It's a war crime to use hollow point bullets in battle, but police are allowed to use them

[PrinceHakeem]

Why don't people talk more about this? Shooting a hollow point into a person compared to regular ammo could really be the difference between life and death. Maybe some of these situations wouldn't be fatal.

[Phoenix61]

1. It's not a warm crime to use hollow point bullets.

The US military uses them.

[Kaleva]

2. Where do you get your info from?

"Section 6.5.4.4 of the DOD manual, “Expanding Bullets,” states that “[t]he law of war does not prohibit the use of bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body.” Hollow point bullets “are only prohibited if they are calculated to cause superfluous injury.” The manual goes on to provide three reasons why expanding bullets are lawful for use in armed conflict:

(1) The 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets “only creates obligations for Parties to the Declaration in international armed conflicts in which all the parties to the conflict are also Parties to the Declaration” (the United States is not Party to the Declaration).

(2) The Defense Department determined in a 2013 review that the 1899 Declaration does not reflect customary international law.

(3) Expanding bullets as manufactured today are not “inherently inhumane or needlessly cruel.”"

https://www.justsecurity.org/25200/dod-law-war-manual-returns-hollow-point-bullets-armed-conflict/

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

4. They sound scary don't ya know

Good information

[Klaralven]

3. Hollow point bullets are more easily stopped by walls, etc.

They reduce the danger to others in the vicinity, e.g. the next room or apartment.

[multigraincracker]

6. Knew a cop that had a hollow point bounce off the chin of a pit bull.

In Detroit a few years ago they were having problem with service rounds not penetrating heavy winter coats.

The nasty ones for humans and animals are the 223 military rounds as they are meant to tumble on impact, causing terrible wounds. The rounds used in assault rifles. Those do need to be banned for civilian use.

[Kaleva]

8. Military doesn't use .223 Remington. They use 5.56mm NATO

While one can fire a .223 from a rifle chambered for 5.56mm NATO, the reverse is not true as the 5.56mm NATO is a more powerful round and could damage the gun chambered for .223 Remington and possibly injure the shooter.

I'm unaware of any military in the world that uses the .223 Remington.

[multigraincracker]

9. Are they also designed to tumble on impact?

That's what I thought, but not that familiar military rounds.

[Kaleva]

10. Lightweight bullets fired at high velocities can begin to yaw and come apart at impact

This is an inherent property of all lightweight bullets.

[DVRacer]

12. Not by design

The M193 55gr 5.56 NATO could do that but not by design.
Those really have not been used since the early 80’s. They were replaced by the M855 62gr green tip and those didn’t really tumble as they had a steel tip. The M855 has been replaced itself with the M855A1 that has a tungsten tip even less tumble with Spec Ops and others using the Mk262 77gr. The myth of tumbling by design is not true.

[Kaleva]

13. Agree. The tumbling effect wasn't designed into the bullet.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

14. Bullets fired from an AR15 or any other assault weapon are not special

They are no more dangerous then other rifle cartridges and are typically less powerful then calibers used by hunting rifles. 5.56mm/.223 are banned for deer hunting in some states specifically because they are not powerful enough to reliably kill a deer. The tumbling thing is a myth, and getting hit with any rifle caliber bullet is going to be devastating regardless of what gun it was fired from.

[krispos42]

19. They were not originally meant to, it was a side effect of the design.

But it only happens when the bullet velocity is very high, within the first hundred yards or so. Sudden slowing of the bullet as it enters flesh (and possibly hits bone) causes it to tumble and even break up into smaller pieces.

I believe this feature is lost in the military because they went to heavier but slightly slower bullets. Also many soldiers and Marines carry the shorter-barreled M-4 rifle, which loses even more muzzle velocity.



Of course, they also make expanding-tip bullets in .223. Lightweight ones for varmints, heavier and stronger ones for deer. Or people.

They're supposed to be lethal; that's the whole point.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

20. In addition they're also less likely to exist the body

which also can endanger innocent bystanders.

[sop]

5. The Hague Convention of 1899 prohibited the use in international warfare of bullets that easily

expand or flatten inside the body, but the United States maintains the use of expanding bullets can be legal when there is a clear military necessity. Expanding bullets do produce more damage in human (or animal) tiasue. Videos of expanding bullets being fired into ballistic gelatin are all over the internet, illustrating the large wound cavities created, and the damage done by these bullets.

[Kaleva]

7. And these bullets can be bought on line or in many stores

Ace Hardware in a nearby town has them.

[GulfCoast66]

18. Because it is the only bullet we hunters use.

The goal of a ethical hunter is as quick a death as possible. My deer rifle is vastly more powerful than the 223 with is illegal to use for deer in the state I hunt due being underperforming to reliably kill whitetail deer.

That said, any high velocity rifle causes massive damage.

[Towlie]

11. You should have chosen tear gas to complain about instead of hollow point bullets.

 
←

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_gas#Warfare

Use of tear gas in warfare, as with all other chemical weapons, was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925: it prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials", a treaty that most states have signed. Police and civilian self-defense use is not banned in the same manner.

[sarisataka]

15. As others have pointed out, it is not a war crime.

The military uses rifles as the primary weapon sending a bullet at you traveling 3000 ft/sec or so.

Police and civilians use primarily handguns which shoot bullets at significantly lower speeds, 1000 ft/sec is a rough average.

The shock of the fast moving rifle bullet is often enough to stop a person in one hit. The handgun bullet had much less energy so the hollow point design allows maximum transfer of that energy. The goal is to stop the person in the minimum number of shots. While it is true the hollow point causes a larger wound, it may require shooting a person 4-5 times more with non-hollow point ammo to get the same effect.

Also hollow points are far more likely to stop in the person they hit. Full metal jacket rounds can easily go through the first person and continue on to hit another one or two unintended people.

[cinematicdiversions]

16. You should always use Hollow point bullets for home/personal defense.

It helps prevents the bullet from killing people other than the intended target. Travelling through drywall ect.

I am sorry but this OP is wrong on so many levels. (War Crime.. really?)

[flibbitygiblets]

17. Hey look, you got your wish! More people are talking about hollow point bullets.

(Unfortunately for you, they're talking about how everything you said is completely inaccurate, but hey, they are talking about it.)

Welcome to DU, I guess!

[Kaleva]

22. Had the OP spent a few minutes fact checking, this would have been prevented.

My guess is the OP read this somewhere else and as it reinforced his/her worldview, it wasn't questioned and he didn't bother fact checking it.

The US military uses hollow point ammo and no other nation or international body will ever charge an American for committing a war crime for using such.

[krispos42]

21. That's actually the point.

If the situation has degraded to the point that I need to shoot somebody, I want it it work as fast as possible so that I'll live. I don't want them to die but if that is how it has to be to stop them, well, that's their choice, not mine. Not like I asked to be threatened.