Hollow point vs FMJ - question

G

gringojosh

New member
Why is full metal jacket ammo legal for combat but illegal for hunting, whereas hollow point ammo can't be used for combat but is legal for hunting? I don't get it. Isn't the idea to kill what you're shooting in both cases?
 
The hollow points in wartime come from two separate things. First, the Hague Accords, which came from conferences on international rules of war in Europe, banned the use of what was then called dum-dum ammunition, designed to produce what they considered horrific wounds. While the US was not a signatory to the Hague Accords, we generally honor them.

Second, when dealing with tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of guns, it's easier to get a supply of FMJ that will feed across the range of tolerances, than to find a supply of FMJ that will reliably feed and cycle in all those semi-auto and full-auto weapons.

The problem with FMJ for hunting is that it does not expand well. It's considered unethical to wound an animal in a way that does not kill it very quickly.

I heard a story earlier this year, from a well-known instructor and writer, about a raccoon that withstood several rounds of .45acp FMJ through the torso before falling from its tree limb. (It was believed that the raccoon might have been rabid, and had scratched somebody, and the shooter was deliberately avoiding head shots so the brain could be checked for rabies.)

Edit: the instructor was telling the story firsthand, as he had been the shooter.
 
Hague Convention of 1899

Read Declaration III of the Hague Convention of 1899 here:
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.
Click to expand...
A few interesting historical notes:
  • The declaration says nothing about bullets designed to wound by yawing violently on impact. Many militaries have taken advantage of this by designing inherently less stable rifle bullets to maximize yaw; examples are British bullets with a wood tip under the jacket, and Russian bullets with a steel rod inside the core.
  • Some historians credit the omission of yaw to domination of the convention by Germany and its allies. At the time, the Germans were working on yawing rifle bullets, while the British were focusing on expanding designs.
  • The declaration also says nothing about fragmentation.

Here's an interesting real-world demonstration of military rifle bullet yaw:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/148gr Czech FMJ (silver painted tip).html
 
[QUOTEThe hollow points in wartime come from two separate things. First, the Hague Accords, which came from conferences on international rules of war in Europe, banned the use of what was then called dum-dum ammunition, designed to produce what they considered horrific wounds. While the US was not a signatory to the Hague Accords, we generally honor them.][/QUOTE]


+1.

I know it seems odd, but Mleake summed it up pretty well.
 
  • Some historians credit the omission of yaw to domination of the convention by Germany and its allies. At the time, the Germans were working on yawing rifle bullets, while the British were focusing on expanding designs.
  • The declaration also says nothing about fragmentation.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I had missed the historical note referencing German experiments with yawing bullets. This would be another example of treaties being acceptable because the parties think they are fair and balanced even when they are not. (Of course, some treaties are imposed by disparately strong parties.)

I would guess that all the parties knew by then that outlawing bullets that break is tantamount to outlawing bullets. Up the velocity, and virtually all bullet materials will expand or break. Hence the ban on intent expressed in design.
 
This is an interesting topic. I had often wondered why the military only uses FMJs. But it also begs the question of humanity. Wouldnt a more "horrific wounding" bullet be more desirable to one that causes less damage? Like the poster above who mentioned the raccoon surviving several rounds of .45 acp ammo. I would personally rather take a couple dum-dums to the chest to maximize the damaged area to get it over with quickly as opposed to suffering longer. And wouldn't bullet yawning create a similar would to a a bullet designed to expand or would an expanding bullet yawn as much as a FMJ and cause more tissue damage?
 
Military medics and MEDEVAC capabilities are pretty advanced. I'd prefer survivable wounds, in general, to those that exceed the medic's ability to stabilize.
 
Another reason:

I doubt the military would want HP ammo anyway. Folks being shot at tend to hide behind barriers. FMJ ammo penetrates barriers and body armor better than HP ammo would.
 
Don't know for sure, but I also heard that by using FMJ's and causing wounded personnel rather than dead personnel, you take more people out of the fight quicker. One wounded plus two to three guys to help him to safety equals four guys out of the fight. My brother in law who is a medic in the Guard told me that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top