hollow point bullets

S

shootsteady

Member
I read recently about hollow point bullets.....

a cavity or hollow in the bullet nose (hollow point) to shift the projectile's centre of gravity rearwards....

Holding the bullet and looking at the hollow point under a magnifing glass, you can see the hole isn't level on certain bulllets manufactures, and Berger is looking real good..

I remember seeing a hollow point uniformer.... does a uniformed hollow point help control the center of gravity?
 
Last edited:
Its called a meplat trimmer and you can get them at Sinclair's
However as to what good it does has been a debated topic.
The general claim is that it only helps the long range shooters.
I am not completely convinced of that but any way.
You can search by using meplat and maybe trimmer.
 
shootsteady said:
I read recently about hollow point bullets.....

a cavity or hollow in the bullet nose (hollow point) to shift the projectile's centre of gravity rearwards....

Holding the bullet and looking at the hollow point under a magnifing glass, you can see the hole isn't level on certain bulllets manufactures, and Berger is looking real good..

I remember seeing a hollow point uniformer.... does a uniformed hollow point help control the center of gravity?
Click to expand...

A hollowed cavity in the nose isn't quite the same as a regular hollow point as in a hunting bullet, though the CG shift can be similar in effect.
Reducing the weight of the front end of a bullet to obtain better performance goes back to the Velopex Express bullets, which were of large caliber compared to weight, and the original intention was to provide more bearing surface compared to the weight of the bullet. Rather than leaving a open space the nose was filled with a wooden plug.
This was developed into the MkVII style bullet for the .303 British, allowing the balistic efficiency of a 215 0r 225 grain match bullet such as the Swift bullet which was taking all the prizes while reducing bullet weight to allow a much higher velocity with the propellants then available. The MkVII had an aluminum nose plug , later on using compressed wood fibers or paper pulp.

The open point Sniper bullets aren't officially a hollow point per se', since the intention is not directed towards expansion of the bullet. The opening is said to produce a tiny bubble of air pushed ahead of the nose to reduce air resistence and smooth out airflow over the bullet.

Among other methods of shifting CG are the ballistic tip bullets with plastic nose plugs not covered by the jacket.

The British had used jacketed hollow point .303 military bullets early on, before the Hague convention,with a heavy round nose bullet, but these showed no increase in efficiency that I know off. The removal of material was too small in relation to the remaining material in the blunt nosed bullets, and the aero-dynamic effect would also have been tiny if any indeed occurred.

PS
I had noticed that the 175 gr .311 MatchKings I obtained recently did not appear to be very even at the open point.
I had intended to ask if there was a way to even these up without adversely affecting the intended purpose of the open point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Old Gunner said:
. . . The open point Sniper bullets aren't officially a hollow point per se', since the intention is not directed towards expansion of the bullet. . .
Click to expand...

The U. S. Government offficially calls sniper bullets an "open tip" design. This is a term coined by the JAG International Law Branch in a 1990 Memorandum intended to provide CYA for the use of the M852 National Match ammunition by snipers. The M852 was loaded with the 168 grain MatchKing. It's interesting that Sierra still calls them HPBT and others who make similar bullets call them HP also. I've always wondered - if a GI with that ammo on his person was captured and hung for violating the Hague & Geneva Conventions - would the JAG accompany him to the gallows?

Ray
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This page
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...mIyICA&usg=AFQjCNEdR_VZhi8Vd1VoWE2mGZkhW1apwA

Has some good images of the crossection of several bullets that can be compared.
A page linked to from that page has a crossection of the earlier M852 matchgrade bullet, showing that the opening in the point is very shallow, not at all like a hunting bullet hollow point and with no hollowed chamber at the front of the bullet.
The M118 LR bullet has a much larger hollowed section than I'd thought.


PS
The Hague convention doesn't carry the weight of law, and applied only to those who were party to it.
The Geneva conventions don't apply either since the bullet kills with great efficiency so the supposed increased suffering clause isn't relevant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Old Gunner

The US is signatory to the Hague Conventions. It is not a party to the Geneva Conventions but, depending who is in charge, has taken the position that the Geneva protocols are binding on all nations. Our current POTUS and his AG would most likely take the side of the enemy, not wanting to offend them.:rolleyes:

Ray
 
Cheechako said:
Old Gunner

The US is signatory to the Hague Conventions. It is not a party to the Geneva Conventions but, depending who is in charge, has taken the position that the Geneva protocols are binding on all nations. Our current POTUS and his AG would most likely take the side of the enemy, not wanting to offend them.:rolleyes:

Ray
Click to expand...

Well heres the gist of the section on expanding bullets.
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.
Click to expand...
The projectiles of the M118 LR and M852 would just slide by in that the jacket completely covers the core and the open point is not an incision, but rather a side effect of the manufacturing process. Neither is manufactured with intention to or modified after manufacture in order to make expansion easier.
By incisions I take ther wording to mean slices in the jacket near the nose.

None of our present opponents were signatories at the hague, and all have been joined by those who never have adhered to any conventions of either the Hague or Geneva.

PS
The US has signed the Geneva conventions and ratified all but two articles added in 1977.

And
In addition to the basic prohibition on unnecessary suffering contained in Art. 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, one other treaty is germane to this review. The Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets of 29 July 1899 prohibits the use in international armed conflict:

". . . 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 U.S. is not a party to this 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, quoted above.
Click to expand...
Authored by W. Hays Parks, Colonel, USMC,
Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch
Click to expand...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...16XTBw&usg=AFQjCNE77MU3a_FOnJ1Q7LVoQY085vWvFw

PS
The US is not bound by a treaty signed by any representative we might send to one of these functions until the treaty is read before congress and ratified by vote. Even then some articles of a treaty may not be ratified and these the US would not be obliged to honor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Geneva Convention covers the treatment of the victims of war. The Hague Convention seeks to ban the use of certain weapons of war such as chemical & biological and bullets that flatten in the human body. From what I understand, the US is a signatory of the Geneva Convention but not the Hague although the US recognizes it
 
Mist

The US is a signatory of the Hague. (I can give you a link to it.) I think you have it backwards.

Ray
 
If memory serves me correctly and it may not,,,, in that same set of docs I believe the 50 cal was supposed to be a banned weapon for use on personnel.
Not sure about that.
IF it is correct someone forgot to tell the snipers using the new 50 cals
 
Cheechako said:
Mist

The US is a signatory of the Hague. (I can give you a link to it.) I think you have it backwards.

Ray
Click to expand...

There was more than one Hague Convention, we sent representatives to the first, since the US had set down the basic rules governing inhumane actions earlier on during our US Civil War.
If anything was signed by that delegation it would not be binding unless ratified by congress, and from the comments by Col Parks it would appear that the US wasn't party to anything before the 1907 convention.
The US did not use any expanding bullets in WW1 or WW2 , though an early .30 AP bullet which had lead around the tip to act as a enhanchment to penetration had been withdrawn because though it didn't expand the lead as exposed and might cause lead poisoning of a wound.
 
Cheechako said:
Mist

The US is a signatory of the Hague. (I can give you a link to it.) I think you have it backwards.

Ray
Click to expand...
I found a letter (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/GC-message-from-pres-1999.pdf) written by Bill Clinton asking Congress to ratify the signing of the "Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Convention) and, for accession, the Hague Protocol, concluded on May 14, 1954, and entered into force on August 7, 1956." Mr. Clinton goes on to further state "The Convention was signed by the United States on May 14, 1954, the same day it was concluded; however, it has not been submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification until now."

Strobe Talbot responded in part "The Protocol to the Convention was concluded on the same day as the Convention itself, but is a separate agreement from the Convention..." and continues to say "The United States did not sign the Hague Protocol in 1954 because of certain objections to both the drafting and substantive provisions of Section I..."

It would seem we signed the Hague Convention of 1954 but not the Hague Protocol. Interesting.

Concerning the Hague Peace Convention of 1899, a letter to John Hay, Secretary of the State in part states:

"The three Declarations were as follows:

First: a Declaration prohibiting the throwing of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new analogous means, such prohibition to be effective during five years. This was signed by seventeen Delegations as follows: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, The United States of America, Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Turkey and Bulgaria.

Second, a Declaration prohibiting the use of projectiles having as their sole object the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases. This, for reasons given in the accompanying documents, the American Delegation did not sign. It was signed by sixteen Delegations as follows: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Turkey and Bulgaria.

Third, a Declaration prohibiting the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, as illustrated by certain given details of construction. This for technical reasons, also fully stated in the report, the American Delegation did not sign. It was signed by fifteen Delegations as follows: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Persia, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Turkey and Bulgaria." (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hag99-04.asp)

Once again the lesson is driven home. I must verify for myself that what I have been taught is correct
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cheechako said:
Old Gunner

The US is signatory to the Hague Conventions. It is not a party to the Geneva Conventions but, depending who is in charge, has taken the position that the Geneva protocols are binding on all nations. Our current POTUS and his AG would most likely take the side of the enemy, not wanting to offend them.:rolleyes:

Ray
Click to expand...

Nice point Ray:D
 
According to this article (http://hnn.us/articles/586.html) "The 1864 Convention was signed by twelve nations. The United States signed the treaty in 1882 by President Chester Arthur and was ratified by Congress; the U.S. was the thirty-second nation to sign the agreement. The second Convention extended protection to wounded combatants at sea and shipwreck victims. A third Convention was convened to deal with the protection of prisoners of war in 1929. The fourth Geneva Convention, signed in 1949, reaffirmed the principles of the first three agreements and included in addition a section covering the protection of civilians during wartime.

The 1949 Convention is a lengthy document with over a hundred articles. The Convention outlaws the taking of hostages, the mutilation and degradation of POW's, torture, executions, and discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality or political affiliations.

Additional protocols have been issued including two in 1977 extending the 1949 articles to cover guerrilla combatants and to soldiers in wars of "self-determination." The United States signed the 1977 Protocols, but Congress refused to ratify them"
 
The thing about it is that only 3 of the signers could be considered in any way 3rd world countries and now days they are about the only ones we get into conflicts with and they dont give a flip about these docs nor do they follow them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top