Chinese knockoffs: M7 bayonet

[Slater]

Regarding the World War I German shotgun protest and the US Army's legal interpretation of it, starts about page 17 of this document:


https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/10-1997.pdf

[SteyrAUG]

The resolution addresses expanding bullets and 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."

Lead round balls were not within the scope of the resolution. The US was also not a signatory, unless I am mistaken.

Vaguely interesting link: http://www.weaponslaw.org/instrument...ue-declaration

Andy

Thanks for that clarification. I was just gonna point out that most of the WWII vintage ammo I've seen both US .45 and German 9mm is lead ball.

[Alpha-17]

The resolution addresses expanding bullets and 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."

Lead round balls were not within the scope of the resolution. The US was also not a signatory, unless I am mistaken.

Vaguely interesting link: http://www.weaponslaw.org/instrument...ue-declaration

Andy

Lead buckshot does expand or flatten in the body. Recovered enough musket balls and lead pellets from hunting over the years to say that much. It also does have an exposed core since it doesn't have any form of a jacket. And no, the US wasn't a signatory but has agreed to abide by the convention. Otherwise, we would have seen soft point or hollow point .30-40 Krag rounds become common (they were in the works at the time), and likely the same developed for .30-06 military rounds. The same ban still impacts military ammunition development.

Thanks for that clarification. I was just gonna point out that most of the WWII vintage ammo I've seen both US .45 and German 9mm is lead ball.

Lead core perhaps, but I haven't seen anything from either nation of that vintage that isn't jacketed. Even the British had abandoned the Mk II .455 Webley and Mk I .38-200 loading in favor of FMJ versions of the cartridges due to fear of them being a Hauge Convention violation.

[Slater]

The XM1153 9mm round that is being bought for the M17/M18 program is a 147 grain jacketed hollow point bullet, so the US seems to be expanding it's boundaries.

[AndyLate]

Lead buckshot does expand or flatten in the body. Recovered enough musket balls and lead pellets from hunting over the years to say that much. It also does have an exposed core since it doesn't have any form of a jacket. And no, the US wasn't a signatory but has agreed to abide by the convention. Otherwise, we would have seen soft point or hollow point .30-40 Krag rounds become common (they were in the works at the time), and likely the same developed for .30-06 military rounds. The same ban still impacts military ammunition development.



Lead core perhaps, but I haven't seen anything from either nation of that vintage that isn't jacketed. Even the British had abandoned the Mk II .455 Webley and Mk I .38-200 loading in favor of FMJ versions of the cartridges due to fear of them being a Hauge Convention violation.

Lead ball and solid lead projectiles had been used for centuries before the resolution was signed. The driving factor behind the resolution was high velocity jacketed soft point ammunition, as used by the British army. That is why I said (and it is purely my opinion and speculation) that lead round balls were outside the scope of the resolution. I agree that the US abides by the agreement.

Andy

P.S. You are absolutely correct that round balls, buckshot, and a lot of lead projectiles flatten or expand, no argument here.

[Alpha-17]

The XM1153 9mm round that is being bought for the M17/M18 program is a 147 grain jacketed hollow point bullet, so the US seems to be expanding it's boundaries.

Definitely, though even the original Hague Convention allowed for "dum dum" bullets to be used in colonial wars, or internal security. Since the US has largely been fighting colonial wars since 2001, we've seen a variety of OTM and JHP rounds find their way into service. The real question will be when the new hotness is allowed or issued, and if we see any international complaints about them. Other than mild diplomatic protests, I doubt we will, because people are getting used to the sheer horror of modern war on TV, and the idea of a slightly more deadly handgun round doesn't really compare to everything we've seen in recent years.

[AndyLate]

Kind of an interesting take on the OTM history and legality: http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/o...-hollow-point/

Andy

[Alpha-17]

Lead ball and solid lead projectiles had been used for centuries before the resolution was signed. The driving factor behind the resolution was high velocity jacketed soft point ammunition, as used by the British army. That is why I said (and it is purely my opinion and speculation) that lead round balls were outside the scope of the resolution. I agree that the US abides by the agreement.

Andy

P.S. You are absolutely correct that round balls, buckshot, and a lot of lead projectiles flatten or expand, no argument here.

I could be wrong in this, but the actual basis for the German complaint was the exposed lead projectile, which in turn made it inhumane and caused "unnecessary suffering." The US response, however, focused solely on the "unnecessary suffering" part and completely ignored the exposed lead, since, well, one issue is debatable and the other is pretty cut and dry. Since we won the war, and shotguns were not nearly as widely used as most people think, the issue was largely ignored afterward.

Again, I could be entirely wrong on that, and there might be an original copy of the formal German complaint given to the Swiss to pass to us somewhere, but most in-depth secondary sources tend to talk quite a bit about the ammunition used/captured by the Huns. Since shrapnel and multiple projectile weapons weren't exactly exclusive to shotguns during the Great War, I tend to think the legal issue was the type of projectile(s).

Side note, the shotgun was not only unpopular with the Germans, there are more than a few reports of our Associated Powers not being pleased with their use. A French cartoon from the war suggested that along with "frontier" weapons like shotguns, Americans would introduce the habit of scalping, furthering the barbarity of the war.

[AndyLate]

The link provided by Slater states the German protest against shotguns was "The German Government protests against the use of shotguns by the American Army and calls attention to the fact that according to the law of war (Kriegsrecht) every [U.S.] prisoner [of war] found to have in his possession such guns or ammunition belonging thereto forfeits his life. This protest is based upon article 23(e) of the Hague convention [sic] respecting the laws and customs of war on land. Reply by cable is required before October 1, 1918."

Andy