Use of hollowpoint bullets in war after the Hague accords

[44 AMP]

It's also the case that for the warfare that the U.S. fought during the 20th century FMJ bullets were much better bullets for warfare than any JHP or exposed lead bullets available, and for more reasons than price and durability, though those are valid reasons.

Simply put, the base reason we chose to "comply" and use FMJ bullets is reliability. (feeding). Nothing is more reliable feeding through semi and full auto weapons than FMJ. The soft points, "dum dums" and hollow points available for most of the 20th century simply don't feed as reliably as FMJ, and while a civilian might get his 1911 "throated" to feed hollowpoints, the military wasn't going there.

Dependable, reliable function from the stock designs in service was the important thing, and lower reliability even if it meant possibly greater effecctivness of the bullet was not an acceptable trade off.

Remember the two primary concerns of the military, about almost everything. Reliably able to do the mission, and cheap enough to fit the budget. Everything else is a lesser concern.

 

[ghbucky]

Simply put, the base reason we chose to "comply" and use FMJ bullets is reliability. (feeding). Nothing is more reliable feeding through semi and full auto weapons than FMJ. The soft points, "dum dums" and hollow points available for most of the 20th century simply don't feed as reliably as FMJ, and while a civilian might get his 1911 "throated" to feed hollowpoints, the military wasn't going there.

I had a Colt Government model 1911, and that thing would not feed anything but FMJ or fully jacketed HP. Any exposed lead would jam on the ramp.

So, yep.

As for the Hague accords or the Geneva Convention, as has been pointed out, they only apply between signatories, so AFAIK, there are no restrictions when dealing with non-signatory combatants.

 

[44 AMP]

As for the Hague accords or the Geneva Convention, as has been pointed out, they only apply between signatories, so AFAIK, there are no restrictions when dealing with non-signatory combatants.

The rules are even more restrictive than that. They apply to uniformed members of signatory nations armed forces.

Technically, you can shoot spies, or insurgents/partisans/ guerillas with hollow points every day of the week and twice on weekends without violating the Hague or Geneva treaties.

 

[cjwils]

My dad was a front line soldier in WW2. He said a few guys (not him) used pliers to snip the tips off a few of the bullets they carried in their Garands, creating something like a hollow point. They only wanted a few of these so that if they got into a fight, the modified bullets would quickly be used up. They did not want to take any risk of being captured with these bullets because of a concern they might be executed on the spot if the Germans found hollow points in their guns.

 

[jmr40]

I'm no lawyer, but the way I read this:

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

HP bullets are not banned. I'm of the opinion that the primary reason most use FMJ is due to economic and reliability reasons. Even with handguns.

One of the primary reasons 9mm was retained instead of attempting to change handgun cartridges is that 9mm FMJ out performs both 40 and 45 at barrier and body armor penetration. That, and reliability, is more of a concern on a battle field than HP bullets. A HP would be a disadvantage in this case.

LE isn't the same. And it is my understanding that military police and others acting in that capacity have used HP handgun ammo for some time.

And most match grade bullets have an open tip. Lots of folks mistakenly call the HP, but the open tip is part of the manufacturing process and isn't designed to expand.

There was some discussion at one time in the military about snipers use of open tip match bullets being in accordance with the Hague accords. It was determined that they were compliant.

 

[44 AMP]

HP bullets are not banned. I'm of the opinion that the primary reason most use FMJ is due to economic and reliability reasons. Even with handguns.

HP bullets are not directly banned by the language of the accords, this is correct. However they were effectively banned (prohibited) by the people making the decisions regarding what kind of ammo was to be used, as at the time, they were considered to "cause unnecessary suffering".

One of the primary reasons 9mm was retained instead of attempting to change handgun cartridges is that 9mm FMJ out performs both 40 and 45 at barrier and body armor penetration.

I disagree. The US did not adopt the 9mm due to its performance. The US adopted the 9mm because in the late 50s, we made an agreement with NATO, that if NATO adopted our (then new) 7.62mm rifle round, we would adopt their 9mm pistol round as our standard, when we replaced the .45s we were using. They adopted our rifle round, expecting us to adopt the 9mm within a few years. NATO nations got a bit "put out" when we didn't do so, WHEN they thought we should have. We did keep our word, but didn't adopt the 9mm until the mid 1980s, when we retired our old 1911A1s.

the 9mm is better at barrier penetration, true, but cartridge performance had nothing to do with it, it was a political decision. And, the .40 cal didn't wasn't even on police/FBI "radar" until after 1986....

Also, the open point of a match bullet is technically a hollow point. There is no "point" it is "hollow". However it is NOT designed to expand the way typical expanding hollow points are, and therefore is not built "to cause unnecessary suffering".

I'm in complete agreement that while we said we didn't use hollowpoints because of the accords, the real reason was that they weren't functionally dependable enough for military use.

What has always boggled my mind is that flamethrowers were not judged to be violating the Accords but HP bullets were....