Army Switching to Hollow Point Ammunition for “Humanitarian Reasons”

In a surprising policy shift it hadn’t so much as considered for over 100 years, the U.S. Army will likely be switching to hollow point pistol ammunition for its next generation handgun.

The Pentagon’s commitment to full metal jacket, or ball ammunition, had been a standard in line with the 1899 Hague Convention, which banned the use of bullets that “expand or flatten easily” inside the human body—as they were thought to cause excessive, and therefore inhumane, injury. But the U.S. has never ratified that agreement—and remains the only major world power that hasn’t done so.

After reviewing policy allowing for “special purpose ammunition,” the Pentagon felt hollow points would be a valid option as they stay in the target’s body, whereas ball ammunition can pass through, potentially causing “collateral damage” by striking bystanders. “The use of this ammunition supports the international law principles of preventing excessive collateral effects and safeguarding civilian lives,” explained an Army statement. Essentially, though expanding and fragmenting ammunition is more injurious to the individual, there is less potential to “accidentally” injure innocent civilians than exists with ball ammunition.

Even though this wouldn’t be the first approved use of such bullets by the military, Richard Jackson, special assistant to the Judge Advocate General for Law of War, told the Army Times the switch represented “a significant  re-interpretation of the legal standard.” He stated there have been many changes since the ban was implemented, such as the increased prevalence of “asymmetric warfare.” Jackson explained, “There’s a myth that [expanding and fragmenting bullets] are prohibited in international armed conflict, but that doesn’t make any sense now.”

Article 23(e) of the 1907 Hague Convention states “it is especially forbidden to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering”—but Jackson insists there are “humanitarian benefits” that come with the use of hollow point ammunition. As he told the Washington Post,“By staying in the target there isn’t as many collateral effects . . . it will not go through the target into a bystander nearby or someone in the next room.”

“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,” Debi Dawson, Program Executive Office Soldier spokespersontold

Competition is gearing up to win the Army’s bid for its next generation handgun, dubbed XM-17—a contract for nearly 300,000 weapons—which is expected later this month, said Program Executive Office Soldier manager for individual weapons Lt. Col. Terry Wilson. The new weapons will likely be rolled out by 2018. More than 20 companies have already expressed interest in manufacturing the weapons, which will replace the M9 Beretta the Army has used since the mid-1980s.

What the dramatic shift in policy comes down to, apparently, is the need for a deadlier weapon. “They wanted to be better at felling the adversary than the current weapon,”Jackson explained. Hollow point ammunition certainly fits the bill—it covers more surface area on impact, creating a larger wound.

“Law enforcement agencies use hollow points all over the world,” Jackson said, “so if it doesn’t violate the human rights standards that applies [sic] these days, why are we applying those standards on the battlefield?”

Indeed. Why should the U.S. bother to stick with established humanitarian guidelines if no one else does?

Views: 903

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The most important reason for using Ball or full metal jacketed ammunition was for war time collateral damage, the collateral damage being any enemy soldier near the intended target that could also be hit by the bullet passing through the target. The ball ammo would pass through the body in a number of cases causing a wounded situation, rather than fatal, which would in turn often bring a rescuer into the line of fire as a much easier target.  So which is really more humane ? I think in a civilian situation you try to minimize collateral damage.

Hollow point ammo is designed to do massive damage to what ever it hits. This is the reason that it was banned on the convention. If the ARMY is changing it to hollow point it is to be used on us. this is another Obama thing fitting right in with the helmet jade.round us up and kill the resistors.

Wow, what a theory, and it is probably right. The government would want dead resistors than have to care for wounded ones.

You got that right!

I seem to remember when we found out the DOJ and other various depts. were stockpiling hollow point ammo they said it was for training purposes. We asked training of who? Because our military hasn't been using this type of ammo. They also denied stocking it in large quantities. Now the lie is coming to the surface. I always said if you want to catch a liar just be patient and wait because eventually they will trap themselves. I've tried it with some I have known and it always works. Just like the WMD's that they said didn't exist, but Syria got questionable shipments coming in at that same time didn't they? And I think we all know where they were from. The same with this ammo. They have to get rid of their stockpiles they said they didn't have before Obama's term is out. It's called getting rid of the evidence. Just give it all to the military, what's left of them.

I agree with pahrumper. the hollow point is more deadly to the target! And I also believe it is meant for US citizenry that doesn't comply with Obama's New World Order.They do not want us 'wounded' and alive but rather want to make sure the bullet is 'lethal' and we are dead. And if the American Blacks think he gives a sh*t about them they are sadly mistaken. He does not identify with the American Black people. He does only to 'use' them to meet his goal of destroying America. Remember he is Kenyan by birth and his loyalty is to Islam and he has publicly said so! Watch! muslims will be running our country unless we take her back by force!

The US was never a signatory to the 1899 Hague Convention but did join a number of other "Geneva Accords" which limit the kinds of ammunition/weapons that 'should be' used against enemy soldiers.
That said, the major reason the former War Department cum DoD stayed with ball ammo was the expectation that enemy nations would reciprocate which turned out to be generally correct when fighting state actors ... our most recent conflicts have mostly been with non-state forces that follow no rules ... we can expect that trend to continue, and the 5.56mm is just not up to the task for future wars ... I very much favor transitioning to jacketed HP ammo -- along with a complete rearming of the troops for both long arms & side arms.
One of the advantages of the US AR format is that it can be recalibered by simply putting a new upper & barrel on the lower ... the ergonomics of our AR format are almost perfect as a universal fit for soldiers.
I favor up-gunning the M16 to at least 6mm/.243 caliber... all the way out to a short case .30 caliber round like the 300 Blackout but more potent ...
The only really reliable side arm caliber is the .45 ACP, but its ballistics are very last century ... an upgraded .45 'Plus-P' type round in a 130 grain steel half-jacket medium soft shallow HP fired from a 1911-derived modern pistol made from advanced alloys & state-of-the-art polymers would be ideal.
I'm saving up for a Detonics MTX .45 for all of those reasons. I also now buy only custom loaded .45 rounds that use the most modern progressive propellant powder and the 130 gr half-jacket shallow HP (a Nosler product) ... while I love my standard .45 the improved round really kicks it up several notches on my love scale.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I believe Ball and Full Metal Jacket can pierce body armor whereas a hollow point can't. I bet there has been more Collateral Damage by Drones then balls. I believe this should be investigated. It doesn't pass my smell test

Robert. ... there is no simple answer your question ... lots of variables involved. Level 4 body armor is hard to crack short of a direct, fairly close range hit by a large caliber hi-vel bullet. A 5.56mm round, even the green tip composite M855 penetrator has a tough time punching through thick armor plate much beyond 75 meters.
A half-jacketed medium hard shallow HP will do just about the same job as the 855. I've shot .223/5.56mm for years and while they're good enough for exposed flesh, the mass of the bullets isn't large enough to generate sufficient transfer of kinetic to potential energy to guarantee a kill when the opponent is armored up.
I think what we're going to see is a new rifle caliber somewhere between 6&7mm diameter with a bullet weight between 90 & 125 grains. Most likely it will be a medium soft amalgam lead composite with a short steel jacket & shallow HP face; and will probably fly at 2500 to 2900 fps.
That bullet will not only punch through level 4 body armor it will have enough energy left to liquify organs & crush bones.
If you're in a fight where you're down to using a side arm the last thing you worry about is body armor ... the enemy will be close enough that a good pistol shooter can do head or groin shots. Remember this: in combat a side arm is just about the weapon of last resort before it becomes hand to hand.
But I will tell you that no hand gun makes its statement quite like a .45 acp. The new ammo in this caliber is inspiring when it speaks!!

My Brother... USMC RECON, was hit in the chest with a 45ACP ball round in 'nam. His 'flak jacket' saved him... but the hit separated his sternum and left the ugliest green, grey and brown bruise I've ever seen. He said he was 'done'... took all the fight rite out of him and he couldn't get enough air to crawl. At the time... He didn't have a clue as to what hit him.

BTW... Have you fired these new Rem 17's ??


I'll never give up my 762x54 full metal jackets,their just too cool.They shoot through well just about everything.




Political Cartoons by Chip BokPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Joe Biden Vows: Give Taxpayer-Funded Obamacare To All Illegal Aliens In U.S.

Former Vice President and 2020 Democrat presidential primary candidate Joe Biden is vowing to give Obamacare, funded by American taxpayers, to all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

During an interview with Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart, Biden forgot that Obamacare technically bans illegal aliens from enrolling in healthcare plans — although illegal aliens are still able to obtain subsidized and free healthcare at Americans’ expense — and promised that under his plan, all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens would be able to get Obamacare.

The exchange went as follows:

DIAZ-BALART: When I … NBC moderated that first debate with you, I didn’t … I don’t recall a clear answer, under your plan should … would the 11, 12 million undocumented immigrants that live in the United States, that have been here many for generations, would they have access …


DIAZ-BALART: — to health insurance.

BIDEN: Yes, they … if they can buy into the system like everybody else.

DIAZ-BALART: Because you know, in [Obamacare] they can’t.

BIDEN: Yeah. Yeah, I know. Well they can, that’s my point. They continue to be able to do that.

DIAN-BALART: They cannot under the ObamaCare.

BIDEN: Well and that’s my point, they will though. They will be able to buy into … [illegal aliens] would be able to buy in, just like anyone else could.

Biden joins Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — among other 2020 Democrats — in committing to forcing American taxpayers to pay for healthcare for illegal aliens who arrive in the U.S.

Already, due to loopholes, American taxpayers are spending nearly $20 billion every year to provide illegal aliens with subsidized healthcare, emergency room visits, and other health services.

Under the 2020 Democrats’ plan to provide taxpayer-funded healthcare to all illegal aliens living in the U.S., Americans would be billed potentially $660 billion every decade just to cover the costs. Other research has found that the plan would cost Americans at least $23 billion every year.

As Breitbart News has reported, experts have said that giving taxpayer-funded healthcare to effectively all foreign nationals who can make it to America’s borders would drive “strong incentives for people with serious health problems to enter the country or remain longer than their visas allow in order to get government-funded care.”

Despite 2020 Democrats’ continued push for taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens, American voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the plan. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey revealed that the healthcare-for-illegal-aliens plan is the least popular policy position, with opposition from 62 percent of U.S. voters.

Similarly, a CNN poll from July discovered that 63 percent of likely swing voters oppose providing healthcare to illegal aliens, along with nearly 6-in-10 of all likely U.S. voters and 61 percent of moderates. A Rasmussen Reports survey also found that likely voters, by a majority of 55 percent, oppose giving healthcare to even the most low-income illegal aliens.

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service