A Note About "Open Tipped Ammunition"
Some people claim that the use of "hollow point" or expanding bullets is illegal in warfare under the Geneva Convention (which is a set of international agreements to provide for "civilized" behavior between nations at war). The topic was actually addressed by the Hague Accords of 1899 and 1907 and proscribed the use of "arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury" (or in some documents "unnecessary suffering") and neither term is defined. By the way the conventions only apply to a declared war against national enemies by signatory parties. The US is not a signatory of this convention, but does abide by it.
In regards to the use of "open tip match" bullets which provide increased accuracy and which are not specifically designed to expand, the Hague Convention IV of 1907 (and NOT the Geneva Convention) does not proscribe them, nor bullets which yaw and fragment in tissue. This position was not disputed by the 1978 UNCCW Conference and was reconfirmed during its’ review in 1994 - 1996. Thus the US Judge Advocate General office's 1990 decision to authorized certain OTM projectiles, which yaw and then fragment just like many FMJ bullets, for unrestricted land warfare use is perfectly legal under international law and neither the nannie-state UN nor any other organization have any grounds to protest their use.
OTM ammunition is currently not more frequently used in 5.56 (as the Mk262 77 gr OTM) because it is not as widely available via the supply system and is substantially more expensive than M855, but there is a definite push to use it in all calibers., including the 7.62 NATO. The issue ball round in 6.8 x 43 (6.8 SPC) is the 115 gr Sierra MatchKing "enhanced fragmentation" bullet.
If one wanted to get technical about this issue there is really no basic for proscribing a bullet that does expand, since: a) there is nothing about them that causes "unnecessary suffering; and b) an expanding bullet is simply an attempt to make a small diameter bullet create a wound channel that a larger diameter non-expanding bullet would, and most "expanding bullets create a less messy wound then fragmenting bullets do. In actuality this so-called "ban" is very misleading for while expanding projectiles may supposedly be proscribed, the use of mines, explosives, fragmentation, and flame weapons which indiscriminately shred and maim their victims are not.
Some hollow points wont expand because of clothes.But most of the time they will!Dont worry about court when the time comes.If god forbid you ever have to pull it!But if you need it, you need it?Ammo wont make any differance with the right lawyer in court!Hp ammo is a better man stopper hands down.FMJ will just punch two small holes threw your opponent.It will work with good shot placment,but hp's will create a much worst wound channel.This is for NEDRGR21 for the comment hp is against warfare rules.Thats why military dont use them.But bombs are ok?And rockets that can take out a montain!Military uses ball ammo because it's cheap.They practice with it.They are very accurate.It functions flawlessly out of all guns.Last of all it penatrates better than any round.Eccept armor peircing rounds.So I dont buy what you say!!The government lies,if thats where you heard that from.There are very few rules in war.Dont shoot a medic!But never in the weapons dept. there is very few..Have a nice day!
Oh, boy. I agree with you on the JHP vs FMJ. I provided a link to where that info comes from so I don't understand your confusion of where I got that. Your points about rockets and bombs were included in my post. Don't know what you're trying to accomplish there. Tubby45 was claiming JHP's weren't addressed in the Hague Convention and I was simply providing evidence that they are - I don't care why or why not, but they very clearly are. OTM vs. JHP's were brought up, and again, I was just providing the reason why they were deemed not restricted by the Hague Convention. Additionally, OTM bullets are used by snipers so cost (as opposed to FMJ) takes a distant seat to performance as they are used by very few servicemembers in select situations. Don't know the reason for the rant on why the military uses FMJ's for most applications, no one's claimed differently. Don't know who pissed in your cheerios this morning, but hopefully you'll get over whatever's got BP up.
Your the only member with opinions here ok ,then you are right buddy!Whatever you say!