The Geneva Convention and Bullet designs....

J

Jamie Young

New member
This may be a stupid question I'm asking but I've heard it from a few people and I wasn't sure if its true. Is it really true that you can not use hollow point or buckshot in warfare. Isn't the stopping power of every caliber increased when using Hollow points? I know this may be touching on the 5.56 round also. Is it also true that the Military considers the 5.56FMJ to be more effective than a 5.56 HP due to tumbling? How long ago was this passed in the Geneva Convention ?
 
That was the Hague convention of 1899, initiated by the Czar Nicholas II of Russia. Ironically, he was later killed with the "humane" FMJs. The layman's view of the time was that high-velocity jacketed bullets were humane and unjacketed or soft point bullets weren't.
 
Correct. The Geneva convention addresses POW's, spies, non-combatants, etc. The Hague Accord (the second one actually) addresses small arms ammo. Buckshot is NOT banned. What is banned is ammunition "designed to cause undue damage". Most militarys regard HP ammo as falling into this category, although there are exceptions (the US has ruled that the .308 Matchking, although technically a hollowpoint, is designed for accuracy not expansion and is thus legal for sniper use.) But then the US never signed the Hague Accord anyway, they follow it but legally it isn't binding. Always struck me as odd anyway, shrapnel from HE bombs is "humane" but a hollowpoint .308 isn't.

By the way, 5.56 ball doesn't normally "tumble" that much. No more than most ball ammo. If it hits a major bone it may start tumbling due to the light weight of the bullet.
 
As a civilian (or even as an "unorganized militia") you are allowed to use whatever you have available. The "rules" apply to government issued ammo. (besides, the US didn't sign the Hague Accord anyway)
 
The down side to being a civilian...

...is that yu might not become a POW if captured, just another "bandit shot dead".
 
As Oleg stated, exactly. As a non-combatant, if you were found to be engaging in combat, you wouldn't fall under the Geneva Conventions, and as such, wouldn't be treated accordingly to the rules stated for true POW's. Same goes for military medics if caught bearing arms, etc. They make us review the Code of Conduct every year...
 
Sounds like a European concept where only the government troops are allowed to fight. Citizens in Europe, Switzerland exluded, are not permitted to bear arms; it is literally a foreign concept to them. The Swiss during WW2 were to have arm bands to designate them as fighters.

Rick
 
This has got to be one of the most outdated provisions of modern warfare. Killed is killed. I find it almost comical that it's alright to kill with one piece of lead and yet another piece is forbidden. You can blow them apart, burn them to ash, or tear them to pieces but for crying out loud just don't use them damned expanding bullets! It's inhumane, I tell you! I'm sure many a dying soldier has thought: 'Well, at least it's *choke* not a *cough* hollow-point'. As a soldier I will use any kind of bullet, blade, stick, or stone to kill my enemy if that's what it takes to save my own life. As for America? I don't see anyone successfully invading this country...at least not until after we've pretty much done ourselves in.
 
I have an interesting story.

I remember reading one of my non-fiction novels about Vietnam and there was an interesting story. It was one of the marine sniper stories. One of the sniper's dad sent over some handloaded hollowpoints for their rifles. Well everyone sort of shunned the guy for even considering using them as they were against the rules of war. They acted like they would have none of that.

I found that really odd coming from some military snipers for some reason. Hell, I would want to kill the bastards and kill them the best I could personally. And if some handloaded hollowpoints did the trick so be it. After all, they were out to kill the enemy, not simply stop them as law enforcement does. How backwards thinking to want to use bullets that would not have the greatest killing ability, but to have wounded soldiers running around still firing at you and being miserable as wounded soldiers. I would have probably used the hollowpoints or softpoints just out of consideration for the enemy I was shooting at.
 
What about exploding bullets?? IIRC, early designs were used during the closing battles of the Civil War, but I don't know what became of them. Were they banned at an early date? Or were they simply too dangerous to the user? With modern, stable explosives it seems like someone could come up with a safe design. Perhaps the fuse could be triggered by sufficient acceleration.
 
one of the biggest reasons for military use of fmj ammo is to wound , not to kill. at the time of the Hague accords , it took 3 to 5 men to care for each wounded man, and thereby reduced a unit's combat effectivness . it also uses up more critical supplies than killing them does. today , we have much faster access to medical aid, and it is not always as effective as it once was.
also, at this point in time,1890's, there was great public belief in opposing forces conducting war in a gentlemanly fashion....
 
"GunFool" I hear ya The Geneva or Hague Convention is too European for us Yankees. It has the same stupid reasoning the British had during the Revolutionary War where we Americans were uncivilized because we hid behind trees and walls and didn't line up and fight like men. DUMB DUMB DUMB!!!
I love life too much and I'll fight to survive and protect human life at all costs. I guess I would be bringing my Little Lee Single Stage press to the battlefield and handloading hollow points LOL!!!
 
I believe the concept behind the hague and geneva were to set some rules to war that "civilized" nations would abide to. The point of war not being total annihilation of the enemy army and enslavement of the people, but to render the enemy so weakened that they have no choice but to surrender.

Before the accords it was common practice to kill all the enemies surviving army, enslave the population, rape the women, sack the cities, crucify, impale, burn alive, and all the other inhuman things we now regard as barbaric.

If FMJ isn't effective enough than why not use hollowpoints? Well why stop at that? Why not poison every bullet so even a minor flesh wound is lethal? Bullets are ineffective way of doing things to, nerve gas is much more effective, bio even more so. And nothing can beat a nuke, except maybe an asteroid impact using remotely guided boosters to nudge it into the proper orbit to impact the enemies country.

Where do you draw the line at how "effective" (destructive) a weapon is before it becomes too "effective"? This is the whole point behind the accords. To limit the scope of warfare because our ability to build apocolyptic (sp?) weapons outstrips our good sense not to use them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top