Why does the military only use FMJ?

ENSANE1970 · July 2nd, 2006, 01:14 AM

I am meeting with an Army recruiter, this week, I've been kicking around the idea of joining, even though I'm 36. We'll see, fiance, doesn't like the idea. I don't like the idea that, if sent into a hostile environment, which I expect, why the UN finds JHP's cruel. I don't understand this mindset, if I'm going into battle, I want the best ammo I can have. After all it's called war, the object is to eliminate the enemy. Why use a pass through round like the FMJ, in certain calibers, when a double tap in the same caliber, in a JHP would get the job done, dead is dead, in my book. It's almost like the UN and the Geneva convention, want to create a "level playing field". There is no level playing field in war, those who go home, alive are the winners, I want to be a winner, given the option.

Bud White · July 2nd, 2006, 01:17 AM

It the Hague something or other that restricts JHP's It limits anything jhp or Dum dum from way back in the day the Geneva convention has nothing to do with it

srfl · July 2nd, 2006, 01:22 AM

Yup...as Bud sez, the Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body in a time of war.

HotGuns · July 2nd, 2006, 01:26 AM

The FMJ is better for military applications because of its penetration capabilitys. When shooting doors, walls with people behind them, people in vehicles, aircraft, boats and anything else that the enemy has that needs to be shot, its the best thing going.

Sure the round will zing right though the BG. Not a problem, just shoot him more.It will also go though him and pierce his buddy standing behind him.

Ammo is cheap...in the military it is free.

ENSANE1970 · July 2nd, 2006, 01:30 AM

Sorry Bud I thought I had seen somewhere, that the Geneva convention had something to do with that decision. I can't remember where I got that info, I maybe read it wrong.

palmgopher · July 2nd, 2006, 01:48 AM

i think part of it has to do with the damage a hollowpoint does compared to a fmj and how hard it is to patch someone up. You know easier to get the boys back in the fight if hit with fmj.

Bud White · July 2nd, 2006, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENSANE1970

Sorry Bud I thought I had seen somewhere, that the Geneva convention had something to do with that decision. I can't remember where I got that info, I maybe read it wrong.

Taint no thing Poll 100 people about it and 98 will tell you its against the Geneva Convention to use JHP

Tubby45 · July 2nd, 2006, 04:38 AM

Also, the US DIDN'T sign the Hague Accord. We abide by it but we don't have to. Our military snipers use OTM bullets, which are OK because the wounding mechanism is the same as FMJs, they don't expand or flatten, the design is for ballistic purposes only. A bullet can fragment, but not expand or flatten. The HA, IIRC only applies to GOVERNMENT MILITARIES. So since the Taliban/AQ/ whoever ISN'T an actual government military, just mere civilians basically, the HA regarding the use of non FMJ bullets doesn't apply. Neither does the ban on firing on people in a religious building. But because the enemy is not governmental, both aforementioned "rules" are null and void.

.50BMG cannot be used as anti-personnel weapons, but to only disable military equipment. Loophole: I am not shooting at that enemy soldier. I only want to disable his uniform shirt by placing a hole in it. Oops, got him too.

JaredMcLaughlin · July 2nd, 2006, 10:52 AM

Congratulations meeting with a recruiter. Don't take your age as a problem, use it as a virtue. Some of the older soldiers I worked with were a great credit to our unit as they brought in years of life experience that us younger guys didn't have. Good luck, and enjoy.

I think other people have mentioned it, but we never did sign the portions of the Hague Convention which limit us to FMJ. However, we follow those rules as policy. Even if we had signed, the rules are limited to a case when two armies wearing uniforms, carrying their arms in the open, with a recognized command structure oppose each other. Those armies also must be of two nations who both signed the agreement. However, we follow these rules no matter what, for reasons unknown to me.

I wouldn't take this as a problem, though. FMJ stills does the job. We still have some of the finest equipment on the face of the earth. Better yet, though, we have the best trained soldiers there are. You'll find that training is the most important part of the equation, and why something like ammo is minimal in its impact on effectiveness in our military.

PackerfanXD · July 2nd, 2006, 11:44 AM

"Mandated by the Geneva Convention of 1922, the purpose of enclosing bullets with full metal jackets was to reduce combat fatalities. The bullets were designed to pass through bodies and, if no major organs were struck, only to wound the victim. Before metal jackets, bullets often detoured inside the body."
-- Gerald Posner,

July 2nd, 2006, 01:14 AM	#1
ENSANE1970 Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: SC Posts: 200	Why does the military only use FMJ? I am meeting with an Army recruiter, this week, I've been kicking around the idea of joining, even though I'm 36. We'll see, fiance, doesn't like the idea. I don't like the idea that, if sent into a hostile environment, which I expect, why the UN finds JHP's cruel. I don't understand this mindset, if I'm going into battle, I want the best ammo I can have. After all it's called war, the object is to eliminate the enemy. Why use a pass through round like the FMJ, in certain calibers, when a double tap in the same caliber, in a JHP would get the job done, dead is dead, in my book. It's almost like the UN and the Geneva convention, want to create a "level playing field". There is no level playing field in war, those who go home, alive are the winners, I want to be a winner, given the option. __________________ If you want a battle of the wit's, please come armed. Ron Paul Revolution 2008!!! NRA Member

July 2nd, 2006, 01:22 AM	#3
srfl Senior Moderator Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: FL Posts: 6,873	Yup...as Bud sez, the Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body in a time of war. __________________ USAF: Loving Our Obscene Amenities Since 1947

July 2nd, 2006, 01:30 AM	#5
ENSANE1970 Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: SC Posts: 200	Sorry Bud I thought I had seen somewhere, that the Geneva convention had something to do with that decision. I can't remember where I got that info, I maybe read it wrong. __________________ If you want a battle of the wit's, please come armed. Ron Paul Revolution 2008!!! NRA Member

July 2nd, 2006, 04:38 AM	#8
Tubby45 VIP Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Making suppressors Posts: 2,406	Also, the US DIDN'T sign the Hague Accord. We abide by it but we don't have to. Our military snipers use OTM bullets, which are OK because the wounding mechanism is the same as FMJs, they don't expand or flatten, the design is for ballistic purposes only. A bullet can fragment, but not expand or flatten. The HA, IIRC only applies to GOVERNMENT MILITARIES. So since the Taliban/AQ/ whoever ISN'T an actual government military, just mere civilians basically, the HA regarding the use of non FMJ bullets doesn't apply. Neither does the ban on firing on people in a religious building. But because the enemy is not governmental, both aforementioned "rules" are null and void. .50BMG cannot be used as anti-personnel weapons, but to only disable military equipment. Loophole: I am not shooting at that enemy soldier. I only want to disable his uniform shirt by placing a hole in it. Oops, got him too. __________________ Freakshow Manufacturing LLC Ammunition- Retail, Wholesale, Law Enforcement

July 2nd, 2006, 11:44 AM	#10
PackerfanXD Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ground zero of the invasion Posts: 663	"Mandated by the Geneva Convention of 1922, the purpose of enclosing bullets with full metal jackets was to reduce combat fatalities. The bullets were designed to pass through bodies and, if no major organs were struck, only to wound the victim. Before metal jackets, bullets often detoured inside the body." -- Gerald Posner, __________________ The wealthiest nation in the world with the mightiest army man has ever assembled could not stop them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJhD-72v958 Free Ramos and Campion

July 2nd, 2006, 01:17 AM	#2
Bud White VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Gone from Here Posts: 17,375	It the Hague something or other that restricts JHP's It limits anything jhp or Dum dum from way back in the day the Geneva convention has nothing to do with it

July 2nd, 2006, 01:26 AM	#4
HotGuns Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arkansas Posts: 7,599	The FMJ is better for military applications because of its penetration capabilitys. When shooting doors, walls with people behind them, people in vehicles, aircraft, boats and anything else that the enemy has that needs to be shot, its the best thing going. Sure the round will zing right though the BG. Not a problem, just shoot him more.It will also go though him and pierce his buddy standing behind him. Ammo is cheap...in the military it is free.

July 2nd, 2006, 01:48 AM	#6
palmgopher Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: tennessee Posts: 507	i think part of it has to do with the damage a hollowpoint does compared to a fmj and how hard it is to patch someone up. You know easier to get the boys back in the fight if hit with fmj.

July 2nd, 2006, 10:52 AM	#9
JaredMcLaughlin Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 70	Congratulations meeting with a recruiter. Don't take your age as a problem, use it as a virtue. Some of the older soldiers I worked with were a great credit to our unit as they brought in years of life experience that us younger guys didn't have. Good luck, and enjoy. I think other people have mentioned it, but we never did sign the portions of the Hague Convention which limit us to FMJ. However, we follow those rules as policy. Even if we had signed, the rules are limited to a case when two armies wearing uniforms, carrying their arms in the open, with a recognized command structure oppose each other. Those armies also must be of two nations who both signed the agreement. However, we follow these rules no matter what, for reasons unknown to me. I wouldn't take this as a problem, though. FMJ stills does the job. We still have some of the finest equipment on the face of the earth. Better yet, though, we have the best trained soldiers there are. You'll find that training is the most important part of the equation, and why something like ammo is minimal in its impact on effectiveness in our military.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode