Posted on Jul 9, 2015
RallyPoint Shared Content
14
14
0
D3551ed7
Published by: thetruthaboutguns.com
--
Sources tell TTAG that the United States Army is switching from ball to hollow-point ammunition for its next generation handgun. The Army dropped the bombshell yesterday at the Modular Handgun System Industry Day in Picatinny, New Jersey. The event was held as part of the Army’s procurement process to replace the Beretta M9 handgun and the ammunition used for the gun. After making the announcement, an Army lawyer mounted the stage to mount a defense for the switch hollow-points . . .

The U.S. did not agree to a ban on expanding ammo by international treaty. And the the Army’s prepared to defend the decision in the court of international law and opinion. His core argument: countries that will denounce the use of hollow-point use the hollow points for their police forces.

The Army said it will rely on FBI data to evaluate bids for the new ammunition. It also said that it knows it will get heat for the move, but claimed the administration supported the change at the highest levels at the Department of Defense. In other words, this is as close to a done deal as it can get without a signed contract.

The question is: what about rifle ammo? We’re looking into it. Watch this space.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/robert-farago/breaking-u-s-army-switching-to-hollow-point-ammunition/
Posted in these groups: United states army logo ArmyWeapons logo WeaponsWolf 762 clip Ammo
Avatar feed
Responses: 16
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
4
4
0
I though Ball was the only "legal" ammo for war use.
You don't really want to kill someone, right?
You want to wound them, which drags down resources.
(4)
Comment
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Paul Labrador
>1 y
The goal is incapacitation. Death is merely a permanent form of it. You don't want to wound because a) wounded man is still in the fight b) if the enemy has no resources to spend, he will simply abandon the wounded for YOU to take care of (which then expends OUR resources) and 3) that makes the assumption that the enemy actually cares about their wounded.
(3)
Reply
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
>1 y
True that...
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT Justin Singleton
SGT Justin Singleton
>1 y
LTC Paul Labrador is correct—incapacitation is the goal—and I like his three points. Well said.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Cpl Software Engineer
3
3
0
Wasn't the use of hollow point projectiles, or "To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering" banned by the Hague?
SECTION II HOSTILITIES
CHAPTER I Means of Injuring the Enemy, Sieges, and bombardments
Artical 23
(3)
Comment
(0)
SPC Eric Cunningham
SPC Eric Cunningham
>1 y
They already do - but our body armor fairs better against JHP than FMJ
(1)
Reply
(0)
SFC Teaching Staff
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
Apparently the article stated the US never agreed to all the terms of the Hague Convention. This was actually new information to me. If so, I'm shocked we haven't made the switch decades ago. In any case, it's about time. We could really use help upgrading 9mm FMJ to something better....+p HP! Love it.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SGT Jeremiah B.
>1 y
We never signed the Hague. We're clear.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Paul Labrador
>1 y
We never signed, but hold ourselves to the standard anyways because we are the "good guys"....
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Everett Oliver
3
3
0
About time.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close