military fmj?
- Thread starter TCman
- Start date
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
I remember hearing years ago that, back when war was a "gentleman's game", most countries' military were in favor of this.
The reasoning was, one dead soldier meant one soldier out of commission. One wounded soldier meant two or three out of commission, one wounded and one or two to take care of him.
The reasoning was, one dead soldier meant one soldier out of commission. One wounded soldier meant two or three out of commission, one wounded and one or two to take care of him.
Which when you factor in artillery, grenades, napalm and being potentially run over by armoured vehicle or being blown up by a bomb, does make one wonder
The Hague convention 1899 and 1907, basically spelled out that signatories to the accord will abide by said rules ( not using projectiles or means that cause undue suffering)( see opening comment if that confuses you), which according to to JAG, does not apply in those situations where the opponents engaged are not comprised of another state's (country) standing or recognized national forces and are not signatories or in a situation in which war has not been declared as laid out in the accords.
Yes lawyers wrote it.
For anti terrorism/peace keeping/ counter insurgency hollow point ammunition can be issued and employed, usually to limited personnel, in the most need.
The Hague convention 1899 and 1907, basically spelled out that signatories to the accord will abide by said rules ( not using projectiles or means that cause undue suffering)( see opening comment if that confuses you), which according to to JAG, does not apply in those situations where the opponents engaged are not comprised of another state's (country) standing or recognized national forces and are not signatories or in a situation in which war has not been declared as laid out in the accords.
Yes lawyers wrote it.
For anti terrorism/peace keeping/ counter insurgency hollow point ammunition can be issued and employed, usually to limited personnel, in the most need.
Both the Hague and Geneva Conventions were about making rules for war. The Hague Convention outlawed the use of SP bullets. Outlawed the use of shotguns too. The idea was to reduce the horrific wounds of previous wars and to try a civilize warfare. No raping and pillaging of the local population, etc.
The U.S. was not one of the original signatory countries of either treaty, but did follow most of the rules. The Geneva Convention made the rules for the treatment of POW's. Not that all country's armies followed the rules. The German Waffen SS was well known for killing prisoners. Especially the 12th SS Hitlerjugend Panzer Div.
FMJ's make the same size hole going in and coming out. They don't blow body parts off. They make a cleaner wound. Usually.
Warfare has come full circle in the last 100 years or so. Up until W. W. I, wars were fought by professional armies with little or no involvement of the population at home. Exactly what is happening now. The troopies go off to Iraq, etc, but the rest of us carry on as if nothing is happening. Except, of course, for the families of said troopies.
The U.S. was not one of the original signatory countries of either treaty, but did follow most of the rules. The Geneva Convention made the rules for the treatment of POW's. Not that all country's armies followed the rules. The German Waffen SS was well known for killing prisoners. Especially the 12th SS Hitlerjugend Panzer Div.
FMJ's make the same size hole going in and coming out. They don't blow body parts off. They make a cleaner wound. Usually.
Warfare has come full circle in the last 100 years or so. Up until W. W. I, wars were fought by professional armies with little or no involvement of the population at home. Exactly what is happening now. The troopies go off to Iraq, etc, but the rest of us carry on as if nothing is happening. Except, of course, for the families of said troopies.
Limeyfellow
New member
The US didn't sign the 1st Hague convention about the use of expanding ammunation but it did sign the fourth in 1907 that banned fielding weapons designed to cause unnecessary suffering. Of course this was only written to be used against the militaries of other countries.
Easy to get around really. Impose a puppet government and then declare anyone you fighting as terrorist forces, or security groups and mercenaries also don't get count under the Hague conventions and tend to use anything they like.
Still for the most part militaries around the world have mostly stuck to FMJ.
Easy to get around really. Impose a puppet government and then declare anyone you fighting as terrorist forces, or security groups and mercenaries also don't get count under the Hague conventions and tend to use anything they like.
Still for the most part militaries around the world have mostly stuck to FMJ.
RockyMtnTactical
New member
The Hague states that it is forbidden... "to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering."
It doesn't make sense... We can shoot someone 500 times with 5.56 or even a .50BMG, we can use grenades, artillery, depleted uranium tank shells, bombs, missiles, hell we can even use H-bombs... but we can't use 9mm Speer Gold Dots.
It doesn't make sense... We can shoot someone 500 times with 5.56 or even a .50BMG, we can use grenades, artillery, depleted uranium tank shells, bombs, missiles, hell we can even use H-bombs... but we can't use 9mm Speer Gold Dots.
Yes we can use Hp we are not at war with a country, we are at war with terrorist groups. I have read article that say certain US groups are using HP. Interesting side not. When a guy I worked with that is in the Reserves (ran a fork lift kind of equipment). Before they left they told them that if they could qualify with a 9mm they could buy there own 9mm handgun and take it with them.
On a pratical note
All treaties and rules of war aside, the FMJ feeds better (more reliably) than any other ammo. Better to have a less efficient bullet that works as reliably as humany possible than something that is slightly more effective but subject to a higher percentage of malfunctions.
The rules of war were written for a time when other than soldiers, the only people involved were those who happened to be caught inbetween armies. Since the concept of "total war" introduced during WWII, the rules have taken a beating, but we still try to follow some of them when practical.
Unfortunately our current adversaries don't even do that much.
All treaties and rules of war aside, the FMJ feeds better (more reliably) than any other ammo. Better to have a less efficient bullet that works as reliably as humany possible than something that is slightly more effective but subject to a higher percentage of malfunctions.
The rules of war were written for a time when other than soldiers, the only people involved were those who happened to be caught inbetween armies. Since the concept of "total war" introduced during WWII, the rules have taken a beating, but we still try to follow some of them when practical.
Unfortunately our current adversaries don't even do that much.
Actually, both the Hague Accords, and the Geneva Convention are for use beween signatories. Those who chose not to sign are not required to participate in, or be afforded, the treatments outlined.
Terrorist groups are treated as Brigands, Pirates and Bandits. They aren't covered by these treaties, as they aren't considered a military group, but are law-enforcement problems. The use of hollow-point ammunition against them would not be considered a violation of the Hague Accords. They are also not afforded any protection under the Geneva Convention, for the same reasons. It's pretty obvious that they don't feel any responsibility to it.
The largest problem stems, as usual, from idiots who really have no idea what either treaty actually contains. Then, there are also those who seek to "explain" what the Treaties actually mean for political gain. Much like those who feel that the Second Amendment is actually some sort of State power, they use a skewed view of history, and wording, to attempt to subvert simple statements to their own corrupt purposes.
Terrorist groups are treated as Brigands, Pirates and Bandits. They aren't covered by these treaties, as they aren't considered a military group, but are law-enforcement problems. The use of hollow-point ammunition against them would not be considered a violation of the Hague Accords. They are also not afforded any protection under the Geneva Convention, for the same reasons. It's pretty obvious that they don't feel any responsibility to it.
The largest problem stems, as usual, from idiots who really have no idea what either treaty actually contains. Then, there are also those who seek to "explain" what the Treaties actually mean for political gain. Much like those who feel that the Second Amendment is actually some sort of State power, they use a skewed view of history, and wording, to attempt to subvert simple statements to their own corrupt purposes.
JohnLizCas
New member
military can only use full metal jacket
because the libs in government are afraid we'll hurt the enemy too much.:barf:
because the libs in government are afraid we'll hurt the enemy too much.:barf:
Many full auto's work best with full metal jackets and given that various forms of intermediary barriers do need to be overcome in combat (shot thru) add into it shooting at/into vehicles/helicopters/aircraft and if facing a regular army, sometimes even if they aren't, various forms of body armour may be encountered and there is sometimes the need to suppress the opponent a FMJ has a lot more going for it, than a SP or HP and is cheaper and easier to produce on a huge scale as needed when supplying armed forces.
Most militaries want ammo that can penetrate cover and also damage equiptment(for general issue, not special ops). FMJ except maybe in handgun ammo, penetrates cover much better than any kind of soft nose stuff. And that can be enhanced with steel cored AP ammo. Saw an old film of AP 30 cal ammo going thru a brick wall to reach an adversary hiding behind. A FMJ rifle round should be effective for stopping a bad guy and expanding ammo might be overkill for that purpose if it comprimises other desireable characteristics of the round. Like armor penetration and reliability in the gun. Still, some question the effectiveness of the 5.56 bullets but the 30 cal. rounds from a rifle always seemed to get the job done.