Should the Military use hollowpoint bullets?

Question

Hollowpoint bullets are bullets with a shallow hole at the tip. When the bullet strikes the target, it peels back and creates more damage and more stopping power. Currently NATO has banned the use of hollowpoint bullets in the military. (however the use of bombs strapped to kill innocent people has not been addressed by neither NATO nor the UN)

Also hollow point does more damage rather than outright kill the target. When the bullet spreads, it doesnt penetrate the target like a fmj round would.

Also note that alot of the muhajadeen dont have access to body armor, or at least body armor that will stop a 5.56mm round.

Im not saying we should use hollowpoints, Im simply asking that despite UN and NATO restrictions, should soldiers be able to use hollowpoints in combat. This question is mostly directed towards our comrades in the Military who know the effects of bullets on the enemy.

Answer 1

I say YES to more stopping power! And its a morale poison too probably. They make think twice before running up to a barricade if they know they could easily loose a lim (or 2 or 3) before reaching their target.

But it is up to the soldier, and I'm sure there are reasons they don't currently use hollow points.

Answer 2

Hollowpoints have two important differences from standard (ball) ammo.


1) The physical characteristics of the round deform the bullet mid-flight, forming a "mushroom" shape, which produces more shock energy upon impact.

2) While concentration of energy is good for "stopping power" in certian situations, the bullet will not penetrate as deeply (a problem against body armour) and will not produce substantial exit wounds, resulting in less fatailty.

To my understanding, the military uses all types of ammo in different situations. Whatever the mission calls for, the military unit in question is very likely to have access to the optimum ammo to get the job done.

To say that "hollow point" ammo is the ONLY ammo that military units should have availiable would be foolish and limiting.

Answer 3

Prohibited by the Geneva Accords.
In military arms, you can't use expansion to widen a wound channel. Tumbling an unstable bullet is kosher. But the sensible thing to do is develop a 7 mm rifle round, and if you have to rely on a handgun, carry a 45 ACP. This has all been known for a long time, but getting from knowledge to stuff in the hands of troops has always been a heck of a problem.

Answer 4

Ok heres the deal...hollow points just aren't good for military usage. We don't have to worry about our round stopping in it's intended target...if there are three enemies lined up in a row then one round kills all three. Secondly, hollowpoint rounds are only used in handguns...we don't use our sidearms unless our primary weapon is out of commission and if that's the case then we're in a world of hurt that no hollowpoint is going to solve. Thirdly, hollowpoints reduce the accuracy of a round (the reason they're only used in handguns) and therefore actually an create many more problems.

Hollowpoints are useful in urban situations when trying to stop one suspect..ie a police officer attempting to stop a suspect but in military usage it just doesn't fly...

Answer 5

I was in the Army, so let me shed some light on this subject for you...the mission of the United States Army is to fight and win the nation's wars, keep that in mind.
In order to fight and win a war you need to "take out" the enemy, which does NOT necessary mean "kill them all."
Think on this...if you shot someone with a standard bullet and wound them, you have just removed three people from combat, because it takes two soldiers to carry one injured one to safety/medics.
If you use a hollow point bullet and shoot the enemy, you've killed them, and now you've only taken out one person.

Using standard bullets allows the combat to end faster because you injury more people quickly without killing them. Kinda gruesome, but true nonetheless.

Answer 6

They cause unneeded suffering, especally when it comes to stomach shots. Someone shot in the stomach will die slowly over a long period of time because the bullet fragments when it enters the body.
That is why they don't use them in war, that does not mean that they do not use them at all.

Also, because they fragment easier, they generally get deflected more often on things people would hide behind. Makeing them less effective in a fire fight.

Answer 7

As alergic as I might be to getting shot (either with OR without these), as a recently retired military guy, you want the most stopping power available to most rapidly drop the guy shooting at you. The bad guy is sure not going to want any less, and in a pragmatic way, I don't blame him.
I'll kindly request to side-step debating the hipocracy of war.

Answer 8

It's against the Geneva Convention.

Besides, hollowpoints are only good for pistols, tend to jam automatics, and loose accuracy with range

Answer 9

I carry hollow points in my gun. I like them because they will stop when they hit the target, unlike conventional bullets which will travel through and possibly hit innocent people.

They do make aluminum rounds which narrow up when they hit something hard like body armor and mushroom out when they reach something soft, like flesh.

Answer 10

I would think there would be penetration issues with hollow point bullets. Other than that if they kill better I say we should use them. That means less of us get killed. I don't like being killed, I would rather kill.