DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Ammo and Munitions » One Answer to Hollow-​​Tip Bans

One Answer to Hollow-​​Tip Bans

pistol-shoot-web.jpg

Defense Tech infre­quent con­trib­u­tor and res­i­dent bal­lis­tics expert David Woroner busted out an inter­est­ing first-​​person analy­sis of a bul­let that could answer sol­diers call for more stop­ping power.

As our read­ers might remem­ber, we reported two weeks ago that a Center for Naval Analyses study obtained by DT found of all the sug­gested improve­ments for Americas standard-​​issued sidearm and car­bine, sol­diers sur­veyed said they want a more deadly weapon or round.

CNA pointed out that one answer is off the table: hol­low point ammo.

But Woroner took a first-​​hand look at a type of round that could answer a pol­i­tics vs. lethal­ity dilemma

From Dave (its a longish entry, but I think youll find it worth the read):

Known as the Federal EFMJ for expand­ing full metal jacket the round would appear to be a gift from above to the sol­dier on the ground. It is fully jack­eted, yet expands like a hol­low point upon impact.

The basic con­cept was devel­oped by pro­jec­tile whiz Tom Burzynski and Larry Head, lead ammo designer for Federal applied some of his magic to bring this bul­let to fruition.

So what makes this round so dif­fer­ent and special?

Well first of all it is a full metal jack­eted bul­let — this means there is no cup at the front as with most hol­low points. Standard hol­low points work by tak­ing advan­tage of fluid dynam­ics — the fluid being the liq­uid or blood in a target.

While stop­ping many a fight and still not a bad choice at all, I per­son­ally have seen many hol­low points stay intact — or not expand. The cul­prit for this has usu­ally been, believe it or not, cloth­ing. When the cup or hol­low of the bul­let is pass­ing through cloth­ing, espe­cially win­ter type cloth­ing the hol­low point can end up filled as it cuts through the mate­r­ial thus pre­vent­ing expansion.

Whats also pretty cool about the EFMJ bul­let is that because its fully jack­eted, it feeds flaw­lessly. Anyone whos spent some time shoot­ing hollow-​​point ammo has expe­ri­enced the hol­low lip catch­ing on the feed ramp of the weapon forc­ing an oper­a­tor to exe­cute stop­page drills in the mid­dle of a gunfight.

Besides over­com­ing the feed­ing issue, the EFMJ works unlike a typ­i­cal hol­low point on impact. Think for a minute about fir­ing at a tar­get through dry­wall with a stan­dard hol­low point? Nine times out of ten the hol­low point will fill up with the pow­dery dry­wall.
EFMJ-web.jpg

Now enter the EFMJ. It works by hav­ing a piece of encased lead with a tiny nylon/​rubber plug. When it strikes its tar­get, it can­not fill up at the front since its encased. Instead, it begins to (for lack of a bet­ter word) smush up the entire round. How it begins its expan­sion so dia­met­ri­cally opposed to a stan­dard hol­low point and its reliance on fluid hydraulics is that the EFMJ oper­ates solely on impact/​kinetic input to the front of the bullet.

Part of the man­u­fac­tur­ing process of the EFMJ includes cre­at­ing cuts or stri­a­tions on the inside of the encas­ing cop­per. When the bul­let impacts, it begins its expan­sion by impact/​blunt force with the cuts split­ting and allow­ing the rub­ber com­po­nent to con­tinue to flat­ten. By then it would have entered its target.

Another test I did was to shoot it through plies of stan­dard dry­wall and it worked great. It pen­e­trated, started its defor­ma­tion as well. So when it struck the tar­get behind the wall, the bul­let was still full of energy, yet almost fully expanded.

Shooting through two pieces of dry­wall yielded the same result, except it was obvi­ous there was a slight drop off in con­nect­ing kinetic energy. You want to be able to shoot through dry­wall and ply­wood and still hit some­thing, but you dont want it going down the block and kill granny sit­ting out knit­ting on her front porch.

The pen­e­tra­tion I got was very con­sis­tent with cur­rent kinetic impact under­stand­ing and that gave me even more rea­son to trust this round. To put it quite sim­ply it is harder to shoot through a piece of glass then it is dry­wall because the glass is more mol­e­c­u­larly com­pact than the drywall.

So when I shot 9mm and 45cal. rounds through each, I was pleas­antly sur­prised to find that although the rounds did pen­e­trate the glass, the expanded as adver­tised. Having my caliper in back pocket told me that the 9mm expanded to .51 inches and the 45 cal. to .64 inches (all rounds being caught by foam and soft rub­ber) those num­bers are an aver­age for mul­ti­ple shots on glass. The 9mm in my opin­ion in straight up head to head per­for­mance came out ahead of the .45, Im sure only because of the higher veloc­ity of the 9mm round.

On the dry­wall, I found more expan­sion but not by much, 9mm to .58 and the .45cal to .67 which for either sur­face, and the energy car­ried still after impact was surely enough to pen­e­trate a solid 9–10 inches.

It would be super to see our troops car­ry­ing the EFMJ in their Beretta, Colt, Kimber, etc. The next thing Federal needs to do is cre­ate the same tech­nol­ogy in the 5.56 (.223) round, I would be very inter­ested to see the results of that test.

– David Woroner

Share |

June 5th, 2007 | Ammo and Munitions | 2553104 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/06/05/one-answer-to-hollow-tip-bans/One+Answer+to+Hollow-Tip+Bans2007-06-05+20%3A04%3A07Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Russia’s New BMD-​​Beater | The Dragon Skin Circus Begins » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. David Woroner, Pres. SCI says:
    September 23, 1985 at 12:00 am

    Dear Sir, I always respect oth­ers opin­ions, how­ever, in this case your are mis­taken. Allow me to show you “real deal” so to speak. (thank you.)
    THE HAGUE CONVENTION & THE UNITED STATES

    Reply
  2. David Woroner says:
    September 23, 1985 at 12:00 am

    Dear Sir, I always respect oth­ers opin­ions, how­ever, in this case your are mis­taken. Allow me to show you “real deal” so to speak. (thank you.)
    THE HAGUE CONVENTION & THE UNITED STATES

    Reply
  3. mrnitropb says:
    June 5, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    “Declaration III, Hague Convention of 1899:
    The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers rep­re­sented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly autho­rized to that effect by their Governments,
    Inspired by the sen­ti­ments which found expres­sion in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,
    Declare as fol­lows:
    The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bul­lets which expand or flat­ten eas­ily in the human body, such as bul­lets with a hard enve­lope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with inci­sions.
    The present Declaration is only bind­ing for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
    It shall cease to be bind­ing from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the bel­liger­ents is joined by a non-​​Contracting Power.
    The present Declaration shall be rat­i­fied as soon as pos­si­ble.
    The rat­i­fi­ca­tion shall be deposited at The Hague.
    A proces-​​verbal shall be drawn up on the receipt of each rat­i­fi­ca­tion, a copy of which, duly cer­ti­fied, shall be sent through the diplo­matic chan­nel to all the Contracting Powers.
    The non-​​Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this pur­pose they must make their adhe­sion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a writ­ten noti­fi­ca­tion addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it com­mu­ni­cated to all the other Contracting Powers.
    In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denounc­ing the present Declaration, such denun­ci­a­tion shall not take effect until a year after the noti­fi­ca­tion made in writ­ing to the Netherlands Government, and forth­with com­mu­ni­cated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.
    This denun­ci­a­tion shall only affect the noti­fy­ing Power.
    In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Declaration, and have affixed their seals thereto.
    Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a sin­gle copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and of which copies, duly cer­ti­fied, shall be sent through the diplo­matic chan­nel to the Contracting Powers.“
    that’s the direct wrd­ing of the Hague con­ven­tion that calls for FMJ rounds. Not the geneva accords. For those whos eyes glassed over, heres the per­ti­nant part, again.
    “agree to abstain from the use of bul­lets which expand or flat­ten eas­ily in the human body, such as bul­lets with a hard enve­lope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with inci­sions.“
    Cannot use expand­ing, flat­ten­ing, or bul­lets with a soft points, or the jacket cut (dum dums), or cut. The EFMJ falls uder most of those. It is actu­aly int­ed­nded NOT for mil­i­tary use, but for police and civil­ian use in precints that are finiky about the use of hol­low­point rounds.
    Sorry.

    Reply
  4. C says:
    June 5, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    what are the man­u­fac­tur­ing and cost con­cerns for these rounds? sounds like a magic bul­let, but if it’s not deemed “cost effec­tive” (bang for the buck, so to speak) then it’s going to stay in the realm of spe­cial oper­a­tors and other units who can pick and choose their gear

    Reply
  5. Darren Ykema says:
    June 5, 2007 at 3:44 pm

    I guess in an age where we an pre­ci­sion guide a 500lb bomb into the win­dow of a truck, vapor­is­ing the occu­pants it is very impor­tant to not have bul­lets that will flat­ten out on impact!?

    Reply
  6. JD from Austin says:
    June 5, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    While thats nice you found the Geneva Convention for us all to read the sim­ple fact is that the US Senate never rat­i­fied that treaty and as such the United States is not legally bound to it. Go back to col­lege gov­er­ment 1301. One will see that just because the exec­u­tive branch signs a treaty does not mean the US is bound to it in any­way shape or form. For the treaty to be law the US Senate must rat­ify the treaty as well which they did not in this case; we how­ever fol­low the “spirit” of the agree­ment but do not be fooled for one sec­ond that we are legally bound to its provisions.

    Reply
  7. jonathan says:
    June 5, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    Well, you amer­i­cans have bro­ken every other treaty, includ­ing nuclear dis­ar­mam­net and the Geneva con­ven­tion on tor­ture, so what does it mat­ter if youo break another one?. It comes as no suprise to your for­mer sup­port­ers. Go for it, just remem­ber what goes around, comes around.

    Reply
  8. Johnathan says:
    June 5, 2007 at 5:34 pm

    guess in an age where we an pre­ci­sion guide a 500lb bomb into the win­dow of a truck, vapor­is­ing the occu­pants it is very impor­tant to not have bul­lets that will flat­ten out on impact!?
    Posted by: Darren Ykema at June 5, 2007 03:44 PM
    Well yes, we know all about bombs vapor­is­ing peo­ple in trucks, but to the rest of the world, they appear to be American sol­diers and they don’t seem to need much per­ci­sion. You just wait untill they drive past because their vehi­cles are so heavy they can’t travel off-​​road.
    Now then, i cer­tainly don’t sup­port Allen quada. but then I would not sup­port a coun­try that doesn’t respect human rights either. These con­ven­tions were brought in to reduce suf­fer­ing where ever pos­si­ble. Don’t you realise that, or is it OK if the Americans do it? You would be the first to cry, look at the big cry you are hav­ing regard­ing EFPs allegedly from Iran, or the new them­boric war­heads for the RPGs. What goes around, comes around

    Reply
  9. Europe Bites says:
    June 5, 2007 at 5:35 pm

    Well Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllleeee.
    Jonathan, did you get your talk­ing points from the self hat­ing libs, Jacques Chirac, or Pukin I mean Putin?
    Good way for the com­mu­nist to blame us for break­ing the treaty with new devel­op­ments, wouldn’t you say?
    Hopefully us Americans will not assist you Euro-​​Pee-​​Ons the next time you all decide you hate each other which is well overdue.

    Reply
  10. Max says:
    June 5, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    Jonathan, you wrote–
    “Well, you amer­i­cans have bro­ken every other treaty, includ­ing nuclear dis­ar­mam­net and the Geneva con­ven­tion on tor­ture, so what does it mat­ter if youo break another one?. It comes as no suprise to your for­mer sup­port­ers. Go for it, just remem­ber what goes around, comes around.“
    Jonathan WHAT KIND OF CRACK ARE YOU TAKING?!? Yeah, our ene­mies are crash­ing air­lin­ers into build­ings, behead­ing jour­nal­ist and dis­em­ber­ing pris­on­ers and THE US IS THE BAD GUYS?!?!
    Thanks moron-​​we don’t want your sup­port. Oh-​​I hope you never want out aid either.

    Reply
  11. Europe Bites says:
    June 5, 2007 at 5:38 pm

    You must be Spanish or French. For your ill informed infor­ma­tion, these rag­head camel jockey’s get treated far bet­ter than our own troops do.
    Now go sing some kum­baya with Bin Laden will ya.

    Reply
  12. Xander says:
    June 5, 2007 at 5:58 pm

    well,Johnathan
    I’m sure there are some euro­pean forums where you can bash America with your pseudo rhetoric.If you want to “reduce suffering”,start in your own backyard.History shows Europe is hardly the leader when it comes to pre­vent­ing such.
    any­ways,
    On the issue with whichever treaties that would bar us from using such ammo;I say they should be ratified.Theres no use in hav­ing such restric­tions on weapons and ammu­ni­tion when your enemy doesn’t fol­low them either.Some of these weapons treaties,with respect to the nuclear,and bio­log­i­cal weapons disarmament,are REDICULOUS!

    Reply
  13. Ned says:
    June 5, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    “The present Declaration is only bind­ing for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
    It shall cease to be bind­ing from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the bel­liger­ents is joined by a non-​​Contracting Power.“
    I really don’t think either Al-​​Sadr or Al-​​Qeida are “Contracting Powers”, so tech­ni­cally we could use any­thing we want on them (and should)…

    Reply
  14. David Woroner, Pres. SCI says:
    June 5, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    Mr. JD, Thank you for the “les­son” in his­tory & gov­ern­ment. The facts you’ve pre­sented are I will assume cor­rect. Be that as it may, you do state that we do not have to abide by it.
    Now is the Genevea Convention, Hague I or Hague II ??? Seems awful strange we would sim­ply “abide” by some­thing these days, doesnt it?
    What say you about the round itself and its use­age in the M9 rather than FMJ??? Isn’t that the real point here? The EFMJ gives us a (thinly veiled)opportunity to up the ammo for our troops and still “appear to be abid­ing by” whatever…The point is give lethal­ity to the troops whom are ask­ing for it. Let JAG worry them­selves over the “per­cep­tions”. I for one vote YES on giv­ing our troops EFMJ Ammo. You Sir? YES OR NO ? Look for­ward to your response, and thank you for engaging.

    Reply
  15. mrnitropb says:
    June 5, 2007 at 10:23 pm

    The point is that the arti­cle presents the EFMJ as if it would vio­late nei­ther the let­ter nor spirit of the rules of war­fare or the Hague, when it infact fits the very exact def­i­n­i­tions of what was banned. It is not, as the title states, one answer to hollow-​​tip bans.
    That was the point _​I_​ tried to make, was a cri­tique on the arti­cle itself, not the round, the treaties, or the moral­i­ties.
    The fact is the US does, and likely will con­tinue to honor the pro­hi­bi­tion on expand­ing ammu­ni­tion for some time, if for no other rea­son than they just hap­pen to have lots of FMJ handy.
    And there SHOULD be intel­li­gent, rea­soned debate by peo­ple sev­eral pay grades above us as to whether it is viable, if the DOD INSISTS on stick­ing with the 5.56, to field more lethal ammo for the GWOT, for all the rea­sons already stated. If a switch it made, go whole hog.
    *This spe­cific def­i­n­i­tion was argued against by the US and UK envoys at the time, who would have pref­ered a more broader ban on bul­lets designed to cause undu suf­fer­ing as stated in other treaties, tham on a spe­cific tech­nol­ogy. Was one of the reea­sons the Us chose not to sign.

    Reply
  16. Dave Curtis says:
    June 5, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    Does any­one else think that it seems like JHP ammu­ni­tion would be more in keep­ing with the “spirit” of the Geneva con­ven­tion than the FMJ curently issued? Isn’t this whole ques­tion about troops com­plain­ing that our cur­rent ammo wounds with­out killing more often than it’s sup­posed to? Isn’t that unnec­es­sary suf­fer­ing?
    I think if any­thing the US mil­i­tary has done vio­lates the geneva con­ven­tion it’s the adop­tion of the 5.56, or at least the change in the M16’s rate of twist or the use of 5.56 in shorter bar­reled plat­forms with less muz­zle energy.
    Asking for hol­low­points or new cal­ibers like 6.8SPC is a step in the right direc­tion. Maybe then oppo­nents (who for what­ever rea­son must be killed) could be killed quickly with­out hav­ing to expe­ri­ence sev­eral wounds before los­ing consciousness.

    Reply
  17. Jim Meade says:
    June 6, 2007 at 7:57 am

    Johnathan is not Australian and could never hope to be one. Jim Sydney

    Reply
  18. GI Zhou says:
    June 6, 2007 at 8:09 am

    Seems a lot of esperts here tak­ing things out of con­text. The US is bound by the hague and geneva Conventions by cus­tom­ary and con­ven­tion law as a mem­ber of the United Nations.
    The Black Talon rounds are for counter-​​terrorist oper­a­tions not counter-​​insurgency (Iraq and Afghanistan) except in per­haps a hostage sit­u­a­tion. Not for gen­eral use on the bat­tle­field. The ‘open tip’ sniper rounds are for the 300 Winchester Magnum and the ‘open tip’ is for bal­lis­tic issues related to accu­racy and does not expand on impact with tis­sue. The 5.56mm ‘wound­ing’ argu­ment is a left over from Vietnam. AThere sol­diers were pre­sent­ing with mul­ti­ple wounds from under 25 metres wheeras in pre­vi­ous wars they would have died. Doctors were see­ing a lot more dam­age than shots from 50 metres because rifle cal­i­bre pro­jec­tiles fired from rifling take around 25 metres to sta­bilise in yaw. Finally the 9mm new rounds, which I admit­edly have not seen, break the Geneva Convention because they are admit­edly designed to cause ‘explo­sive type wounds’ on impact with tis­sue. if yopu want to do this with a round just use a thin­ner jacket as the Germans and Swedes have done with the 7.62 x 51mm rounds.
    The ques­tion that should be asked is why are sol­diers using 9mm pis­tols when they have M4 and M16 rifles, shot­guns, and the M249. The space and weight of a pis­tol will give you 90 rounds of 5.56mm. Even though i think the 5.56mm is a crap assault rifle round it is far more lethal and accu­rate from a M4/​M16 than a 9mm from a Beretta.

    Reply
  19. Matt says:
    June 6, 2007 at 8:22 am

    Love the anti-​​european rhetoric! Makes me won­der why we’re allies; we get slagged off by UK based jihadists, the Mahdi Army, the Taliban and now the US of A.
    Our guys are dying out in the same coun­tries for the same rea­sons so drop the attitude.

    Reply
  20. Erik says:
    June 6, 2007 at 10:12 am

    Back up weapon sys­tem Gi Zhou. That’s why. Stoppage drills are the last thing I’m gonna due in a fight if I have a back up side arm.

    Reply
  21. Noddy says:
    June 6, 2007 at 10:28 am

    Man Americans get touchy when you sug­gest their gov­ern­ments for­eign pol­icy could use some rethink­ing. Sheesh it’s not like most of you actu­ally voted for who’s mak­ing the deci­sions any­way.
    As for the ‘sav­ing’ of any­one in Europe. The US has had the less than hon­ourable dis­tinc­tion of show­ing up 2 — 3 years late in any worth­while war of last cen­tury and then attempt­ing to take all the credit. Generally after being dragged kick­ing and scream­ing into the con­flict.
    Since then you’ve man­aged to get involved in one shitty lit­tle war after another, and almost always man­age to drag your mates in with you. Americans are use­ful at fin­ish­ing wars (even­tu­ally), but should never be allowed to start them. The US gov­ern­ment clearly is lousy at it.
    Oh how I long for a return to the days of American iso­la­tion­ism. That was a good pol­icy for you guys. Nobody attacked you for the bet­ter part of your exis­tance because you weren’t out caus­ing trou­ble in the rest of the world. Since WWII var­i­ous US gov­ern­ments have man­aged to piss of a large pro­por­tion of the worlds pop­u­la­tion.
    Stop it and maybe peo­ple will leave you alone.
    To get to the point of this thread though, no the round does not com­ply with the Haggue con­ven­tion. But then the US isn’t at war either, so go for it if you think it’ll help. More than likely, as sug­gested below, the mil­i­tary bean coun­ters will keep issu­ing FMJ as there’s ware­houses full of the stuff.

    Reply
  22. Woddy says:
    June 6, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Take a minute and think about it guys. You are deal­ing with what the “press” tells you. I do not pre­tend to know about the press in Australia but I do know that the press in the U.S. will tell only the part of the story that sells the most papers or the great­est con­tro­versy. I spent a lit­tle time and believe that loos­ing the .45 was a big mis­take sim­ply because of the knock down power. Also the troops are get­ting fright­ened and excited which causes the expense of more ammo for the same job. This is only one Marine

    Reply
  23. C-Low says:
    June 6, 2007 at 10:54 am

    Unfortunately I doubt the Lawyers and espe­cially the other numer­ous “we are the real enemy” peo­ple would allow such rounds, most espe­cially if they were found to be effec­tive. What pisses me off about the Geneva con­ven­tions is it

    Reply
  24. Vstress says:
    June 6, 2007 at 11:15 am

    I am being picky in high­light­ing this fact, sorry, but I’m not a fan of mis­un­der­stood ter­mi­nol­ogy.
    Fluid dynam­ics cov­ers all flu­ids, which also includes gases, ie. air. (aero­dy­nam­ics is a sub-​​set of fluid dynam­ics).
    The laws of fluid dynam­ics also gov­ern things such as shock­waves etc.
    Therefore to make a state­ment that fluid dynam­ics sud­denly become appar­ent when the round enters a fluid such as blood is wrong.
    Fluid dynam­ics was applic­a­ble for the flight of the bul­let too, there was just a change in the fluid prop­er­ties when the round impacted a dif­fer­ent material.

    Reply
  25. Brian says:
    June 6, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    The Hague Conventions do not apply in this case. The Iraqi insur­gents are not sig­na­to­ries to the Hague Conventions, and nei­ther are the Taliban in Afghanistan.
    “The present Declaration is only bind­ing for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
    It shall cease to be bind­ing from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the bel­liger­ents is joined by a non-​​Contracting Power.“
    The Taliban and Iraq insur­gents are a non-​​Contracting Power, and thus this pro­vi­sion has ceased to be bind­ing.
    We can use hol­low points to our heart’s con­tent.
    Now, whether hol­low points are a good deci­sion (their noted dif­fi­culty in pen­e­trat­ing bullet-​​proof vests, etc) is up for grabs. They’re per­fectly legal, but using them may still be dumb.
    It may also be time to rethink cer­tain aspects of the Hague Conventions. Prohibitions on tech­nol­ogy from over a cen­tury ago may need to be looked at in a new light.

    Reply
  26. Chris Morgan says:
    June 6, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    While I agree with Noddy on sev­eral points that he makes I would like to sug­gest the fol­low­ing. 1. If the ” euo­peans” would get their acts together maybe just maybe we here in the USA could go back to being iso­la­tion­ists! I agree things wereso much bet­ter for the USA when we did notmed­dle in other peo­ples affairs! Yes I for­eign pol­icy and the peo­ple run­ning the sow suck! Yes I voted for these clowns. But enough of that.
    As for the arti­cle about Federals new ammo ” great” I am all for hol­low points, napalm, and what ever else works in killing the enemy. War is hell! the more bru­tal it is the less man will want to fight with each other! The Geneva Conventionis old and use­less no one adheres to it any way!!

    Reply
  27. josephdietrich says:
    June 7, 2007 at 7:46 am

    What does “if the Europeans get their act together” even mean?
    Seriously, what act don’t they have together? Is the prob­lem that they aren’t con­tribut­ing enough troops to our wars so that we don’t have to throw in so many of our own? Is the prob­lem that they aren’t declar­ing and fight­ing the wars we want them to?
    Because other than that, I can’t think of what “get­ting their act together” means. It cer­tainly can’t be meant in the eco­nomic sense, since they seem to be doing okay enough in that arena. And they aren’t fight­ing wars with one another any more, so that’s not the prob­lem. So what, exactly, do the Europeans need to do to encour­age the US to scale back it’s world­wide mil­i­tary operations?

    Reply
  28. Nanonymous says:
    June 7, 2007 at 11:57 am

    That’s right — you guys have it all together. Just ask the Bosniaks — par­tic­u­larly the ones who thought Dutch troops would pro­tect them from the Serbs at Srebrenica.
    If you can find them, that is. Remember that lit­tle war? You know, Europe, went on for six or seven years, still sput­ters occa­sion­ally in Macedonia and Kosovo — right?

    Reply
  29. Gi Zhou says:
    June 11, 2007 at 8:55 pm

    Brian, Vstress, C-​​Low et al,
    The Taliban meets the require­ments to be a declared com­bat­ant under the Geneva Conventions which incor­po­rate the Hague Conventions. It had/​has a polit­i­cal organ­i­sa­tion, it is a dis­ci­plined mil­i­tary force with a rank struc­ture, it car­ries its weapons openely and a recog­nis­able uni­form — the black Turban. As they took over Afghanistan they assumed the inter­na­tional agree­ments of the pre­vi­ous gov­ern­ment as did the present Iraqi Goverment. The Geneva Conventions are International Law as the vast major­ity of nations are sin­gan­to­ries to by way of both cus­tom­ary and treaty law.
    I have been pub­lished on mil­i­tary wound­ing in a peer reviewed med­ical jour­nal twice and lec­tured on it as well. I have no dis­agree­ment with the .45ACP being a bet­ter round than the 9x19mm against human tis­sue but its pen­e­tra­tion sucks if the oppo­nent has thick web­bing etc on. I always believe in dou­ble tap upper tho­racic and head shots any­way.
    The time taken to get a pis­tol out of a holsetr is the same as clear­ing an M16/​M4. Work on your clear­ing drills! In the Second World War and onwards very few sol­diers car­ried a back up weapon in case there’s jam. Look after your rifle and it will look after you, this assumes a well made rifle and well made ammo which is what the M16/​M4 and M855 round are.
    Shock waves against human tis­sue work after 2,700 ft per sec and then on fluid filled organs only — eg blad­der, kid­ney but is poor against the lungs.
    If I had Dutch body­guards in a fire­fight I’d shoot them first in the calf so they would have to stay and fight. Now Turks die where they stand so I’ll take them.
    The rea­son sol­diers carry pis­tols in Iraq and Afghanistan so they don’t get cap­tured alive. No one wants their fam­ily to see them beheaded on line or their body after being tor­tured etc. In the North West Froniter of India before the Second World war, the last round was for your­self and you shot a mate if he was cap­tured.
    My com­ments anyway

    Reply
  30. BrutallyFrank says:
    June 11, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    Expanding rounds?
    Doesn’t that make them eas­ier to get trapped in Kevlar type vests?

    Reply
  31. A.Hoffmann says:
    August 8, 2007 at 12:21 am

    Using stan­dard hol­low points would have been a mis­take any­way for two dis­tinct rea­sons. Standard hol­low points will often deve­l­ope errors in load­ing. You would have to exper­i­ment to find a round that likes your feed ramp. Lets face it no one needs a jam in a life or dead sit­u­a­tion. The other is pen­i­tra­tion and deflec­tion, range is reduced, pro­jec­tile is more likely to deflect and if light armor pen­i­tra­tion was needed you would be in trou­ble. Work on your aim as to ellim­i­nate a threat is the bet­ter choise.

    Reply
  32. E_M_George says:
    August 22, 2007 at 7:43 pm

    The US is not a sig­na­tory of the Hague Convention and is not bound by it.
    We can use open tip or soft-​​point or any type of ammu­ni­tion we choose. We only choose to abide by the Hague.
    The post by David Woroner is cor­rect and the cur­rent view by the US Govt.

    Reply
  33. Darklord says:
    September 10, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    using explod­ing bullets…that is a warcrime,but you are ignor­ing those rules anyway

    Reply
  34. cdt says:
    December 10, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    Sir/​Mama,
    Not to get side­tracked by the legal­ity dis­cus­sion going on here.
    Woroner men­tioned in the last sen­tence of his arti­cle about wither or not this “tech­nol­ogy” (that of a EFMJ rounds)could be used in the pro­duc­tion of 5.56mm rounds. Federal as far as i know does not pro­duce a EFMJ 5.56mm round. how­ever they do pro­duce what appears to be a fully jack­eted Hollow point 5.56mm round. from what i under­stand this would resolve the feed­ing issue asso­ci­ated with hol­low points and auto-​​loaders. also from my lim­ited expe­ri­ence i would imag­ine that this round would act on the same prin­ci­ples (that being kinet­ics energy trans­fer between the pro­jec­tiles and tar­get caus­ing the round to expand rather then that of fluid dynam­ics of the tar­get caus­ing the round to expand) as EFMJ rounds. how­ever this is merely spec­u­la­tion as I nei­ther have the time nor the facil­ity to con­duct side by side com­par­i­son of these two rounds. if any­one does have the time/​facility to do this com­par­i­son please post the results.

    Reply
  35. cheap 2moons gold says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:03 am

    Therefore, I dili­gently prac­ticed the level to pro­mote, only then pro­mote only then can help me to save many cheap 2moons gold

    Reply
  36. Requiem Lant says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:05 am

    In order to play the Requiem, I bought much Requiem Lant, it spend me much money.

    Reply
  37. mabinogi gold says:
    August 13, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    So I spent some mabinogi gold to study. After school study the lov­able gray wolf became col­lapses at the first blow.

    Reply
  38. mabinogi gold says:
    August 13, 2008 at 8:45 pm

    So I spent some mabinogi gold to study. After school study the lov­able gray wolf became col­lapses at the first blow.

    Reply
  39. lastchaos money says:
    August 13, 2008 at 8:48 pm

    You said that who dares to annoy me and you will look for him to PK, and make him lose his all lastchaos money.

    Reply
  40. Lord Of The Rings Gold says:
    August 13, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    For in the game I can have a fam­ily, I was go all out to work make Lord Of The Rings Gold, so long as there were the meth­ods which could make money I has tried.

    Reply
  41. Habbo Coins says:
    August 13, 2008 at 8:51 pm

    Perhaps that I should not accept your gift and your Habbo Coins.

    Reply
  42. NosTale money says:
    August 18, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    To buy NosTale Gold win you must not only use your strength as a team, with the new fea­tures they plan to add cheap NosTale gold late. So no player will have to worry about ever los­ing their NosTale money account.

    Reply
  43. Anonymous says:
    September 4, 2008 at 5:04 am

    A maiden with many woo­ers often chooses the worst.All the trea­sures of the earth would not bring back one lost moment.

    Reply
  44. ????? says:
    September 4, 2008 at 5:04 am

    A maiden with many woo­ers often chooses the worst.All the trea­sures of the earth would not bring back one lost moment.

    Reply
  45. dofus kamas says:
    November 17, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    Angelina Jolie:

    Reply
  46. adfef says:
    February 23, 2009 at 3:10 am

    Just go by your­self. tiffany Yeah right. I don’t believe it.Tiffany Bracelets My heart hurts.fashion sun­glasses Some peo­ple never learn.Reading Eyeglasses I told you so! I told you so! It won’t work.fashion sun­glasses I prob­a­bly can’t help you with this.Reading Eyeglasses Who cares!Tiffany and Co Jewelry I guess so.Links Of London Jewellery You don’t have the right. Who do you think you are? You don’t have the right to say those things.fashion sun­glasses You win.

    Reply
  47. DPDCOP says:
    May 15, 2009 at 10:57 pm

    I am a police offi­cer in the City of Detroit. This ammo is the only ammu­ni­tion we are legally allowed to carry per our gen­eral orders. Too many times have we been in shoot­ings where the ammu­ni­tion, upon strik­ing the tar­get, failed to per­form. Too many times a per­pe­tra­tors jacket was taken off only to have the fully expanded shells fall out, which never pen­e­trated the inner cloth­ing the per­pe­tra­tor was wear­ing, direct strikes to the skull failed to pen­e­trate, fail­ure to pen­e­trate a dry­wall wall the sce­nar­ios are almost end­less. There has even been arti­cles writ­ten in the local papers “The Detroit Free Press” and “The Detroit News” dis­cussing the poor per­for­mance of the ammo.
    Think of it this way. A hol­low point bul­let doesnt expand until its inside the body and the cav­ity is full of water/​body fluid. The EFMJ bul­let how­ever, due to the resis­tance of the body, the EFMJ bul­let expands or can expand before pen­e­trat­ing inside the body. With the now larger meplat the energy required to punch through the cloth­ing or even the skin is greatly increased. Yes, i know many will argue the point of a hol­low­point get­ting filled with cloth­ing, but i’d rather have a hol­low­point act­ing like a FMJ over a EFMJ bul­let that has a rub­ber bumper in the front of it.
    I dont like the bul­let. I strongly urge against using this ammo, espe­cially when our troops lives are on the line.

    Reply
  48. sunny says:
    September 18, 2009 at 3:54 am

    [url]cnc router [/​url]
    [url]laser engrav­ing [/​url]
    [url]plotter [/​url]
    [url]laser engraver [/​url]
    [url]laser engrav­ing machine[/url]
    [url]laser cut­ter [/​url]
    [url]laser cut­ting machine [/​url]
    [url]vinyl cut­ter [/​url]
    [url]cutting plot­ter [/​url]
    [url]cnc router [/​url]
    [url]laser cut­ter [/​url]
    [url]laser engraver [/​url]
    [url]laser engrav­ing machine[/url]
    [url]laser cut­ting machine[/url]
    [url]desktop laser engraver [/​url]
    [url]mini laser engraver [/​url]
    [url]vinyl cut­ter [/​url]
    [url]cutting plot­ter [/​url]
    [url]woodworking cnc router [/​url]
    [url]mini cnc router [/​url]
    [url]laser tube [/​url]
    [url]laser cut­ter [/​url]
    [url]desktop laser engraver [/​url]
    [url]vinyl cut­ter [/​url]
    [url]laser cut­ting [/​url]
    [url]laser engrav­ing machine [/​url]
    [url]laser cut­ting machine [/​url]
    [url]cutting plot­ter [/​url]
    [url]laser cut­ter [/​url]
    [url]laser engraver [/​url]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      Liberals just slay me… The liberal news...
      Cannon Fodder
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      It is quite an experience to see fat bellied old men shooting...
      Zandor
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      This is for Sam and Duality. It appears that you both are Muslim....
      Cannon Fodder
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I wonder if anyone noticed: This attack happened right after...
      freefallingbomb
    • Keep it Simple
      To the poster "Zandor" : You wrote: "Your last post...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      Part III : You wrote: "These airbags are made similarly, so the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      To the educated guesser: Part I : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      Only two companies in the world are...
      Frank Hols
    • Adapting Women to Subs
      Dear Designer; It is somewhat strange that the German Armed forces...
      Zandor
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      The first priority is to get a reliable...
      Brian
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage