Why does the military use ball ammo in handguns?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The military considers the 45 every couple of months according to the internet and then they buy a few thousand more M9s.

One interesting thing is that laser blinding weapons were banned as they were considered less humane than shooting people. Why - being blinded had great longer term personal consequences than being shot for those who obviously survived the gun shot wound.

 

[Crosshair]

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.

Um, their ICBMs were rather reliable. Their guidance systems were inferior to US counterparts. They partially made up for that by using larger warheads.

The best source I can find lists Russia's active ICBM arsenal as: 180 RS-20s, 160 RS-18s, 46 RS-22s (10 silo-based and 36 railroad-based), 370 Topols (360 mobile systems and 10 silo-based).

That makes a total of 756. Lets be pessimistic and say the Russians are exaggerating and only 500 missiles are operational. Lets also say that we can successfully destroy 95% of their arsenal before they can launch. That leaves 25 missiles left. Lets say we have a 50% failure rate. That still leaves 12-13 ICBMs incoming. Think we can afford to loose 12-13 cities/industrial centers?

That doesn't count SLBMs, bombers, nuclear tipped cruise missiles, etc.

 

[notamisfit6]

Treaties aside, given the general state of most armory handguns and magazines (ie crap), would it make sense to try and feed anything other than ball through them?

 

[vranasaurus]

Treaties aside, given the general state of most armory handguns and magazines (ie crap), would it make sense to try and feed anything other than ball through them?

The sidearm is a last ditch weapon that is mostly given to leaders as a status symbol. Aside from military police in a state side it is never a primary weapon. The people who, in combat, are only issued an M9 are leaders whose primary mission is to lead and direct the actions of others and not engage the enemy with their weapon.

Given the choice between an M16 and an M9 the M16 wins every time. This being the case it is a waste of time and effort to attempt to change long standing treaties that prhibit the use of expanding ammunition.

So what ammo is used in the M9 in combat is largely irrelevant because it really isn't a combat weapon.

 

[spamanon]

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.

War IS sometimes rational! That doesn't mean that it is good or morally right, or that the decision to go to war is not sometimes based on false information, but almost always war is begun with the intent of receiving more gains than losses. If the trade-offs have been evaluated, and more benefits are expected than losses (including human life, destruction of property, etc.) then a rational decision has been made. One cannot make a blanket statement that war is "by definition" irrational.

 

[tipoc]

Jim's points, made earlier, on the reasons for the banning of "expanding" bulletts in warfare are accurate and deserve a reread. There was widespread opposition to England's colonial wars in the late 1800s. One section of those who opposed British conduct in India argued for a more humane imperialism by banning certain weapons of war. Like Princess Diana's opposition to land mines a decade back, they could duck the question of opposing a war by arguing for more "humane" weapons...

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.

But as Jim pointed out by the time the conventions were signed it was a moot point. Ball ammo has been used for 100 years now (since the Germans developed the Spitzer bullet for the Mauser) by militaries around the globe for several reasons...

It feeds more reliably under rough conditions and is less subject to deformation than HP. It tends to be ballistically superior.

It is cheaper to produce.

Armies are not usually concerned with "overpenetration". In fact penetration is preferred.

The hit to miss ratio in modern combat means that the cost effectiveness of hp ammo would be unviable and unnecessary. It would be a complete waste of money. So much so that the proposal would be laughed at.

In a combat zone wounded soldiers require more care than dead ones and are more detrimental to morale.

The U.S. is one of only a few nations that still use cluster bombs. White phosphorus and "Daisy Cutters" are part of the arsenal as well as chemical weapons. If there was a role for hp ammo for regular troops it would be issued. But there is no need for it and it would not be useful from the point of view of arming an army.

In other words, the U.S. uses ball ammo not for "humanitarian" reasons but because it best meets their needs. If anything hp ammo is more humane.

tipoc

 

[Wuchak]

I recall seeing that the reason we switched to 9mm from .45 ACP was purely to be standardized with our NATO Allies. I don't know that the effectiveness of the rounds was really a deciding factor.

 

[tipoc]

Look at it this way...

Armies have to be ready to fight anywhere on the globe in all types of conditions and theaters. Whether .223 or 9mm you want ammo that can penetrate as many types of barriers as as one can expect to encounter. You want ammo that can penetrate winter clothing, most doors and walls in urban or rural cities and villages, etc. and still do it's job of killing or disabling. Ball ammo will be the choice hands down. It will be the most effective in a wide variety of conditions. Overpenetration is not a concern.

Law enforcement in the U.S. usually goes with one or another type of hp because they minimize the risk of overpenetration. Some agencies tailor their loads to one or another degree of penetration depending on whether they are urban or rural. Highway Patrol agencies want to be able to penetrate auto bodies and glass. Many urban agencies see this as less of a concern but are more concerned with less penetration.

Armies tend to go with ball because it meets their requirements.

One reason for the switch from .45 to 9mm was standardization with allies. That was one reason but not the only one.

tipoc

 

[Gazdik]

I'm with hihosilver, It's cheap...made by the lowest bidder no doubt..I wonder who does make all the ammo for us?...When I was in, all the lead I sent down range I never saw a name brand on any of it...of course thats the norm on anything the army uses.

Gazdik...just my 2 cents

 

[Rifleman 173]

Years ago we signed or agreed to the Hague Convention rules in principal but our Senate did NOT ratify the agreement so we're not bound to it. We have a catch in our laws which says that our president can sign an agreement but our Senate has got approve the agreement before it becomes actually legal.

 

[gb_in_ga]

I understand that FMJ handgun (and rifle) ammo is used by our military for a number of reasons:

> Adherence to the Hague Conventions, even though we are not signatory to them.
> Lower per round cost.
> Higher feeding reliability.
> Better barrier penetration characteristics.

 

[notamisfit6]

Years ago we signed or agreed to the Hague Convention rules in principal but our Senate did NOT ratify the agreement so we're not bound to it. We have a catch in our laws which says that our president can sign an agreement but our Senate has got approve the agreement before it becomes actually legal.

During Nuremburg, it was decided (and the US signed off on it) that the various Hague Conventions had become in fact "customary laws of war" and thus the international courts could prosecute for violations regardless of signatory status.

Then again, it's a pretty useless clause as is. Even when the convention was being drafted around WWI-ish, most casualties weren't due to small arms fire, and most of the ones that were came from rifles, where just the sheer velocity of the slug leads to injuries inconsistent with hardball. Add in barrier penetration, general reliability, and the fact that when most of our small arms were selected, a non-wheelgun capable of reliably feeding hollowpoints probably wasn't the simple matter it is today.