More effective military caliber

[ExactlyMyPoint]

I am not sure who wrote the rule that there should be rules in war, but there is one rule that the military MUST use full metal jacket bullets in their rifles. Of course, there is a huge debate about the effectiveness of the American 5.56 round vs. the Russian 7.62 round. Obviously, if the Americans used hollow point ammunition instead of full metal jacket, the bullet would produce more tissue damage and essentially be more effective thus adding to the advantages of the caliber.

Let's say that the military does adopt a hollow point bullet in its combat rifles. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of doing so?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[pgrass101]

Body armor and shooting thru objects. If someone is taking cover behind a wall I want to be able to shoot thru the wall. This is much more of an issue for active combat than it is for civillians.

If I am in a war zone I want something that will penatrate.

[NotMallNinja]

Following on pgrass101...

Hollow points are not outlawed in armed conflict. Take the M118LR round (7.62×51mm NATO Hollow Point Boat Tail, 175 grain). It is a sniper round.

Military FMJ usage is thought to be based upon two things. First, it tends to create wounds rather than kill and treating wounded takes more out of the battle than does a dead soldier. Second, hollow points are often used in non-mil environments because do not penetrate as much. In the military there is less worry about collateral damage so a round going through one person is not something generally considered. Finally, FMJs are cheaper and easier to produce (it's why most of us who carry JHP train with FMJ).

[dukalmighty]

I just read the real deal here The Gun Zone -- Hague Convention
I was under the assumption that HP's were outlawed,but apparently they don't seem to be,I'm gonna have to go along with FMJ are cheaper,and actually remain intact better when shooting thru barriers

[rammerjammer]

I just read the real deal here The Gun Zone -- Hague Convention
I was under the assumption that HP's were outlawed,but apparently they don't seem to be,I'm gonna have to go along with FMJ are cheaper,and actually remain intact better when shooting thru barriers

Thanks for the link. Very informative article

[mcp1810]

Haven't read the Hague convention in years but IIRC the prohibition its on rounds of any design that are intended to produce undue suffering. The operational part of that is the intent. The intent of the OTM sniper rounds is to increase accuracy not to increase wounding. The adoption of FMJ rounds goes back to the invention of smokeless powder and the increase in velocity. If you tried pushing lead bullets at these velocities you would have a smooth bore very quickly due to lead fouling.

[BigJon10125]

40 mm

[ghost tracker]

16" (406 mm) Naval Gun.

[paaiyan]

16" (406 mm) Naval Gun.

slcm.jpg

Tomahawk.

anchorman-well-that-escalated-quickly.jpg

[msgt/ret]

If you want to really reach out and touch someone send the best you can.

Titan_II_launch.jpg

[Cupcake]

I understood that the HP in that round was just how it was manufactured, and was not intended to be an expanding round, per se. Anyway, there is also a difference in what the engagement is: Declared war against another state: We must follow Hague and Geneva. Battling misc forces like al qaida or even drug cartels: Those requirements do not apply.

[GunGeezer]

I'd go with the wound rather than kill. It takes at least 2 more soldiers to carry a wounded man. This takes 3 or more out of action with one shot. Unless you're forest Gump.

[SgtRick]

The intent of the OTM sniper rounds is to increase accuracy not to increase wounding.

The "Intent" of sniper round is not to wound. Snipers are trained in many areas including gathering intel, but wounding is not practiced. "One shot, one kill".

[OldVet]

Following on pgrass101...

Hollow points are not outlawed in armed conflict. Take the M118LR round (7.62×51mm NATO Hollow Point Boat Tail, 175 grain). It is a sniper round.

Military FMJ usage is thought to be based upon two things. First, it tends to create wounds rather than kill and treating wounded takes more out of the battle than does a dead soldier. Second, hollow points are often used in non-mil environments because do not penetrate as much. In the military there is less worry about collateral damage so a round going through one person is not something generally considered. Finally, FMJs are cheaper and easier to produce (it's why most of us who carry JHP train with FMJ).

I've never bought into this as not once in my years in the military did any instructor, etc. state to aim for the legs so his buddies will have to carry him out. Not once did I see a target where the points for a limb hit were higher than center mass. Never did I heard any combat veteran claim he always aimed for the kneecaps to burden the enemy with carrying the wounded. Seems they all wanted their targets killed dead--right now. Like the "ping" of an ejected M1 clip, an old story perpetuated forever.

[Wiggity]

THe only HP rounds I think the MIL should adopt are pistol HP's. If there is any weak link in current ammo, I think that is it. 9mm HP's are exponentially more effective than FMJ's.

Reason being, pistols do very poorly against armor in general, why not use HP's that are equally as awful against armor yet more effective against tissue?