4 ms·
> Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point bullet. 1. Hollow point bullets aren't banned. The US Army just adopted them recentl
by nordsieck 7y ago
> Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point bullet.
1. Hollow point bullets aren't banned. The US Army just adopted them recently - M1153.
2. Hollow point bullets are very effective compared to ball ammo. There is plenty of research that's been done on this (see Martin Fackler). However, pistols are much less effective than rifles.
> Apparently killing a solider outright is not as destructive as driving him long term onto the medical system. This is also one of the reasons caliber has generally been dropped over time. The 1950s move to the 223 round is pretty explicit on this.
1. This is a pervasive myth. There is absolutely no evidence of this from primary sources. The goal of shooting people is and has always been to kill them.
2. The reason calibers have dropped over time has nothing to do with making them less lethal. It's because they're lighter and smaller (easier to carry more of them), and they shoot flatter and faster (easier to hit targets).
- leetcrew 7y agoregarding 2), it's my understanding that hollow point is not very effective against targets wearing armor, and also that they are indeed prohibited outside of situations where overpenetration of structures is a concern. seems to fit the pattern.
- nordsieck 7y ago> it's my understanding that hollow point is not very effective against targets wearing armor While that's true, the hollow point doesn't make a difference. Essentially all pistol ammo is bad at penetrating armor. What does make a (small) difference is velocity; you can see this by looking at ratings for NIJ level IIa and IIIa armor. This is why pistol ammo that's designed to penetrate soft armor like 5.7mm is so small and light weight - it needs to be really fast. I'm sure the pointed shape helps a bit, but it's the speed that really does the job. That's also why it's garbage compared to normal ammo against unarmored targets.
- leetcrew 7y agointeresting, I always thought it was less effective than other pistol ammo because it would begin expanding against the vest. TIL.
- int_19h 7y agoLehigh makes lightweight and faster-than-usual 9mm ammo that can punch through IIIa, as well, without sacrificing terminal ballistics. The only problem is that it's expensive ( comparable to match rifle ammo), because the bullets have to be individually precision-machined to produce the necessary shape.
- cullenking 7y agoHollow points are against the Geneva convention. The round you linked is only for use in special circumstances to prevent over penetration, Things like terrorist hostage rescue. They won’t and can’t be legally used in general warfare. There was actually a big argument in the past over match grade rounds that have a dimpled front and a hollowed core, which keeps the weight toward the back of the round. They aren’t effective in hunting for the same reason they aren’t considered a hollow point by the military.
- nordsieck 7y ago> Hollow points are against the Geneva convention. The round you linked is only for use in special circumstances to prevent over penetration, Things like terrorist hostage rescue. They won’t and can’t be legally used in general warfare. You're wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet#Legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet#Legality
- cullenking 7y agoRead the second paragraph of that section. And sorry, Hague convention not Geneva. Either way, only special circumstances aka special operations from my understanding, which is more like international policing than warfare.
- masonic 7y agoThe USA is not a signatory to that Hague convention. I don't know what the effect would be of USA participation in a NATO action using expanding small arms ammunition.
- cullenking 7y agoyeah I am certainly not an expert and I don’t know why the us military hasn’t used them, but they haven’t, and still aren’t going to from what I can read. I found that rabbit hole while researching hunting ammo, not because I am a military scholar or anything. Seems kinda odd to me anyway, though I suppose limiting the damage a combatant receives while fighting isn’t a bad thing. Coming up with a stance makes you have to mentally address the concept of good vs bad guys, and I suppose I don’t see enemy fighters as bad people, just people fighting for differing ideals. That makes me tend to agree with rules that limit fatalities and excessive injury.
- austincheney 7y ago> 1. This is a pervasive myth. There is absolutely no evidence of this from primary sources. The goal of shooting people is and has always been to kill them. In a military context that is actually required by law, which I think is the fourth Geneva Convention. Combat forces are required to eliminate the enemy with minimal unnecessary suffering, which means the intention is always to kill and not injure.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoBetween hollow points and ball ammo; the hollow points kill more than they wound. That part of the convention was written with feelings and not facts. Also, does not apply; the US is not a signatory.