NATO has restricted the civilized military to just use FMJ rounds for more humane kills?

By the way, Missouri has no restrictions. I carry anti-social rounds in both of my carry guns.

I just wonder why they are more expensive. There is a big hole in the front of the bullet so aren't I paying more for less material?!?!?:p
 
Last edited:
New York ....Always some kind of restriction rule for something. That city has so many Rules and Laws you would think it's the Safest Best Place on earth to live.

Thank God I'm Southern Born and Settled.
 
Nocturnis31

QUOTE: Nocturnis31:
Isn't it also true that NATO has restricted the civilized military to just FMJ rounds for more humane kills?

By the way, Missouri has no restrictions. I carry anti-social rounds in both of my carry guns.

I just wonder why they are more expensive. There is a big hole in the front of the bullet so aren't I paying more for less material?!?!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't someone tell me, I will ever have to discard my Winchester 44S&W Spl Hollowpoints which cost me close to $1.50 per bullet, or tell me if I ever have to use one in self defense in Texas (or a reciprical state), that I will get charged with a war crime, for violation of some Nato rule. Are my Hollow Points the onese they exclude in Nato restrictions. I know they are legal in Texas but will they be legal if they adopt that new Senate bill they are considering?
 
Isn't it also true that NATO has restricted the civilized military to just FMJ rounds for more humane kills?
Click to expand...

No so much for humane kills but, if I recall the actual text of the agreement correctly, rather to not inflict undue suffering or cruelty. Same "rule" goes for bayonets of a shape that would cause a would not to close or be closed easily.

I carry anti-social rounds in both of my carry guns.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they are in need of therapy to properly become socialized.:)
 
About new York,,,

New York ....Always some kind of restriction rule for something. That city has so many Rules and Laws you would think it's the Safest Best Place on earth to live.
Click to expand...

It is,,,
If you're a mugger.

Aarond
 
Don't someone tell me, I will ever have to discard my Winchester 44S&W Spl Hollowpoints which cost me close to $1.50 per bullet, or tell me if I ever have to use one in self defense in Texas (or a reciprical state), that I will get charged with a war crime, for violation of some Nato rule. Are my Hollow Points the onese they exclude in Nato restrictions. I know they are legal in Texas but will they be legal if they adopt that new Senate bill they are considering?
Click to expand...

No, no my friend. Only the soldiers have this restriction. Civilians can use the nastiest rounds they can find... except for incendiary and explosive rounds.

Which brings up a good point: The military cannot use hollow points but they can use incendiary and explosive rounds. How does that make sense?
 
Don't someone tell me . . .that I will get charged with a war crime
Click to expand...

Only if you invade Oklahoma.

The reference was to military uses of small arms. With the exceptions noted above, you can use them for personal defense but not at war against another country.
 
New York City finally a few years back started allowing thier LEO's to finally carry Gold Dot 9mm 124gr. +p rounds. And 135gr. +P rounds in their .38's. Before that they used WWB 115gr. 9mm and 158gr. LRN in their .38's. Finally after they had enough through and through wounds some of which resulted in death and injury to LEO's and civilians they switched. Some of these resulted in multi-million dollar lawsuits.
I read somewhere that you can carry Federals EFMJ rounds in New Jersey. They expand but are not JHP's. I'm not an attorney so don't quote me on it. I don't know which states but I'd guess N.J. don't even allow retired LEO's to carry a weapon for personal defense. May have changed since I last read. But it's crazy.
 
Please differentiate between NY State and NYC !! They are two different worlds . :rolleyes:
In NYC it's a moot point about ammo restrictions since you can't get a carry permit except for rare circumstances.I don't know.
In NY State AFAIK no restrictions .I hope not since I've been carrying HPs for many ,many years !! :p
 
So actually if you carry fmj's then you might have to shoot BG three or four times then before he stops kicking. Just my way of thinking here I'n Texas anyhow.
 
My carry gun is a 357Mag. IF I was restricted to solids, I'd score some of Penn Bullet's 230gr "Thunderhead" slugs that are basically the world's biggest wadcutters and I'd load 'em up hot.

They're so damn long there's a fair chance they'd tumble in the target.
 
The Hague Convention

The Hague convention restricts the use of hollow point ammunition and similar rounds. It also bans the dropping of explosives from aircraft and the sinking of merchant ships. The US is not a signatory of the Hague conventions, but follow the bullet rules anyway. Obviously no country follows rule about dropping explosives and countries with navies seem to have ignored the rules about sinking merchant ships.

The main thing about the Hague convention is that many liberals who argue about the civilian use of hollow point ammunition etc. say that they are violations of the Geneva Convention. If you want to have fun with these "rote-quoters" ask them which one they are citing; there are several Geneva conventions. When they have finished stammering or you're tired of the deer-in-the-headlight look, you can inform them that the Geneva conventions say nothing about ammunition. Then mention the Hague Convention, the above conditions, that the US is not a signatory, and that it only covers the military in combat situations- not civilians.
 
I can't tell you how many times I heard that you're not supposed to use the 50 cal on personnel. I’ve never been able to find anything that says you cannot use heavy machine guns or any particular caliber against personnel.

The intent was to limit the use of things like AA guns and anti-tank guns against personnel with the underlying principle being not using “projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering” Meaning if you have a 30 cal rifle and a 37mm anti-tank gun, you shouldn’t use the AT indiscriminately when you have a “better” option – a weapon designed for the AP role. Before those conventions were penned there were all sorts of exotic weaponry that produced really gruesome results when compared to just getting shot with an old-fashioned FMJ. I guess it was a nice thought but it seems irrelevant. Artillery, mines, grenades all produced gruesome wounds.

I don’t know any Army in the world that doesn’t use their heavy MGs as an AP weapon.

The other thing that I believe both conventions state is that they apply to the signatories when the signatories are at war. However if a belligerent party joins the conflict that is not a signatory – no parties are obliged to abide by the agreement.

None of it applies in non-war situations to civilians.

There was an article about Rick Perry a while ago and the author described the ammo that the governor carries as “deadly hollowpoint ammunition.” It had a sinister connotation, as if the governor was malicious and carried extra-deadly ammunition because normally-deadly bullets weren’t enough.

So much of this debate is driven by ignorance and emotional bias. What is the difference between shooting someone with a .380 ACP that penetrate 9" and expands to .45", or just shooting them with a .45 FMJ? Both leave a .45” wound channel. We know that the 45 FMJ creates a larger volume wound channel because it is already .45 diameter right from the start and it penetrates more deeply or even zips completely through. I think the wounds from smoooth bullets tend to close back up slightly more than the jagged wounds created by rounds such as the dreaded "BLACK TALON". But I don't think the anti-gunners know that.

The anti-gunners seem to think they’re on moral high-ground when they start to condemn people for using hollow-points, but their arguments can be deflated easily.



1) It’s morally responsible to use ammunition that will not over-penetrate the attacker and endanger by-standers.

2) Hollow point ammunition is used by law enforcement agencies – are they calling police departments inhumane and immoral for using JHPs?


I don't do too much more arguing with them than that - it just goes in circles. Their minds are mush and there are some things they are just not going to get no matter what, like completely missing the point that the primary concern for a woman when she's about to be abducted and tortured is not to worry about whether the bullets she has in her pistol are somehow "humane" and adhere to the Hague convention - but rather that they are the most effective bullets possible for stopping the attack and saving her life.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top