5.45mm round

[KjääkAhopelto]

If I understand correctly, the Russian military uses a 5.45x39mm round for the AK-74 with a hollow point.
Is that not illegal?

Thanks.

[Johnny_H02]

Illegal as in they are equivelent to "DumDums"? I'm not quite sure.

[Jippo]

No more illegal than 5.56 M193 which is a borderline case as well (if you ask me, other people have other opinions).

5.45 are not hollow point btw. They just have an air pocket inside a full metal jacket bullet.

[CPLHUNTER]

x2. Standard Russian issue ammo is 5.45X39 Russian Military 53gr. Steel Core Fmj Ammo

[realbigo]

the Geneva convention bars the use of any round w/ the expressed purpose of expanding or causing "Inhumane Wounding". WTF that's supposed to mean.

[akd]

the Geneva convention bars the use of any round w/ the expressed purpose of expanding or causing "Inhumane Wounding". WTF that's supposed to mean.

It's archaic nonsense.

[Raptus_regaliter]

I herd the 5.45mm is a wicked poison bullet that can tear your ass clean off, even with a foot shot.

[Jippo]

It isn't archaic nonsense.

Main goal is to get people out of the fight. You do that either by killing, wounding or otherwise breaking the other people's will to fight you. Causing wounds that will bother them for 50 years isn't the goal.

There are reasons we do not want to use mustard gas or anthrax on other people.

It isn't fine to be disabled for the your life, you know.

It isn't about fair play or chivalry. Wars always end in peace, which is the goal for every war. Rules are there so that we could make peace after the war.

[big_les]

1) OP, no, you do not understand correctly. The air gap others have told you about was not intended to, neither does it function as a "hollowpoint". In fact, the only enhanced effect it affords (by accident) is relatively early yaw in tissue.

See this article by Martin Fackler on the myths surrounding the 5.45 round;

http://web.archive.org/web/20080227043859/http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/ak74_wounding_potential.pdf

2) It's NOT the Geneva Convention, it's the Hague Convention of 1899, which was an attempt to limit weapons that cause "unnecessary" suffering - i.e. do more than necessary to take an enemy combatant out of the fight. It was a worthy (if naive) pursuit in the days of continental war between civilised powers. Today it's of limited utility, but still affects ammunition design. Rule of thumb is that accidentally destructive ammunition is OK, but deliberate design isn't. European countries take this further than others, deliberately striving to prevent fragmentation of rounds by thickening the jacket.

3) If the 5.45 is somehow illegal or immoral, then so is the US 5.56. I don't think either are, but my opinion counts for little on the world stage..

[akd]

It isn't archaic nonsense.

Main goal is to get people out of the fight. You do that either by killing, wounding or otherwise breaking the other people's will to fight you. Causing wounds that will bother them for 50 years isn't the goal.

That is why it is archaic. Main goal is to end the fight as quickly as possible with as little threat as possible to your own side and innocents. A bullet that more quickly stops a fight is a perfectly ethical goal. Notice that police officers do not use FMJ.

If bullets other than FMJ were intended solely to cause intense pain, cripple or maim with disregard to immediate negation of fighting capacity (perhaps a bullet that homes in on the ball sack?) you'd have a point.


There are reasons we do not want to use mustard gas or anthrax on other people.

Sure, they are indiscriminate and extraordinarily dangerous to friendly forces and innocents. Anyways, I am speaking specifically of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 ban on hollow-point small arms ammunition. You should note these Conventions also banned bombing from the air.


It isn't fine to be disabled for the your life, you know.But it's okay to be dead for the rest of your life???


It isn't about fair play or chivalry. Wars always end in peace, which is the goal for every war. Rules are there so that we could make peace after the war.

And some rules are archaic and have zero effect on this worthy goal, but will not be revisited due to politically correct culture and cognitive dissonance running rampant in Western society. Thus we find ourselves in a world were it is "ethical" by the "rules of war" to shoot a man in the chest with a 25mm HE shell or drop a JDAM on his head, but "unethical" to shoot him with a hollow-point 9mm bullet.

[big_les]

Quite agree. It's perverse. This guy puts it best;

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=je4PB2lDV84C&pg=PA110&dq=%22slice+off+a+man%27s+face+with+an+entrenching+tool%22&client=firefox-a

Fact remains that 5.45 is not an HP or otherwise Hague or later convention defying round.

Ironically, it was actually the Russians that precipitated the declaration in the 1899 convention that the US refused to acknowledge.

[Jippo]

That is why it is archaic. Main goal is to end the fight as quickly as possible with as little threat as possible to your own side and innocents.

Say I put a 7.62 bullet through your lung. Are you going to fight? In you leg? Are you going to fight?

Say I put a hollowpoint 7.62 bullet through your lung. Are you going to fight? In you leg? Are you going to fight?

I know I would answer no to all of these questions. Maybe you're tougher and it actually makes a difference. For most of us it doesn't.

Yet, should I put a hollow point in your body it is far more likely to break up and mess up more of your tissue and maybe more of your organs. Wider tissue damage will also constitute in larger probability of infection and more parts of the bullet in the body requiring more surgical help to get removed. None of these factor in the outcome of battle, although they might effect on the individuals ability to return to a war if it lasts for years.

But what they certainly mean is bigger disability for the person for the remainder of his life.

Would you like your buddies or yourself be shot with hollow points or FMJ's? Because as soon as you wipe your arse with these rules, all of your opponents will too.

See the light?



But it's okay to be dead for the rest of your life???


Yeah, that's ok.


Thus we find ourselves in a world were it is "ethical" by the "rules of war" to shoot a man in the chest with a 25mm HE shell or drop a JDAM on his head, but "unethical" to shoot him with a hollow-point 9mm bullet.

I should think getting a direct hit from a 25mm or JDAM is a very humane way to go.

Fact is: rules are laid, and they are and should be followed. Breaking them isn't going to help in anything, whilst following them will. Worst thing for the enemy is you being a good sport, cause it makes it that much harder for the enemy trying to demonise you.

[Tikvah]

[QUOTE=Jippo;4173868]

Would you like your buddies or yourself be shot with hollow points or FMJ's? Because as soon as you wipe your arse with these rules, all of your opponents will too.
QUOTE]

Personally I'd rather my buddies weren't shot at all, but if I've got a weapon that will kill my enemies better so that my buddies aren't shot by anything, I'd like to use it.

[aop]

Personally I'd rather my buddies weren't shot at all, but if I've got a weapon that will kill my enemies better so that my buddies aren't shot by anything, I'd like to use it.
You do that and the enemy will do the same thing. FMJ is more than enough to put man out of action while HP will create even more severe injuries. Also, what's the obsession with killing? Wounding is generally enough and one wounded ties up more troops to take care of him.

I understand your reasoning when we are talking about unconventional warfare and insurgency but when it comes to conventional large scale warfare it's better to use FMJs since you don't want millions of cripples on both sides after the war. FMJ to leg puts you out of action for couple a months to many years, HP to leg will likely take your ability to walk for rest of your life.

[SGMGSG9]

http://www.ammoman.com/images/545ammo1.jpg
5.45 cross section

[halunex]

Ok, so if the 5,45 round isn't HP, what is the air pocket for?

[KjääkAhopelto]

Thanks for the answers.

As far as the "rules of war" go, I think denouncing them as "archaic" is wrong. Think what World War Two would have been like if every side started gassing each other. If we can fight a war and shoot each other without totally mutilating each other at every corner then why not? It may seem ridiculous to make rules for war, but I think they're important and should be followed, and warring nations can and should have respect for each other.
As Jippo was saying, an FMJ can take someone out of a fight, and a HP can do the same while sprinkling his organs with fragments for the rest of his life, needlessly.

BTW, a modern 5.56 doesn't fragment to the same extent as a HP does, does it?

[Eztyga]

But it's okay to be dead for the rest of your life???



Dead for the rest of your life? How the feck does that work? rofl

[akd]

Say I put a 7.62 bullet through your lung. Are you going to fight? In you leg? Are you going to fight? I might.


Say I put a hollowpoint 7.62 bullet through your lung. Are you going to fight? In you leg? Are you going to fight?I might, but perhaps less likely.

Say you put an FMG or an HP through my brain? Am I going to fight.

No.


I know I would answer no to all of these questions. Maybe you're tougher and it actually makes a difference. For most of us it doesn't.

Only way to find out would be to shoot me. I would prefer to shoot you first and not find out. Whether I use an FMG or an HP, I will be intending to kill you.


Yet, should I put a hollow point in your body it is far more likely to break up and mess up more of your tissue and maybe more of your organs. Wider tissue damage will also constitute in larger probability of infection and more parts of the bullet in the body requiring more surgical help to get removed. None of these factor in the outcome of battle, although they might effect on the individuals ability to return to a war if it lasts for years.

The increased damage and increased risk of infection is a byproduct of more extensive tissue damage. More extensive tissue damage is the mechanism that achieves faster incapacitation.

Now I suppose you could just shoot me with 25mm HE. The tissue damage and risk of infection will be many times more severe...that is if I survive. But that's just fine according to the "rules of war."


But what they certainly mean is bigger disability for the person for the remainder of his life.

Is this really a concern if you are intending to kill me?


Would you like your buddies or yourself be shot with hollow points or FMJ's? Because as soon as you wipe your arse with these rules, all of your opponents will too. I would rather shoot and kill someone trying to kill me or anyone I care about with the most effective, most lethal round possible, which poses the most threat to the person I intend to shoot and the least threat to anyone I don't intend to shoot, thus negating their chance to shoot me or my friends.


See the light?

Nope. Still capable of logical thought, but the world is working on me.


I should think getting a direct hit from a 25mm or JDAM is a very humane way to go.

Sure, unless it isn't.


Fact is: rules are laid, and they are and should be followed. Breaking them isn't going to help in anything, whilst following them will. Worst thing for the enemy is you being a good sport, cause it makes it that much harder for the enemy trying to demonise you.

So no more bombing from the air, ever, under any circumstances?

The idiocy that this type of thinking leads to is unending...

-In Britain, you are required to shoot animals with expanding bullets, but you are not allowed to shoot someone trying to kill you with expanding bullets. (Wait...are you even allowed to shoot someone trying to kill in the UK nowadays?)

-A bill introduced by a New York State Senator would have required officers to shoot to wound suspects and held them guilty of manslaughter if they fired more shots than necessary to only wound a suspect.

-Amnesty International opposed the issueing of expanding bullets to Swiss police, suggesting that only special anti-terrorist units should be allowed to use such ammunition (apparently it is okay to shoot an Arab terrorist with an expanding bullet, but not a white Swiss murderer). Their rationale: they are not allowed in wartime and Switzerland is the depository state of the Geneva Conventions (which don't say anything about expanding bullets).

And on, and on, and on...

Then you look way back and realize it was all based on idiocy in the first place:



In 1898, the German government lodged a protest against the use of the Mark IV bullet, claiming the wounds produced by the Mark IV were excessive and inhumane, thus violating the laws of war. The protest, however, was based on the comparison of the wounds produced by expanding and non-expanding bullets from high velocity sporting rifles, rather than a comparison of the expanding .303 British bullets with the previous, large bore service cartridge it replaced, the .577/450 Martini-Henry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.577/450_Martini-Henry).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum-dum#cite_note-7) Because the energy was roughly the same, the wounds caused by the expanding bullet of the .303 were less severe than the those caused by the larger caliber, solid lead bullet used by the Martini-Henry.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum-dum#cite_note-8)

[akd]

Thanks for the answers.

As far as the "rules of war" go, I think denouncing them as "archaic" is wrong. Think what World War Two would have been like if every side started gassing each other.

The dynamics behind the abstention from use of chemical warfare during WWII were far more complex than simply "following the rules," as is evidenced by the fact that while Germany didn't use gas against the Russians, they did go merrily about slaughtering millions of POWs and while the US didn't drop gas on the Japanese, they saw little issue with setting fire to most of their cities and nuking a few to top it off.


If we can fight a war and shoot each other without totally mutilating each other at every corner then why not? It may seem ridiculous to make rules for war, but I think they're important and should be followed, and warring nations can and should have respect for each other.

Once again, the use of expanding bullets has zero impact on achieving this outcome.


As Jippo was saying, an FMJ can take someone out of a fight, and a HP can do the same while sprinkling his organs with fragments for the rest of his life, needlessly.

BTW, a modern 5.56 doesn't fragment to the same extent as a HP does, does it?

At high velocity, 5.56mm fragments and "sprinkles organs" far more effectively than a simple expanding HP bullet. Further proof that the Hague Conventions ban is archaic nonsense. You will say: then expanding bullets are not needed. I will say: that was not my point.

[Jippo]

US was stretching the rules with M193, as a result Russians introduced 5.45. If anything, that proves my point. Now US servicemen have a good chance of being hit by 5.45.

Akd, no offense, but I think you are quite young and probably have not served in the military. IMHO you are way too Gung-Ho for having done that.

[Sayeret]

Ok, so if the 5,45 round isn't HP, what is the air pocket for?

It was made with the air pocket to improve the ballistic performance of the round. There are other version of the 5.45 mm round that get rid of the air pocket. The 7N10 has the air pocket filled with lead so upon hitting a target the soft lead is pressed sideways by the steel penetrator. The 7N22 is an AP round with a pointed steel penetrator and has the air pocket filled in with lead, like the 7N10. The newest improvement is the 7N24 which has a tungsten carbide penetrator.

[Jippo]

Then you look way back and realize it was all based on idiocy in the first place:


In 1898, the German government lodged a protest against the use of the Mark IV bullet, claiming the wounds produced by the Mark IV were excessive and inhumane, thus violating the laws of war. The protest, however, was based on the comparison of the wounds produced by expanding and non-expanding bullets from high velocity sporting rifles, rather than a comparison of the expanding .303 British bullets with the previous, large bore service cartridge it replaced, the .577/450 Martini-Henry.[8] Because the energy was roughly the same, the wounds caused by the expanding bullet of the .303 were less severe than the those caused by the larger caliber, solid lead bullet used by the Martini-Henry.

The last sentence is rather important in judging the credibility of the statement. In fact .303 British has about 70% higher muzzle energy than .577/.450 Martini-Henry it replaced. Modern day equivalent of Martini-Henry round is .44 Remington Magnum with full metal jacket bullet.

Do you think that soft point from Lee Enfield produces lesser wounds than Dirty Harry's handgun with FMJ's?

Just to put things in perspect.

[orange]

Not to be that guy but, it's the law. Nations, (normally) follow it. It may be idiot, it may be obsolete. It's still the law. Why discuss it?

[JDBL14]

Not to be that guy but, it's the law. Nations, (normally) follow it. It may be idiot, it may be obsolete. It's still the law. Why discuss it?

You have a point, why criticize/discuss any laws. They're laws, people (normally) follow them, they may be obsolete, but they are still laws. So no-one should discuss them and change them. In my country slavery was once law, so no-one should have taken a second look at it, we should have ll said, "hey, it's the law"...

Politically Correct/Humane/Respectful, These terms should not be used to describe war. War is killing people you don't agree with so that you can have what you want. Please explain to me how any man who was killed in any war is a humane/respectful way of solving any political issue? We should all go to war with no regard for being politically correct/humane respectful. Then one of a few outcomes will happen;

1)we will all see war for what is truly is:a hideous inhumane act that we would all be better off forgetting.
2)we will simply destroy ourselves: the earth will care little if we perish.
3)the biggest, most ruthless of us will prevail
4)people will at least take war more seriously and may be less likely to revert to war before exhausting all other routes.

Call me what you want but i think that trying to make war humane is pretty redundant.


I guess i am kinda off topic, sorry.

[akd]

The last sentence is rather important in judging the credibility of the statement. In fact .303 British has about 70% higher muzzle energy than .577/.450 Martini-Henry it replaced. Modern day equivalent of Martini-Henry round is .44 Remington Magnum with full metal jacket bullet.

Do you think that soft point from Lee Enfield produces lesser wounds than Dirty Harry's handgun with FMJ's?

Just to put things in perspect.

.577/.450: 31.1g projectile at 450m/s

.303 Cordite Mark I: 13.9g projectile at 600m/s

[45% decrease in bullet weight and 33% increase in muzzle velocity]

8mm used in tests to accuse British and secure the ban: heavier bullet at 715m/s, with more exposed lead (a hunting bullet).

Wound Ballistics and the Scientific Background By Karl G. Sellier, Beat P. Kneubuehl

[KjääkAhopelto]

Politically Correct/Humane/Respectful, These terms should not be used to describe war. War is killing people you don't agree with so that you can have what you want. Please explain to me how any man who was killed in any war is a humane/respectful way of solving any political issue? We should all go to war with no regard for being politically correct/humane respectful. Then one of a few outcomes will happen;

1)we will all see war for what is truly is:a hideous inhumane act that we would all be better off forgetting.
2)we will simply destroy ourselves: the earth will care little if we perish.
3)the biggest, most ruthless of us will prevail
4)people will at least take war more seriously and may be less likely to revert to war before exhausting all other routes.



You don't have to be a "ruthless" barbarian to win a war. You can fight respectfully and fight for a noble cause. If boatloads of unjustified aggressors are invading your country, there is no other way to solve that political issue than by fighting back.

And you don't have to burn their lungs inside out, infect them with plague, cut off their ears and burn them all to death... You can shoot them... Humanely.

It seems ridiculous, but I guess what I'm trying to get across is, sure, war is godawful. But it doesn't have to be as godawful. Sure, you kill and wound each other, but you don't have to be ****s about it. :hug: Hah....

I doubt anyone's going to change anyone's mind on this issue...

[Jippo]

.577/.450: 31.1g projectile at 450m/s

.303 Cordite Mark I: 13.9g projectile at 600m/s

[45% decrease in bullet weight and 33% increase in muzzle velocity]

8mm used in tests to accuse British and secure the ban: heavier bullet at 715m/s, with more exposed lead (a hunting bullet).

Wound Ballistics and the Scientific Background By Karl G. Sellier, Beat P. Kneubuehl

Would you actually like to compare to the "Dum-Dum's" since they were what you and others were refering to.

[wiking]

The British also made a "more-lethal" round for the .303, the Mk VIII round used from about 1910 onwards had a nose filled with aluminium (reportedly swapped for both wood and paper due to wartime shortages of aluminium during WW1 and 2) to give it less stability on impact, causing it to yaw and probably break up, similarly to the 5.56.

[big_les]

The British also made a "more-lethal" round for the .303, the Mk VIII round used from about 1910 onwards had a nose filled with aluminium (reportedly swapped for both wood and paper due to wartime shortages of aluminium during WW1 and 2) to give it less stability on impact, causing it to yaw and probably break up, similarly to the 5.56.

Yaw, yes, but fragment? The effect wasn't known, let alone understood, for another 60 years. AFAIK there was no fragmentation - if there was, it would have been accidental.

[akd]

Would you actually like to compare to the "Dum-Dum's" since they were what you and others were refering to.

There is no difference between the .303 Cordite Mark I and the Mark III/IV/V than the small amount of exposed lead at the bullet tip. Bullet weight and velocity are the same.

[wiking]

Yaw, yes, but fragment? The effect wasn't known, let alone understood, for another 60 years. AFAIK there was no fragmentation - if there was, it would have been accidental.

See, there i go making assumptions again :oops:

Scratch that bit.

[Jippo]

There is no difference between the .303 Cordite Mark I and the Mark III/IV/V than the small amount of exposed lead at the bullet tip. Bullet weight and velocity are the same.

Alright, I give you that much. Early .303's were puny too.

[DE_Six]

Not to be that guy but, it's the law. Nations, (normally) follow it. It may be idiot, it may be obsolete. It's still the law. Why discuss it?

Not to be that guy either, and not trying to draw a direct parallel with the present case here, but strictly speaking, the law once sanctioned slavery. Because it's the law shouldn't preclude us from discussing and questioning it.

[GazB]

If I understand correctly, the Russian military uses a 5.45x39mm round for the AK-74 with a hollow point.
Is that not illegal?

It is illegal if it is designed to deform on impact to increase wounding potential.
Normal hollow point or soft nose ammo used for hunting is designed so that the nose of the round is nice and nearly pointed in flight for accuracy and low drag, but when it hits a target the nose flattens and expands to double the calibre of the round to make a bigger wound channel to kill animals more quickly through blood loss.
The AK-74 round has a mild steel jacket and does not deform externally so does not qualify as being described as being a hollow point in the accepted meaning of the term.


the Geneva convention bars the use of any round w/ the expressed purpose of expanding or causing "Inhumane Wounding". WTF that's supposed to mean.

The Geneva convention covers mostly treatment of prisoners of war.
The Hague convention bans rounds that are designed to cause unnecessary suffering. HE rounds fired directly at human targets, or in this case if the nose of the round was open and it was designed to peel back and expand on impact like hunting ammo does then it would qualify as being inhumaine.


I herd the 5.45mm is a wicked poison bullet that can tear your ass clean off, even with a foot shot.

It stays in one piece but tends to turn 90 degrees after it enters flesh. This can result in unpredictible wounds with entry wounds and exit wounds not matching the true path a bullet would normally take.


3) If the 5.45 is somehow illegal or immoral, then so is the US 5.56. I don't think either are, but my opinion counts for little on the world stage..

It was believed that the high velocity of both rounds was what made them so effective. As the Flacker article linked to shows it was more about dumping energy on the target. A powerful round will tend to travel point forward through a body and not actually do very much on the way through. By the time it starts to tumble it is generally on its way out. Both the 5.56 and 5.45 tumble and the 556 fragments within certain parameters (ie target distance and barrel length... ie basically impact velocity).


That is why it is archaic. Main goal is to end the fight as quickly as possible with as little threat as possible to your own side and innocents. A bullet that more quickly stops a fight is a perfectly ethical goal. Notice that police officers do not use FMJ.

Reduces penetration and risk of richochette. Also the Hague convention does not apply to police forces.


Thus we find ourselves in a world were it is "ethical" by the "rules of war" to shoot a man in the chest with a 25mm HE shell or drop a JDAM on his head, but "unethical" to shoot him with a hollow-point 9mm bullet.

By definition the Hague convention bans any ammo that deforms... that includes HE rounds of any calibre. Obviously the easy way to get around this is to say you were not aiming for a man but instead a group of men.


I should think getting a direct hit from a 25mm or JDAM is a very humane way to go.

Sadly it is a very human thing to do to another human...


Ok, so if the 5,45 round isn't HP, what is the air pocket for?[/quuote]

It shifts the centre of gravity for the projectile to behind the bullet so that while it will stabilise and fly point forward in flight, when it hits a target it will nearly instantly destabilise and flip over. Tumbling on impact makes it very effective.

[quote]BTW, a modern 5.56 doesn't fragment to the same extent as a HP does, does it?

At very close range even FMJ will fragment due to the impact. 5.56 tends to split in half as it tumbles through the body and makes a very large wound channel that will leave lots of metal fragments in the body.


-In Britain, you are required to shoot animals with expanding bullets, but you are not allowed to shoot someone trying to kill you with expanding bullets. (Wait...are you even allowed to shoot someone trying to kill in the UK nowadays?)

The rules of reasonable force apply in Britain AFAIK. If you believe there is a threat to life then deadly force can be used. I doubt if the only ammo available was hunting ammo a jury would convict someone for shooting someone with it. FMJ is not humaine on animals unless it is way too powerful for that type of animal. For instance here in NZ I shoot goats with FMJ 7.62 x 39mm ammo. I have friends who shoot goats with .22lr so in comparison a 7.62 x 39mm is over kill but as usual it has more to do with where the bullet goes than what type of bullet it is.


-A bill introduced by a New York State Senator would have required officers to shoot to wound suspects and held them guilty of manslaughter if they fired more shots than necessary to only wound a suspect.

The problem I have with that is that if you shoot to wound then you are not really in danger. If you have to shoot then you have to shoot to kill. Every shot might kill anyway. A bullet through the Femoral artery in the leg will kill in minutes, while a bullet in the chest might not kill at all.


The dynamics behind the abstention from use of chemical warfare during WWII were far more complex than simply "following the rules," as is evidenced by the fact that while Germany didn't use gas against the Russians, they did go merrily about slaughtering millions of POWs and while the US didn't drop gas on the Japanese, they saw little issue with setting fire to most of their cities and nuking a few to top it off.

Indeed, both sides didn't want to use their gas weapons because they believed the other side had better weapons.


At high velocity, 5.56mm fragments and "sprinkles organs" far more effectively than a simple expanding HP bullet.

The reality is that HP versions of small light high velocity bullets as used in the 5.45 and 5.56 are not actually very effective. They tend to explode on impact creating shallow wounds that are effective against small animals like rabbits but ineffective against heavier animals to the point where their use on deer sized animals is banned in many places.


Call me what you want but i think that trying to make war humane is pretty redundant.

Humaine war is a contradiction. I personally don't think it is practical to have rules of war and anyone who thinks there is has obviously never actually been to a war. The rules of war as we know them are to punnish the country that loses the next war with us.

After WWI the Germans complained that the US used shotgun ammo that was not jacketed so it deformed and therefore violated the hague convention. Of course the Germans introduced flame throwers and poison gas in WWI and more importantly they lost the war so no one listened.


Because the energy was roughly the same, the wounds caused by the expanding bullet of the .303 were less severe than the those caused by the larger caliber, solid lead bullet used by the Martini-Henry.

A 303 round will not expand to larger than the 577 calibre of the older round. The problems with comparison of "energy" is that velocity is far more important to energy than mass so a smaller fast bullet can appear to have more energy than a slower heavier bullet. The point being that the faster bullet tends to make smaller holes and also lose velocity in flight faster than the heavier bullet.


The British also made a "more-lethal" round for the .303, the Mk VIII round used from about 1910 onwards had a nose filled with aluminium (reportedly swapped for both wood and paper due to wartime shortages of aluminium during WW1 and 2) to give it less stability on impact, causing it to yaw and probably break up, similarly to the 5.56.

A friend of mine had some of those and he impressed the hell out of a group of shooters when firing on a range because he managed to hit the rather solid wooden pole holding up the target and knocked it over. It seems the bullet shattered inside the pole and didn't penetrate and all the energy from the shot snapped the pole off at the base near ground level.


Because it's the law shouldn't preclude us from discussing and questioning it.

The problem with the laws of war is that they only matter to those that lose.
In civil wars no one cares about the Hague convention.
The thing is that not using soft nose or hollow point ammo in the army is one of the few rules that is actually applied world wide. Dropping it now will not make the world safer or better... and the world will certainly not end if it is dropped.

When 20mm grenade launchers are issued to troops in the field the reality is that when given a choice between a 5.56 or a 20-25mm grenade many soldiers will use the latter just to make sure...
Taking out a Machinegun nest with an RPG or a LAW will not be stopped either. FMJ hits are easier to deal with from a surgeons point of view. I say leave it as it is.
Regarding the 5.45... it is no worse than the 5.56 on balance. When it fragments the 5.56 is certainly more lethal of the two normally, but on the occasions when it doesn't the 5.45 will tumble on impact from any barrel length and at any range because of the design.

[XRR496]

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1239/12588388.jpg
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6638/45974885.jpg

[Jippo]

By definition the Hague convention bans any ammo that deforms... that includes HE rounds of any calibre. Obviously the easy way to get around this is to say you were not aiming for a man but instead a group of men.

You are just repeating an yrban myth. It is perfectly ok to shoot a person with high caliber exploding round. Rule about the deformation of the bullet applies to less than cannon caliber weapons. Reason is logical: high caliber weapons kill the subject at an instant, whilst smaller calibers leave only difficult wounds to treat unless the hit something vital.



The rules of reasonable force apply in Britain AFAIK. If you believe there is a threat to life then deadly force can be used. I doubt if the only ammo available was hunting ammo a jury would convict someone for shooting someone with it.

Rules of land warfare do not apply to normal social interaction between humans in the state of peace.



Humaine war is a contradiction. I personally don't think it is practical to have rules of war and anyone who thinks there is has obviously never actually been to a war.

You are very wrong...

I don't think even you would like to see pillage and rape as an acceptable way to wage war, or would you?

[orange]

Not to be that guy either, and not trying to draw a direct parallel with the present case here, but strictly speaking, the law once sanctioned slavery. Because it's the law shouldn't preclude us from discussing and questioning it.
Another guy already wrote that, but thanks for drawing a direct parallel between a change in a law that made people free and another that would mean cripple and causing worse wounds on people than is necessary, yet again.

It really doesn't sound any better the second time around, sorry.

[GazB]

You are just repeating an yrban myth. It is perfectly ok to shoot a person with high caliber exploding round. Rule about the deformation of the bullet applies to less than cannon caliber weapons. Reason is logical: high caliber weapons kill the subject at an instant, whilst smaller calibers leave only difficult wounds to treat unless the hit something vital.It is my understanding that at the Hague convention that they seperated or tried to seperate small arms and cannon. At the time the airplane had not even been invented let alone the tank and many small calibre weapons fired solid shot. The division was generally made at about 47mm for HE equipped weapons, but later that changed with the popularity of smaller calibre cannon like 30mm and even 20mm. A cannon became defined by the calibre of weapon whose standard round was a shell containing HE rather than a solid bullet and is generally accepted as being 20mm or larger calibre. If you observe the accuracy of even a quite accurate cannon over any range except very close you will find targeting one person with one shot does not happen often if at all. Generally burst fire is used against even point targets.


Rules of land warfare do not apply to normal social interaction between humans in the state of peace.I never said they did. I was responding to a post that suggested that using soft nose ammo against a human was illegal in civilian society. It is not. In some places shooting animals with FMJ is illegal.


You are very wrong...

I don't think even you would like to see pillage and rape as an acceptable way to wage war, or would you?First of all I will ignore what you seem to be implying with the words "even you".

Second, pillage and rape have been part of war since war started: Very often it has been the purpose of the war. The Germans saw themselves as above everyone else in Europe and decided to take land that other groups happened to have been born on. They generally played by the rules on the western front but there were lots of deviations from those rules. The rule book was not even opened on the Eastern front and it was no holds barred.
In comparison the Japanese in the Pacific and Asia treated their prisoners as if they were worse than traitors. Experiments were performed that would sicken most people. The difference of course was that the Germans went through Neurenberg trials and the japanese largely got off without any problems. The difference was that the German crimes had no way of benefiting the west. The results of the Japanese experiements appeared to be quite valuable. In the end they were found to be little use, but the amnesties were honoured and they basically got away with murder.

What I am trying to say is that it doesn't matter what you do in war time, you are only held accountable if you lose and your enemy chooses to hold you accountable. All sides did some pretty bad stuff during WWII. (edit: of course the Germans and Japanese led the pack because they started the game and set the tone.)
We like to think we are better than that now, but we are not.

You asked:

I don't think even you would like to see pillage and rape as an acceptable way to wage war, or would you?I would ask you is war, with all the death and destruction and of course the inevidible "collateral damage" on both sides an acceptable way to solve political or economic differences in the 21st century.

[DE_Six]

Another guy already wrote that, but thanks for drawing a direct parallel between a change in a law that made people free and another that would mean cripple and causing worse wounds on people than is necessary, yet again.

It really doesn't sound any better the second time around, sorry.

Heh, sorry, something worth saying is worth saying twice. ;-)

That said, I don't want to jump in the technical debate, I just react to the "the law's the law, don't question it for it's own sake" mentality.

And I specifically said it was not a direct parallel.

[orange]

Heh, sorry, something worth saying is worth saying twice. ;-)

That said, I don't want to jump in the technical debate, I just react to the "the law's the law, don't question it for it's own sake" mentality.

And I specifically said it was not a direct parallel.
Yeap, you did. Been working 14-15 hours days this week so I shouldn't even join in a discussion. And my little "the law's the law" thing wasn't really meant that way either. As a matter of fact, I don't know what I meant. So I'm out!

Sorry for even taking a part in this thread! p-)