National Gun Forum banner

US Military Uses Hollow-Points on Muslims?

2K views 21 replies 13 participants last post by  Alan R McDaniel Jr 
#1 ·
--I've never encountered this news source before, the headline is weird, 'issuing bullets' sounds weird too, but the facts might be legit. Maybe there's a puzzle here.

Weapons: M4 Conquers The USMC - The Strategy Page - November 28, 2015

The U.S. Marine Corps has decided to equip all their combat troops with 17,000 M4 carbines and relegate their M16A4 rifles to support troops .Eventually all M16s will be retired and replaced with M4s.

A key element in all this was the ammo and recent improvements in 5.56mm ammunition. Shortly after 2001 SOCOM and the marines, responding to complaints from troops that the standard 5.56 and 9mm full metal jacket bullets were not doing enough damage to stop fanatical Islamic terrorist fighters, began issuing hollow point bullets and troops were satisfied with the improved stopping power. As a result the Marines switched over to the MK318 hollow point (or “open tip”) round for its assault rifles and machine-guns.

There is a popular and long-standing myth that hollow point bullets (which expand on hitting and create larger and more damaging wounds) are illegal according to the Geneva Convention. That treaty does not mention bullets. The later 1899 Hague Convention does and it prohibits some types of hollow point bullets. The U.S. never signed the Hague Convention and was never bound by it.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
The Geneva convention is voluminous and a long read, so going through it in nit-picky detail to verify will take some time (by someone else). meanwhile - here's a good read on the issue.
 
#3 ·
The Geneva convention sounds pretty stupid to me. War is not fair and who cares when you are always on the side that wins. The fact that we have not been using hollow points exclusively is idiotic.


Sent from the Fortress of Solitude.
 
#4 ·
This is a good thing, those 62gr FMJ can screw up some stuff though.
 
#5 ·
A while back we had a thread on here that said we never signed into the Geneva Convention. If I remember right anyway. It stated we can use Hollow points but we just have not been using them. Sounds like things may have changed.
 
#7 ·
We have signed onto the Geneva convention. it was the Hague convention that contained the prohibition on hollowpoints and the US did not sign or ratify that portion of the Hague convention. The geneva convention deals with neutrals (red cross, medics, etc.) care of prisoners, and some of the combat no-no's like using gas warfare.

As to why the Military uses mostly FMJ, I can only speculate: 1) it's cheaper and the military goes through a lot of ammo and 2) JHP doesn't penetrate cover / concealment / flak jackets as well as FMJ.
 
#8 ·
Thanks for straightening me out. I knew it was something like that.
 
#9 ·
Another reason I've always heard for the use of FMJ in battle field conditions, is for the possibility of the round to pass through one enemy combatant and maybe strike another.
 
#10 ·
June 2015 U.S. Law of War Manual

The US Law of War manual is a compilation of all of the treaty requirements pertaining to war that the U.S. has agreed to abide by. I do have the latest version in searchable format and beginning on Page 317 is the section relevant to weapons and ammunition. I’m going to abstract portions relevant to this thread. Especially significant to this thread is footnote (79) below

==
6.5.2 Other Examples of Lawful Weapons. In particular, aside from the rules prohibiting weapons calculated to cause superfluous injury and inherently indiscriminate weapons,(46) there are no law of war rules specifically prohibiting or restricting the following types of weapons by the U.S. armed forces:

• small arms, cannons, and other guns, including shotguns, exploding bullets, expanding bullets, suppressors, or large-caliber guns;(48)

6.5.4 arms, cannons, and other guns are not specifically restricted or prohibited by the law of war. In particular, there are no specific rules against shotguns, exploding bullets, expanding bullets, suppressors, or anti-personnel use of larger caliber guns or cannons.

6.5.4.4 Expanding Bullets. The law of war does not prohibit the use of bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body. Like other weapons, such bullets are only prohibited if they are calculated to cause superfluous injury.(74) The U.S. armed forces have used expanding bullets in various counter terrorism and hostage rescue operations, some of which have been conducted in the context of armed conflict.

The 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets prohibits the use of expanding bullets in armed conflicts in which all States that are parties to the conflict are also Party to the 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets.(75) The United States is not a Party to the 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets, in part because evidence was not presented at the diplomatic conference that
expanding bullets produced unnecessarily severe or cruel wounds.(76)

In 2013, a review conducted by DoD in coordination with the Department of State reconfirmed that the prohibition in the 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets did not reflect customary international law.(77) The findings of this review were consistent with the longstanding position of the United States not to become a Party to the 1899 Declaration and not to apply a distinct prohibition against expanding bullets, but instead to regard expanding bullets as prohibited only to the extent that such bullets are calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.(78)

In the past, expanding bullets have been viewed as ineffective for military and technical reasons.(79) Non-expanding bullets that were widely used in armed conflict produced wounds comparable to, or more severe than, wounds produced by expanding bullets.(80) In addition, expanding bullets are widely used by law enforcement agencies today, which also supports the conclusion that States do not regard such bullets are inherently inhumane or needlessly cruel.(81)

6.5.4.5 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court War Crime Regarding the Use of Expanding Bullets. The war crime of using expanding bullets that is reflected in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has been interpreted by States only to criminalize the use of expanding bullets that are also calculated to cause superfluous injury and not to create or reflect a prohibition against expanding bullets as such.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court lists as a war crime “[e]mploying 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.”(82)

Elements of Crimes have been adopted by the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute to assist the ICC in its interpretation and application of the Article 8 of the Rome Statute, which includes this war crime.(83) The Elements of Crimes explain that this rule is not violated unless, inter alia, “[t]he perpetrator was aware that the nature of the bullets was such that their employment would uselessly aggravate suffering or the wounding effect.”(84) When adopting an amendment at the Review Conference in 2010 that would apply this crime to non-international armed conflict, Parties to the Rome Statute reiterated this understanding and explained that “the crime is committed only if the perpetrator employs the bullets to uselessly aggravate suffering or the wounding effect upon the target of such bullets, as reflected in customary international law.”(85) Thus, this crime only applies to expanding bullets that are also calculated to cause superfluous injury and does not create or reflect a prohibition against expanding bullets as such.(86)

Relevant footnotes
(79): 79 See, e.g., Alfons Vanheusden, W. Hays Parks, and William H. Boothby, The Use of Expanding Bullets in Military Operations: Examining the Kampala Consensus, 50 MILITARY LAW AND LAW OF WAR REVIEW 535, 537 (2011) (“[L]ack of use of expanding ammunition by armed forces could be attributed equally to the increased risk of weapon malfunction (specifically, failure to feed) through its use, particularly in machineguns”); P. R. COURTNEYGREEN, AMMUNITION FOR THE LAND BATTLE 33 (1991) (noting that expanding bullets “may not cause a sufficiently incapacitating wound, particularly in a military context,”); WILLY LEY, SHELLS AND SHOOTING 39-41 (1942) (“[D]umdum bullets find too much air resistance. Roughly speaking, their power of penetration is only one-quarter that of other bullets, and the ‘dumdum effect’ does not take place if the velocity is low. Ranges of more than 600 yards ruin the ‘dumdum effect,’ and over 1200 yards the bullet may be so slow that it cannot penetrate a heavy uniform with overcoat.”); Charles Frederick Carter, “Atrocities” in War, Nov. 1914, 29 THE WORLD’S WORK 65, 66 (1915) (“But since the first Hague Conference no nation has used dum-dum bullets for a compelling reason that has nothing to do with the Hague nor with considerations of humanity. Experience has taught that when a modern high powered rifle, such as is used in all armies to-day, is hot and dirty, conditions common to battle, the dum-dum bullet is liable to ‘strip’; that is, the leaden core is apt to squirt out, leaving the jacket in the barrel, so that when the next shot is fired the gun blows back, or bursts.”).

===
and there you have the official position of the US military as of June 2015. No prohibition - just military effectiveness.
 
#12 ·
Makes sense presented that way but I would think against the caliber of enemy we are fighting now wouldn't a hollow point be better? Is ISIS really making an effort to equip it's heathens with body armor.


Sent from the Fortress of Solitude.
 
#13 ·
Having read the explanation, I can understand the preference for FMJ in combat. Overpenetration is not the worry in an open field battle like it for civilian defense usage. In a house clearing operation, maybe. Depends on presence of non- combatants and the desire to prevent collateral damage.

It's like thread on "pick just one pistol" you want the round tailored to the tactical situation, but logistics says pick one for the majority of the situations your troops will encounter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Popeye
#14 ·
I have heard this subject discussed from Military History classrooms to combat veterans in barrooms. One idea has always struck me as being more pertinent than any other. In battle, with the use of small arms, the opposing forces are shooting each other with deadly intent. The overriding purpose being, to win the battle. To even entertain the idea that a certain kind of bullet would not be used because of some "humane" reason, is some kind of fairy tail. Soldiers shoot at each other with the full intent of killing the enemy(period). Yes, a FMJ will supposedly create a wounded soldier that will require at least one (possibly two) other soldier(s) to remove themselves from the battle to tend to the wounded, thereby reducing the opposing force. Okay, maybe so, maybe no.

There are ordinance guys who devote their entire careers to testing and understanding the effects of projectiles under all sorts of conditions. They then make recommendations based on that scientific study as to what type of ammunition is to be used, when, where, and how.

The military then has an incredible amount of ammunition manufactured based on lobbying, kickbacks, perks, and which ammunition company can provide the most ammunition at the highest price regardless of what the recommendations are. (this part was sarcasm).

Alan
 
#15 · (Edited)
We should renounce the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and all other Rules of War agreements, since they never have, and don't now, restrain our enemies from any act of depravity against our prisoners, or against civilians on our side. Conventions are like gun controls - they only keep the already law-abiding in line. We should be free to do unto them whatever they do unto us, and if we win, hold them to a double standard after the fact, whereby we try them for whatever acts we consider war crimes. History is written by the winners, and so are court transcripts.

That may sound harsh, and even unfair, but let's face it - they'd murder us all if they could.
 
#17 ·
We should renounce the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and all other Rules of War agreements,
No, we should not. You can't fight on the side of civilization by abandoning that which makes you civilized, I.e. the rule of law. Yes, some of those rules seem overly constraining and they probably are...

But you have to also think about those you want to win back to civilization. You have to provide them a reason to choose civilization vs barbarity. Providing a good model of civilized behavior does that AND leaves room to make peace with former enemies, rather than creating endless revenge cycles which is the norm for that region and culture. After all that, if they still don't want peace, then your only option is to kill them all - as cleanly, professionally as you can and without anger in your soul. That way, at least you can find peace in your own soul and they have the peace of the grave.
 
#19 ·
Civilization has its time and place. There's nothing 'civilized' about war and making believe that there are civilized ways of killing people and breaking things just fools yourself. The best thing we can do when fighting on the side of civilization is WIN, decisively and completely, and by whatever means minimizes our losses in blood and treasure. As for those I want to 'win back to civilization,' that's the easy part. Terrorized, shell-shocked, starving and homeless survivors are all that should be left in various degrees of 'alive' when the shooting stops, as it was with Germany and Japan in 1945. Those nations were subjected to the most ruthless, pitiless and total war the 20th century had to offer, save poison gas and deadly germs. When it was over, that was the time for us to be civilized, not before, and it worked out well for both of them. We were overly cautious, civilized and restrained in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as we still are with ISIS, and because of that, both will soon be lost.
 
#18 ·
I hope they use whatever weapons they have to fight these sub human terrorists.
 
#20 ·
Consider: what would you risk everything you have, in order to achieve it?

Likely, it would be something like peace and order and prosperity and happiness. And the same for your kids, and for their kids.

What would you want to have for yourself, that puts all those things at risk?

If your need to 'feel civilized' is so precious to you that you are willing to let civilization itself fall into oblivion, you're basically saying, your civilization is not worth defending. If civilization is the greatest good we humans can achieve, then any measures to preserve civilization are justified.

Q.E.D.
 
#21 ·
ok......a 223 round that will expand and punch thru a light barrier..........Nosler Partition? the old Trophy bond Bear Claw?....Barnes X?????......yep i can see where bullet costs would get prohibitive so i would err on the side of penetration over expansion.

now the handgun.....that is a different matter.....so i say go with a generic HP in the 9mm.....and if you are going to stay with FMJ then go with the 45.
 
#22 ·
Just like in any other form of hunting, you must match your bullet to the job it has to do.

Alan
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top