AK-stick:

I am not claiming anything !

My interest is purely on how bullets behave and more so their effect and as such the majority of research done on this has to do with a understanding of how bullets work in order to treat their effects and secondly major research is driven from both sides of the prohibition line . ie those who develop munitions and those who seek to regulate them in warfare. Often the same researchers working both sides of the coin.

The Red Cross claim this and NATO adheres to their protocols !

If we follow the timeline and history of arms prohibition in the international Law that governs land warfare we see a step by step development of protocols starting ass far back as the late 1800's

Each time a new protocol is mandated various forces have circumvented them legally.

The latest versions are becoming more difficult to circumvent given the language of the provisions.

What is interesting about the newest versions of the rules is that a provision has been put in calling for burden of proof that a bullet will not fragment though it qualifies as a FMJ.

So now it is not good enough to simply state its a FMJ they must show at the hand of valid simulation testing that the bullet will not fragment. What is more there is also a energy limit put on the bullet.

As I say it is rather odd because missile injury from fragmentation ordinance involves irregular projectiles impacting targets at hyper velocity and hyper energy so where lies the difference ?

What is more if we look at the data from land battles during campaigns since and including the 2nd world war the chances of being killed or maimed by a bullet is statistically very small.
The majority of injuries and fatalities come from ordinance.

You're claiming that the bullet we issue is not legal.


Yet we issue it, so either your claim is incorrect, or NATO does not adhere to the protocol.

It is impossible to go both ways, and the fact is we issue that very bullet in 5.56

Military uses Open Tip Match Bullets. Much different from a hollow point bullet.

The US never signed Article IV of the 1899 Hague Convention, so it is not proscribed from using hollowpoint bullets in warfare. In fact the military is currently considering the use of hollowpoint ammunition in the new Sig modular service handgun.

But what this has to do with the thread topic escapes me, except to attempt to salvage what little remains of the credibility of a certain poster.....


.

If you are on a ship at sea and your back wheels start spinning, how many Vienna sausages does it take to cover a football field? True or False?

That's how crazy this sounds to me. IMO it would be hard for a bullet not to tumble as it passes through a deer size animal.
I wish I hadn't read this. I wont sleep a wink tonight. I may have to take another pill!

I am interested in watching videos of bullets tumbling in ballistic gelatin. Does anyone have a link for any videos?