Johan_D 0 Posted December 29, 2002 All about hollow point bullets.. the ins and outs. Who know what they can do from expirience (military,police) and the damage they can create? Johan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madmedic 0 Posted December 29, 2002 Well....to put it in layman terms: Hollow points will expand more on impact (or "mushroom"), and fragment more in some cases... causing greater damage via a larger temporary cavity through the flesh, and greater absorbtion of the impact by the target. They generally have greater "stopping power", making them good for hunting, and personal protection. Against cover or body armor, however...they will generally have less penetration than the same round in full metal jacket. There are also "soft point" rounds, which have metal jacketing around the sides of the projectile, but the tip is bare lead. These bullets are also designed to "mushroom", and are made for hunting. There are exceptions...and different conditions where a bullet might not perform as designed. edited to add: I dont know if this is still true...but I am pretty sure that it is/was against the Geneva convention to use hollow points in battle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Fubar 0 Posted December 29, 2002 This page has some very detailed info... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted December 29, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Johan_D @ Dec. 29 2002,02:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All about hollow point bullets.. the ins and outs. Who know what they can do from expirience (military,police) and the damage they can create? Johan<span id='postcolor'> I think they hurt a lot Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted December 29, 2002 It's not the Geneva Convention, it's the Hague Accords of 1899... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madmedic 0 Posted December 29, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Dec. 29 2002,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not the Geneva Convention, it's the Hague Accords of 1899...<span id='postcolor'> Geneva,...Hague,...whatever At any rate, the military is not supposed to use hollow points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Snrub 0 Posted December 29, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At any rate, the military is not supposed to use hollow points.<span id='postcolor'> Although you still get people bitching about how police and internal security forces use 'illegal' ammunition without realising that the Hague Declaration only covers military use of hollow-points/expanding ammunition. And even then, I'd imagine that domestic security forces would be pretty reserved about using hollowpoints - if you are shot with one, you probably deserve it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted December 29, 2002 Mr. Snrub is entirely correct. In fact, the Laws and Customs of War on Land as set forth in the Hague Accords only cover armed conflicts between nations -- they do not cover internal conflicts, conflicts with irregular combatants, or police forces. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madmedic 0 Posted December 29, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Dec. 29 2002,06:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mr. Snrub is entirely correct. In fact, the Laws and Customs of War on Land as set forth in the Hague Accords only cover armed conflicts between nations -- they do not cover internal conflicts, conflicts with irregular combatants, or police forces.<span id='postcolor'> I never mentioned police forces...Pretty much ALL law enforcement agencies use hollow point ammo. They would be foolish not to. (If they are in a situation where they have to start shooting...they need to have the ability to STOP the bad guy as quickly as possible) I keep my H&K, and my SIG loaded with Federal ++P Hydra-Shok JHP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Itchy 0 Posted December 29, 2002 And don't forget, police officers do not want bullets passing through anyone they shoot, possibly endangering innocents. They are more concerned with protecting them than anyone they are forced to fire upon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Renagade 0 Posted December 29, 2002 I remember a show that had some footage of the equivelent of the rspca in america and thy had hollow points in thier gun The only exprience i`ve had of hollow points werre the airgun ones which splatted into cornflake like shapes when hitting toy soldiers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Snrub 0 Posted December 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Dec. 29 2002,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I never mentioned police forces...Pretty much ALL law enforcement agencies use hollow point ammo. They would be foolish not to. (If they are in a situation where they have to start shooting...they need to have the ability to STOP the bad guy as quickly as possible)<span id='postcolor'> Just in case you misunderstood, I wasn't challenging your argument, just adding to it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted December 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mr. Snrub @ Dec. 29 2002,21:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Dec. 29 2002,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I never mentioned police forces...Pretty much ALL law enforcement agencies use hollow point ammo. They would be foolish not to. (If they are in a situation where they have to start shooting...they need to have the ability to STOP the bad guy as quickly as possible)<span id='postcolor'> Just in case you misunderstood, I wasn't challenging your argument, just adding to it <span id='postcolor'> Ditto! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johan_D 0 Posted December 31, 2002 Can someone explain what happens when someone is shot from close range, from the front in the skull, and from the back. Has the bullet so much energy that is passes thru? or does it completly (from front entry) remove the back of the skull? Please someone with real life expirience in these. I will reveal later in what kind of research I am in regarding these questions. Johan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madmedic 0 Posted December 31, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Johan_D @ Dec. 31 2002,17:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can someone explain what happens when someone is shot from close range, from the front in the skull, and from the back. Has the bullet so much energy that is passes thru? or does it completly (from front entry) remove the back of the skull? Please someone with real life expirience in these. I will reveal later in what kind of research I am in regarding these questions. Johan.<span id='postcolor'> that depends on the calibre. I have responded to several suicides that involved self inflicted gun shot wounds to the head...most of them were small calibre (mainly 9mm, .380, 25ACP, and 22cal) Two of them used 38spcl, and one used a 30 06 rifle to the roof of the mouth. The rifle was the only one that had major exit wounding. The others had various levels of exit wounds ranging from no exit wound (sometimes it just looks like the person has a mis-shaped skull, and sometimes the head looks perfectly intact except for the entrance wound), to fist sized, jagged holes with exposed brain matter. I am only speaking of cases that I personally have responded to, and it does not mean that these are the only way a GSW to the head will look. Just curious...why do you ask? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DracoPaladore 0 Posted January 2, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Dec. 29 2002,06:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mr. Snrub is entirely correct. In fact, the Laws and Customs of War on Land as set forth in the Hague Accords only cover armed conflicts between nations -- they do not cover internal conflicts, conflicts with irregular combatants, or police forces.<span id='postcolor'> I hate to sound stupid, but what exactly is a "irregular combatant"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madmedic 0 Posted January 2, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DracoPaladore @ Jan. 02 2003,03:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate to sound stupid, but what exactly is a "irregular combatant"?<span id='postcolor'> Basically it means people who are not part of an organized military forces. In Viet Nam, the NVA soldiers were "NVA Regulars", and the Viet Cong guerillas were "VC irregulars". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DracoPaladore 0 Posted January 2, 2003 Oh. Thank you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted January 2, 2003 That's not a stupid question at all. Below is an excellent description of what an irregular combatant is, and what the ramifications are (taken from http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/irregulars.html): Irregulars By Ewen Allison The term irregular is often used to describe a combatant who belongs to a paramilitary group, militia, volunteer corps, organized resistance movement, or rebel force. Irregulars are frequently part-time combatants who do not wear a uniform or carry arms openly when on active duty. However, irregulars can also be part of a country’s armed forces, as they are in Switzerland, where the army is composed almost entirely of uniformed militias. Irregular is not necessarily a synonym for guerrilla. Guerrillas are fighters distinguished by their use of tactics such as ambushes, sniping, and sabotage. Irregulars might not use such tactics at all, while regular armed forces often do. In internal armed conflicts, the most important characteristic of irregulars is that they prefer to blend into the civilian population and thus, often, endanger civilians as government forces will destroy or otherwise punish entire villages or towns in an attempt to neutralize rebel irregulars. Partisan is commonly used to describe irregulars who resist the occupation of a country by a foreign power—for example, French Maquis in World War II. Partisans might operate inside or outside occupied territory. In international conflicts, irregulars may be considered lawful combatants, entitled to prisoner of war status if they adhere to certain standards. These include that they: distinguish themselves from the civilian population (i.e., look like combatants); carry weapons openly during engagements or deployments; be commanded by a responsible officer and, generally, be expected to comply with international rules relating to armed conflict. Failure to meet these standards can lead to trial and punishment for hostile acts. (Mercenaries, within the legal definition set forth under the 1977 Additional Protocol I, are not entitled to prisoner of war status.) In internal armed conflict there is no prisoner of war status and the government is free to try its armed enemies for treason or other violent acts. Each trial, however, must be in a “regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensible by civilized people†according to Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OxPecker 0 Posted January 2, 2003 Lets argue technicalities - huzzah! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted January 2, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Jan. 01 2003,19:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets argue technicalities - huzzah! Â <span id='postcolor'> I wouldn't consider the difference between a regular and a irregular combatant a technicality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
//relic// 0 Posted January 3, 2003 I have nfi about ballistics - I don't have any first hand knowledge or training in the area and virtually every site I've seen on the net has a different theory on terminal ballistics. Some say the hydrostatic shock kills Some say regular shock kills Some say it's dependant on the permanent tissue damage and thus the calibre of the weapon Some say hollowpoints are great because they have a lot of stopping power, some say stopping power is a myth Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madmedic 0 Posted January 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (//relic// @ Jan. 03 2003,01:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have nfi about ballistics - I don't have any first hand knowledge or training in the area and virtually every site I've seen on the net has a different theory on terminal ballistics. Some say the hydrostatic shock kills Some say regular shock kills Some say it's dependant on the permanent tissue damage and thus the calibre of the weapon Some say hollowpoints are great because they have a lot of stopping power, some say stopping power is a myth <span id='postcolor'> Thats because ballistics is not an "exact" science There are many variables that can change Stopping power is NOT a myth,...but it is also not an absolute given Hollow points definitely do more damage (if the conditions are right for them to expand)... Give me a minute to finish off some emails...and I will provide a link to a very good ammunition FAQ. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madmedic 0 Posted January 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Jan. 03 2003,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (//relic// @ Jan. 03 2003,01:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have nfi about ballistics - I don't have any first hand knowledge or training in the area and virtually every site I've seen on the net has a different theory on terminal ballistics. Some say the hydrostatic shock kills Some say regular shock kills Some say it's dependant on the permanent tissue damage and thus the calibre of the weapon Some say hollowpoints are great because they have a lot of stopping power, some say stopping power is a myth <span id='postcolor'> Thats because ballistics is not an "exact" science There are many variables that can change Stopping power is NOT a myth,...but it is also not an absolute given Hollow points definitely do more damage (if the conditions are right for them to expand)... Give me a minute to finish off some emails...and I will provide a link to a very good ammunition FAQ.<span id='postcolor'> Ahh,...sorry, this is not the FAQ I thought it was, as it is basically focused on 5.56 ammo. But it does have some excellent information on it, It was put together by some people on a firearms site I am a member of: Ammo Oracle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
//relic// 0 Posted January 3, 2003 Interesting read - just makes me wish even more I lived in the US so I could actually learn to use 'real' firearms as opposed to the .22 match pistols I have to use in Aust Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
