# why does our military not use fmj 223 ammo? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 1, 2015, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-our-military-not-use-fmj-223-ammo/721381 "2015-06-01T20:49:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-our-military-not-use-fmj-223-ammo/721381/21 "2015-06-03T05:17:58Z")
Just enjoying the ride here…but [del]where is Babby come from[/del] why/what is the “ball” in “ball ammunition?” An etymological ghost of the good old days with muskets? ---
**Author:** ![Obtenebrate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9f8e36/32.png) [@Obtenebrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Obtenebrate)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-our-military-not-use-fmj-223-ammo/721381/22 "2015-06-03T10:09:25Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Just enjoying the ride here…but [del]where is Babby come from[/del] why/what is the “ball” in “ball ammunition?” An etymological ghost of the good old days with muskets? Sort of, but more recent than muskets. Prior to the invention of the spitzer style bullet in 1898, military cartridges had round ‘ball’ tips, and adoption took a while. For military handguns, fmjs are still round nosed. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-our-military-not-use-fmj-223-ammo/721381/23 "2015-06-03T16:15:24Z")
> [@obbn](#): > > Yes, you are correct. The velocity that a rifle spits out a bullet provides so much more \*\*sipping \*\*power than a pistol. Bolding mine. Interesting typo. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2015, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-our-military-not-use-fmj-223-ammo/721381/24 "2015-06-03T20:02:00Z")
> [@ufel](#): > > we never signed the Hague Convention about “dumdum” bullets, and the Geneva protocols don’t mention any such things. Neither one of those treaties applies to non-declared wars, nor to nations that are not signatories to those treaties. It is debatable on the applicability of the Hague Conventions to non-signatories as the verbiage allows for non-signatories to agree to abide by the terms, in which case the signatories are bound to abide by the conventions. How long the non-signatory has to declare their intentions to abide by the conventions isn’t spelled out anywhere, so what’s debatable is if the non-signatory is abiding by the conventions but hasn’t formally declared its intention to do so is the signatory bound and for how long. Regarding the Geneva Protocols, you are 100% completely dead wrong. I would think you actually mean the Geneva Conventions, in which case you are still 100% dead wrong. What is generally known as [the Geneva Protocol](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/geneva01.asp) is the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating Gas, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare 8 February 1928 which has nothing to do with the topic. The Geneva Protocols I, II and III are all supplements to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and _specifically_ apply to non-declared wars. [Protocol I](https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=D9E6B6264D7723C3C12563CD002D6CE4): > [@](#): > > Article 1(4) provides that armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes are to be considered international conflicts. Protocol II, the name kind of gives it away: [Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977](https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=AA0C5BCBAB5C4A85C12563CD002D6D09). Assuming you mean the Geneva Conventions of 1949, all four of them open with the [following verbiage](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/geneva05.asp): > [@](#): > > Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. > > Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. > > The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. > > Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. > > Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-our-military-not-use-fmj-223-ammo/721381.md?page=1)