BREAKING: U.S. Army Switching to Hollow Point Ammunition
By Robert Farago on July 8, 2015
Sources tell TTAG that the United States Army is switching from ball to hollow-point ammunition for its next generation handgun. The Army dropped the bombshell yesterday at the Modular Handgun System Industry Day in Picatinny, New Jersey. The event was held as part of the Army's procurement process to replace the Beretta M9 handgun and the ammunition used for the gun. After making the announcement, an Army lawyer mounted the stage to mount a defense for the switch hollow-points . . .
The U.S. did not agree to a ban on expanding ammo by international treaty. And the the Army's prepared to defend the decision in the court of international law and opinion. His core argument: countries that will denounce the use of hollow-point use the hollow points for their police forces.
The Army said it will rely on FBI data to evaluate bids for the new ammunition. It also said that it knows it will get heat for the move, but claimed the administration supported the change at the highest levels at the Department of Defense. In other words, this is as close to a done deal as it can get without a signed contract.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/robert-farago/breaking-u-s-army-switching-to-hollow-point-ammunition/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/07/robert-farago/breaking-u-s-army-switching-to-hollow-point-ammunition/)
What is going to take the place of the Beretta M9 ?
I had a tour of Picatinny Arsenal this past May.
They mentioned a lot of different ammo developments, but not this. Interesting.
From what I understand, hollowpoint and soft point (rifle) rounds can be used against terrorist combatants because the Hague treaty covers conventional soldiers but not terrorists.
Quote from: The_Shadow on July 08 2015 05:29:23 PM MDT
His core argument: countries that will denounce the use of hollow-point use the hollow points for their police forces.
That statement must have come direct from military intelligence.
.
4949shooter,
The ban on hollow points and soft points, Hague Treaty, etc., came to my mind instantly. Hague covering conventional soldiers but not terrorists, may be correct, but in the short article Shadow posted, it doesn't mention anywhere that HP's would only be used by personnel facing terrorists.
Sam
Quote from: SHOOT1SAM on July 09 2015 10:59:20 AM MDT
4949shooter,
The ban on hollow points and soft points, Hague Treaty, etc., came to my mind instantly. Hague covering conventional soldiers but not terrorists, may be correct, but in the short article Shadow posted, it doesn't mention anywhere that HP's would only be used by personnel facing terrorists.
Sam
Sam, you are correct about the article. You make a good point. Makes me wonder if the hollowpoints will be used only in the middle east or will be adopted as standard for the Army going forward in all theaters.
I know police use them, but I wonder why they chose hollow point over something like flatnose softpoint which would provide some of the additional penetration the military seems to always want.
If they want a bigger hole, go back to the 45. Or stop part way at the 10mm.
I thought there was talk of a 40 for the military a while back.
QuoteSam, you are correct about the article. You make a good point. Makes me wonder if the hollowpoints will be used only in the middle east or will be adopted as standard for the Army going forward in all theaters.
Proposed to be used only on American citizens :(
They may have problems with this since it has been accepted by All Signatories that by 'Abiding' by the Rules of the Conventions, even if you did not ratify the Convention (in this case, the Ammo Ban and the US) the Country was still Bound by it as decided during the War Crimes trials after WWII. Basically, since the US has been abiding by the Ban, it can not change it's position just because it did not Ratify that paeticular part of the Convention.
Here is what I remember:
The 45 was chosen because it was the minimum bullet diameter that supplied sufficient knockdown using ball ammo.
But now that we have sissified the military with the 9mm, we must utilize modern powders and bullets to maintain stopping power.
Makes sense to me.
I predict they will ban the sidearm and issue pepper spray.
Maybe we can just ban the Iraq flag. And Iran, and Cuban, etc. Problems solved.
In fairness, the 45 was chosen to replace the M1892 Colt in 38 long colt. The 38 long Colt fired a .361" 125 grain bullet at a mere 772 fps. That is a long way from the 1300-1400 a modern 9mm makes.
When the gun failed to perform against drug fueled Moro warriors defending their homes turf, they rushed SAA's and Colt M1902's both chambered for 45 colt to the theatre of battle. These loads were 230-250 grain bullets at 800-1000 fps depending on the source you reference. In either case they were WAY more powerful than the 38 Long Colt.
I find it hard to indict the 9mm Nato on the basis that it is about the same diameter as the 38 Long Colt. That said, I still pick a 10, and then 45 over 9mm.
I really wonder if this opens the door for something smaller like FN five.seven. You've got to think that US Mil is going to want something that can combat Chinese and RU soldiers wearing body armor, even other combatants wearing what is (EDIT) now cheap and available body armor. Stopping .45 really isn't much of a challenge...
223 beats the five-seven when going against armor. And a soldier wearning a plate isn't gonna be phased by five-seven to the chest. Head though....
But what would be carried in .223 for a handgun?
Who goes into battle against regular army forces with a handgun?
A handgun is a last ditch weapon that is used to fight your way to the nearest rifle. I personally have never seen the allure of the fiveSeven and still don't. If you want a handgun that has the velocity to punch through cheap armor, I would suggest a 9X25 here in the 10mm forum. Same velocity, almost twice the sectional density.
Granted it isn't a mainstream cartridge, but if I am picking one that would be my edict.
Um, people that carry handguns in country? It might not be their primary weapon, but they'd have it.
The allure of the five.seven isn't that it can go through armor, it's that it can wound as well as 9mm, AND go through armor, is good out to distances a handgun round could in any reasonable way be expected to hit at (where .45 is not), AND can be fired by women and less beefy armed soldiers. That the same round can be used in a P90 like weapon, which is perfect for those whose MOS is putting them primarily in tanks, trucks, airframes, etc. and it just gets beter.
The question is: What do other handgun rounds do that five.seven doesn't with the requirement they must be at least as effective as the current 9mm ball AND be able to be fired effectively by women and less large soldiers given the same training levels (because we know the Gov isn't going to spend more, they're looking to save $ not spend more)?
It's not 9x25, or 10mm, or .45. I don't even own a five.seven, probably never will, and even I can admit the round solves pretty much all the Mil's concerns - with PERHAPS the exception of suppression and flash blindness at night, along with loudness of report, especially in rooms instead of out in the open. They'd have to test that out and see what the detriments are...
The question that really needs to be asked is:
"What has changed behind the scenes that the US Military no longer wants to share or rely on NATO ammunition supplies?"
Back when the US switched from the .45 to 9mm it was due MORE to all of the joint training and operations being performed with other NATO forces. The US was having to bring in all of it's .45 ammo rather than being able to share supplies with the Local force they were training with. Since so many joint forces and UN Peacekeeping operations were happening, by utilizing the 9mm, available ammo was now prevalent in any operation. The US could tap Euro ammo suppliers for that they could not previously use because the .45 was not a round those factories produced.
So what has changed?
Another thing has dawned on me that I hadn't latched onto previously. Several NATO countries who were signatories of the Conventions banning AP ammo in handguns are utilizing the 5.7 round. The Military version of which has a steel penetrator that the civilian round does not. That makes the round an intended AP design. They are therefore in violation of the Conventions when loading it in the FiveseveN. It could be that since AP rounds like the 5.7 are only AP against armor, but act like an FMJ on soft targets, it is beleived that the technology advances in ammo have surpassed the intent of the Conventions.
The idea that FMJ's being more "humane" has always left me scratching my head!? Isn't the point of shooting at an enemy to kill or mame?
This sound like an idea born in the bowels of lunatic liberals??????? :o
Pat
Quote from: Buckeye 50 on July 20 2015 06:04:31 PM MDT
The idea that FMJ's being more "humane" has always left me scratching my head!? Isn't the point of shooting at an enemy to kill or mame?
You have to think back to the types of bullets available at the times of the Conventions. You also have to consider their thought process as the ban relates to pistol ammo. Pistols were more likely going to be found in and around Officers and Rear Echelon types. By Banning AP ammo, it would help cut down on Officer Fatalities. Shooting an Officer in a rear echelon position was considered disgraceful. They didn't want someone walking up to an Officer's Command car with a pistol and being able to shoot him through the door.
I Think .40 loaded with Federals 165 grain HST would be a great load for the army. I of course would love it if they used 10mm but that seems more like a dream than a reality. Lol, Federals 180 grain JSP 10mm would be a beast. That's the one they should use.