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 Military.com.

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?

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/07/16/army-switching-to-hollow-po...

Views: 903

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Right Triptolemus, little or no alteration of a Hollow-point round causes them to fragment like a miniature hand-grenade and inflict considerable damage.   

How about any NCO or above being required to pack in any situation. Even "Gun Free Zones" for crying out loud, what is the pentagon thinking?

Well it addresses my issue with the M9. A full jacket round is too hot, punching little holes and leaving a combat capable opponent. It's why model 1911 has always been preferable. The fat slow round gives you a one shot take down. A full jacket 9mm round means you have to shoot the target multiple times. So there was no advantage in the higher capacity M9 magazine.

I'll stick with .45 ACP but they've finally seen the flaw in the 1980 decision.

You get no argument from me Tom.

But the 45 ACP is very last century ballistics. New 45 ammo is much more effective than the original. Using new progressive propellants and lighter composite jacketed hollow points the 45 is set for another century of outstanding personal defense and military use.

The new ammo combined with the next generation handgun will make both military and civilian use of our side arms much more effective.

I am a die hard 45 shooter. And the new weapons and ammo choices make me even more convinced that 45 will always be the best anti-personnel side arm round.

Did I wake up on a different planet. Hollow-point bullets are NOT for humanitarian considerations. Next to Exploding-rounds, Hollow-points inflict more damage than standard Ball-rounds. If the premise of the reason given by the government for switching ammo is accurate, it is a LIE.

Of course it's a lie.  They don't want their victims to recover and be a problem for them......AGAIN.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service