NATO/military HP production?

[sam i am]

m

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: EMDII ]

[EMDII]

Not: for tactical use.

The US Army M118 172 gr Special Ball is for the sniper weapons, and is ball. The M852 168 grain have been produced in HPBT, but are not intended for 'combat use' per the TM.

The use of HP ammunition in tactical weapons is banned by xxxxxx Conventions on the Laws of land Warfare, IIRC.

I'm sure Delta Force operators, SpecOps, and various other dark agencies may use specialty ammuniton against non-combatant threats, such as terrorists. Most of this is 'black' ammunition, including the lack of headstamps and traceability.

[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: EMDII ]

[J MOSBY]

Hollow point used to be against the Geneva Convention, I do not belive there is any "NATO" hollow points but some information I have says that snipers might be able to use hollow points.
Whoops, just loaned out that book, don't have exact quotation but it was in Sniper II.

[Dano]

The Gun Zone link below explains Military use of hollow points. Apparently hollow points are allowed because the USA is NOT a signature to the treaty that banned there use. Anyway, enjoy the read. Hopefully this clears the air for those who have wondered about this.
http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-hague.html

[EMDII]

I stand corrected-

Hague, not Geneva!
:o

But we 'voluntarily' comply. Ya know, seems like we sometimes make the rules convenient when we need to.
:p

In any case, tactical units- Infantry, etc, do not draw HP ammuntion for use in their rifles. Not even their sniper rifles. The M118 is the current issue tactical sniper round. The AMU at Fort Benning acontinuously experiments w/ VLD (Very Low Drag) bullets of larger weights, too.

[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: EMDII ]

[fresca]

The 168 BTHP is an approved military round as the "hollowpoint" was found not to actually expand in the conventional sense, and is considered an accuracy contributor.
Mr. Hays Park, I believe he is/was a State Department or DOD attorney, wrote an opinion on this round and found it appropriate for combat use. He also authored one stating that the .50 cal. IS an anti-personnel round as well as an anti-material round. It's been a while since I read it, someone correct me if I am wrong. I was wrong, Park was with the Judge Advocates Office.

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: fresca ]

[EMDII]

Correct about the 168 Sierra MK HPBT. It is not reinforced for controlled expansion, and actually may collapse upon impact.

Still, when you look up the DODAC in your S-4 files, and go to the TM on ammunition application, it says clearly-

'not for issue to combat units'.

See the caveats above.