Quote:
|
Will the military ever update its policy on the use of hollowpoint bullets?
|
NO.
With bullets available that fragment, tumble, and create horrific wounds already--- while still complying with the Hague Accords-- what's the purpose of hollow point ammo that would further reduce the already inadequate penetration of the 5.56 NATO?
Anyone who thinks that ammo currently in use is "humane" hasn't seen a whole lot of combat. Jim Keenan's assessment of the lethality of fmj is correct.
Special ops missions that that may require different ammo for specific situations (hostage rescue?) would be the exception, but not for general military use.
The myth still persists that nations went to fmj because a wounded soldier placed a heavier burden on the enemy than a dead one.
Pure BUNK. The intent of the bullet ban for military nations was done for perceived humanitarian reasons.
It's also true that complying with the Convention achieved, to a somewhat better extent, the creation of more wounded soldiers which placed heavier burdens on the enemy. And it also would seem logical that any "wounded enemy" benetfit would get cancelled out when the enemy used the same ammo against you.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
