Do 5.56 fmj often break up when they hit flesh or water?

[44 AMP]

We signed the Hague Convention of 1907 and we, for over 100 years, respected the Hague Convention of 1899. That some folks started arguing that we should set it aside in the 2010s doesn't change those facts.

While not signatory to the original convention, the US has adopted the restrictions and our military operates under the Hague convention rules, did so for the entire 20th century, and still does today in the 21st century.

And, this does not preclude or prohibit all use of soft point or hollow point ammunition. A point that has been brought up, (though not here in this discussion, as it isn't relevant) is that the Hague Convention rules only legally apply to signatory nations, when fighting the uniformed armed forces of other signatory nations.

The people we have been in combat against in the 21st century are not covered by the Hague (or, I think, the Geneva) convention rules. While we generally continue to operate under those rules, we are not required to, and we are not breaking, or casting away the treaty if we decide not to.

The military sticks with FMJ ammo because it works the best for their mission. It is the most durable, and most reliable on terms of function, and it gets the job done down range, and its also the most cost effective round for their purposes.

The fact that the military issues "special" weapons and ammo to some of its Special Operations Groups has no impact on general service arms and ammo.

Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because some characteristics of a certain load make it measurably slightly superior to other ammo, on an individual round comparison, that doesn't mean it is significantly and constantly superior all the time.

The military's goal is the mission. What ever resources are needed to do that are used, and expended at need, including troops.

My goal, is protecting my person, and at most, those close to me, something quite different from the military, and much of what they do, doesn't apply to me, and some of what they do is entirely wrong for me to do.

The OP's question was answered early in this thread, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. The several pages after have been people expounding on the how, when, and why this happens, or why they think it happens, and responses to those posts.

I'm done here. Have fun, play nice, see ya!

[davidsog]

The fact that the military issues "special" weapons and ammo to some of its Special Operations Groups has no impact on general service arms and ammo.

Of course it does have a huge impact. We are all United States servicemembers and bound by the same laws, treaties, and pacts. Additionally, Anything Special Operations adopts, the Regular Army will be using it about a decade later.

[2damnold4this]

Don't care about consistent performance..

That's quite the straw argument. Clearly the DoD cares enough about the inconsistent performance of ball ammo that it spent a lot of money to find out why it's inconsistent.

No federal law enforcement agency issues military ball ammo because there are better options for CQB. The FBI was able to figure this out and, unlike the paper you keep citing, doesn't make BS claims that there are no better options than M855 ball in 2006.

Doctor Roberts participated in the research for the paper you keep citing and strongly disagrees with its conclusions and questions why some 300 or so pages weren't published.

You've chosen to believe that the paper's conclusion that there were no better COTS options than M855 ball for CQB on unarmored, front facing threats. Roberts says this conclusion is wrong, and I think Roberts is obviously correct.

I get that the Army might have different needs than law enforcement, home defenders, or hunters. Law enforcement, home defenders, hunters and other civilian users of 5.56 cartridges don't need a bullet that defeats a mild steel plate at 500 yards, is supersonic at a certain range, is Hague compliant, lead free, or works well in an M249. But pretending that there weren't better commercial options for cqb at unarmored front facing targets than m855 ball is dishonest.

[2damnold4this]

44AMP:

The OP's question was answered early in this thread, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. The several pages after have been people expounding on the how, when, and why this happens, or why they think it happens, and responses to those posts.

I'm done here. Have fun, play nice, see ya!

That's a wise post. I will join you in being done here.

[Road_Clam]

Ive actually extracted fired handgun projectiles from icy snow pack at my gun club and the bullets are in perfect condition with light rifling indentations into the copper . Really interesting at how water / snow slush can decelerate a fired round .

[davidsog]

That's quite the straw argument.

Sarcasm....It's a form of humor.

I appreciate your lengthy reply to it though. Makes me think you are little too worked up on this topic. Take a break.

[robin banks]

the only time I saw a 5.56 fmj bullet breakup just a little is after it went thru an elephant longways from the chest to the rear end

[rickt300]

Just noticed this thread. Way back in the late sixties I handled the new wonder round and the M16A1 a bit. The fmj itself in that era issue ammo had a very thin jacket. The cannelure was deep enough you could see lead all the way around the bullet. Of course the base was also open. I believe that era's bullet did tumble quickly due to the twist rate and did break up pretty often due to the thin jackets.

[thallub]

Deleted- duplicate.

[Double Naught Spy]

the only time I saw a 5.56 fmj bullet breakup just a little is after it went thru an elephant longways from the chest to the rear end

More sarcasm, I see.