“other than ball”
Does this mean the Army will get with the 21st century and adopt JHPs:
At the event today, among changes discussed was policy that now opens up the competition to rounds other than ball (full metal jacket) ammunition.
17 Responses to ““other than ball””
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
July 9th, 2015 at 8:56 pm
That is an international interpretation of a 19th century treaty. Treaty of the Hague if I remember correctly.
That thinking is why police and FBI (and the like) used FMJ ammo until they had so many through and through fatalities (and friendly fire fatalities) that they couldn’t ignore the problem.
July 9th, 2015 at 10:03 pm
Geneva convention. Dunno how this is going to play out.
July 9th, 2015 at 10:30 pm
Probably meaningless, but I do have to wonder how much crud will get into the hollow point and cause misfeeds when troops are dragging through the dirt and such.
July 10th, 2015 at 12:20 am
Nope, first poster had it right; it was the Hague Convention of 1899.
However, the US never signed it; we observe it voluntarily, but we can decide to stop doing so at any time we feel like it.
July 10th, 2015 at 12:24 am
If you’re getting THAT much crud into your weapon, then the type of ammunition you’re using isn’t going to make a bit of difference…
July 10th, 2015 at 8:42 am
RC
Easily fixed by “tipped” bullets. Think Hornady flextip and flexlock bullets
July 10th, 2015 at 9:03 am
It’s not just a jacket that makes it “ball”, I think. There are more technical restrictions on the core and alloy compositions and things like jacket separation. And they’re all silly. An infantryman cannot have frangible ammunition but 20mm depleted uranium from a GAU-8 is ok and so are tiny pieces of steel wire from a grenade or shell?
July 10th, 2015 at 11:39 am
It’s expansive ammo that’s banned – not hollow-points. Why bother? Hollow-points will be easier to stop with body armor.
Absolutely nothing will ever come of this.
July 10th, 2015 at 11:52 am
I am pro-actively, aggressively apathetic on this issue. My level of interest in what kinds of retard committee-designed ammunition the military uses has dropped to zero and then kept dropping into negative interest. The way I look at it, it’s none of the military’s business what kinds of ammunition the soldiers are using. So there.
July 10th, 2015 at 2:08 pm
nk: Note that technically the GAU-8 is an “anti-material” or “anti-vehicle” gun and thus exempt.
(Who wants to waste 20mm DU penetrators on infantry anyway?)
July 10th, 2015 at 2:18 pm
regardless of the conventions and signatory, I believe that the Nuremberg trials and a few related announcements explicitly stated that the conventions were now established as law for a “civilized” nations, regardless of whether they signed or not.
these rules don’t apply to the “non-civilized” who fight outside of the laws of cilivization, such as pirates and terrorists (that’s why 20th century revolutionaries wore armbands, etc., as it show adherence to the law of nations.) they also don’t apply to internal disputes, such as law enforcement, civil war, civilians, counter-insurgency, colonial holdings, and outright repression.
July 10th, 2015 at 4:09 pm
Pistols have essentially two uses in the military service, as this civilian understands it: as last ditch self defense or as a silenced tool to take down sentries or specific individuals from up close.
What bullet they use is immaterial, as long as it doesn’t emit gamma radiation or poison gas, I’d think.
July 11th, 2015 at 11:14 am
This was in the original specs. Don’t know why it suddenly came to light. (Yes I do: Some gun blogger with all the credibility of the Duffleblog glommed onto it.)
I wouldn’t read too much into Big Army’s stated desire to come up with ammo that works better than the standard-issue 9mm Ball.
The intention is that when being used in a Law Enforcement role, which may mean either domestic use by MPs and civilian investigators as well as in counter-terror operations, HPs can be used.
Most troops in conventional operations will probably be using more-or-less standard ball ammo.
July 11th, 2015 at 11:33 am
mikee: For most militaries, the pistol serves primarily as a badge of rank.
July 11th, 2015 at 1:49 pm
Ahh, yes, in firing squads the officer in charge always delivers any needed coups de grace with his handgun, and in situations of disgrace the officer can be left alone in a room with his pistol and one round, to do the honorable thing. Or so I have learned from movies.
I was thinking of our military, where the SPECOPS .45 H&K is famous, as is the M9 & 1911, for use by rank & file rather than officers, but we also had the Colt M1903 .32ACP General Officer’s Pistol presented to newly minted brigadiers, didn’t we? That isn’t still done, is it?
July 11th, 2015 at 4:01 pm
Square bullets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
July 12th, 2015 at 6:53 pm
Well mikee, while I was in about 90% of the pistols went to NCOs and officers who didn’t want to carry their M4s to the DFAC on deployment. Only one guy below E6 in my platoon had an M9, not counting our medics. Apparently only one TC thought his gunner could make better use of an M9 than he could.
That was in an active duty infantry company at the height of the war. It was a rare E6+ who was worth a shit in the mid-00s, at least in my experience.
Same principle applies to other cool guy stuff. Optics, for example. If you look at an infantry squad and the only ACOG is sitting on the squad leader’s gun instead of some skilled PFC or SPC, well… let’s just say it isn’t a positive indicator regarding the local quality of leadership.