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.
- Status
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Joined
·
19,578 Posts
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.:image035:
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.:image035:
Joined
·
199 Posts
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.
Joined
·
745 Posts
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.
Joined
·
3,193 Posts
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.
.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.
Joined
·
70 Posts
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.
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.
Joined
·
663 Posts
"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,
-- Gerald Posner,
Actually this is not true. This has been linked in the past to Vietnam where .50BMG was rather expensive and officers didn't want soldiers expending it at the rate that the BMG was capable to do.freakshow10mm said:
It is in no way outlawed by any convention. If it is, why the .50 only? Why not a larger caliber? Why not .50AE? Why are the larger 30mm, or 120mm rounds acceptable? There is nothing in any convention that I've read that suggest the limit on round size.
Often civilian laws are passed to restrict this round, and this further fuels the rumor of .50 BMG being outlawed, but there is no international ban on the use of the round for military purposes.
As far as hallow points goes, one of the more logical reasons behind not using it is incase of an armored target. The M9 training (Air Force - afman36-2227v1 if you want to verify) encourages the firer to shoot twice for the chest, and once in the head. Personally, I put the first 6 rounds in the head, since it's the smaller circle, and place all the rest in the chest, but the point behind the training is to shoot twice in the chest, once in the head.
Joined
·
70 Posts
I know I heard this the whole way through basic training, and everytime the subject came up in the National Guard. Then, suddenly, we were in a combat zone and that supposed rule went out the window. Never heard it again. I think it's just a rumor.BigDaddy5 said:
Joined
·
745 Posts
well if 50 cal was not to be used against combatants......then why do they let snipers use them to take out people? it is just a rumor really. Nothing anyone can really find in writing.
Joined
·
3,193 Posts
The information I got was from my USMC recruiter (who was scout/sniper MOS) and IIRC from what he said, it was a UN thing. Don't know if it holds any water regarding the rules of land warfare.
Palmgopher, if the above was true, the way around it was in my original post.
If this is untrue, then I apoligize. I was speaking from information that was provided to me by what I deemed as a credible source.
Palmgopher, if the above was true, the way around it was in my original post.
If this is untrue, then I apoligize. I was speaking from information that was provided to me by what I deemed as a credible source.
No need to apologize, it's a common misconception. And usually there's some statistic to back it up, but you just have to think about it...I mean if .50BMG is outlawed, why? The only thing that's outlawed is a round that's designed to cause a superfelous injury, as far as I know, so what makes the .50BMG? Why not a .557 round, or .60 or .70? What about a 25mm round, or an A10's main gun?freakshow10mm said:
Then when one tries to research it on google, all you're able to find is a bunch of forum posts.
I did manage to find a .ppt on the USMC website intitled "Law of War," dated August 2002, written by Col. Robert Maquire that specifcally states they are legal.
A decent discussion on the myth can be read here, if you're interested:
http://forums.military.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/783108624/m/5230082110001
Keep in mind that most of it is just discussion, but those who cite written sources generally agree that it's perfectly legal
It's also interesting that every discussion of the ban of the weapon includes a loophole for the "rule," as well.
But like I said, it's a common misconception, no need to apologize. If you wouldn't have said it, I'm sure someone else would have.
Joined
·
2 Posts
It had zero reason at all for being cheaper than hollow point. If the enemy is wearing armor then a hollow point round will not go through that. You have a better chance of putting the opposite side down with FMJ in that aspect.
Also, just like the North Koreans did to us, if we were to, instead of killing one of their soldiers and just wound them it would take more of their men out of the battle to carry and tend to the victim. But If they were already dead then no other men would be taken out of the action. Ergo, more soldiers firing at us and killing more of us troops.
When it comes to self defense I don't reckon the intruder would be wearing armor, so best to keep work the good ol' Hollow Point. -SPC Piirainen
Joined
·
78,818 Posts
I think you may have set the record for oldest zombie thread revival.
The wound, don't kill theory is myth, not fact. Enemies are wounded simply because you missed a fatal shot. No military service trains for knee shots, requiring two other soldiers to carry the wounded one out. And don't compare military HPs used for snipers with the HP ammo a civilian buys off the shelf for taking out woodchucks. They are not the same in design nor purpose.
Joined
·
8,438 Posts
Just another illustration of the absurdity of trying to have "rules of warfare".
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
