Why does war law ban hollow point ammunition?

Question

Hollow-Point, Soft Point are all designed to kill most rapidly, are they not more humane to use? Before the advent of military helicopters and medical evacuation, soldiers had to be treated at the front lines, and had a good chance of dying. Hollow Points would rather mercifly end their futile struggle. What's the rationale behind it?

It's actually the Hague Convention of 1899 which first banned these rounds for military usage. Also, hollow points would inflict less pain and suffering because you would bleed to death very rapidly.

Answer 1

According to the policy makers, it is still considered inhumane. I would love to carry Hydra-shock and definitely Kill what I shoot at. but it's illegal right now.

Answer 2

Hollowpoints are not necesarily more deadly than the standard FMJ full metal jacket -lead core comletely covered with copper or brass). It causes more tissue damage, resulting in more blood loss, but a well aimed shot with a FMJ is more lethal than a bad shot with a JHP (jacketed hollow point).
The only atlernative round allowed by law is called a frangible bullet, which may or may not be hollow pointed, but is cast from powdered zinc or copper and bonded with nylon. It was developed for the SkyMarshals, and is designed to disentigrate (sp?) on contact with anything harder than the human body to reduce the likelyhood of a ricochet.

A quote from the company that developed the bullet (from Modern Marvels on the history channel) "Our round is so effective that it will penetrate a man's skull, and not come out the other side."

Answer 3

You are correct. Hollow points would certainly kill your victim rapidly. This is precisely the reason the military does not use them. They do not wish to kill the enemy. If you wound the enemy you are potentially taking out 3 people from action as opposed to just one by killing him. Why 3 people? One wounded person and 2 people to carry the injured man off the battle field. It is also more humane in a sense of wounding a person because if they are wounded they may have a chance of going back to their families (though maimed). A dead man will never see his loved ones again.

Answer 4

Ive read through the answers and this question has been answered well already. I have had many of the same types of questions myself. Not why they wont let us use hollow points, or why they will not let you shoot a a person with a .50 cal (only for equipment not people). My question has been, "why do we continue to allow politicians and diplomats decide how war is to be fought and what the rules of conduct should be". It seems to me that the military should decide what the rules aught to be. The circumstances change from enemy to enemy and from one engagement to another. They don't seem to get the fact that NOT EVERYONE PLAYS BY THE RULES. Take the opportunity to read through some of the rules of engagement and I think you will be shocked at some of the "play nice" schoolyard rules that they have burdened our troops with. The most frustrating part is that they still expect them to win.

Answer 5

Hollow points are designed to inflict as much injury as possible, it is much more deliterious to a battle front to deal with casualities versus deaths. The Geneva Convention bans weapons that inflict undo pain and suffering.

Answer 6

Because hollow points tumble in the air, thus causing larger wounds and more trauma. Therefore, they have been outlawed in favor of full metal jacketed ammunition.

Answer 7

well this is the law of counties who follow the Geneva convention but i bet other countries use hollow points.

Answer 8

Because the injuries produced by those bullets are excessive to the military result obtained.

The goal is to disable an enemy soldier - maiming him for life is generally not necessary.