Hague... why?

[Fresnel]

So I just ran across something interesting while reading through part of the Hague Convention declarations on a whim...

Quote:

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.

So... why are we not using hollowpoints in Iraq?  

[Man of the Demoneye]

because that would make too much sense  

[Buki_Actual]

I know the problem in Somalia was that they were using the then-new green tip AP rounds and they would go right through the Skinnies  

[Crash Maniac]

look up the Geneva convention document.... JHP is in there. (i believe so) as are a number of other effective ways of intelligence, death and other goodies.  

[Fresnel]

Crash Maniac

look up the Geneva convention document.... JHP is in there. (i believe so) as are a number of other effective ways of intelligence, death and other goodies.

Geneva convention was treatment of prisoners of war. When people talk about the Geneva convention otherwise, they're mistaking it for the Hague convention. The Hague convention is the one that talks about what weapons you can and can't use.  

[uryu ishida]

The sake of consistency, AFAIK. Just like training for SD, you don't train extensively with a revolver and then carry an auto. You do things as consistently as possible, training with the firearm you plan to use and then doing the same things over and over.
It's easier for supply, and for the soldiers, to just issue out a single, universal type of 5.56, with a few exceptions.  

[Fresnel]

uryu ishida

The sake of consistency, AFAIK. Just like training for SD, you don't train extensively with a revolver and then carry an auto. You do things as consistently as possible, training with the firearm you plan to use and then doing the same things over and over.
It's easier for supply, and for the soldiers, to just issue out a single, universal type of 5.56, with a few exceptions.

You'd think consistency would go out the drain when our soldiers are having piss-poor hit-kill ratios. You'd think they'd at least allow private ammo to be loaded into a soldier's M9. I've heard more complaints about the knock-down power of the M9 than I have of the M16.  

[OberFeldwebel]

Fresnel

uryu ishida

The sake of consistency, AFAIK. Just like training for SD, you don't train extensively with a revolver and then carry an auto. You do things as consistently as possible, training with the firearm you plan to use and then doing the same things over and over.
It's easier for supply, and for the soldiers, to just issue out a single, universal type of 5.56, with a few exceptions.

You'd think consistency would go out the drain when our soldiers are having piss-poor hit-kill ratios. You'd think they'd at least allow private ammo to be loaded into a soldier's M9. I've heard more complaints about the knock-down power of the M9 than I have of the M16.

It's a 9mm.
They should have never abstained from the 1911 in .45.

Hell, if they don't want 1911s anymore the SIG 220 comes in .45 ACP.  

[Fresnel]

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

uryu ishida

The sake of consistency, AFAIK. Just like training for SD, you don't train extensively with a revolver and then carry an auto. You do things as consistently as possible, training with the firearm you plan to use and then doing the same things over and over.
It's easier for supply, and for the soldiers, to just issue out a single, universal type of 5.56, with a few exceptions.

You'd think consistency would go out the drain when our soldiers are having piss-poor hit-kill ratios. You'd think they'd at least allow private ammo to be loaded into a soldier's M9. I've heard more complaints about the knock-down power of the M9 than I have of the M16.

It's a 9mm.
They should have never abstained from the 1911 in .45.

Hell, if they don't want 1911s anymore the SIG 220 comes in .45 ACP.

They decided to go from big caliber-low capacity to small caliber-high capacity. The M9 is 15+1, the 1911 was only 7+1. A 9mm has plenty of umph to get the job done if you put a decent round in it, not that shitty FMJ stuff the military uses.  

[OberFeldwebel]

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

uryu ishida

The sake of consistency, AFAIK. Just like training for SD, you don't train extensively with a revolver and then carry an auto. You do things as consistently as possible, training with the firearm you plan to use and then doing the same things over and over.
It's easier for supply, and for the soldiers, to just issue out a single, universal type of 5.56, with a few exceptions.

You'd think consistency would go out the drain when our soldiers are having piss-poor hit-kill ratios. You'd think they'd at least allow private ammo to be loaded into a soldier's M9. I've heard more complaints about the knock-down power of the M9 than I have of the M16.

It's a 9mm.
They should have never abstained from the 1911 in .45.

Hell, if they don't want 1911s anymore the SIG 220 comes in .45 ACP.

They decided to go from big caliber-low capacity to small caliber-high capacity. The M9 is 15+1, the 1911 was only 7+1. A 9mm has plenty of umph to get the job done if you put a decent round in it, not that shitty FMJ stuff the military uses.

Alright then.
They should give them, +P, +P+ or some s**t then.

Or can the M9 not handle that?  

[Fresnel]

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

uryu ishida

The sake of consistency, AFAIK. Just like training for SD, you don't train extensively with a revolver and then carry an auto. You do things as consistently as possible, training with the firearm you plan to use and then doing the same things over and over.
It's easier for supply, and for the soldiers, to just issue out a single, universal type of 5.56, with a few exceptions.

You'd think consistency would go out the drain when our soldiers are having piss-poor hit-kill ratios. You'd think they'd at least allow private ammo to be loaded into a soldier's M9. I've heard more complaints about the knock-down power of the M9 than I have of the M16.

It's a 9mm.
They should have never abstained from the 1911 in .45.

Hell, if they don't want 1911s anymore the SIG 220 comes in .45 ACP.

They decided to go from big caliber-low capacity to small caliber-high capacity. The M9 is 15+1, the 1911 was only 7+1. A 9mm has plenty of umph to get the job done if you put a decent round in it, not that shitty FMJ stuff the military uses.

Alright then.
They should give them, +P, +P+ or some s**t then.

Or can the M9 not handle that?

I have heard from a friend in the .mil that the M9 has a tendency to kB! from overuse. The slide cracks in half and catches you in the face on the way back. I wouldn't trust it with +P+. Even so, a frangible round or a hydra-shock or something would certainly have a better kill ratio than the ball they have now. Even if they have to stock up with a s**t-ton of it, they can use it on the next war we have against a Hague non-signer. The Taliban never signed, the Somalians never signed, the VC, the NVA, the North Koreans... I'd bet the last time we fought an enemy that signed the Hague convention was WW2.  

[uryu ishida]

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

uryu ishida

The sake of consistency, AFAIK. Just like training for SD, you don't train extensively with a revolver and then carry an auto. You do things as consistently as possible, training with the firearm you plan to use and then doing the same things over and over.
It's easier for supply, and for the soldiers, to just issue out a single, universal type of 5.56, with a few exceptions.

You'd think consistency would go out the drain when our soldiers are having piss-poor hit-kill ratios. You'd think they'd at least allow private ammo to be loaded into a soldier's M9. I've heard more complaints about the knock-down power of the M9 than I have of the M16.

It's a 9mm.
They should have never abstained from the 1911 in .45.

Hell, if they don't want 1911s anymore the SIG 220 comes in .45 ACP.

They decided to go from big caliber-low capacity to small caliber-high capacity. The M9 is 15+1, the 1911 was only 7+1. A 9mm has plenty of umph to get the job done if you put a decent round in it, not that shitty FMJ stuff the military uses.

The ORIGINAL Colt design for his magazine was 7. NOW it's 8 for the standard, +1 in the tube.  

[Crash Maniac]

Fresnel

Crash Maniac

look up the Geneva convention document.... JHP is in there. (i believe so) as are a number of other effective ways of intelligence, death and other goodies.

Geneva convention was treatment of prisoners of war. When people talk about the Geneva convention otherwise, they're mistaking it for the Hague convention. The Hague convention is the one that talks about what weapons you can and can't use.

ah... my misunderstanding. biggrin  

[OberFeldwebel]

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

uryu ishida

The sake of consistency, AFAIK. Just like training for SD, you don't train extensively with a revolver and then carry an auto. You do things as consistently as possible, training with the firearm you plan to use and then doing the same things over and over.
It's easier for supply, and for the soldiers, to just issue out a single, universal type of 5.56, with a few exceptions.

You'd think consistency would go out the drain when our soldiers are having piss-poor hit-kill ratios. You'd think they'd at least allow private ammo to be loaded into a soldier's M9. I've heard more complaints about the knock-down power of the M9 than I have of the M16.

It's a 9mm.
They should have never abstained from the 1911 in .45.

Hell, if they don't want 1911s anymore the SIG 220 comes in .45 ACP.

They decided to go from big caliber-low capacity to small caliber-high capacity. The M9 is 15+1, the 1911 was only 7+1. A 9mm has plenty of umph to get the job done if you put a decent round in it, not that shitty FMJ stuff the military uses.

Alright then.
They should give them, +P, +P+ or some s**t then.

Or can the M9 not handle that?

I have heard from a friend in the .mil that the M9 has a tendency to kB! from overuse. The slide cracks in half and catches you in the face on the way back. I wouldn't trust it with +P+. Even so, a frangible round or a hydra-shock or something would certainly have a better kill ratio than the ball they have now. Even if they have to stock up with a s**t-ton of it, they can use it on the next war we have against a Hague non-signer. The Taliban never signed, the Somalians never signed, the VC, the NVA, the North Koreans... I'd bet the last time we fought an enemy that signed the Hague convention was WW2.

Ah, so their alloy frames are fickle too.

Another reason to go back to the 1911.
Or you know, something with a steel frame.
*cough*SIG*cough*

Oh, excuse me.

But seriously, a SIG 2XX in 9mm has 10 or 15 rnd magazines, steel frame, a rail, f***ing night sights, was designed for the US Army (at least the 226 was).

The only fault that hit the SIG was the Nitron Finish, some batches were ******** up and could cause damage because of offset measurements or what have you.
They've fixed that now I believe.  

[Fresnel]

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

It's a 9mm.
They should have never abstained from the 1911 in .45.

Hell, if they don't want 1911s anymore the SIG 220 comes in .45 ACP.

They decided to go from big caliber-low capacity to small caliber-high capacity. The M9 is 15+1, the 1911 was only 7+1. A 9mm has plenty of umph to get the job done if you put a decent round in it, not that shitty FMJ stuff the military uses.

Alright then.
They should give them, +P, +P+ or some s**t then.

Or can the M9 not handle that?

I have heard from a friend in the .mil that the M9 has a tendency to kB! from overuse. The slide cracks in half and catches you in the face on the way back. I wouldn't trust it with +P+. Even so, a frangible round or a hydra-shock or something would certainly have a better kill ratio than the ball they have now. Even if they have to stock up with a s**t-ton of it, they can use it on the next war we have against a Hague non-signer. The Taliban never signed, the Somalians never signed, the VC, the NVA, the North Koreans... I'd bet the last time we fought an enemy that signed the Hague convention was WW2.

Ah, so their alloy frames are fickle too.

Another reason to go back to the 1911.
Or you know, something with a steel frame.
*cough*SIG*cough*

Oh, excuse me.

But seriously, a SIG 2XX in 9mm has 10 or 15 rnd magazines, steel frame, a rail, f***ing night sights, was designed for the US Army (at least the 226 was).

The only fault that hit the SIG was the Nitron Finish, some batches were ******** up and could cause damage because of offset measurements or what have you.
They've fixed that now I believe.

I actually ran across a military designation for the 228 earlier today. It's officially the M11 pistol. Used by Air Marshals, the USCG, Immigration, the DIA, the Secret Service, the National Park service, and the Navy SEALs.

EDIT: ooh, says here that the 228 and the Beretta 92 were direct competitors in the bid to replace the 1911, and were the only two to complete the trials satisfactorily. The 92 was chosen because two 228s broke during the trials, and the 92 had a cheaper package price (including magazines and spare parts). The SEALs opted to go for the 228 after several "catastrophic slide failures" with M9s.