Jacketing a bullet has nothing to do with conventions but with avoiding led build-up in the barrel of the gun (the jacket is made of a harder metal than lead). ‘FMJ’ and ‘JHP’ have become common abbreviations since pretty much all modern bullets are jacketed (shotguns are an exception, though ony slugs could really be called ‘bullets’).
From my reading, the basic point of the restrictions on ammunition is to forbid unneccesary suffering; the idea is that you can kill an enemy soldier or wound him, but not use something that deliberately causes a wound that’s very hard to treat once he’s off the field like fragments that don’t show up on an X-ray. Expanding rounds got banned in an older version of the treaty because they were precieved to just be trying to cause a worse wound. That explicit restriction hasn’t made it into the latest treaties (AFAIR), so there’s controversey over whether they’re allowed. The reason this hasn’t really been settled is that hollowpoint rounds in rifles aren’t really useful; with the velocities involved, there’s not time for the bullet to significantly expand in a person’s body so there’s not a whole lot of point in using them for anything but pistols, which aren’t the most common weapon.
Derleth, that’s not really true - in WW2 US and UK forces followed the relevant conventions, and Germany followed them with regard to US and UK forces (there were certainly exceptions, but not a general policy of ignoring them). Russia had never signed the relevant Geneva convention, which means that the eastern front atrocities weren’t technically a violation of them (as they only apply to two signatories). Japan in WW2 of course ignored anything having to do with humane treatment of prisoners, but in her 1905 war with Russia was commended by international organizations for good treatment of prisoners. While there are countries that have ignored various conventions on ‘rules of war’, the conventions are not universally ignored when fighting starts.
Note: Hollow point bullets don’t “expand”, they deform. The whole expanding term came around when anti-gunners tried to scare people into believing hollow points were magic bullets.
Hollow points cause the bullets to try to put their center of gravity at an equilibrium in their new medium, which usually causes the bullets to deform and flatten. This is desirable because the less ‘even’ shape allows the round to impart more energy onto it’s target than it would if it were a very hydrodynamic design like FMJ.
“Expanding bullets” were kind of in the same line of scare tactics that “dum dum” and “cop killer bullets were”… a hype term. Just wanted to clear that up.
Oh - and I believe “expanding” bullets were banned by international treaty in the same section that poisoned bullets, wood-core bullets, etc. were banned. I don’t remember specifically where that is, just that those types are usually mentioned together.
>> The title of the movie “Full Metal Jacket” came from the rounds allowed by the Geneva Conventions.
Right. And few people understood the meaning. I believe it was literally translated into other languages and it made no sense: “The metal coat” (as in article of clothing).
Uh from my EMT experience, bullets hurt BAD. They will scream, fall down, and cease shooting at you. People don’t stand around and take 3-4 rounds because they are jacketed.
Bad boy hollowpoints like Hydrashok rounds expand to make them stop in the target, allowing them to deliver as much of their limited handgun cartridge energy as possible to the target. Rifle rounds with 2-3 times the velocity do not need that extra bonus. Amazing
Can’t tell you much about the Geneva Convention, but I know that in my unit (Weapons Company 1/24), we have 81mm mortars (my platoon) Anti-tank (Javelins) and Heavy Machine Guns, which are .50 cals. Given what I’ve seen in their training (and in movies like Black Hawk Down), when the shit hits the fan it doesn’t matter what you hit the enemy with; dead is dead, no matter what the weapon.
Apparently, Al-Qaeda has 25 Barretts, although how this was determined isn’t clear.
11 members of the security forces in Northern Ireland were killed by Barretts.
I suppose in reality, if a weapon is good at killing people at little risk to the user, it’ll get used.
Anti-tank weapons for trench clearing anyone?
Probably the grief about not using 50 cal on personnel comes from the fact that it’s basically a waste, like using cannons to shoot rats.
“Geneva Convention” prohibitions on non-fully-jacketed bullets are only observed as an incidental. FMJs are the norm in military weapons because FMJ bullets will feed reliably through an auto-feeding weapon, whereas soft or hollow pointed bullets will not necessarily do so, especially under combat conditions. Also, FMJs allow the same rounds to be used against all targets, including ones where more penetration is needed.
I can’t say for sure, but it is likely that FMJs are cheaper to produce, and one thing is for sure, when there’s a (real) war on, armies usually go through a LOT of bullets.
Personally, I have never seen or heard of a production soft-point or hollow-point .50 cal BMG type bullet. You might be able to find one custom-made somewhere, but AFAIK they’ve never been an issue item anywhere.
Lastly, the Geneva conventions do not make mention of specific makes or models of any weapons. That would only result in said weapons being renamed and/or redesignated, wouldn’t it?
Slight Hijack: IIRC, the Swedish government adopted the NATO 5.56 mm (.223 cal) as a standard small arms caliber, but specified that the “twist” of the rifle barrels produced for Swedish military weapons be different from US and similar ones so as to render the bullet more stable in flight, and less prone to “tumbling” on impact. The grounds for this are the Geneva prohibitions against weapons that cause excessive suffering and injury, or so they said at the time. (I know, discussion of the .223/5.56 is a whole other thread and possibly a GD.)