The Hague Convention of (I think) 1899 outlawed the use of these “modified” bullets because of the severe damage caused both by the fragmenting and tumbling of the rounds when entering a body.
This being the case why are the current NATO bullets which also have a tendancy to tumble when striking/entering flesh permitted.
The Hague Convention bans bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body. The current NATO round gained a reputation in Vietnam for prucing nasty injuries. The Soviet Union introduced new ammunition for the AK-74 which was designed to tumble in the body, but unfortunately (or fortunately if you happened to be shot by a Red Army soldier) the actual damage done by the tumbling is pretty minor. The actual damage is caused by fragmentation. It’s possible argue that this sort of ammunition violates the spirit of the Hague Convention (the convention was supposed to reduce the number of really nasty wounds soldiers recieved in combat) but it certainly doen’t violate the letter of the law.
Fun Fact: The British military had to redesign both the .303 rifle cartridge and the.38/200 pistol cartridge as a direct result of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Convention and St. Petersburg Treaty. Worked out better in the case of the .303 round (the 174gr FMJ projectile was much more accurate than the older 215gr LRN one), but the .38/200 ended up with a 178gr FMJ projectile which could best be described as “Lacklustre”. Still not something to be on the receiving end of, but nowhere near as effective as the .455 Webley cartridge it was supposed to replace.
I thought it was the Moscow Convention of 1899 that prohibited glass, poisoned, explosive or other trick bullets below a certain size. (20mm?) But I am operating from memory. In any case, such rules are fairly silly. The purpose of a bullet is to kill. The deadliest round in the USA is the 22 short. No sort of bullet is safe or humane, and if there was one, I would want to shoot the other kind.
The idea is to kill or disable the other fellow.
Convention of 1899 stated that:
Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:…To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury.
And specifically that:
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 Hague Convention of 1907: included the following provisions:
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden:…To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering
All of this is covered in greater detail at the Military Guns and Ammunition site at:
What do you mean by that?
I’m guessing that it’s the most common round in existence and it has quite enough power to kill a person.
R.e. tumbling - I read a report years ago that stated that all bullets tumble when they enter tissue, and they all tumble the same way - the round begins an end-for-end turn. This was backed up with some testing showing that this takes place even when striking a very thin target (they put sheets of paper on either side of the target to check how the round was moving before and after). I’m sure that this all goes out the window if the round breaks up or deforms severely in the target.
That is to say more people die in America from the .22 short than from any other round.
Not a .22 long rifle? It’s far more common than the .22 short.
In warfare, a wounded soldier is a greater liability than a dead one. Either he has to be transported to a care station, or has to be left behind or euthanized on the spot. The first option occupies resources that might otherwise be directed toward fighting, and reduces the groups mobility and stealth while they assist their injured comrade. The second two options tend to be bad for the moral of the remaining troops. Amputees in the populace probably do more to damage moral on the home front than boys that come home in a box as well.
The point of the Hague convention is that a soldier hit with a FMJ is almost certainly out of the fight…and not to leave it at that is just further punishing the pawns in their government’s feud.
Isn’t he refering to a .22, as opposed to a .22 Magnum? That is, not the rifle, but the shell.
.22 Short, .22 Long Rifle, and .22 Magnum are all different cartridges. I’m guessing Paul meant .22 Long Rifle as opposed to .22 Short, since .22 shorts are pretty rare.
I am also very, very, skeptical that a .22 of any kind kills more people in the United States than anything else.
Don’t forget - the majority of firearms deaths in the US are suicide (from CDC, for 2004, 29k total firearms deaths, 16k were suicide). Given that a .22 is a very common pistol and is perfectly adequate for suicide, I think it’s plausible. I’d be skeptical for homicide though - usually people trying to kill someone else get something with a little more oomph.
Good point. I hadn’t thought of suicide.
I’d be curious to see a cite for for the .22 claim. Congress found that .25, 9mm, and .32 were used most in crime. This study found that .25 was the most prevalent caliber used in homicide. I can’t find any links supporting .22 as the deadliest caliber in the country.
Wow, I didn’t know there used to be a whole industry of junky .25 guns out there. I don’t know that I’ve ever even seen one, I’d always thought of it as a novelty bullet.
(I hate it when a thread goes off-track. Especially when it is my fault. Especially when I make a mistake. Yes, .22 LR. Further, since I am operating from memory I have no cite at all. Sorry.)