Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jeff Chandler
It might even be required by some treaty or convention.

It is a mistaken belief that the Geneva Convention applies to ammunition; it does not. The one that does is the First Hague Convention of 1899, to which the U.S. is not a signatory. However, there is a provision in the Second Hague Convention of 1907 against ammunition designed to cause cruel or extraordinary wounding, and we are signatories to that convention.

It is arguable that expanding ammunition is not intended to cause any sort of wounding at all, but a quick and humane kill. That is certainly the argument for its employment in hunting. Were I to decide, we'd be using it at least in handguns, which do not (usually) develop the muzzle velocity necessary for tissue supercavitation that does occur in rifle ammunition and is the reason that rifle fire tends to be more lethal than pistol fire.

81 posted on 08/04/2014 3:01:37 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Billthedrill

OTOH, FMJ has the advantage of greater penetration of armor. .357 SIG in FMJ would make an excellent combat round.


82 posted on 08/04/2014 3:06:44 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Conservatism is the political disposition of grown-ups.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson