TheForge wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
Irrelevant and false. Military doesn't use hollow point because they don't feed as reliably.....But you are right, the us military would have to accept a NATO round.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The Hague Treaty prohibits the use of expanding rounds. as a result, NATO doesn't allow the use of hollow point rounds. As a result, the US, in attempting to standardize with NATO, doesn't use hollow point.
Hey slowguy. Having just bought a potential contender in this MHS bid, I have become obsessed with learning more. This excerpt caught my attention and I immediately thought of you. I'll stay civil, I promise.
From an article, "Just like law enforcement and civilian shooters, the military is faced with the decision of what cartridge suits their needs best. Cartridges like .40 S&W and .357 SIG are hard on shooters and hard on guns, even if they deliver a harder-hitting payload. Browning’s storied .45 ACP loads a big, heavy bullet, but it takes up a lot of space, increasing grip sizes and decreasing magazine capacity.
The results of the program may find that a different bullet, not cartridge, may be the answer to their current 9mm problems, and is requesting that potential contractors supply ball and
jacketed hollow point ammunition with their submissions."
http://www.guns.com/...wants-a-new-handgun/
So what does this mean? Bringing back this debate, your stance would suggest this would be a direct violation of the Hague Treaty. Why would they even consider this? The dilemma suggested seem to only be reconciled via some sort of hollow point. Do they think there is enough wiggle room to get around that? Which would suggest I was correct.
Or point three, do they intend to just violate it and say fuck off or renegotiate the treaty?
One possible solution to the feeding issue would be using hollow point ammo with polymer filling or balls. States like New York forbid hollow points, but ammo like power ball isn't technically a hollowpoint since a polymer ball fills in the cavity and is a loophole. What the find is such ammo feeds more reliable than hollowpoints. But it still expands?
Two issues to consider.
1. The Hague treaties prohibit the use of expanding bullets in international conflict between contracting parties; i.e. countries who sign the treaties. There is wiggle room for justification in using these types of rounds when combatting non-state actors, terrorists, etc who do not represent those nations.
2. The military also uses firearms for internal law enforcement and security, and the Hague treaties wouldn't apply there either.
So, the DoD could certainly have use for these types of rounds in certain mission sets or environments.
Here's an interesting legal analysis of the Hague prohibitions, and whether or not we should rethink them. For the record, I am perfectly happy with the idea of getting rid of that prohibition. However, it's not as easy as just deciding to do it.
https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/...hua%20F.%20Berry.pdf
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)