# US Army switching to hollow point ammo...



## CWOLDOJAX (Sep 5, 2013)

This is over a day old and many of you have already heard it.

I have always been under the notion that we, the kinder/gentler USA promised not to use expanding ammo..



> The U.S. did not agree to a ban on expanding ammo by international treaty. And the the Army's prepared to defend the decision in the court of international law and opinion. His core argument: countries that will denounce the use of hollow-point use the hollow points for their police forces.


Sooo... it makes sense that since the POTUS is above the law then the DOD is too? Makes me want to apply for a federal job so I can have the freedom to do whatever I want... again.

Actually, I like the idea of the Army going to hollow points. It should minimize injuries under friendly fire because of less over-penetration.

Whatcha think?

BREAKING: U.S. Army Switching to Hollow Point Ammunition - The Truth About Guns


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Dunno. In basic, they taught us such ammo was a violation of the Geneva Convention. Then again, we were also taught only to target equipment with the M-2 and now we have .50 cal rifles.
Confusing.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Isn't it the Hauge that was against it? Anyways I'm all for it for their sidearms. Rifles I'm not sure about, since they need good penetration for armor and helmets and turning cover into concealment. But what do I know? I'm just a regular joe.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

Hollow points in rifles wouldn't be much of an improvement, the bullet travels fast enough that it tumbles and flies apart anyways when hitting soft tissue. Now in a pistols it is another story it makes a 9mm hollow point as deadly as a .45 fmj.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

It is not the Geneva, but the Hague convention.
The US never signed on to the Hague Convention.
We just went along.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

All's fair, love and War! That's what it amounts to, doesn't it?? When push comes to shove, do any of these things mean JS!


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

My favorite rounds for deer are nosler balistic tipped boat tail hollow points. I hope when hunting Islamic extremists we use them. They are a one shot deel. Our solders deserve this level of effective weaponry. I would not send our soldiers to go to war with out the effective tools to do the job. You are not supposed to hunt game with fmj rounds because it is cruel and ineffective. Why is it different with a ********.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Maybe a more lethal round is needed with another 40k cut in troop strength.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower (Jan 10, 2015)

I'm all for the "one shot stop" when it comes to stopping the ********.

Ideally, give the U.S. soldier BOTH types of rounds and let them choose, based on the situation they are in.


----------



## Viper (Jun 4, 2015)

rickkyw1720pf said:


> Hollow points in rifles wouldn't be much of an improvement, the bullet travels fast enough that it tumbles and flies apart anyways when hitting soft tissue.


Sometimes. For example, while it started to become apparent in 93, the wonderful M855 Ball (green tip) actually went through clean as opposed to tumbling like the old 5.56 Ammo and didn't have stopping power. Until they came out with SOST, it was a crap shoot sometimes with 5.56. Good against vehicles and body armor, bad against people. Especially skinny ones.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Viper said:


> Sometimes. For example, while it started to become apparent in 93, the wonderful M855 Ball (green tip) actually went through clean as opposed to tumbling like the old 5.56 Ammo and didn't have stopping power. Until they came out with SOST, it was a crap shoot sometimes with 5.56. Good against vehicles and body armor, bad against people. Especially skinny ones.


The 55 grain 5.56 NATO we had in the late 60's was excellent at close range.
That's about all I keep on hand for my Mini 14 since I'm not going to be shooting man nor animal at over 30 yards anyway.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

I have seen how devastating ball and expanding rounds are on a human body. I prefer the expanding rounds simply because they tend to remain in the target or at least don't go too far past it. Ball ammo just seems to go on forever.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

to the OP you in the army?
tell us what they use.
those of us who are or were know the reason for FMJ.
and by all means has nothing to do with lethalness.
maybe study up and come back and give us all lesson.
and don't tell me hat crap about how your just relaying info you opened the door now walk through it.


----------



## CWOLDOJAX (Sep 5, 2013)

Medic33 said:


> to the OP you in the army?
> tell us what they use.
> those of us who are or were know the reason for FMJ.
> and by all means has nothing to do with lethalness.
> ...


Not Army. Retired US Navy Mustang.

Actually, if you read the TTAG link, I was simply "sharing" news. I was not promoting myself to be an army expert.
TTAG is not Info Wars tin hat news.

I was not trying to be instructive, I asked "Whatcha Think".

Many several folks on the forum with infantry experience, seemed to answer that question.

Besides, the Hauge in 1907, said something about not using expanding ammo in combat. Surely you can elaborate on that, since this is a forum and not a debate. 
Other than that 100 year old "agreement" why would the Army use FMJ? More penetration through barriers, doors, etc? I dunno. That's why I asked.

I am still teachable.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

to wound
1 wounded takes 2 out of the fight.


----------



## Viper (Jun 4, 2015)

Medic33 said:


> to wound
> 1 wounded takes 2 out of the fight.


Old doctrine. I shoot to kill.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Medic33 said:


> to wound
> 1 wounded takes 2 out of the fight.


Depends on which Army.
In WWII on the Eastern Front, Russian soldiers, while having the same level of comradeship as any army, never slowed down an attack to care for the wounded. They ran right over their buddies to continue the attack.
Same with the Japanese in the Pacific.
In the Korean War the Chinese were so short of weapons only the first ranks were equipped with guns, the succeeding ranks picked up the weapons of the fallen to continue the attack.

FMJ was required by international treaty after the experience of the British using expanding bullets against their foes in India. FMJ, or "hard ball" was thought to be more humane to someone receiving a less than lethal wound.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The military strategy has always been that a wounded soldier, who is incapacitated, requires one of the fighting force to get him to safety. It also makes for another easy target. In mid-WW II the Russians had a problem with desertion and told their troops that if they didn't fight they would be shot by their officers. They were not allowed to stop to help fallen comrades. 

A light weight barely stable bullet from a rifle will be more likely to incapacitate a soldier (even with a poor hit) without killing him while a FMJ bullet from a handgun is not good at incapacitation unless a mortal hit is received. Going to an expanding bullet will make marginal hits better at incapacitation than the ball ammo.

I'm a hunter, and I believe in "one shot-one kill" but if I am fighting against human intruders I want them scared that they are going to suffer horribly before they finally die. Adding a bit of terror to a battlefield is a good thing. It teaches the reality of war quickly.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

csi-tech said:


> I have seen how devastating ball and expanding rounds are on a human body. I prefer the expanding rounds simply because they tend to remain in the target or at least don't go too far past it. Ball ammo just seems to go on forever.


That seems like a good thing to me. Anyone behind who you shoot might get hit. my .02


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Could it be with an eye on using the Army to control domestic civilian populations?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Hand gun is still a hand gun and gets very little use in the US military. A big non issue.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> I'm all for the "one shot stop" when it comes to stopping the ********.
> 
> Ideally, give the U.S. soldier BOTH types of rounds and let them choose, based on the situation they are in.


Bad idea. There are Soldiers who still need help loading magazines a couple years after basic. And the general notion is that hollow points are always better than FMJ for every situation. We know this to be untrue, but you would be amazed how stupid some service members are.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

ain't that the truth jak


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

It is probably an Obama scheme to allow the government to buy all available 9MM hollow point production. Then the "Oh My God The Sky Is Falling" people will strip the shelves bare like locusts in a wheat field, once again.


----------

