TexasCHLforum.com

Much ado has been made in recent years about the U.S. Army possibly abandoning it's current 9mm sidearms and returning to the .45 ACP or going to the .45 GAP, either shooting hardball ammunition. But would the Army make that leap if it were somehow to go to 9mm hollow point ammunition? Not that this is going to happen anytime soon. This theoretical proposition is intended only to elicit comments on comparative efficacy.

In combat you want your round to perform 100% of the time..hollowpoints may or maynot perform every time..not only that but I believe the Geneva convention prevents using non-ball rounds

They couldn't use hollow points even if they wanted to because of international agreement (don't remember which).

As I understand it, the Geneva Conventions proscribe the use of hollowpoint ammunition. Jacketed bullets are more "humane" .

frreed wrote:As I understand it, the Geneva Conventions proscribe the use of hollowpoint ammunition. Jacketed bullets are more "humane" .

Hague convention of 1899, I think.

Anyway, the congressional district of the manufacturing plant is more important than the caliber of the gun.

aardwolf wrote:

frreed wrote:As I understand it, the Geneva Conventions proscribe the use of hollowpoint ammunition. Jacketed bullets are more "humane" .

Hague convention of 1899, I think.

Anyway, the congressional district of the manufacturing plant is more important than the caliber of the gun.

You beat me to it. It's the Hague convention of 1899. It states:

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

There is some additional information HERE, where is where I got the above quote.

The U.S. Army might prefer 9mm hollow points over .45 ACP ball ammo for various reasons. As a fictitious option here on this thread, countries party to the Hague Treaty might well ponder if they want their soldiers shot with 9mm hollow points or .45 ACP hardball. Talk about a tough call.

I'm not entirely sure it makes much difference which caliber is used. I've run enough M9 qual ranges to know exactly where the problem comes from, and it's a lack of training on the part of almost everyone issued an M9.

We're not presently engaged with any enemies that have also signed the Hauge Conventions, and most any 15-6 investigation will find you perfectly justified in using anything at your disposal to protect yourself, your men, or your equipment.

We're not presently engaged with any enemies that have also signed the Hauge Conventions

Terrific point. Roger the general lack of handgun skills in the military. Likewise, note the desirability of short range handguns in house-to-house, room-to-room combat.

casingpoint wrote:

We're not presently engaged with any enemies that have also signed the Hauge Conventions

Terrific point. Roger the general lack of handgun skills in the military. Likewise, note the desirability of short range handguns in house-to-house, room-to-room combat.

The general lack of handgun skills is sadly not the only problem, out of the 10 privates (all 11B) I took right out of basic, only three of them could qualify with a rifle. The same three could also pass their PT test. My fellow 11B NCO buddies reported much the same prior to this deployment. You either blame the recruiter for enlisting poor material in the first place, or their DS for not teaching them anything - of course both sets of hands are tied by higher anyway. I could go on for a few hours, but a lot of the problem stems from there being fewer and fewer young shooters out there, another side effect of the villianization of firearms. Anti's still almost always claim to "support the troops" - but fail to realize their mission to limit firearms soley to military and police use has helped provide a plethora of troops completely unable to effectively deploy their issued weapon. Whole lot of good that does!

In combat though, I'm still taking a rifle over a pistol any day - but I'd like one on my side just in case. M4s are mighty manueverable, and despite all the anti-5.56 comments you hear, it'll most certainly drop a man, and stop a vehicle. Of course, you have to hit your target!

Yes the Hague Convention is correct, my bad.

I have served, as a chaplain, with Marines over the past 10 years and the marksmanship issues are not as extreme with them. Every Marine has to qualify with the M-16 or they don't get out of recruit training. The course of fire starts at 200 yds, moves on to 300 and then ends with shooting in the prone at 500. This is with a standard set of iron sights. I have had the chance to shoot this course of fire (yeah, I passed with some good coaching) and that silhouette target is real small at 500.

Only staff NCOs and officers carry pistols and the qualification is pretty thorough. In the past few years they have incorporated an Enhanced Marksmanship Program which involve shooting, with pistol and rifle, at close quarters (1-25 yds.) and in close proximity to other shooters. 5.56 cartridges are hot when they lodge between the collar on your flak and your neck.

Well aimed 5.56 and 9mm will do the job.

frreed wrote:5.56 cartridges are hot when they lodge between the collar on your flak and your neck.

Yes, yes they are.

macktruckturner wrote:Of course, you have to hit your target!

That's the secret to winning a gunfight. In Vietnam I saw the same problem, maybe not to the extent as today - - - The average GI can't shoot!

MoJo wrote:

macktruckturner wrote:Of course, you have to hit your target!

That's the secret to winning a gunfight. In Vietnam I saw the same problem, maybe not to the extent as today - - - The average GI can't shoot!

Spray and Pray Baby!!!

i dont know i find it is all to often easy to blame the lower enlisted soldier but i find that its lack of realistic training. for example when we qual on the m16 they are timed pop up targets. wheres the added stress that war brings to the table? i also add they are just now starting to make soldier qual while in a kneeling postion as well as supported and prone unsupported. they are finally started to do things like this with the cls classes. i also think alot of the soldiers dont take the training seriously. they want to bull around. i do like the marines thing where every soldier is an infantryman and his or her mos is secondary. i wish the army would do this. as far as training goes i dont think you say the marines shooting at a bern 50 yards away with a target on it enhance to seem like its 500 m away does them any good either.