Just FYI, I was in the Marines from '85-'93. The only time I was not issued FMJ was when I served a stint on Embassy duty. We carried State Dept. issued SW M19s and M60s for our sidearms. 158gr Federal HS was the .357 load and Federal 125gr Nyclad .38spl was used in the M60. This was actually my first exposure to hollowpoints used in handguns.
Why does the military use ball ammo in handguns?
- Thread starter Smaug
- Start date
Swampghost
New member
RickB came closest.
The purpose of the FMJ is to poke a hole in somebody theoretically without killing them as this might be a bad thing. In combat, it's actually a good thing as the last stats. that I read dedicate 10 behind the lines personnel for each wounded. This is old stuff and only applies to conventional warfare as we knew it in WWII and Korea which was also not that conventional at times (think flame throwers).
Viet Nam began the idea of non-NATO warfare (rules applied to war, what a joke).
Going off on a tangent and stopping.
The purpose of the FMJ is to poke a hole in somebody theoretically without killing them as this might be a bad thing. In combat, it's actually a good thing as the last stats. that I read dedicate 10 behind the lines personnel for each wounded. This is old stuff and only applies to conventional warfare as we knew it in WWII and Korea which was also not that conventional at times (think flame throwers).
Viet Nam began the idea of non-NATO warfare (rules applied to war, what a joke).
Going off on a tangent and stopping.
Unfortunately, that only works when you enemy seriously cares about their wounded during the battle.
A conscious wounded solider is like a mobility kill on a tank. Sure, he can't move, but he can probably still shoot back.
Heck, look at the 1986 Miami shootout. Both sides sustained serious injuries. Platt was killed early in the fight, yet didn't acknowledge that he had been killed for a few minutes. In that time he killed two FBI agents and shot four more. The same thing undoubtedly happens in combat. Especially when you enemy is suicidal/on drugs.
War, by definition, is not rational. Two or more powers decide to throw lives away for a set of beliefs, or even worse, land and money. The worst possible thing we can do for war is make it more humane. When the killing becomes "okay" because some rule says it is, there's no longer a reason not to do it.
Maybe I'm a hypocrite in that I view the killing of an attacker, in the home or on the street, as a personal right, and the concept of war as wrong.
Perhaps it should be considered a necessary evil? Resolve it peacfully if you can. If those attempts fail, sometimes war must be the answer. Such is human history.
The worst thing that can be done is to forcably prevent a war that must happen. The Israel/Palestine issue is an example. When one side gets what they want and the other gets nothing, by UN ruling, and the side that gets keeps on wanting and getting, there IS going to be a war. Peace resolutions be damned, the bottle is being shaken and the top has to come off at some point.
A fundamental misconception
About war and killing. Sure, killing happens in war, but it is not what war is about. War is about making your enemy quit. Give up. No longer be a viable force, capable of expressing political will through force.
Pretty words to describe killing, but that is the point. Killing is just the most permanent and effective method. War is not about killing, it is about achieving specific political goals. When war is about killing the enemy, we call it something else. We call it genocide.
The rules of warfare came about in a time when wars were still primarily fought only between opposing military forces. Civilians were only involved when they happened to be on the ground being fought over. Pushed by the Europeans, codified in the Geneva and Hague accords, it was the last attempt to retain the concept of a "gentleman's war", a carryover from the ancient laws of chivalry.
With individual exceptions, soldiers, when shot, generally stop offensive actions. That is enough. Actually killing them is not needed when they are no longer capable of attack (or defense). So rules about weapons causing unnecessary suffering sound noble and good. And govts, engaging in "just" warfare, wish to be seen as noble and good.
On the pracitcal side, fmj feeds the best, costs the least, and always works as well as it works. JHP was, until fairly recently (in the history of ammo) not reliable enough for dependable performance. So JHP often functioned exactly the same as FMJ anyway, there was no percieved benefit to offset the additional cost. Particularly for the military, who has never considered the lives of our troops the paramount objective.
Our troops lives are improtant, make no mistake, but it is the mission that is most important. Lives will be spent to achieve that. The fewest possible is the goal, and we work hard to make that reality, but it is not the mission.
Since the military does not consider the handgun a combat weapon, adding JHP ammo to the supply inventory is not considered "cost effective".
The rules of the Geneva and Hague conventions only apply to signatory nations and their armed forces. They evolved in an era before the concept of total war that emerged through WW II. When it comes to small arms ammo, if fmj did not meet the military needs, we would not use it, treaty or not.
Just remember that the military's concept of what is needed and appropriate is not the same as our individual belief of what is needed and appropriate for our own personal protection.
About war and killing. Sure, killing happens in war, but it is not what war is about. War is about making your enemy quit. Give up. No longer be a viable force, capable of expressing political will through force.
Pretty words to describe killing, but that is the point. Killing is just the most permanent and effective method. War is not about killing, it is about achieving specific political goals. When war is about killing the enemy, we call it something else. We call it genocide.
The rules of warfare came about in a time when wars were still primarily fought only between opposing military forces. Civilians were only involved when they happened to be on the ground being fought over. Pushed by the Europeans, codified in the Geneva and Hague accords, it was the last attempt to retain the concept of a "gentleman's war", a carryover from the ancient laws of chivalry.
With individual exceptions, soldiers, when shot, generally stop offensive actions. That is enough. Actually killing them is not needed when they are no longer capable of attack (or defense). So rules about weapons causing unnecessary suffering sound noble and good. And govts, engaging in "just" warfare, wish to be seen as noble and good.
On the pracitcal side, fmj feeds the best, costs the least, and always works as well as it works. JHP was, until fairly recently (in the history of ammo) not reliable enough for dependable performance. So JHP often functioned exactly the same as FMJ anyway, there was no percieved benefit to offset the additional cost. Particularly for the military, who has never considered the lives of our troops the paramount objective.
Our troops lives are improtant, make no mistake, but it is the mission that is most important. Lives will be spent to achieve that. The fewest possible is the goal, and we work hard to make that reality, but it is not the mission.
Since the military does not consider the handgun a combat weapon, adding JHP ammo to the supply inventory is not considered "cost effective".
The rules of the Geneva and Hague conventions only apply to signatory nations and their armed forces. They evolved in an era before the concept of total war that emerged through WW II. When it comes to small arms ammo, if fmj did not meet the military needs, we would not use it, treaty or not.
Just remember that the military's concept of what is needed and appropriate is not the same as our individual belief of what is needed and appropriate for our own personal protection.
hihosilver
New member
huh, and I always thought it was because it was cheaper or more reliable...
yosemitesamaz
New member
i just found out that you are not alowed to shoot the enemy directly with a 50 cal becuase it is inhumane. but to aim and shot at the weapon he is holding. this was just told to me today by a customer of mine who is in the usmc.
Regarding the OP, does anyone have any data that suggests the 45 acp was any better at stopping a person than the 38 caliber cartridge it replaced? I'm talking about data in the field and not in the lab.
If I plan on showing up to a gun fight, it will be with a rifle if I can only bring one firearm.
Ranb
If I plan on showing up to a gun fight, it will be with a rifle if I can only bring one firearm.
Ranb
That is a BS myth that has been going on for decades. There is nothing that legally prevents solders from shooting enemy troops with a 50 cal. Apache helicopters shoot infantry with their 30mm. AC-130U "Spooky" gunships shoot infantry with their 25mm GAU-12 and L60 40mm Bofors cannon. M2 Bradly crews shoot infantry with their 25mm M242. Infantry in Vietnam took out sniper positions with their 106mm M40 recoiless rifles. (Close enough is good enough)
Apache M230E1 30mm chain cannon vs insurgents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM_WEohK3bo
The Apache was called in because the USMC humvee just down the road with the mounted M2 machine gun wasnt able to get a clean shot at their weapons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM_WEohK3bo
The Apache was called in because the USMC humvee just down the road with the mounted M2 machine gun wasnt able to get a clean shot at their weapons.
The current record for longest range confirmed sniper kill is by a Canadian forces sniper in Afghanistan, using a .50cal sniper rifle (McMillan TAC-50) - same round as an M2 uses. And since the shot by Cpl. Rob Furlong (3rd Battalion , PPCLI) was recorded at 2430 meters, I highly doubt he was able to specfically target the terrorist's weapon and not the guy himself
armsmaster270
New member
In my unit we had the option when opening the M.P. Station to requisition ball ammo or buy it on the economy. When we bought it we bought JHP for our 45's. I still have 2 boxes of military WCC headstamped Black Talons that my Dept bought as Military overruns.
grymster2007
New member
I think the concept is invalid, given the US is willing to give up a few cities. I don't believe the Russians could mount a serious nuclear weapons assault on the US. They're equipment was never even close to reliable and I don't believe they could get off more than a couple of missiles before the end. Their central style communications schema allows very little latitude and control for individual commanders, resulting in ineffectual decision making and lack of initiative. They'd have a few successes, but most of the warheads on the few missiles they did get off would miss their targets or simply fail to detonate. If we were to do our part, in just a few short moments, all communication would cease to exist for them and they would die in a fog of confusion.
And the also ran's such as China, India and France are far behind the Russians.
Not that I think the US is anywhere as good as it could be. Nuclear war is very technologically challenging and while we probably have it down pretty well, our enemies are nearly completely inept.... for the time being.
Oh and ... awesome video, Creature!
yosemitesamaz
New member
you know what i dont understand is people like to make fun of others or "poke fun" of some one just making a comment. i didnt know we were still in jr high. i was always told if you dont ask or say somthing youll never learn. im sure everyone here has atleast learned somthing from some one on tfl. to bad maturity dont rub off. and to make it clear i am not directing this to one paticular person there alot of snobs and know it alls that think they dont stink. luckily i have met a few people that dont mind sharing the knowlegde.
Maximus856
New member
Considering that you need the soldier to do the mission and succeed, thats a bit of an oxymoron is it not? There is no mission with out the soldier. Soldier is still a soldier with or without a mission.
Ask any Marine or Soldier if their mission is 'freedom' or to get their fellow troops home safe, and I think youll find the latter of the two to be the answer. And being that the discussion at hand is directly involved with what is put in the hands of the troops, Id say the troops take precedence here. I dont mean to split hairs here, but there's a reason why missions get pulled and typically because the lives arent worth it.
Also, the theory on wounding is better then killing is just a theory anymore. In our EOF, nowhere in there is a step that says 'shoot to wound.' Throughout my training, we have been taught that we have minimum 180 rounds for a reason, and to double tap. We heard about how if you only wound him you might get lucky that he cant move, but it was by no means encouraged or anything. When you're fighting people that dont care about themselves, they most certainly wont care about others. I asked a few diffferent times about that theory, and was just short of getting my butt kicked. When it comes to life or death, there is NO room for theories. If thats not proof enough, then look up any citation for the medal of honor, silver star, navy cross etc. Theres quite a bit of them, and how many are because somebody was wounded but kept on fighting the good fight? If we can, so can they.
Last edited:
You don't know?!!!!!!!!!