US Army May Adopt JHP Handgun Ammunition

beretta_m9_commercial_by_golgogs8-d5sg086

Will the next US service pistol round be a jacketed hollow point? A recent PEO Soldier Live article suggests this may be the case:

At the event today, among changes discussed was policy that now opens up the competition to rounds other than ball (full metal jacket) ammunition. [emphasis mine]

A representative from the Army Judge Advocate General’s Office discussed the decision in detail during the event.

Richard Jackson, Special Assistant to the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General for Law of War, told attendees that federal, state, local and military law enforcement elements routinely use expanding and fragmenting ammunition in their handguns due to the increased capability it provides against threats.

“Expanding the XM-17 Modular Handgun competition to include special purpose ammunition will provide the Warfighter with a more accurate and lethal handgun,” he said.

“Other types of ammunition allow the XM-17 Modular Handgun System to be optimized by vendors, providing a more capable system to Warfighters across the spectrum of shooter experience and skill level.”

It may finally be time for the military to adopt the more effective handgun ammunition that has been in use with law enforcement for years. JHPs are a particularly useful technology when coupled with handgun ammunition, as handguns typically fire projectiles at velocities too low to exploit other mechanisms for improving terminal effectiveness, and even in FMJ form do not have meaningful armor penetration capability. Therefore, expansion not only does not meaningfully reduce the armor penetration ability of handgun ammunition (as it would rifle ammunition) – which is nil to begin with – but also is virtually the only way to seriously improve handgun terminal effectiveness against unarmored targets without dramatic increases in cartridge size, weight, and recoil.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Christopher Edward Penta

    Waiting for the totally wrong and truth-less “But the Geneva Convention banned them” comments.

    • cosmoch

      no but the Hague conventions 1899 and 1907 banned them for army use

      • Christopher Edward Penta

        Well, they didn’t “ban” them, it was an agreement that we never signed. And still haven’t signed. And a rather antiquated one based on Prussian protestations at british 303 loadings.

        • griffon5642

          The army already is using a rifle hollow point round in 7.62×51.
          It is the 130gr SOST.
          Shot one into gel and it expanded beautifully.

      • Christopher Edward Penta

        They also “banned” discharge of explosive ordinance from balloons and other analogous methods. Essentially, they ban drone strikes. So who cares.

        • LG

          Also, the prohibitions in the Hague treaties only apply to other signatories thereof.

          • cosmoch

            yes but after the Nuremberg Trails after WW2, the Hague convention was considered a common law for warfare among “civilised” nations, among many even the USA agreed to obey it.

          • SMH

            International common law is an idea and nothing more. It is just tradition and custom with no binding authority. A country is only truly bound to a treaty when they sign it and even then nothing keeps them from just ripping it up. International law is a very illusory subject to begin with since law without an overarching sovereign is just a bunch of co-equal people agreeing to do or not to do things. I frankly don’t understand the reluctance to use modern ammunition in small arms.

          • wzrd1

            International “common law” is conducted via agreements and ratified treaties.
            In the Hague Convention, various ordinance that caused unnecessary pain or excessive fatality were prohibited.
            That said, that is against lawful combatants, not non-state actors terrorizing entire nations.
            As such, unlawful combatants are not signatories to any international agreement or ratified treaty. Hence, they’re fair game with pretty much anything that we throw at them.

          • Chazz Matthews

            Including drone missile strikes.

          • wzrd1

            If delivery of bombs from an aircraft and missiles from an aircraft is permitted, a drone is an aircraft and allowed.

          • And the very same Hague Conventuons that ban “expanding ammunition” *also* ban armed aircraft.

          • Christopher Edward Penta

            Lol, yeah, after WORLD WAR TWO and the unconditional surrender of Germany, they kind of had good call to heap on charges. If we enter another situation like that, I’ll look you up and we can discuss it.

          • *PARTS* of the Hague Conventions were declared customary international law. However, not the parts concerning small arms expanding ammunition (although Germany was a signatory to that provision and did not use such ammunition, so there was no *need* to even address that provision.)

            The parts of the Hague Conventions that *were* addressed concerned more conventional and *far* less technical “war crimes”, such as treatment of prisoners, enemy wounded, and civilians.

            Note that many (most) of the other weapons restrictions in the Hague Conventuons had already been *long* abandoned by every nation. For example, armed aircraft.

          • And only when engaged in conflicts where *all* state parties involved are also Hague signatories.

      • TonysTake

        Let’s face facts. No international treaties will apply. This is for use on civilian targets inside the US. You and I are the intended victims.

        • Thomas Williams

          HERP A DURR JADE HELM MARTIAL LAW OBUMMA A’COMMIN’ TO TAKE MAH GUNS!!

          • TonysTake

            I have heard about people like you, Tom but trust me on this. You have nothing to worry about. They aren’t after sheep.

          • Thomas Williams

            That’s right, you tell em’. Before the lizard people activate the sensors in your teeth, right buddy? Keep fighting the good fight.

          • TonysTake

            And you keep your head in the sand. You might get buthurt, but you have to see anything.

          • Zebra Dun

            I’m with Tonmy, trees will be decorated across the land should the dems, repubs or liberturds ever try that.

          • TonysTake

            Please re-read the string of the conversation and you will see that Tommy is like the people you so eloquently describe.

          • Hank Seiter

            Uh, red herring. Very few people are claiming Jade Helm is some prelude to marital law. What IS interesting about Jade Helm is I can’t remember when any military “exercise” lasted this long and is spread out over so many states. And it is also provocative given the times in which we live and given the utter distrust the average American patriot has toward the Obama Administration. And if you don’t distrust the Obama Administration you’re the naïve “nutcase”.
            Just sayin’ to present a counter-balance.

          • Thomas Williams

            Uh….I’m sorry, I’m unable to glean an actua point from any of the rambling above. So…later, buddy?

          • TonysTake

            Not practicing for martial law? I haven’t said they are intending to enact it tomorrow or next year. I do believe this is training for martial law however. Have you ever seen training on this scale where reports are forbidden to report on the activities? When you combine what is going on now, along with the following 12 facts, it is hard to conclude this is anything else.

            The
            Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a bulletin to all police
            agencies in 2009 naming all military veterans returning from Iraq and
            Afghanistan as potential domestic terrorists.

            Senator Diane
            Feinstein declares that all veterans have PTSD and are therefore
            mentally ill and should not be allowed to own firearms.

            The
            Veterans Administration in 2009 begins declaring veterans with physical
            disabilities, minor PTSD, past depression, or who even allow their
            spouses to pay the family bills as mental defectives incompetent to
            handle their own financial affairs and forbidding them from owning,
            purchasing, or possessing firearms. This process is accelerating.

            Obama unilaterally cuts billions of dollars from our military budget without approval of Congress.

            Congress
            passes legislation authorizing sequestration leading to massive cuts in
            the military readiness of the United States, and putting us in a
            position of being incapable of defending our national interests around
            the world.

            Our military capabilities are being cut in half and
            we have lost respect around the world. The ridiculous politically
            correct rules of engagement imposed on our fighting men and women in
            combat have cost countless American lives.

            High ranking officers
            in the military who disagree with these policies of the Administration
            are being purged, and enlisted personnel who utilize their right to free
            speech to express their concerns are being court martialed and
            dishonorably discharged.
            The Obama administration has also
            launched an attack on the very foundation of the success of our
            military, the profound religious beliefs of most of our troops. Members
            of the military are being prohibited from practicing their religion
            even to the point of being denied the right to have bibles in their
            workplace, mentioning Christmas, or expressing their opposition to
            radical Islam. Chaplains are having their sermons and even prayers
            censored to make sure they are politically correct.

            The Veterans
            Administration that is supposed to represent the interests of our
            military heroes has slowed down the process of filing claims for
            benefits to the point where veterans are waiting for months and even
            years to have their claims processed. In addition, when veterans go to
            the VA they are being asked if they own firearms, if they have ever been
            depressed, and if their spouses handle the family finances. Then this
            information is being used to declare them incompetent and deny them
            their Constitutional rights under the 5th and 2nd Amendments.

            During
            both the 2010 and 2012 election cycles the Obama administration through
            the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, actively
            encouraged Secretaries of State around the country to violate Federal
            law by failing to timely mail out absentee ballots to active duty
            military personnel. As a result, hundreds of thousands of military votes
            were never counted, denying our heroes a basic American right.

            While
            civilian employees of the Obama administration get pay raises, members
            of the military and veterans are seeing their pay and benefits cut with
            the Secretary of Defense promising more cuts to come.

            Military
            families are also being affected in other ways. Chuck Hagel wants to
            close commissaries at U. S. bases forcing military families to purchase
            their groceries from civilian stores where they will pay up to 30% more.
            In addition, thousands of military spouses work at these commissaries
            to supplement the family income. They will be losing their jobs.

            I could list more, but I thing you get my reasoning. We are so close to a police state now that I don’t know what else you would call it.

        • wzrd1

          You’d better hide, there are only 4 days until the exercise.
          After all, a military training exercise in a few states is precisely the same as doing so in all 50 states.

          • TonysTake

            Hiding isn’t in my nature and besides, I am on just about every watch list there is because I am a well armed, freedom loving Constitutionalist who is also a Tea Party supporter who was at the Bundy Ranch Standoff and everything else the liberal progressive/socialists such as yourself you hate and despise.

            I have met with the FBI in my home twice, both times because I called them. Both times because someone was breaking the law. I fear no man, alphabet agency or army because, unlike the steeple who are afraid of everything that goes bump in the night, I am well aware of what is going on. It is something called “Situational Awareness” and that is something every head of household should have or learn. It is something every man should be born with, if they wish to gender identify as a man.

          • Thomas Williams

            Aww, you’re a cutie-pie. Wookat you, defending the Constitution like a big boy. Who’s a tough guy? You’re a tough guy! Aww.

          • TonysTake

            I know what I am and tough guy or hero isn’t even in my ballpark. You better worry about what you are because you are stuck on stupid.

          • Thomas Williams

            How long will you keep responding to someone who is obviously mocking you?

          • TonysTake

            When the liberal/socialist/progressive idiot realizes that having the last word does not equate to winning the argument. Your move troll.

          • Thomas Williams

            Okay, seriously, how did you learn that I am a “liberal progressive socialist”, exactly? Does not immediately agreeing that “hollow points=martial law and mass executions” alone make me a dreaded liberal?

          • TonysTake

            *click* (That is the sound of deletion of Email notifications of your replies)

          • Thomas Williams

            Okay then, bye bye now. Make sure you check for evil Liberals under your bed when you go nite-nite, Tony.

          • alan

            ‘Man’ is an obsolete term and associating ‘man’ with courage or powers of aggression and violence is outmoded…. My wife can turn any man into a gibbering wimp curled up in the foetal position. I spent 6 years as an inner-city cop and I never met anyone as terrifying. She would spit your hollow points back at you. The lengths to which scaredy-cat frightened yanks try and protect themselves is amazing…

          • TonysTake

            Have you thought about changing your medications?

        • paul

          You are 100% correct!

    • Vitsaus

      I’ve always wondered how it was any more humane or morally correct to use tumbling projectiles instead of expanding ones. If the whole reason for the proscription on expanding bullets was that the wounds were so grievous, then what’s the difference with tumbling bullets? Different action, same purpose… making a projectile more deadly than it would normally be. This is also ignoring the fact that for the last 70 years there have not been many wars between “civilized” armies who share the the same set of rules in combat. Perhaps the Falklands War was the last time that happened.

      • wzrd1

        Many bullets tumble upon impact to tissue. The greatest mass is in the rear, which causes the round to tumble upon impact.

    • Snidely Whiplash

      There is handgun ammo that “looks” like FMJ, but is in-fact a hollow point. Ammo has come a LONG way from the days hollow-point ammo was called “dum-dum” or “cop-killer” ammo. How can police issued ammo be cop-killer?
      Hollow point ammo has 2 VERY important reasons for use:
      1. It stops the threat more quickly than ball ammo.
      2. It’s much more safe than over-penetrating ball ammo. Dropping the enemy without hitting a nearby curious child is paramount in convincing locals that only bad guys are being looked for and confronted. Kids getting hit by stray ammo defeats that paramount objective.

      • wzrd1

        Save for a few points.
        First, the open tip ammunition isn’t a hollow point, as it doesn’t have the striations to permit the jacket to peel back and expand for 5.56 and 7.62×51. Instead, the hollow portion fragments into large fragments that won’t penetrate much further, while the lead does expand a bit.

        As for the article, “other than FMJ” would also cover special purpose rounds and armor piercing rounds. Hollow point rounds are against the Hague Convention, but AP rounds are permitted. Of course, against non-state forces, such as insurgents, no convention protects them.

    • jerseydave

      Of course, many adversaries the U.S. Army faces these days are not “Organized armies” of Nation States, but Al Quaeda or ISIS types. For them hollow points should be OK, as they are classified as brigands under old time law.

      Shades of the old time Puckle gun, with the round balls for fighting European Armies and Square shot for fighting Marauders.

  • sauerquint

    Couldn’t they just ditch ball ammo and go with wadcutters or something along those lines? I mean hollow points aren’t necessarily the only option to ball ammo.

    • Anonymoose

      Because they have to be “eco-friendly” and not give those poor, misunderstood terrorists lead poisoning.

      • John Yossarian

        Your comment got me thinking: They might just end up with some new-fangled steel and/or copper cartridge like they did with the M855A1.

        Remember, since 2013 the United States hasn’t had any lead smelters in operation. All of the lead for our bullets comes from overseas.

        • nobody

          >Remember, since 2013 the United States hasn’t had any lead smelters in
          operation. All of the lead for our bullets comes from overseas.

          There are no primary smelters in operation. However, there are still secondary smelters that work with recycling lead. From what I’ve heard, lead for bullets has come from that recycled lead for a long time now.

        • NDS

          Primary lead is not used in bullets. The vast majority of lead from bullets is recycled within the states, from batteries etc.

        • Joshua

          The vast majority of lead comes from batteries that are recycled.

        • Porty1119

          False. Bullets are produced from secondary (recycling) lead smelters, of which there are many. The primary lead is mined in the US (primarily in the Viburnum Trend of southeastern Missouri) and processed overseas.

      • Dave The Great

        Mainly I think it’s them not wanting to give those poor, misunderstood range NCOs lead poisoning.

      • iksnilol

        Not really, it is to prevent lead poisoning of areas where you practice. Think about it, how many rounds does a platoon or something fire on a range? That stuff adds up.

        • Joshua

          Exactly This, it’s not about during war. The whole eco friendly ammunition is all about areas where training takes place, areas with millions and millions of bullets fired into targets a year.

        • Thomas Williams

          Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Lead-free bullets are not eco-nutjob insanity, they’re a reasonable solution to a serious problem is logistics and training. We fire a lot more rounds in training than we do in combat, and that’s typically done on base in the United States. Servicemembers and their families live on base, so having massive lead build-up at training areas is a concern for them and the surrounding communities. If you can design a good, effective bullet that doesn’t poison your firing ranges over time, why not?

      • no

        Whilst firing off depleted uranium rounds and increasing the cancer rate in some areas of Iraq by literally as much as %4,000.

    • Paladin

      Wadcutters generally don’t work so well in semi-automatics.

      • sauerquint

        … something along those lines …

        There are other options.

        As for terrorist codling – jeebuz what’s wrong with people like you moose?

  • Paul O.

    With the correct projectile handgun ammo can penetrate soft armor. I’d think the military would be interested in exploring those options for XM17.

    • Anonymoose

      7N21 would probably blow up a Beretta, and then you’ve also got to worry about lessened terminal effects on squishy humans.

      • Marc

        Fiocchi EBM but with a pointy steel post. Doesn’t require super high pressure to defeat low-level armor.

      • iksnilol

        Get a regular hollow point, butt a steel ball bearing in the cavity of the hollow point and glue it in place. Problem solved.

        I think they are more likely to go for saboted ammo, though.

        • Giolli Joker

          If you find a tungsten ball, that single shot that you’ll fire before the overpressure kills the pistol, will perform even better. 🙂

          • iksnilol

            So I have been doing something potentially dangerous? Who’da thunk that? In all fairness, tungsten is heavy, steel is light.

      • Lance

        Doubt a Glock or SiG could handle one either the only pistol to handle that high pressure round is the GSH-18.

        • Giolli Joker

          Arsenal Strike One as well.
          Simply because it was designed with that clear goal.
          Same sure applies for the new Kalashnikov pistol.

          If the US Army will define ammunition requirements in advance, their XM17 will surely match them.

      • Giolli Joker

        Monolithic designs like the Lehigh Xtreme Penetrator seem to be surprisingly effective on squishy targets.

    • John Yossarian

      9mm can be made armor piercing rather easily when using alternate materials.

      Even the all-copper Lehigh Xtreme Penetrator, for example, has been shown to defeat Level IIA vests. And there’s always the monolithic steel penetrator, like that previously produced by American Ballistics, which goes clean through Level IIIA plates.

    • With standard FMJ projectiles, it is more a function of velocity and the kind of soft armor being worn.

  • john huscio

    Federal HST 147gr

    • ClintTorres

      Barnes TAC-XP

  • James

    Wonder how many bilions of our dollars they have wasted and still are wasting figuring out what everyone already knows. I also bet NATO has a lot to do with the crappy issuance of modern equipment.

  • Joey JoJo Jr.

    Two points to note:

    1. Hollow points are more humane, as they lessen the chances of over-penetration and collateral damage to non-combatants, especially in urban areas and houses.
    2. If the US military decides to join the 20th century and buy hollow-point 9mm rounds in large quantity, eventually it may result in that round becoming cheaper and available for civilian shooters, due to over-runs, rejected lots, and economy of scale at the large production lines. This is a good thing.

    • Menger40

      The day I can buy surplus JHPs will be a very happy day.

      • KestrelBike

        but it’s hopefully not some special ++P++ super round the army decides to use.

        • nadnerbus

          If they standardize such a round, handguns will most likely be re-engineered to meet that standard in the future. Otherwise it would be like buying an AR that couldn’t shoot 5.56.

      • schizuki

        Considering that the military destroys surplus 5.56mm ammo rather than sell it, your happy day will never come.

        • nadnerbus

          Correct about surplus, Clinton signed that one into law if I recall. But there’s nothing to stop selling the same ammo to civilians BEFORE the military accepts it. So overruns and economies of scale will still help the civilian shooter.

    • Hyok Kim

      Hollow points are also less reliable and more expensive than FMJ.

  • nobody

    Always planning based on the last war, never mind how members of ISIS have been wearing body armor.

    • Phil Hsueh

      I think that the idea is to give us options, nothing in the article states that the Army is planning on ditching ball completely and using nothing but JHP. I take it as the Army wanting to be able to use more than just ball and including JHP as one type of round that they want to be able to use.

    • CommonSense23

      Yep, cause we all know how well ball ammo penetrates modern ceramic body armor.

      • iksnilol

        Especially .45 ACP, that stuff kills the soul… Or so I have heard.

        • Joshua

          Kind of like how the .50 can tear a mans arm off from the shock wave alone.

          • Dan

            Ripped both mine off and I was the one shooting it!

      • nobody

        >ball ammo
        Have you never heard of AP ammunition, such as all the shit they were trying to develop for the PDW program? Also, not all of the armor that they have been wearing is plates.

        • CommonSense23

          Even AP rifle rounds are failing to penetrate modern ceramics these days. And soft armor has also made strides in the last couple of years.

      • Giolli Joker

        And let’s not forget that troupes carry pistols as main weapons and only occasionally resort to assault rifles.

  • Thatguy96

    Navy has already standardized 9mm JHP ammo for LE use (Mk 243 Mod 0). Coast Guard’s .40 S&W JHP ammo is also standardized in the Navy’s nomenclature system (Mk 308 Mod 0).

    However, what Jackson is probably referring to is the JAG opinions that Open-Tipped Match (OTM) bullets aren’t specifically designed to expand (though this is a secondary result of their design) and therefore aren’t covered by the Hague Conventions. Regardless of whether these technically apply to the US military, the services have repeatedly done their due diligence to make sure there is a clear precedent when it comes to ammunition that might fall under their purview. So, if anything, you’ll likely see a bullet classified as OTM rather than JHP.

    • ostiariusalpha

      There is no such thing as an OTM bullet for dedicated handgun use; there never has been, there never will be. Ever.

      • Thatguy96

        Are you saying lawyers can’t come up with creative definitions?

        • ostiariusalpha

          In this case, yes, that’s what I’m saying. You can lawyer your way around a lot of things, but not physics.

          • Giolli Joker

            How are physics and OTM related?

          • ostiariusalpha

            That is actually a rather interesting topic; it has mostly to do with the velocity of the projectile. Higher velocity rifle rounds, for instance, tend to use a thicker jacket for controlling expansion on SP & HP bullets, whereas OTM-type hollow points have thin jackets that generally either strip away from or merely deform around the lead core (both of which pass the Hague’s restrictions). Lower velocity pistol rounds act in the opposite way, with thin jackets giving better expansion & thick jackets having more resistance. The problem for the pistol competition bullets that have been brought up is that a thicker jacket would simply interfer with the bullet’s gyroscopic stabilization and defeat the entire purpose of making a more accurate round. No manufacturer is going to make a small meplat, thick jacketed bullet just so they can say that it is a Hague compliant OTM.

      • iksnilol

        Well, I am sure you could load them in a necked down 7.62×25 Tokarev or a 5.7.

        Now why you would bother with extended range of pistols, that’s a though one.

        • Marc

          So what’s the Geco Hexagon then?

          • ostiariusalpha

            Regular old snake oil, it’s certainly not an OTM.

          • Giolli Joker

            Why not and how do you define OTM.
            The Geco Hexagon is a bullet intended for competition shooting (match) designed with a solid jacket on the base that opens on the tip (Open Tip).
            To me it ticks the boxes, that doesn’t mean anything else, btw.
            Just that it could be called OTM; as Federal Hydra-Shock and Speer Gold Dot are JHP.

          • ostiariusalpha

            OTM isn’t just a marketing term, it is primarily a legal definition with precedent to be dealt with. For one thing, the meplat on the Hexagon, while slightly smaller than most JHP bullets, is plenty large enough to expand in flesh. Second, the “stabilization grooves” would be easy pickings in a court of law as obvious petal striations to ease expansion. Striations are not Hague compliant.

          • Giolli Joker

            This would be true if tested and reliably expanding.
            The angle of the ogive might (I haven’t seen any testing) be designed in a way that external pressure is higher than internal and the bullet closes instead of expanding. Striations might increase this effect.
            Your words: “You can lawyer your way around a lot of things, but not physics.”
            Should testing in ballistic gelatin give reliable results of NON-expansion, those lawyers would not have much ground to attack the presence of striations, don’t you think?

          • Sulaco

            How bout full metal jacket expanding like the Remington round?

          • iksnilol

            A hollow point.

        • ostiariusalpha

          You could attempt to cobble smaller caliber rifle bullets into handgun brass, but what kind of magazine would be required to store that kind of ammunition? You’d need Gregor Clegane sized hands to comfortably hold such a pistol.

          • iksnilol

            5.7×28 does that without problems.

          • ostiariusalpha

            But not with OTM bullets, it uses stubby .224 bullets under 40gr. I wouldn’t really consider the 5.7 to be a true handgun cartridge either, though it fits easily enough. It was designed as a PDW round from the start, and it wasn’t till eight years after the introduction of the P-90 that FN put a pistol on the market for it. There are any number of rifle rounds that people have managed to chamber in handguns, but that doesn’t make them real handgun ammo.

          • iksnilol

            What about .223 Timbs and .224 Boz? They use standard 50 and 55 grain bullets (one is necked down the other uses a sabot IIRC). If you stretched the frame a bit you could make heavier bullets work.

            5.7, we don’t really talk about it 😛

          • ostiariusalpha

            The Timbs & BOZ cartidges get away with their “heavier” bullets by having pretty stubby ogives, not great candidates for OTM. The BOZ especially reeks of PDWness, the original weapon it was chambered in was a SMG. The Timbs’ sabot might actually manage a kind of accurized, flat bottom OTM bullet, if anyone could be convinced to make it.

        • Giolli Joker

          Google “FK Brno 7,5 FK” and thank me.

          • iksnilol

            I like it, it’s like a Tokarev magnum. That countermass thingy could be used in other guns as well. Done right you could make a controllable machine pistol. Adapt something like a CZ SP01 to use the counterweight, a suppressor or compensator + an electronic trigger that allows adjustment of ROF (down to 300-450 RPM) and it should result in a controllable machine pistol.

            Weird how The FK Brno didn’t get more attention, seems like a great idea. And if we are going to replace 9mm it seems like a good candidate.

      • Hornady HAP is non-expanding version of the XTP.

        • ostiariusalpha

          It still expands plenty Dan, if somewhat inconsistent compared to dedicated defense rounds. None of these companies refer to these competition HP bullets as OTM for a good reason: they’d never pass the legal muster. They would have to shrink the meplat aperture considerably to pass as true non-expanding, which would leave them very little lead to work with for increasing the weight of the rear of the projectile.

          • Even our European allies consider limited expansion projectiles like the Geco Action Effect to be Hague compliant.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Being an OTM isn’t the only way a HP has around the Hague. Being designed for resistance to easy expansion with a thick jacket or, in the Action Safety’s case, being made from solid brass seems to do the trick nicely.

          • Solid copper and brass hollowpoints would have the added benefit of being lead-free.

          • TonysTake

            And here I thought the Army should be armed to kill the enemy and do maximum damage. Silly me. Naturally the environment should come first, Just think! Environmentally friendly war. What a nice thought.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Solid copper bullets kill just fine. There’s nothing wrong with eliminating lead pollution at the training & qualification range. The point is to kill the enemy, not poison our own troops.

          • TonysTake

            Environmental wackos never cease to amaze me. Lead JHP kill better than FMJ. The science and engineering that goes into making them more deadly is indisputable. That is the objective of a bullet fired from a gun unless you are shooting for practice or fun. Our government has been stockpiling Lead filled JHP for years now. We are talking a Billion rounds held in reserve.
            Our soldiers do not eat bullets. They don’t even lick them. They kill people with them. I hear some even dip them in pigs blood before they use them. You practice with what you will use in a fight. Does the term “ballistics” mean anything to you? Lead’s specific gravity and expandability when it hits flesh is superior to other metals. Should our military practice with biodegradable paint-balls? Should a sniper practice with a BB-gun? If lead was so dangerous on a practice range, our troops would be dropping dead before they ever hit the battlefield. There is also something called money. Lead is much cheaper. Why don’t you advocate for platinum or gold bullets? Much safer than copper, brass or lead, but I guess when you are spending someone else’s money, who cares.
            When I go to the range, I use the cheaper FMJ most of the time but I always fire off a magazine or three of what I will use in a fight. First, to imbed in my brain what it feels like and how the gun reacts differently to different ammo. This is called recoil. Using some of the more expensive ammo also allows me to rotate my stock and replace a few rounds with fresh from time to time. I know you actually believe what the liberals have told you, but at least I have attempted to educate you with the truth.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Have you been eating lead paint chips or something? You appear to be almost totally ignorant of the neurological & physiological effects that even “mild” lead poisoning can have on people. Like increased aggression, paranoia, delusional behavior…
            Never mind, I guess you are pretty familiar with it.

          • TonysTake

            Liberalism is a mental disorder and you are living proof.

          • sonny

            Tony, I Agee 100% Libs are out of touch with……. well, EVERYTHING!

          • ostiariusalpha

            So is my being a conservative, blue-collar gun enthusiast is living proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder. How does your mind even work? I might joke about it a bit, but I’ve worked with people that had their health destroyed from exposure to lead, it’s pretty grim stuff. Lead breaks down easily in the environment (if you will even allow me the word) and can mix with dirt & dust to contaminate a large area if there is a enough of it, like on a military range. It absorbs easily into the body, no need for licking, and has very real developmental effects on children. Unlike gun control measures, reducing the lead exposure of kids on military bases is a real world benefit.

          • Oh, I agree that the lead-free ammunition craze has been overblown, but it will remain a requirement for the US military until some future Congress and president puts their collective foot down to stop it.

          • Sulaco

            Mostly in and only in special ops and hostage situations though…

          • Actually, my reference was in terms of law enforcement usage. The Dutch and Germans have been very reluctant to issue non-Hague compliant ammunition to their police agencies. The logic with the Action 3, Action Effect, and MEN Quick Defense 2 was that since the nose of projectile wouldn’t expand significantly beyond the major diameter of the projectile, it wasn’t inhumane.

        • wzrd1

          I’m reminded of a hollow core round that Russia started fielding back in the ’80’s. It crushed, with the tip of the round causing the lead core to expand.
          Easy duck around hollowpoint rounds, with very similar results.

  • MountainKelly

    Interesting.

  • Ed

    It be most effective if we stay with 9mm and the M-9. The .45 JHP is a very good round but .45 FMJ also has good stopping power as well. So the only round that really jump ahead in performance by using a JHP is 9mm.

    Overall the hype boys here are jumping over backwards again at DoD aanouced test. But like some wanted ICC to bring new caliber and ammo type for rifles. The end result brought nothing. Don’t believe it will its over. And I doubt Obama will let us use “Killer HPs” when his NATO buddies only use FMJ. Never forget the politics with a Democrat who pries himself in every aspect in military policy and projects.

    • MrEllis

      Your bias is showing. The president won’t be in office by the time this gets anywhere near put into practice in anything but this trial. The military already uses JHP munitions in certain applications and this is a trial policy, not a military regulation. Try to maintain some grip on reality about it.

      The use of JHP is most likely for non-conventional actions and internal applications, such as military police and security. A vendor probably had better performance with a round and requested the change. In the end, so few pistols see actual combat the impact would mean little to front-line troops as rifles are used vastly more often.

      • Porty1119

        In any case, I have heard rumors of SF units in the ME using hollowpoint ammunition for some operations. Your statement about the Hague Convention being guidelines was spot on.

        • MrEllis

          Being shot sucks, no matter the type of bullet used. The idea behind ball is obsolete and it’s not even a more humane round. Realistically bullets are inherently dangerous, because that’s the point. Ulness someone goes out of their way to make a cancer bullet or something that takes five months to kill you it’s absurd to say a JHP is worse than a ball when it’s lodged in you. At this point it’s arguing if a square tipped bolt is worse than a round tipped bolt…

  • Joey Jo-Jo Shabbadoo

    But didn’t the Geneva Convention banned them?!?

    • MrEllis

      We see those as more guidelines…

    • Rock or Something

      Hague Convention. And, depending on what section you are asking, the U.S. is not a signatory to all of it. And technically, it only stated on certain types of ammunition, (Dum Dum rounds for example) not a blanket ban on all non-ball ammunition. And technically, the Hague convention is supposed to be honored between the signatories, almost none of which we have been fighting in the years after WWII. And in some cases, hollow points have been used by certain units already on certain missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      • no

        I think Joey was being facetious.

  • MrEllis

    If we emulate them on action, not much separates us but semantics.

    • Casual observation

      I admire your chivalry, but no point in fighting them with one hand tied behind our back.

      • MrEllis

        If you’re willing to do anything, pretty much you are them. It has nothing to do with chivalry, it has everything to do with retaining the ideals of our nation and our humanity. If you are willing to push aside every standard we have set for ourselves in defense of those standards, there is no point, it’s all fair game.

        • n0truscotsman

          Thats very true. Especially in regards to torture.

          • MrEllis

            This is more what I mean. I’m speaking of the mentality that we can use any means. JHP are just munitions, being shot with anything is nor humane, period, but a JHP is not cruel or excessive. Within arm’s reach of me I have a XDs .45 loaded with Ranger XTP LE +P JHP.

          • deedeemao

            Torture these days can be verbal abuse or being “harsh” or “mean” or “scary” to the enemy in any way.

        • FourString

          You’re giving this speech about JHP’s, something civilians widely use for self defense…………..

          • MrEllis

            No, I’m not, I’m talking about the mentality we can do anything to fight terrorists. It’s pretty straight forward. I don’t care if they use JHP. That’s not even what is on the table.

          • FourString

            This article is on the topic of JHP’s. It’s in the headline. Once you discuss what is humane in this context, of course posters will interpret that as referring to JHP’s are inhumane. Work on your syntax dude…………..

          • MrEllis

            Syntax is fine, dude. I’m not going to recap what was said prior every post. Maybe some folkss should read the thread before they jump in feet first to internet warrior? I’m speaking clearly to a subject that isn’t JHP, about a comment made prior.

            Hmm, maybe my syntax is the problem, I’ll cater to my audience:

            LULZ LRN 2 REED DUDE!!! LUILL!11!

            There.

          • FourString

            U mad bro?

          • MrEllis

            Naw, you missed the point, not me. Your failing is not my flaw.

          • FourString

            Says the guy attacking 10+ ppl on this thread. U must b fun at parties.

          • MrEllis

            Again, I made a statement, you did not address it, you failed because you’re so internet warrior you didn’t take the time to read. Even when you are wrong you can’t admit it. But then again you’re the kind of person who think “likes” matter.

            The other answer is maybe you lack the ability to understand.

          • FourString

            Believe whatever you want, you’re outnumbered on this thread, stupid.

          • MrEllis

            Funny considering what you deleted. By funny I mean ironic. You still have no clue what I actually typed, do you?

            1. I’ll explain, in simple terms. I don’t care if the military uses JHP. Period. That’s it.

            2. The do anything mentality, where we can use any method and throw mores and values out the window to fight terror makes us as bad as them.

            They are exclusive, see that? Go tally your likes, it’s people who lack the ability to comprehend basic English. The gist is fairly straight forward. Kids today are so entitled, they can’;t be bothered to read more than 144 characters.

          • FourString

            Have a terrorist point a gun at your family. Or plow a plane into a building full of thousands of American civilians. Where’s your moral dilemma now? It’s a dog-eat-dog world. Don’t be such a naive prig.

          • MrEllis

            Yes, you don’t stand for American values or ideals, I get it. At least you finally grasp the conversation now. And guess what, we’re done.

          • FourString

            Condescending, hypocritical, holier-than-thou tone. Just like your original point.

            “This article is on the topic of JHP’s. It’s in the headline. Once you discuss what is humane in this context, of course posters will interpret that as referring to JHP’s are inhumane. ”

            I got your point from the get-go. You were just too obtuse and self-righteous to admit where you went wrong.

          • howboutnoucrazydutchbastard

            Don’t feed the troll! ^_^”

        • nadnerbus

          Your points are true to an extent, but like others pointed out, if it is OK for police to shoot citizens with, it should be OK to use in combat.

          It’s not like people are advocating bringing back mustard gas or using Sarin. We’re just advocating punching the most efficient holes with our hole puncher. I don’t buy that that is particularly cruel or inhuman.

          • MrEllis

            I have not objected once to the use of JHP.

          • nadnerbus

            Fair enough. Since that is what the conversation is about, I think I can be forgiven for assuming that’s what you were going with that, though.

          • deedeemao

            Hey, how about we talk about WHICH projectiles would be the best choice instead of endlessly blathering about the theoretical rules of war? Enough already.

            Let’s just say that it DOES happen. Wht will the Army decide on? will it be the Hornady critical duty flex-tip? The Gold dot? The Winchester SXT? Barnes TAC-XPD all-copper?

          • MrEllis

            Or “we” could avoid it if it hurts “our” delicate sensibilities so much. It’s pretty easy to scroll on by if you don’t want in on it. Maybe you’re just the bossy type, who knows?

        • Zebra Dun

          No, we have not gassed them, or tied them up and beheaded them yet.
          If this leads to Nuking them my heart will not be broken.
          I hate the enemies of my nation and it’s people and Armed forces.

        • Nathan

          Using hollow point ammunition prevents innocent bystanders being killed with the same bullet that penetrates the terrorist/criminal without expending it’s energy IN the target, thus endangering anyone in the continuing path of the bullet. Are you saying you do not care about innocent bystanders? That it is ‘humane’ to kill the perp with a smaller wound and also kill anyone else in the path of the bullet? Is that the ‘ideals of humanity’ you want?

          • MrEllis

            This isn’t about munitions. Read what I typed.

          • Nathan

            The entire thread is about banning hollow point ammo. Not sure where it changed

          • MrEllis

            That didn’t stop you from responding though.

    • FourString

      You do realize that police use hollow points, right? This isn’t a chemical weapon. It’s a hollow point, designed to do its job. Not sure how this makes our military the same as terrorists, but oooookay….

      • MrEllis

        Never once argued about JHP, I have no issue with the military using them. You really seem to not be able to read.

    • schizuki

      Hollowpoint ammunition = slow beheading by knife.

      That’s not semantics. That’s moral obtuseness.

      • MrEllis

        I never, ever, not once argued about JHP being used, that’s not what is being said here.

    • Southpaw89

      As a hunter I consider expanding bullets to be more humane, the quicker death comes the less pain the target feels.

  • Sulaco

    What I am reading in the above JAG’s comments is that JHP would be acceptable within COUS but I doubt, with the current admin., and PC low life politicians in general they would allow its use in theater outside our borders or territories. The EU would scream don’t ya know!

    • Mohammed

      The EU might change their mind now that they are being overrun by towelheads.

  • ghost930

    The bottom line is plain common sense. I can shoot someone with a .50 cal MPLAT round, but not with a 9mm JHP because that would be unethical????? Duuuuh.

  • ghost

    Treaty? What treaty? War is not civilized. Short of dropping the big one, which would make it all moot anyway.

  • schizuki

    “Sarge, we can’t shoot them! We only have hollowpoints! That’s inhumane!”

    “You’re right, soldier. Call in a napalm strike.”

  • Southpaw89

    I always thought it was funny how hunters are often required to use expanding bullets to ensure the kill is as quick a painless as possible, but the military is supposed to use non expanding bullets for the sake of being humane. I understand the concept of killing an enemy takes one man off the battlefield while wounding a man takes off three (two to drag him). But I don’t expect that Jihadist types are the kind to pick up their wounded during a battle, or according to some reports stop when wounded. I’d say the new ammo is long overdue.

  • TonysTake

    Does anyone actually believe these rounds are only intended to fight terrorists, foreign armies and foreign nationals?? HA!

    • Hank Seiter

      I get your point, particularly since certain federal law enforcement agencies are “war gaming” possible pacification protocols in the case of “indigenous domestic terrorists” (read: Second Amendment patriots resisting Big Brother tyranny) or “Tea Party terrorists” … buwahahahahaha! We have a government of idiots who can’t see that the biggest threats to the American People’s liberties come from potential federal despotisms and then foreign enemies presently sliming their way across the borders or shipping container nukes which are probably 3 to 10 years away at most.

      A potential “race war” or “urban chaos resulting from a huge financial downturn or a Super-EMP strike” is now on the radar screen but I would give the probability of those scenarios something less than 2% … I HOPE it’s less than 2%!

      Just sayin’ and not trying to be paranoid. OK, call me a nutcase for even bringing it up though the present focus on hollow-pointed ammunition, previously by federal authorities/agencies and now the military does peak a curious person’s attention.

      I’ve never heard a definitive argument about what’s the most humane bullet … a through-and-through by a full-metal jacketed bullet (leading to a “bleed out”) or the more terminally devastating hydro-shock from a modern hollow-point round using some similar to the Critical Defense/Duty bullet.

      Of some interest I hope, I’ve shot the CD/D rounds in various 9mm and .380 Auto pistols and, what used to be called, the Winchester +P Rangers in a 1911 .45 Auto, all these rounds proved to be very accurate and functioned quite reliably in M&Ps, XDs, Colt Mustang, PPK, and PPQ as well as the aforementioned 1911 platform … of which I have more than two. They’re probably made to higher tolerances and quality particularly if they are +P loadings which are getting closer to the maximum allowable CUPs for most pistols/revolvers.

  • Goody

    This has my full support. Why shouldn’t ordinary soldiers have access to the same highly lethal ammunition as civilians? [/irony]

    That said, it IS great that they have something that’ll put down scumbags faster and more reliably and I hope rifle ammunition is to follow. If A-10s are legal for anti-personnel, and ragheads blow themselves up along with 30 civilians for one military kill, I don’t see why it should be a problem.

    PS Anyone else get chills thinking about how many of our boys might’ve made it home if they were issued with JSP?

    • Hyok Kim

      Did you think about feeding reliability and expense of HP relative to FMJ? Soldiers die when the weapons jam and when not provided enough bullets as well.

      • Goody

        In the right firearm, the difference in reliability is negligible. Now if the DoD can pick a rifle that will operate for nearly 60 years I think they’ll be alright to put out a contract for jhp ammo that works in the current guns, or next gen, or both, and get something usable.

        • Hyok Kim

          “In the right firearm, the difference in reliability is negligible.”

          How do you know that? Has it been tested in the real battlefield condition or near enough using JHP?

          “Now if the DoD can pick a rifle that will operate for nearly 60 years………..”

          using FMJ, not JHP.

  • JumpIf NotZero

    I love that idiots bury the lead here. It’s all bickering about conventions and treaties that someone else on the internet told them was about xyz, or they read on a forum that blablabla, or whatever nonsense is brought up.

    The real story here is that 9mm was just confirmed as the next military handgun caliber wether or not XM17 happens.

    But go ahead dummies. Make a hundred comments of things you know nothing about.

    • screwtape2713

      I went and read the original release. There isn’t a single word in it about “calibre”. So where, exactly, do you get this “9mm was all but confirmed” nonsense from, when the Army spokespersons went out of their way to do nothing of the sort?

      • JumpIf NotZero

        Logic.

        • screwtape2713

          Logic??? Uhm, we ARE discussing an official procurement program here, aren’t we? Exactly how and where does “logic” fit into such a beast?

  • RPK

    Our enemies do not follow the rules of engagement or other treaty stipulations and so why should America? At least in a combat scenario, the purpose of firing a weapon at an enemy is not to wound them, but to eliminate them from the fight. After all, this is not a pillow fight we are talking about. It is about providing the most effective and lethal ammunition for those who defend America! And the method of instruction for the majority of firearm qualifications at least in the armed forces of this country still teaches to hit center mass multiple times (double tap). ELIMINATE the threat…period.

  • Max Glazer

    JHP against an opponent that is likely to wear personal body armor?

  • Zebra Dun

    I know ammo like the Talon is banned but bullets of this type would be one to consider. Perhaps a bullet that can expand in soft flesh after clothing penetration yet when hitting a hard target will behave as a rudimentary armor piercer.
    I know I am a lawless, evil man advocating over riding the Geneva conventions but I am totally for this ammo and it’s use.
    Our enemy cages it’s EPW’s in a steel bar box and drowns them on camera, or burns them alive, and they use poison gas. They commandeer airliners and fly them into buildings.
    In the face of these atrocities what’s the sense in a 116 year old ban against hollow point or expanding bullets?
    Keep in mind during the middle ages crossbows were banned in combat unless they were being used against Saracens.
    War is ugly, merciless and cruel.
    Our troops need every aid they can get to survive and win.
    use the bullets and thank God we got them.

  • Zebra Dun

    “There. It. Is>

  • Esh325

    If they can use true expanding ammo now, why not use it where it matters the most which is rifle ammo?

    • Max Glazer

      Expanding-type ammo with a hollow point generally has lower penetration capability compared to ball-type.

      • Esh325

        If you’re talking about penetration against barriers, I think having maximum effect on soft targets is more important. And most good JHP or JSP rifle ammo can penetrate the required 12 inches or more.

    • CommonSense23

      Here is a hint, they already are.

      • Esh325

        Regular forces to my knowledge, do not use JSP or JHP’s. They still use only FMJ’s.

  • Snidely Whiplash

    Regular battle troops, even the hardcore U.S. Army Rangers, are issued 9mm ball ammo for their backup weapon. If the Rangers still have LLRPs, no doubt THEY can carry what other SPECOPS guys carry – anything they feel they need. A suppressed 9mm and a suppressed .308 bolt rifle would be mandatory on a LLRP team. Safely get-in, get-out, report back – without the enemy knowing you were there.
    It’s about time the brass provided proper ammo for the anemic 9mm. The .45 ACP made a decent sized hole in FMJ form because it was MADE to use “ball” ammo.
    According to those (I know MANY), coming home from the sandbox, the 9mm has a horrible record of stopping threats with one properly placed shot.
    I shudder at how under-gunned we airmen were with the Air Force issued S&W .38 Special revolvers.

  • LarryNC

    Yes, I realize that the U.S. agreed to abide by the Hague conventions. And I am aware of the common-law for civilized nations, etcetera. Having said that, our current enemies are not the soldiers of any other nation. Civilized or otherwise. They are terrorists, and they do not need to be treated in a civilized way. They are, the barbarians at the gate. From the very beginning of our modern conflict with these animals, I have felt/thought that we need to use their own tactics on them. In other words, terrorize them. At every opportunity. Treat them with no more respect than you would if you were trying to kill a cockroach. And those Beretta M9’s that the military is complaining about, they are among the most reliable and accurate pistols in the world. They just need a more modern bullet design with some high performance ammo. Not ammo that was agreed to and has been around since 1899.

  • Mazryonh

    Is there a reason why this article is tagged with 10mm and .40 S&W? I don’t think there’s been any news about the next US service pistol is going to be in either of those calibers.

    • screwtape2713

      There hasn’t been any news that it ISN’T going to be either of those calibres either. They are still in the pool of possible contenders along with every other major pistol calibre, so I suppose that’s why. And apparently at least one American armed service does issue .40 S&W — the Coast Guard…

      • Mazryonh

        If we’re going to focus on “they haven’t specified which calibers are under consideration yet for the MHS program,” they haven’t mentioned .357 SIG or 5.7x28mm either, and those calibers aren’t tagged in this article.

        I’m sure there’s a list somewhere of what’s actually under consideration for the MHS, but it’s unlikely 10mm is on that list. Despite the 10mm’s advantages, the main problem is still the human factor. The FBI just moved away from .40 S&W, after they moved away from the 10mm to the .40 S&W in the first place. The US Army has a lot less emphasis on handguns than the FBI–it would take a lot of change for them to get all the regular training they would need to get used to the 10mm’s recoil, unless it came in an SMG.

        • screwtape2713

          Well, the fact that this article isn’t tagged for .357Sig and 5.7x28mm simply shows that the tagging is inadequate — because both those calibres have also been bandied about a lot by the armchair commanders.

          I was just giving an answer for why TFB tagged this for 10mm and .40S&W, not arguing either were likely choices.

          I agree with you that it would probably snow in Hell before the US Army even considered 10mm but that hasn’t stopped the fans from arguing for it. By contrast, I think .40S&W might have “some” chance simply because it’s got a proven track record with a lot of LE agencies and is actually in use in at least one part of the formal military.

          On the whole, though, I am in the “they’ll stick with 9mmP” camp on the grounds that it’s good enough, is in the supply chain, and is the Nato standard calibre.

          • Mazryonh

            If 5.7x28mm were chosen, it’s likely the Five-seveN (or a variant of that model) would be picked along with it. If .357 SIG were chosen the MHS program would have more handgun choices.

            Sticking with 9mm +P+ would be like copying the Russian choice of making overpressure ammunition and loading it with AP bullets. Not a bad choice, but it would require specially strengthened handguns/SMGs to handle them, and you would still have to train to handle the higher recoil.

            If the US Army decided to copy the decision made by the Swiss and issue a pistol-caliber PDW (as reported by this blog), then 10mm would make more sense. The B&T MP9 has a buttstock and can mount a foregrip, and both of those make controlling recoil much easier. One of those chambered in 10mm would be much more controllable than a 10mm handgun.

          • screwtape2713

            Oh, sorry. When I said (wrote) “9mmP”, I was just using one of the traditional shorthands for standard 9x18mm, being a shortened form of “9mm Parabellum”. I DIDN’T mean that I thought the US Army was going to adopt some kind of +P or worse +P+ variant of the current 9x18mm Nato round.

            Even though it might make “some” sense, I personally think that going overpressure when you are trying to get cheaper, longer-lasting handguns usable by a very wide variety of sizes of shooters would be … sub-optimal.

  • Language man–we don’t need that kind of comment.

    • Max Glazer

      Merely quoting

  • Alan

    That portion of the Geneva Convention, even if still applicable, only applies to projectiles designed to needlessly increase suffering (paraphrase) when used against lawful uniformed combatants as recognized by the laws of land warfare. It never applied to terrorists, bandits, spies or insurgents.

  • Ryan

    The reasons behind going to FMJ Ball Ammunition as opposed to Expanding Rounds are numerous, but the main argument was to increase the survivability of soldiers in conflict. If a soldier is shot and killed it is far less expensive, and less consuming of manpower, resources, and time by his or her parent nation. But if you only wound that soldier he then must be treated in the field, removing another combatant to tend his wounds. Then he must be transported back to a field hospital where resources, manpower, and time must be expended to attempt to save his life. Whereas a soldier who is shot and killed can be left where he lays until the firefight has ended and it is far less a danger to remove his body. That may sound disscompassionate but it is true.
    The idea was that smaller wounds would increase casualties without increasing fatalities thereby weakening your opponent exponentially more so than merely killing that same soldier.
    What is discounted by most is the fact that many wounded soldiers continue to pose a threat unless their wounds prevented them from firing their weapons. This has been seen time and time again since the adoption of the smaller, and arguably less deadly, 5.56×45 and 5.45×39 FMJ rounds. Rounds which at the average current range (500-600m) of most exchanges of fire often fail to fragment as intended instead producing “through and through” type wounds.
    During the latest war in Iraq many American soldiers were accused of executing prisoners due to the high numbers of head shots described in after action reports. It was found not to be the case. Instead it was determined that the soldiers were simply aiming for the head in order to ensure lethality so that their target could not continue to return fire.
    By adopting more advanced lethality small arms rounds we actually provide a safer battle space for our soldiers. Certainly it increases the number of dead resulting from any engagement but that is preferable to wounded combatants that might remain combat effective and continue to pose a threat.
    Again, this will sound unsympathetic but that is unavoidable to make my point. Wounded soldiers cause a great burden on their parent nations in their requirement for life saving care in the field. Often they then require lifetime support back home thereby taxing the resources and manpower of those nations even further. Dead soldiers, while tragic losses to be certain, are less costly in many respects to those same said nations.
    I personally believe that all war should be fought as aggressively and decisively as is technologically possible. Every measure that can inflict the most deadly outcome to the enemy reduces the numbers of that enemy and eventually his ability to continue the conflict. The dropping of the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are prime examples. By inflicting such horrific numbers of fatalities, so quickly, we forced the Japanese to surrender or face utter annihilation.
    War is hell. It isn’t glorious. It is death inflicted on one’s enemy in order to prevent that enemy from inflicting the same on you. While that may seem heartless it is nonetheless reality. Anything that can be done to forestall armed conflicts, large or small, should be attempted. But once entered into they should be prosecuted as thoroughly and violently as is possible so that the conflict might end as quickly as possible.
    A previous poster had the right idea. Fighting with one hand tied behind our backs is simply ludicrous. Worse yet it is cruel to both sides as it prolongs all of the suffering that is caused by war to not only the soldier, but also his family and to the civilian population of any war torn nation.

    • screwtape2713

      In a word – NO. Your “explanation” for the reasoning behind the Hague Convention is, like many others, an attempt to provide a suitably cynical explanation for why the military would have wanted to see it adopted. And maybe it does explain why it is still largely followed today. Like most such “explanations “, however, it has clearly been developed in total disregard for the circumstances as they existed when the Hague Conventions were signed in 1899 and 1907.

      To understand these Conventions, you need to understand the critical technologies of the day. I am referring of course not to the MILITARY but the MEDICAL technology. Let’s review it:

      1. Xray – pioneered within the preceding decade as a means of looking inside the body to detect broken bones, bone splinters, and foreign bodies (such as bullets and bullet fragments). Bleeding edge high tech. Available in large, well-equipped urban hospitals and military base hospitals. Probably not yet in most field units. Previous ” gold standard” for finding bits of fragmented bullets — the surgeon “fished around” in the wound with a pair of forceps…

      2. Anaesthetics – use pioneered in the preceding few decades and the theory of their safe and effective use still very much in its infancy. Available anesthetics and application techniques still best described as “rudimentary”.

      3. Blood transfusion – unknown. Military use pioneered during Spanish Civil War in 1930s.

      4. Antibiotics – unknown. First developed in 1930s. Germ theory of disease established in preceding 40 years, and effective antiseptics to sterilize instruments and external surfaces (such as the patient’s skin) available, but as of date of Hague Convention, NO effective medicine known to help fight infection once established internally in the body — except prayer that the patient had sufficient internal reserves of strength to overcome it.

      Procedures that we now consider to be minor things to be done in clinics on a drop-in “outpatient” basis were considered major, high-risk surgical operations.

      In short, a soldier hit by an expanding or fragmenting bullet died on the spot if he was lucky; if he wasn’t, then he probably died of gangrene or septicemia in hospital instead after days or weeks of agony.

      And THAT is why the Major Powers of the day ALL signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

      • Hyok Kim

        “………. but the main argument was to increase the survivability of soldiers in conflict. If a soldier is shot and killed it is far less expensive, and less consuming of manpower, resources, and time by his or her parent nation. But if you only wound that soldier he then must be treated in the field, removing another combatant to tend his wounds. Then he must be transported back to a field hospital where resources, manpower, and time must be expended to attempt to save his life. Whereas a soldier who is shot and killed can be left where he lays until the firefight has ended and it is far less a danger to remove his body. That may sound disscompassionate but it is true.”

        ……by that reasoning, should we be happier if the enemy used HP instead of FMJ?

        Btw. The main argument proposed by you that militaries prefer FMJ is false. The main reason for FMJ is feeding reliability. If the main argument proposed by you were true, soldiers would be taught to shoot the enemy in legs, or some other non-vital spots.

  • deedeemao

    Hey, we have become a nation now where our president passes laws without the
    legislative branch, can create trade treaties with other nations in secret,
    negotiate nuclear arms treaties that are merely symbolic and will ensure rather
    than restrict nuclear proliferation, ignores our own constitution, appoints
    judges to the supreme court who will reinterpret the document to suit his
    agenda, and who will not abide by international treaties having to do with
    unlawful combatants who directly engage in armed conflict in violation of the
    laws of war.

    The sad fact is that
    we don’t adhere to the rules of war anymore if our president doesn’t want to,
    which would be fine if it gave us every possible advantage. But instead we make
    up new rules where we prosecute our own soldiers if they use too much force or
    are unduly “harsh” to the enemy which helps the enemy more than it does us.
    Hell, we don’t even use the term, “enemy” anymore and we no longer even think in
    terms of victory or defeat. We draw lines and then retreat. when we are
    attacked, we answer with words, not actions. we expend our military might
    haphazardly and without a coherent strategy.

    And we should be worried
    about not abiding by some chicken-sh*t rule about handgun ammo? Hey, either go
    back to the 45 auto using FMJ’s or upgrade the nine with some more
    technologically advanced projectiles.

    • HM

      You need a history lesson, every president ever has acted this way.

  • William Wallace

    The wording of the Hague Convention talks about soft tip “dum-dum” rounds… which can be argued to be the JSP or exposed lead tip ammunition that is still common today with rifle rounds. A true JHP is not exactly what they are talking about in that Convention.

  • Ok I understand you are fairly new but we don’t discuss politics on TFB. Lets not go there from now on—thanks.

    • Hyok Kim

      Man! You read everything, huh?

  • screwtape2713

    Argh! And that’s why I try to call cartridges by some kind of name instead — because otherwise I commit either a typo or a brain lapse when writing the caselength party. Of the designation…

    On PDWs, I always thought the 6.5x25mm CBJ looked interesting. Including the fact it can be used in rebarrelled 9mm Para weapons. Although either its own pdw or a Brugger & Thomet MP9 barrelled in it (available) seem ideal.

    • Mazryonh

      The main draw of the 6.5x25mm’s typical ammo is its 4mm tungsten penetrator which gives a lot of penetration in a very small, low-recoil and low-muzzle-flash package, but at that diameter you’re getting into flechette territory. The old research programs experimenting with them found out that they don’t have much stopping power due to the flechettes’ narrow diameter.

      If the MHS program really is open to any reasonable caliber, then the overseers really should keep their minds open.

      • screwtape2713

        Re “open minds”, i think the fact the program is for a “modular handgun” that is defined in the specs as a fullsized and a compact pistol (or one that can serve as both) able to fit a wide range of users rather answers the “open mind” part. A true “open mind” competition would simply specify “a light, compact and effective weapon system suitable to replace the current issue pistols”. And if some manufacturer chose to risk entering a combo of a small pdw and an ammo choice that

  • Hyok Kim

    A former HP addict here. I’ve been cured. Nowadays, I stick to FMJ only, and no, it has nothing to do with being humane.

    I used to research the extent of expansion and penetration of different HPs over the years. Talk about time wasted.

    HP Pro

    Bigger overall wound channel than FMJ.

    HP Con’s

    1. Less penetration than FMJ given everything else equal. Penetration is more important than expansion.

    2. Less feeding reliability than FMJ. Reliability is always more important than both penetration and expansion combined.

    3. More expensive than FMJ Meaning less ammo for the same money, less ammo for training Practical field accuracy and accurate zeroing in the field is less than with FMJ, given everything else equal. Where you hit is more important than the size of expansion.

  • Nathan

    What does firing and missing have to do with the subject? Plus, I did mistype. I meant the bullet WILL expend it’s energy in the target and not over penetrate if it is an expanding, hollowpoint style bullet.
    Whatever you are rambling on about misses for, I have no idea.
    How does the theory of the bullet stopping IN the perp, or at least expending 99% of it’s energy IN the perp, effect misses by the police? You prefer that bullets pass through perp OR innocent bystander in the line of a miss, than the bullet fundamentally being spent after one target?
    Or are you saying the cops should have nerf guns only?

    • Hyok Kim

      “What does firing and missing have to do with the subject?”

      You claimed you were worried about the bystanders getting hurt

      “Are you saying you do not care about innocent bystanders?” – Nathan

      Considering police miss about 4 out of 5 shots they fire at the perps, they are far more likely to hurt bystanders by those 4 shots that miss the perps than one shot that hit the perp.

      “Plus, I did mistype. I meant the bullet WILL expend it’s energy in the target and not over penetrate if it is an expanding, hollowpoint style bullet.” – Nathan

      No, you didn’t mistype. I fully understand what you’re saying that HP is less likely to overpenetrate the perp and hit the bystanders in the path of the bullet than FMJ.

      My point was that since police miss far more often than hit the perps, this obsession about bystanders being hurt the by the bullet that hit the perps and overpenetrate than those bullets that miss the perps and hitting the bystanders is misplaced.

      If you are really worried about the collateral damage resulting from police shootings, than you’d be more concerned about those misses than overpenetration.

      “Whatever you are rambling on about misses for,” – Nathan

      You don’t need to get so defensive.

      “How does the theory of the bullet stopping IN the perp, or at least expending 99% of it’s energy IN the perp, effect misses by the police?” – Nathan

      I’ll show you how they’re related.

      FMJ is less expensive and more reliable than JHP. This means police can spend more time improving their marksmanship, improving their hit ratio, resulting in less bullets flying in the path of bystanders, resulting less collateral damages.

      After all, isn’t the reason why you wanted to push for JHP in the first place (as far as LE issue was concerned, not the military)?

      Besides the bullet that miss perps are far more likely to hurt the bystanders more severely when hit than those bullets that overpenetrate the perps since the bullets that miss will have far higher energy remaining than the bullet that overpenetrate.

      “You prefer that bullets pass through perp OR innocent bystander in the line of a miss, than the bullet fundamentally being spent after one target?”

      I want the reduction of overall collateral damages. From both the bullets that hit the perps and miss the perps, not just from the bullet that hit the perps as far as LE was concerned.

      Isn’t that what you want also? Or you want the reduction of collateral damage resulting from the bullet that hit the perps only, but not from the bullet that miss the perps?

      “Or are you saying the cops should have nerf guns only?” – Nathan

      I never said nor implied it. Who are you arguing with?