Why does the military use ball ammo in handguns?

S

Smaug

New member
Does it have to do with being humane, or are they trying to ensure adequate penetration through heavy clothes? Or is it just a matter of cost? If it is cost, they could use FMJ for training and JHP for combat.

The US Army went to the 1911 and 45 ACP because 38s weren't doing the job well enough.

Now we're back to 9mm with the pointy, over-penetrating bullets, and I've read (John Taffin, I believe) that the military is considering 45 ACP again.

I can't help but wonder why they don't just stick with 9mm and use 147 gr. hollow point ammo? Seems like the best of both worlds.
 
I don't have a clear cut answer, but I thought I read an article a few years back that put the Geneva Convention in lamens' terms. IIRC, it was stated in the GC that FMJ bullets are only allowed for small arms. I'll see if I can dig that up. It's been a long time since I came across it and I think my assertion isn't spot on.
 
Hague Peace Conference

It has to do with The laws of War. The US signed on to follow a set of rules that we are bound to follow as a signatory of those rules. They started in 1864 at the first Geneva Convention and are updated all the time. Ammo with exposed lead was outlawed from being used in combat in 1899. The US did not sign on but respected the convention and followed suit. In 1907 the US did sign on to the Hague Convention IV of 1907. Article 23(e) states that it is forbidden to use arms and munitions that are calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. In 1985 the JAG determined it was OK to use expanding ammo on terrorists for snipers because the ammo was open tipped to increase accuracy not to cause suffering.

But the laws were brought out in the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 and 1907, not the Geneva Convention as most state.

The other reason it it feeds better:D

Here is a good quote form the 1899 "Peace" Conference:

· If you rub it in, both at home and abroad, that you are ready for instant war with every unit of your strength in the first line, and intend to be first in, and hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil your prisoners in oil (if you take any!), and torture his women and children, then people will keep clear of you.
British Admiral Jackie Fisher(addressing The Hague in 1899)

Too bad we don't have guys like that any more..................Sam
 
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

Laws of War :
Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

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.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.

A proces-verbal shall be drawn up on the receipt of each ratification, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.

The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Declaration, and have affixed their seals thereto.

Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and of which copies, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.

[Signatures]
Source:
The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907
A Series of Lectures Delivered before the Johns Hopkins University in the Year 1908
By James Brown Scott
Technical delegate of the United States to the Second Peace Conference at the Hague
In two Volumes
Volume II - Documents
Baltimore, MD : The Johns Hopkins Press, 1909.
Click to expand...
 
But the laws were brought out in the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 and 1907, not the Geneva Convention as most state.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification, Sam. I wish I could find that exerpt. I'm sure the full context of it includes the Hague Peace Conference because I remember the author talking about it later in the article...
 
as I recall a couple years ago an infantry fella was court martialed for killing some unfriendlies in a fire fight in afganastan using some black hills .223 hollow points. Absalutely insane
 
Basically it goes back to the Germans wanting to make the British bad by calling expanding ammo "inhumane". (Cause apparently if you shoot someone with ball ammo it's all OK.) Call it 19th century political correctness.

The Germans tried the same "inhumane" crap in WWI with regards to shotguns. Nobody cared about that though, mainly because the Germans were on the receiving end and the Germans had been spraying Mustard gas across half of Europe for the past several years.
 
The US signed on to the Hague Convention of 1907. They did not sign the 1899 Peace Convention but followed the guidelines outlined in them. The US DID NOT sign on to the 1977 Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Convention that states in part that "It is prohibited to employ weapons and projectiles that cause superfluous injury and unnecessary injury". We did not sign on for Military,Political and Humanitarian reasons. I think the US felt this had already been covered and was not needed. You have to understand most of these "Conventions" are done to either embarrass or otherwise impede countries that are powerful. The US makes it a point to not sign on to stuff like this and similar treaties like Kyoto which only attempt to level the playing field and penalize the powerful. Not something you want to do in Combat. Kind of like making CCW holder carry a Zipgun and letting criminals have the best weapons.

Hollow point ammo was issued to troops fighting in OIF and OEF and is legal to use there(I have been deployed to both 2 times each while in the Army). My snipers used it as did Designated marksmen. It was made by Black Hills Ammo.

Remember the 1985 opinion of the US JAG that the ammo is not made to inflict injury but to increase accuracy and it is legal to use that ammo against terrorists; "expanding point ammunition is legally permissible to use in counter-terrorist operations not involving another states armed forces". The forces we are fighting in OIF and OEF are not part of a recognized state. I am not a JAG officer(I was a Ranger NCO for 24 years)


Here is the info on the Peace convention
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp

Check out pages 22-25
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/08-2006.pdf
 
I would make an argument that hollow point ammunition is actually more humane. After all, with hollow points you're more likely to put the target down with less shots, which would increase survivability.

Unnecessary injury? Pick your poison, one or two hollow points or four rounds of ball ammo?
 
Because we are dumb enough to play by the rules,even though everyone else doesn't. That's just my opinion and my experience.
 
I have heard also that FMJ is used to allow the dispatch of two targets (people:D) with one round. With all the spray and pray that goes on in a seriously wicked firefight that doesn't seem logical to me.
 
We should be using HP ammo when it comes to terrorists, because terrorists are not part of a single country there for they don't fit under the Geneva Convention. They are not entitled to any rights.
 
NAKing, That argument was made and it passed the JAG test. Its on page 23 of the DA PAM on the link I posted above.

NERO, We do ....and they don't:D

Not all soldiers are issued Open tip ammo and it is not used in Belt fed weapons but it is used by some, to good effect.
 
Yeah, I was aware that our military uses several less then ideal weaponry setups due to UN crap and other international agreements.
And here's me thinking the purpose of battle was to eliminate/kill the enemy...:rolleyes:
 
The Hague agreement was in response to the use by the British of expanding ("dumdum") bullets in India and what is now Pakistan. As noted, the real reason was not to be "humane" but to embarass the British over their colonial policies.

But such thing could not have come to pass before c. 1900. The real reason for going to jacketed bullets was that with the new high velocity ammunition in small bore rifles, bullets had to be jacketed to prevent them stripping in the rifling and being wildly inaccurate. So the major powers were simply making a pretense of humanity out of what was really a technological necessity.

In the current situation, reports seem to indicate not that handgun bullets don't penetrate adequately through layers of clothing. If that is true, expanding bullets should make the situation worse, not better, since an expanding bullet will penetrate less material than a FMJ bullet.

Jim
 
In conventional warfare, there's also the theory that one wounded person ties-up two people caring for him, so killing isn't necessarily the desired result of gunshot wounds.
 
Here is a good quote form the 1899 "Peace" Conference:

· If you rub it in, both at home and abroad, that you are ready for instant war with every unit of your strength in the first line, and intend to be first in, and hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil your prisoners in oil (if you take any!), and torture his women and children, then people will keep clear of you.
British Admiral Jackie Fisher(addressing The Hague in 1899)
Click to expand...

And hence, nuclear weapons have kept us from having a third full scale World War! The concept of MAD, horrible as it is, is a vaild concept as long as both sides are rational. But once you get an irrational religious fanatic at the helm of their country, and they have nukes, then all bets are off.

I would not mind FMJ as long as the weapons are powerful enough to compensate for the poor stopping power associated with FMJ designs. Yes, I know about the 5.56 and 5.45 fragmenting abilities, but 9mm don't have that.

I also feel that if we are fighting a country that is not bound by the agreements we sign or 'respect', then we are not bound by them either.
 
Contrary to FMJ, JHP by definition prevents "unnecessary suffering" through a swifter death. I believe its because of cost, versatility (nato) and dependability.
 
In a combat scenario where the person standing behind an enemy soldier is more than likely another enemy soldier, I personally want FMJ. The typical fire fight range in a combat scenario is also much further than a self-defense one. An immediate, one-shot drop may not necessarily be such a handicap as in a self-defense scenario.

Obviously, in a terrorist or hostage situation, I certainly wouldn't want to be limited to just FMJ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top