Legality of using LE/Miltary Ammo

Aknazer said:

Which does make me wonder what they would do if our country was invaded.

Click to expand...

Say "screw the Hague Conventions"?

I mean, it's not like American civilians won't be shooting back, too. And it's not like they're going to give a crap what some agreement says as they're shooting to protect their lives, property, and way of life.

Daylen said:

Probably use the same ball ammo, it will more consistently make a hole, regardless of armor. Plus, it would take some large changes and time in the govt ammo plants to change from ball ammo.

Click to expand...

No I mean some armed forces already use JHP stateside for base/self defense (9mm, never heard of them using JHP for m16/m4). So if we were invaded does that mean those who had been authorized to use the 9mm JHP would now have to turn in their JHP and start using ball since it is the US soil that is the warzone?

marshaul said:

Say "screw the Hague Conventions"?

I mean, it's not like American civilians won't be shooting back, too. And it's not like they're going to give a crap what some agreement says as they're shooting to protect their lives, property, and way of life.

Click to expand...

Well I already disagree with the limits on ammo, but technically one could be considered a war criminal for using the wrong type of ammo and really, how can we expect the enemy to be using FMJs if we're saying "screw that" and using JHPs or EFMJs (talking about our military and not civilians).

Aknazer said:

Well I already disagree with the limits on ammo, but technically one could be considered a war criminal for using the wrong type of ammo and really, how can we expect the enemy to be using FMJs if we're saying "screw that" and using JHPs or EFMJs (talking about our military and not civilians).

Click to expand...

If our country is invaded, we will either win, in which case nobody is going to charge anybody with squat, or we will lose, in which case our conquerers can charge anybody with anything they like.

The time to play nice is not when invaders are bashing down your door.

marshaul said:

If our country is invaded, we will either win, in which case nobody is going to charge anybody with squat, or we will lose, in which case our conquerers can charge anybody with anything they like.

The time to play nice is not when invaders are bashing down your door.

Click to expand...

And yet we expect other countries to play by these rules.

Aknazer said:

And yet we expect other countries to play by these rules.

Click to expand...

Who's "we"?

If it were up to me, my country wouldn't go around invading other countries, and they wouldn't give a hoot what kind of bullets we don't shoot them with.

marshaul said:

Who's "we"?

If it were up to me, my country wouldn't go around invading other countries, and they wouldn't give a hoot what kind of bullets we don't shoot them with.

Click to expand...

"We" as in the collective known as the USA that has agreed to the limiting of ammo that militaries can use.

Aknazer said:

"We" as in the collective known as the USA that has agreed to the limiting of ammo that militaries can use.

Click to expand...

Not true last time I checked. DOD simply complies without ever having signed any agreement.

Daylen said:

Not true last time I checked. DOD simply complies without ever having signed any agreement.

Click to expand...

When those that represent us agree to a treaty or sign onto a convention (basically a treaty) they are speaking for the whole of the US. So they are speaking for the "we" even if a good segment of the "we" disagrees with them. As such, the DOD is still bound by what the representatives agreed to.

Aknazer said:

"We" as in the collective known as the USA that has agreed to the limiting of ammo that militaries can use.

Click to expand...

That was a rhetorical question. I've already made my point.

During my brief stay in military service, (35 years) I did carry a few magazines with silver tips to supplement my issued ball ammunition. In my EDC I load Black talons.

My choice of loads is focused on penetration and my survival in a firefight, whether it is Afghanistan or the park across the street.

Having performed my "due diligence...

in an attempt to find a definition of "military ammo", I was defeated. I thought perhaps "ball ammo" would be thus defined, but alas it was not. Ball ammo is only a part of the military's shoulder-mounted small arms munitions inventory. I 'took a shot' at NATO designations, thinking the difference between a cartridge designated 5.56x45NATO (measurably higher pressures, higher velocity, more FPE, and greater effective range) vs the civilian designation of Remington .223 , or the 7.62NATO vs .308 Winchester (essentially the same differences as 5.56 vs. 223) might shed some light on the discussion. Again "fail".

The ball ammo didn't satisfy the definition because our military has access to (and, I would imagine, uses that to which they have access) the "Cartridge, 7.62mm, Frangible, M160" (see US Army TM 43-0001-27). That, and the Hague Convention of 1899 - to which the USA was not a signatory. The position of the USA on the Hague Convention has consistently been: "In 1996, in a legal review of the Fabrique Nationale 5.7x28mm Weapon System, the US Department of the Army stated: The United States is not a party to [the 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets], but has taken the position that it will adhere to the terms of the convention in armed conflict to the extent that its application is consistent with the object and purpose of article 23e of the [1907 Hague Regulations]." Although this particular example is caliber-specific, the position of the US has not changed over the past 100 years. You can read the position without the part in red - basically it is, "We didn't sign it, and the extent to which we will comply with the 1907 HC is determined by our interpretation of the consistency of application within 'the object and purpose of article 23e' of the 1907 version".

I'm certain somebody will disagree with the validity of my research, and with my opinion that - at the very least - the "military" part of this ammunition discussion is ill-defined. Thankfully IANAL, and therefore I tend to read things in plain English - avoiding idiom, cant and jargon whenever possible. Please feel free to do your own research, and offer your own thoughts and opinion(s)...

As for the legality of "military ammo" for civilian use, I should think "Step 1" would be to successfully define the term itself. Ammunition bearing the NATO military designation is currently available in many places, both in-store and online. I would suggest that if it were not "legal" for civilians to possess, it would not be legal for commercial enterprises to offer "military ammo" for sale. I did not do my research in the hope of starting an argument. I did it simply to try to shed some (what I hope is) generally acceptable light on the OP's topic. Pax...

Depleted uranium shell bullets maybe?

Uber_Olafsun said:

Depleted uranium shell bullets maybe?

Click to expand...

Maybe... but, I have no source by which to verify that, nor am I immediately inclined to search for one. I believe (which means I do not know it to be factual) that they are prohibited by either (or perhaps all) of the following - International Law, The Hague Convention, or the Geneva Convention. I'd be interested in knowing what you find out! Pax...

P.S. My recollection is that they were originally used in large caliber (30mm+) munitions, but no longer in small arms ammunition.

Gil223, your post here was very good. Nice research.

While in the military, I qualified on the M9 and M16. I've also fired the M2. I didn't see any difference between the "military ammo" and what you might buy in the store of 9mm, 5.56mm, and .50 caliber rounds.

If anything, what I in my 9mm is a whole lot better than the FMJ ball ammo we carried in combat.

I carried Super-Vel hollow points in my Hi-Power when I flew in SEA. If there was some guy between me and the SAR chopper, I intended to be the one still standing. The KR could file a complaint--or his next of kin, actually. Screw the Hague Convention, it was my ass...LE only is the manufacturers' label. It has no force of law. The internet commonly sells "LE only" +P+ 9mm because of an overstock situation where they buy it up--often from cop departments. Completely legal to own. Penetrator round surplus 5.56 will go through level III body armor, I believe, and certainly through Level IIIA. It is readily available at all of the online ammo sites. So is AP Incendiary for that matter.

My motto is : whatever the gov't has (to point at me!) is what I can have too...

Gunslinger said:

I carried Super-Vel hollow points in my Hi-Power when I flew in SEA.

Click to expand...

I miss Lee Jurras' "Super Vel" ammo! The 9mmJHPs mushroomed out to about the size of a nickel in the ballistics tank at WSU! (Sadly, the outsourcing of his cases to Hornady created some problems - which I can't recall today - and Super Vel was last produced in 1974). Pax...

They expanded well, but were problematic in feeding, unless you worked the magazines on the HP. Short and blunt nosed weren't what the Browning was designed to feed. Still, used them until Winchester came out with the Silvertips. Used them until the Federal Hydra-Shoks and now HSTs. And they were far better than the 158g fmj crap we had for our issued Combat Masterpieces.

Gadsden1775 said:

I've been reading for a while now, but this is my first post. It's probably been talked about before, so forgive me if this has been rehashed.

As you all know, plenty of manufacturers market certain ammunition as tactical or for police and military. I've read endless forum threads on different varieties of these offerings, about people's preference and why the choose what they choose, etc. They are obviously very popular. I have Hornady TAP CQ in my carry handgun. Has anyone ever heard of someone using a "LE-style" round in a defensive situation only to have that be a legal liability in an ensuing legal process, either criminal or civil lawsuit? What I'm imagining is an over-zealous prosecutor saying something like, "why was this civilian using ammunition intended for law enforcement, he is a civilian!" Or insinuating that there is something inherently "aggressive" in choosing defensive ammunition with the best terminal ballistics.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Click to expand...

Bottom, line, if there isn't a law against it in your jurisdiction, it isn't illegal.