:: Bersa Talk ::

With every one talking about JHP ammo for self defence, why does the military use FMJ in 9mm.  I'm guessing the obvious would be penetration.  The argument I hear is that JHP will go right through the target most likely, and that it lacks in "stopping power".  So I'm thinking two holes,  one shot, more bleading, equals more death on the battle field.  Now the JHP on the other hand one hole, one shot, probably get the bullet stuck inside you, bigger hole, greater internal bleeding, I would think this would be the more deadly round.  Now as far as i have heard a 9mm FMJ isn't going to penetrate body armour much better than the JHP, just not sufficiant power to do so, and the JHP does more damage to an unarmoured enemy.

I don't know, what do you guys think.  It sounds silly to me, but I'm probably missing something along the way.  Or am I wrong all together and they do have a JHP and I haven't heard about it.

---

If you do not know what your rights are, you do not have them.

NATO mandates the use of FMJ so it hopefully doesn't kill the victim.  Their hope is the FMJ will temporarily disable the victim but not kill them and therefore less war deaths will result. 

I thought it was mandated by the Geneva Convention.

---

p-t-max

I'm no expert, I'm just, well---opinionated!

http://blog648.blogspot.com/

Mandated by Geneva Convention, NATO subscribes to Geneva Convention

During my 32 year military career, I was taught the reason for FMJ rounds was to wound. Wounding caused 1 or 2 troops to take care of the individual who was wounded, thus more troops out of action. Dead personnel were left on the ground until after the action.

---

U. S. Navy Retired
Colt Single short 22LR Target Pistol (1925)
Colt l903 .32 Caliber
Keltec P32
Bersa 380
XD 9 MM SC
Smith and Wesson Model 36 38 special

Regardless of whether the strategy is to wound or to kill, the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of hollow-point ammunition.

---

http://www.yourweapons.com/

I would rather not be shot be either!

Didn't the FMJ tumble when shot from the M16?  When shot into the human body, didn't it tumbled around, exiting from a different part of the body?

---

I'll keep my guns, freedom and money. You keep the *change*.

Geneva Convention  has nothing to do with it  Was the Hague Convention  1899   .  Oh since were not in a offical war I understand some times HP  authorized for special missions.   Note follow the link also . It says nothing about HP or the so call Dum Dum bullets.  And these agreements are onty binding on those that signed   I don't think we signed

 

The Avalon Project at Yale Law School

Laws of War :
Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

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.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.

A proces-verbal shall be drawn up on the receipt of each ratification, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.

The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Declaration, and have affixed their seals thereto.

Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and of which copies, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.

[Signatures]

---

Bersa Thunder,
PPK/S,
1990 Colt Mustang,
380 Kel Tec
380's Rule

"Just say "Lay A Way"

"WWJBD" What Would James Bond Do?

"Hokey religions and plastic glocks are no match for a good 1911 at your side, kid."

MikLaw:

Didn't the FMJ tumble when shot from the M16?  When shot into the human body, didn't it tumbled around, exiting from a different part of the body?

The orginal M-16 the bullet didn't tumble in flight but was somewhat unstable . It supposely would  up set when it hit the body and tumble . However the rifle was not accurate at distance. So military changed the rate of twist to stable the round. Now we had a more accurate round but lost it damaging effect.  Then we changed twist again so could be even more accurate and hit and go thru a helment at 500 meters.( Nam was close up  Sandbox wars are fought sometimes at distance We learned this in manuvers in Egypt in late 70's or early 80's) ) I belive this was also a NATO thing.  An way a bullet must be very stable in flight to hit like that at 500 meters. So across the street fight round is makeing a clean hole .

 So now we need to redesign the bullet . It now fragmets as it goes thru the body above a certain FPS That has helped but still not the best.  Now the Military and all its wise thinking does this Then goes to M-4 with a shorter barrel  reducing the FPS and distance the round can be depended on to frag..  One of the troubles is you might be hitting you target and seeing no responce He runs off and dies. You either think you missed or round wasn't doing job.  Could have been either .

We got rid of the M-14  because of weight of rifle  and 10 loaded 20 round mags. (200 rounds was basic load when I went in). . The M-16 gave us a lighter rifle and ability to carry twice the ammo.

 Today rifles with all the added junk , 40mm launcher,  fancy sights, and other do dads have put the weight back to the weight of a M-14  So were carring same weight rifle that has a less effective round and limited to a 3 round burst in stead of Full auto(note m-14 on full auto was a beast and only few issued . I had one used auto ONCE).  Add the body armor  basic load and other equipment  and todays trooper is packing more than  a 60-70's  solider .  The M-60  7.62 was replaced as the squad auto weapon by the  5.56 SAW I belive called Model# 204 . This could be belt fed or fed with Mags as is also 5.56 Weight is again amost the same as a M-60 . Only saving is weight of ammo   7.62  will blow thru things that 5.56 won't.  My son during war hated when he had to dismount and fight with his SAW . He perfered to stay mounted behind his 50cal. Browning machine gun . 50 cal bullet beats 5.56 any time.

 

 

 

 

---

Bersa Thunder,
PPK/S,
1990 Colt Mustang,
380 Kel Tec
380's Rule

"Just say "Lay A Way"

"WWJBD" What Would James Bond Do?

"Hokey religions and plastic glocks are no match for a good 1911 at your side, kid."

Thanks for the lesson MT!  So you're saying that I don't want an M4? LOL.  Here in Kaliforkinya, we can no longer buy an assymbled ready to fire AR15, we have to build it.  Buy the lower at the dealer and go from there.

---

I'll keep my guns, freedom and money. You keep the *change*.

But as I remember you lowers can't except a mag.  Must be loaded from top.  Seems, be a pain to load and shoot and only 10 rounds.  Opening and closeing reciver .

These are legal  Ca AR-15   several companys make  So I sure dealer can get you one.

http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/programming/expand.asp?Prodid=213 

Google is your  friend

---

Bersa Thunder,
PPK/S,
1990 Colt Mustang,
380 Kel Tec
380's Rule

"Just say "Lay A Way"

"WWJBD" What Would James Bond Do?

"Hokey religions and plastic glocks are no match for a good 1911 at your side, kid."

Thanks for the link...

I'd rather opt for the Kel-tec SU-16CA, which still uses removable 10 round mags.  Not as cool looking, but from the few I've seen at the range, they shoot as well as the typical AR15.  Less money too.

---

I'll keep my guns, freedom and money. You keep the *change*.

Me, I'd take the Ruger Mini 30 any day.  I had one I carried on duty (mine) when I was a Deputy.  I also took a nice 8 point mule deer with it as well.  Was a good rifle.  I handloaded it with Hornaday .308 pistol bullets.  They had a thinner wall, and they would expand a whole lot better.

 

---

Vern
http://vernsdidj.com Didgeridoo info and pictures
NRA member
Taurus 24/7 PRO .45 ACP, Bersa Thunder .380

"There are 10 kinds of people in the world. those that understand binary and those that do not."

Your assessment of the 5.56 round is about right.  There may be better rounds available, and there is a lot of talk about a new rifle built around a slightly larger round while keeping the basic AR design, but the vast majority of insurgents who were hit with one or more rounds of 5.56 found it to be effective.

Remember, though that the SAW is not a replacement for the M-60.  That would be the M-240G (the 240 Golf) which uses the 7.62 round in a more accurate and reliable platform.

---

Be polite, be professional, have plan to kill everyone you meet.