• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Should the international military community relax it's prohibition on JHP ammunition?

COMMANDER1911

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
129
Location
Flintstone, GA
Yup, they are now also being trained to keep firing until the perp is on the ground..so NO chance on the perp surviving ( what if he was innocent ? ) So, now our Militarized national police force are de facto firing squads, I think summary executions could be a war crime... The Govt's war against the American people.

One problem with this. In a perfect world, a LEO would not use deadly force unless a threat was presented. Therefore, at that point the subject would not be innocent. I do however realize that we do not live in a perfect world.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Michigander: You mentioned a lot of things herein I found utterly ridiculous, representative of idealists who've never "been there, done that." However, most of the others have called you on your idealisms, so there's little need to bother repeating their fine, if a bit abrasive posts.

Since you haven't "been there, done that" (painfully obvious to those of us who have) I'll forgive you, except for your use of the term "murderous" when it comes to describing our troops. For that I invite you to find a scum-filled pond, dunk your head, and inhale. More constructively on this particularly point, I would advise you that all soldiers of reputable countries study, adhere to, and are subject to the Laws of Armed Conflict. Soldiers who step outside the line are subject to some rather severe punishments, including rotting away in federal prison for the rest of their lives.

As for this nonsense of our military not helping our citizens, those who espouse this view are apparently about 70 years behind on their global economics classes. We don't have the lowest price per gallon of gas, but it's down there. Those countries with lower prices are significant producers of oil themselves. The international petrochemical industry is both strongly connected, and massive, and is the foundation for many other industries.

Don't think our military helps us at home? Over the last 100 years, our military has quelled conflicts ranging from skirmishes to two World Wars. The principle effect has been a cessation of hostilities, followed by a return of area and international commerce, to the benefit of everyone involved, including the U.S. The economic effect at home has been so significant that estimates from world economists put our GDP (gross domestic product) at between 25% and 67% of what it currently is had we continued with the isolationist position we held 100 years ago.

Our overseas involvement, doing the right thing, being wiling to stand up not only for our own international economic interests, but also the human rights of others,

The same stuff society faces here at home, including gangs and gang leaders killing one another are the same stuff society faces overseas, but on a larger scale, and they're called empirial regimes and warlords committing mass genocide.

The responsibilities don't change with size, people, and regardless of size, if we don't the adverse influences in check, they absolutely will run us over.

Anyone who thinks for one nanosecond that our military has done little to nothing to protect our rights and freedoms here at home has yet to think things through.

You are putting words in my mouth I have not spoken. I did not once describe soldiers as murderers. I've described the US government that way, and I would go so far as to call the apathy of the american people murderous, or at least homicidally flawed, but I don't know how much more clear I can make it I'm not insulting soldiers. I used the term "ruthelessly skilled killers". I would generally find this an appropriate term for a well skilled soldier, and of my numerous current soldier friends and relatives I know none who would disagree. It is also the reason why I don't think that there is a need to worry about ammo choices, when in fact what is in use now works, nevermind the fact that any ammo is fair game for most combat going on these days.

In a country that prides itself on being free, it's strange that so many who serve it would be angered at me for merely being against specific wars and wanting a smaller military which depends more on civilian marksmanship.

Gas prices are just about as off topic as it gets, but my understanding from a guy who has a fairly high position in an oil company is that there is a fairly steady world wide oil price point, but it is influenced by taxes as it is in the US, and subsidies as you mentioned. Forcibly having a steady supply of it from a source other than your own property certainly isn't much related to freedom or rights.

In any case, as I already noted, there are genocidal lunatics in many parts of the world. Sometimes the US intervenes, and sometimes it doesn't. Certainly when the US does intervene it seems more often than not, raw resources are coincidentally ripe for the picking when the time comes to attack. Besides this, whether it makes me a sick and uncaring individual or not, I believe the vast majority of these things are not our problem, and if anything should be solved by the international community with far less help from the US than the US might normally provide.

Certainly trying to credit the US government for prosperous international free trade is something I am not going to agree with. We are shipping our money off to China as fast as they can take it, and with it goes much of our industrial might and intelligent young people who would otherwise be seeking high skilled jobs in manufacturing and design. Plus, while I have nothing against Mexico, NAFTA has screwed us over tremendously, unless you're a rich business owner or a NAFTA sanctioned Mexican worker.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Far more important than what ammo you use to kill someone with is why you kill them. The issue of why in the hell the US government has for so long got away with imperialistic mass murder is worthy of heavy consideration.

you didn't make it very clear here that you were not refering to the soldiers acting as part of the US government, but some other part of the US government.

The choice of ammo is really quite a side issue, particularly considering just how good tactics and equipment have become. Our nations military is filled with ruthlessly skilled killers, and I frankly don't care much how effectively our soldiers can kill people in the decent chance that there is another war with a standing army, even if it is as ragged and torn up as the Iraqi army. I don't think we need more wars, certainly we don't need to dismantle any other countries, so no, I don't feel a need to make it any easier than it already is.

perhaps you have no idea what you were implying. I guess you don't realize that the easier it is for soldiers to kill the enemy, the more likely our soldiers will live. So I guess you didn't realize your statement contained the implication that it would be good if more soldiers died.

We've always been an imperialistic, murderous country, which I reserve the right to say as a descendant of native Americans who were nearly completely exterminated. I'd rather focus on how to help curb this than how to enhance it.
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
Answer to OP is yes the military, the police and us civilians should use the most effective round available. However if you must use hardball ammo then use a big hardball bullet, that means a caliber number starting with 4 or larger.

The rest of the comments have nothing to do with the question, please disregard as wasted space and move them to a philosophy thread where the idiots can argue with a moron to their hearts content.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Please don't take this as being contrarian, but I would keep the rules as they are. The change I would make is actually behaving according to the rules.

The Conventions and Accords are agreements between two or more parties, just as business contracts are.
-- If your business contract says that all members of the Anytown Goodfellows Alliance (AGA) shall give a 10% discount to all other members of the AGA it does not mean that Smedley's Grocery from Everytown is entitled to a 10% discount. And it does not mean that all members of the AGA must give a 10% discount to anyone and everyone, which is pretty much how people are saying the Conventions and Accords should be interpreted.

The only strength the Conventions and Accords have is that if you are Not a signatory, or do Not act in accordance with them, then you have No Protections from them.



In the specific instance we are discussing - - The insurgents are not signatories to the Conventions and Accords, nor are they behaving in accordance with them; therefore they do not have the protections of them. IOW.... JHP's dipped in swine blood for everyone. :)
 
Last edited:

thx997303

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,712
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
Only problem with the swine blood dipped JHPs is, blood tends to be a bit corrosive.

As an aside, with the lower muzzle velocities of 9mm rounds, the desire for penetration, the desire for wounding capability, and the very much less present worry about overpenetration, a wide flat nosed 9mm fmj would provide deep penetration, and a larger than caliber wound channel.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
As an aside, with the lower muzzle velocities of 9mm rounds, the desire for penetration, the desire for wounding capability, and the very much less present worry about overpenetration, a wide flat nosed 9mm fmj would provide deep penetration, and a larger than caliber wound channel.

A ball-nose FMJ 9mm can easily go right through a human body, resulting in secondary, unintentional casualties.

I'm not sure if a flat-nose 9mm round would meet the requirements of the Hague Convention.

It is actually pretty stupid that civilians have access to better sidearm ammo than the military.

Yep.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
It is actually pretty stupid that civilians have access to better sidearm ammo than the military.

Perhaps if civilian had any real meaning in USA. Seeing however that we have only organized militia, unorganized militia and federal armies, of which basically every citizen is a member of one of them at least, I suppose you mean it is "pretty stupid" that citizens engaged in warfare are limited in ammo unlike when they are not engaged in warfare.
 

thx997303

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,712
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
A ball-nose FMJ 9mm can easily go right through a human body, resulting in secondary, unintentional casualties.

I'm not sure if a flat-nose 9mm round would meet the requirements of the Hague Convention.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what it may be in violation of?

It's not a dum dum, it's not expanding, it's not fragmenting.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what it may be in violation of?

The Hague Convention, Declaration III, prohibits expanding ammo. Specifically:

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."​

It's not a dum dum, it's not expanding, it's not fragmenting.

Just a flattened nose, eh? I think it would not be allowed, as it's skirting the line.
 

thx997303

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,712
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
A flat nosed full metal jacket round is NOT skirting the line.

It does NOT expand.

It does NOT fragment.

It does NOT have an exposed core.

Please, study up on the bullet in question, then come back with an opinion.

I believe Flat nosed FMJ is quite common with 40 S&W.
 

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
One thing you have to remember is that the military services consider wounding the enemy soldier preferable to killing him IN MOST INSTANCES. It's called a force mutiplier. If you kill an enemy combatant, then you have removed one enemy soldier from the battle. If you wound one, normally at least one will have to help the wounded from the battlefield, sometimes two thereby removing two to three combatants from the battlefield. While that same wounded enemy may be treated and return to fight again later, the American soldier trains to "survive and win on the next battlefield." You win wars one battle at a time and you do that by removing enemy combatants from battle.

+1 here The reason that hollow point ammunition was declared illegal in the "Laws of Land Warfare" Geneva-Hague Conventions is that they cause such devastating wounds. They were refered to as "Dum-dum" rounds, don't ask me why. It may well be that today's medical practices are far advance from WWI that it won't much matter. And the use of body armor has also advanced the cause of the common Infantryman that a wound will not necessarily cause mortality, but as the quote above states the goal is not to kill most soldiers, but to make them combat ineffective. By wounding one soldier you actually tie up 7. The ones to transport them from the battlefield and the ones to care for them in the rear.
 

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
Far more important than what ammo you use to kill someone with is why you kill them. The issue of why in the hell the US government has for so long got away with imperialistic mass murder is worthy of heavy consideration. The choice of ammo is really quite a side issue, particularly considering just how good tactics and equipment have become. Our nations military is filled with ruthlessly skilled killers, and I frankly don't care much how effectively our soldiers can kill people in the decent chance that there is another war with a standing army, even if it is as ragged and torn up as the Iraqi army. I don't think we need more wars, certainly we don't need to dismantle any other countries, so no, I don't feel a need to make it any easier than it already is.

We've always been an imperialistic, murderous country, which I reserve the right to say as a descendant of native Americans who were nearly completely exterminated. I'd rather focus on how to help curb this than how to enhance it.

Um, no offense meant in all seriousness Michigander. I also am descended from native American stock, and in truth am no war-monger. No one loves peace more than a soldier, especially an old soldier. I can understand your sense of distaste for war, I truly can but,

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing that is worth more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being made free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men then himself."

Imperialistic ? Just wondering which socialist band wagon you fell off of. If this is a personal attack then by all means Moderator, use your anti first amendment keystroke to wipe it out. I personally am tired of mamby pamby BS. I'll call it like I see it. His kind of rhetoric is as anti-gun as it is anti war. And I've shed blood on foreign soil to ensure he has the right to type it anywhere he wants. AS I Have the right to dispute IT!!!
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
since9 and michagander won't be happy till our troops are armed with nerf guns and only 3 rounds per man per day and they will not be allowed to shoot the sand flea infested wife beaters and head cutters above the shoulders or below the waist for fear that they might accidentally be frightened.

As for me I want the biggest heaviest destructive bullet I can stick in my gun and still shoot accurately. I don't want to shoot anybody but if I absolutely have to I do not want to have to shoot him twice. The pretend Muslims do not pay the slightest attention to the Hague or Geneva conventions or to any standards of human decency even among themselves or they wouldn't be sending in women and children with bombs or cutting off heads on TV in the hopes they will cause more grief for the soldiers family.

They are not human and deserve no more consideration than a rabid dog, less in fact because a rabid animal cannot help themselves. These people have made themselves lower than animals on purpose and shame their own people and make a mockery of their religion. If you have a clear shot at some Jihadist and all you have is a poisonous bullet or an explosive bullet aim carefully because you do not want to give that woman stoning camel lover a second chance at hurting anybody else.

Just dos centavos from an old dinosaur
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
<snip>
As for me I want the biggest heaviest destructive bullet I can stick in my gun and still shoot accurately. I don't want to shoot anybody but if I absolutely have to I do not want to have to shoot him twice. The pretend Muslims do not pay the slightest attention to the Hague or Geneva conventions or to any standards of human decency even among themselves or they wouldn't be sending in women and children with bombs or cutting off heads on TV in the hopes they will cause more grief for the soldiers family.

They are not human and deserve no more consideration than a rabid dog, less in fact because a rabid animal cannot help themselves. These people have made themselves lower than animals on purpose and shame their own people and make a mockery of their religion. If you have a clear shot at some Jihadist and all you have is a poisonous bullet or an explosive bullet aim carefully because you do not want to give that woman stoning camel lover a second chance at hurting anybody else.

Just dos centavos from an old dinosaur

:lol: +1

The restriction on ways of killing people is a joke. It's like we have to "humanely" execute criminals (assuming they were so bad that their conviction made it through all the appeals process and a liberal candy-a$$ govenor doesn't commute it)!

When I send one of our citizens to war they should be allowed to use every and any means to end it in victory and with the fewest casulties on OUR side. Just like the nuking of the two Japanese cities was horrific it saved "litterally" about a million of our own soldiers. As far as criminals, a zip tie around the neck or holding their heads underwater until their dead is fine with me.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
since9 and michagander won't be happy till our troops are armed with nerf guns...

What the hell are you talking about? I'm all for giving them armor-piercing, delay-fused exploding bullets. I think about 4 inches ought to do it. The only reason we can't is because a bunch of mamby pambies would scream bloody murder.

Don't EVER lump me in with the mamby pambies again, Old Grump.

Dismissed.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
What the hell are you talking about? I'm all for giving them armor-piercing, delay-fused exploding bullets. I think about 4 inches ought to do it. The only reason we can't is because a bunch of mamby pambies would scream bloody murder.

Don't EVER lump me in with the mamby pambies again, Old Grump.

Dismissed.

I saw that coming.
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
What the hell are you talking about? I'm all for giving them armor-piercing, delay-fused exploding bullets. I think about 4 inches ought to do it. The only reason we can't is because a bunch of mamby pambies would scream bloody murder.

Don't EVER lump me in with the mamby pambies again, Old Grump.

Dismissed.

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack
 
Top