It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9mm Effectiveness in Iraq

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
world.guns.ru...

I'd go with 357 Mag, but in an autoloader, prolly 10mm or .40. Most police forces use .40 , and it's pretty quaint. Hardly what you'd call a massive round. .357 Sig is a freakishly overpowered 9mm, and 10mm is a beast. If I could find a gun that coudl adequately handle the 10mm, I'd take it. It's rough on even the 1911 frame, which says something.

DE



Thanks. I like the idea of a .357 sig for a carrying a concealed lethal 1 shot weapon. A friend of mine had some book that analyzed all these gunfights and the results. Things like what guns, and rounds were used, how many shots fired, the outcome and then his analaysis. I don't remember the exact statistic but it was over 100 incidents where a police officer had used a ..357 sig and only had to fire 1 shot and it was all over. I know that some of the police where I live carry Sig P229's but I'm not sure what they are chambered for?




posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Take my word on it- .357 Mag wheelgun (686, or maybe a Taurus lightweight) with Winchester Silvertip 128 gr. is probably your best bet for a one-shot stop. It's damn accurate, impossibly reliable, and the round is meaty enough to do serious damage without being a total beast to fire.

DE



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
You wont be complaing about the stopping power of the 5.7 x 28 as your 9mms and .45s are being stopped dead by your targets body armour. Those are about as effective as throwing rocks when a enemy is armoured. Actually a rock might be more effective.


Go, rock, GOOOOO!

Query: since when are insurgents wearing body armor? Just wondering, because I'm guessing that 90% of criminals and poor-ass insurgents don't have body armor. Also, while a man in body armor can shrug off (sort of) a hit from a 9mm, the amount of power in the 10mm or .357 will largely reduce the wearer of soft body armor's insides to dog food.


Countries like Iran are stocking up on high tech military gear as fast as they can. NV googles,Body armour, high powered sniper rifles etc.. Body armour is getting cheaper all the time and if you bet on never fighting people with body armour you will be in for a rude awaking sooner or later.

As for your insides turning to dog food after getting hit with a 10mm or 3.57 I doubt it with modern armour. The tech has gotten alot better LVL IV hard armour can stop a .3006 Armor-Piercing round traveling 2,850 fps. Far more energy then any .357 without turning your insides to "dog food"

Ive seen people shot point blank with a .44 mag while wearing lvl III soft armour and not have their insides turned to dog food.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeusExAlso, while a man in body armor can shrug off (sort of) a hit from a 9mm, the amount of power in the 10mm or .357 will largely reduce the wearer of soft body armor's insides to dog food. The blunt trauma works too, you know.


Ballistic trauma plates (specifically the Interceptor) are stopping 7.62x39mm AK rounds on an almost weekly basis in Iraq, the soldiers that get hit aren't even bruised and the AK has about 4 times the energy of a 10mm handgun round. Remember we're talking about body ARMOR here, not bullet resistant vests, with a soft vest like a NIJ II you would probably get a nasty bruise from a 10mm (if it didn't penetrate of course), but that's about all.

And did someone say that the USA hasn't signd the Hague convention - oops. We signed it on 18th October 1907 and it was ratified on 27th November 1909.

Link:

www.icrc.org...

The specific clause that we are subject to is that we will not use ammunition specifically designed to cause excessive injury which is generally accepted to include expanding ammunition in time of war.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Take my word on it- .357 Mag wheelgun (686, or maybe a Taurus lightweight) with Winchester Silvertip 128 gr. is probably your best bet for a one-shot stop. It's damn accurate, impossibly reliable, and the round is meaty enough to do serious damage without being a total beast to fire.

DE


Well there is no such load as a 128gr Silvertip in any weight, you can have a 125 or a 158.

For the definitive breakdown of all the one shot stop statistics in all calibers read here, .357 link provided first, after that just use the drop down menu.

www.handloads.com...

This list is a little out of date since the current top performing round is Remington's 165gr Golden Saber.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T


The specific clause that we are subject to is that we will not use ammunition specifically designed to cause excessive injury which is generally accepted to include expanding ammunition in time of war.


We never ratified this section




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."


Thats what I was talking about and it deals specifically with expanding bullets.

23 September 1985 opinion issued by the Judge Advocate General, authored by W. Hays Parks2, Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch, for the signature of Major Hugh R. Overholt, which stated:




"...expanding point ammunition is legally permissible in counterterrorist operations not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State."


I know they still use the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet as well

On 12 October 1990, another Memorandum of Law from Parks at the request of the Commander of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and coordinated with the Department of State, Army General Counsel, as well as the Offices of the Judge Advocates General of the Navy and Air Force, concluded that:




The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. ... Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United States Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. (The Sierra #2200 BTHP) not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat."



Its not so generally accepted IMHO. Its really a matter of what the US determines is projectiles, or material [sic] calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. Thats very broad and open




www.thegunzone.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Maybe you didn't follow the link.

Hague Convention Section IV 1907 - ratified by the United States on the 27th of November 1909 states:

Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden:
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

There was an earlier convention which may be confusing you (1899) which was not signed by the USA.

This was even in your own link:

Where the U.S. did sign on, however, was with the Hague Convention IV of 1907, Article 23(e) of which Annex states:

"...it is especially forbidden -

To employ arms, projectiles, or material [sic] calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"


Seems pretty straightforward to me, what are you saying about not ratifying it ?

[edit on 24-9-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Im talking about the part that deals with Contracting Parties agreeing to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body. It was right there in my link and the US never ratified it.

We still use hollow points in the US military

[edit on 24-9-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
This is what you said originally:


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
First off the Geneva convention does not deal with weapons Its the ''The Hague Convention'' That dealt with that issue and second the US never ratified it.


And this statement is simply not true because the USA did sign the 1907 Hague Convention on 18/10/07 (and ratified it on 27/11/09). Once again here is the specific link indicating ratification by the USA:

www.icrc.org...



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   
I was talking about it in respect to hollow points, I thought that was clear if you read my whole post. The hague convention covers many different issues.

I was talking about it in respect to expanding bullet (hollow points) and indeed the US never ratified that part



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
The expanding ammunition clause covered by the 1899 treaty was realised to be too narrow a definition, since it is possible to inflict nasty wounds by mechanisms other than expansion, the addition of poison or explosive material in the tip for example, hence the revised treaty of 1907 which expanded the scope by referring to quote "ammunition designed to cause unnecessary suffering".

This definition therefore covers the use of any bullet design designed to deliberately increase wounding effectiveness, which of course includes expanding ammunition, i.e. the 1907 treaty does not exclude expanding ammunition, it includes it in a much wider definition.

The USA is, and has been, prohibited by International Law from using expanding ammunition since 1909 during time of war. Fighting terrorists is a different matter, anything goes.

That was why there was all the fuss about the OTM rounds. It was quite correctly pointed out that the cavity in the tip helps stabilize airflow and therefore accuracy, and does not promote jacket shedding, core separation, or expansion.

Therefore the USA is subject to restrictions on expanding ammunition in wartime and has been subject to the Hague Convention for almost a century.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
The expanding ammunition clause covered by the 1899 treaty was realised to be too narrow a definition, since it is possible to inflict nasty wounds by mechanisms other than expansion, the addition of poison or explosive material in the tip for example, hence the revised treaty of 1907 which expanded the scope by referring to quote "ammunition designed to cause unnecessary suffering".



Yeah that really seems to stop us from using Explosive bullets


Just for example the M230 30mm automatic cannon used on the APACHE. Its uses both the M789 (HEDP) High Explosive Dual Purpose and M799 (HEI) High Explosive Incendiary.

I could link to footage of apaches firing on humans with that weapon aswell. That would seem to cause ''unnecessary suffering'' but we still use it.

The expanding ammunition clause covered by the 1899 which the US never ratified and which you described it as ''Narrow'' is infact very specific and if we signed it there is no way we could used a " bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core" like the match-grade, "open-tip" ammunition which we use. That 1899 clause is very clear that you cant use that type of bullet no matter if calculated to cause suffering or increase accuracy. It would make no difference what it was designed to do it would be banned.

The Hague convention agreement we signed on 1907 is overly broad and full of loop-holes.

[edit on 25-9-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   
30mm weapons are considered cannnons, so use of explosive ammunition is perfectly legal..
Small arms treaties only conserns calibers under 20mm and the use of explosive ammunition is forbidden in small arms but allowed in cannons.
right?



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The expanding ammunition clause covered by the 1899 which the US never ratified and which you described it as ''Narrow'' is infact very specific


"Narrow" is the same as "specific", you're agreeing with me here but don't realise it.


That 1899 clause is very clear that you cant use that type of bullet no matter if calculated to cause suffering or increase accuracy. It would make no difference what it was designed to do it would be banned.


Here I disagree. The Treaty states:

"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 Treaty specifically bans expanding or flattening ammunition and gives examples of mechanisms used to achieve that which happen to include an open tip design. Therefore OTM ammunition, which does not expand or flatten easily, does not fall into this category in the same way that all lead handgun ammunition does not fall into this category. Think about it, all lead ammuntion technically has a totally exposed core, but was still adjudged to be legal under the 1899 Convention because it does not expand or flatten easily.


The Hague convention agreement we signed on 1907


It took a while but we got there.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T


The Hague convention agreement we signed on 1907


It took a while but we got there.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]


Im pretty sure I never stated we didnt sign the 1907 hague agreement. I never tried to argue that point.

Maybe I should have stated the 1899 agreement instead to refering to it as the dealing with hollow points. I thought it was clear which one I was talking about but I guess not.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
www.firearmstactical.com...
This is the wound profile on a .45 FMJ bullet
www.firearmstactical.com...
This is the wound profile of a 9mm FMJ bullet
Not much different, eh?

I would rather have 15 rounds of 9mm in a Beretta then 8 rounds of .45 in a 1911. If the 5.7mm tumbles like advertised then it could easily be a good a killer as the 9mm or .45. The most important factor in killing someone is shot placement, in order to achieve instant death or incapacitation you must hit either the brain or sever the spinal cord. Anyone that takes a 9mm to the chest would probably not have gone down if a .45 hit them instead.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by Kozzy]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
You actually said that the USA never ratified the Hague Convention at all, no mention of which Convention, which suggested that you didn't know there was more than one. Here was where we started:


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
First off the Geneva convention does not deal with weapons Its the ''The Hague Convention'' That dealt with that issue and second the US never ratified it.


Secondly, and more importantly, you suggested that the USA is somehow exempt from the prohibition on expanding ammunition, which is simply not true. This is evidenced by the debate over the OTM rounds, which were finally shown to be non-expanding, and therefore permissable in combat.

I don't generally get into these knock down drag out arguments because they usually boil down to opinions. But our responsibilities and commitments under the Hague Accords of 1907 are clear, the US Military CANNOT use expanding ammunition in time of war.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I load the 7.62mm Sierra Match King boat tailed bullet in 168gr and 190 gr weights in my 30.06 bench rest rifle. It is a very nicely performing bullet...very accurate. I also for the same rifles load the 180gr. Sierra boat tailed spire point. This too is a very nice performer and also accurate.
The Match Kings do not expand out as do the spire points, The spire points being designed with expansion in mind for hunting game.
Great posts Winchester Ranger T. Well done. Always enjoy reading your posts.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Thanks Orangetom, if only the Moderators would agree


Sounds like you really know your handloading, it's a skill I've yet to acquire. Dillon Precision is based here in Phoenix and I believe they offer a factory tour, I need to look into that.

My best to you sir.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
You actually said that the USA never ratified the Hague Convention at all, no mention of which Convention, which suggested that you didn't know there was more than one. Here was where we started:


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
First off the Geneva convention does not deal with weapons Its the ''The Hague Convention'' That dealt with that issue and second the US never ratified it.




I love how you keep cutting off the sentence before that sentence in my qoute.




No just because I hear people all the time say Hollow points are illegal in war because of the ''Geneva convention''. First off the Geneva convention does not deal with weapons Its the ''The Hague Convention'' That dealt with that issue and second the US never ratified it


If thats not clear that I was talking about the hague convention dealing with Hollow tipped bullets nothing is. See another key in that qoute I said the it was Hague convention that dealt with that issue. The convention covered many different issue and I was only talking about one.

Im only aware of one hague convention that specifically mentioned and banned the hollow point bullet and that was in 1899 and never ratified by the US.

The one we did sign in 1907 is not same. Infact the terms "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" have not been formally defined within international law.In determining whether a weapon or projectile causes unnecessary suffering, a balancing test is applied between the force dictated by military necessity to achieve a legitimate objective vis-à-vis suffering that may be considered superfluous to achievement of that intended objective. The test is not easily applied. For this reason, the degree of "superfluous" injury must be clearly disproportionate to the intended objectives for development and employment of the weapon, that is, it must outweigh substantially the military necessity for the weapon system or projectile.

The 1899 convention is vary clear on what is banned and thats the use of bullets that expand or flatten easily in the body.

The U.S. is not a party to the 1899 treaty, but U.S. officials over the years have taken the position that the armed forces of the U.S. will adhere to its terms to the extent that its application is consistent with the object and purpose of Art. 23e of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV. Its a matter of policy not of any binding international contract.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join