Why doesn't the military use hollow points?
Why doesn't the military use hollow points?
Joseph Myers
Lincoln Bailey
Because anti gun nations see it as cruel and unusual. Like germany thought of shotguns in ww1. So they dont want an arms race of cruel and unusual arms.
Jackson Green
Guerrilla warfare
Now sauce
Christopher Cruz
Geneva conventions
William Taylor
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
And OP should gas himself for posting that image.
Juan Roberts
This, plus theyre shit at armor pen
Jason Collins
Why?
the whole point of war is to destroy your enemy and take their lands/women.
Blake Turner
Deals with the treatment of prisoners.
It never mentions arms and ammunition.
Ryder Price
Levi Morgan
Why risk having to deal with cruelly and unusally armed allies?
Michael Rodriguez
The Hague Conventio- ok seriously, sauce?
Daniel Morales
They do it was America that didn't sign the GC so I don't know why people keep say that. In most cases our military only uses Ball ammo I think for penetration reasons but I have heard of some SF units having hollows in pistols and rifles also I know for a fact units during WW1 and 2 turning bullets around.
Gabriel Adams
A 5.56 FMJ causes decent damage due to speed and HST but has much less of a chance of killing
An injured enemy combatant costs their forces MUCH more in time and resources
Jaxson Wood
I personally think that hollow points have advanced so much in the past 100 years that it should be in the military's interest to run tests with them.
Theyve already tried grenade launching rifles.
Zachary Scott
Correct
Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration 3
Lucas Jones
Yeah imma need a JAV code.
Leo Ortiz
Body armor
Kevin Barnes
>Using an image more interesting than your topic
You fool!
Jaxon Young
I'm pretty sure that was intentional
Brandon Baker
Sauce now
Kayden Williams
Fucking sauce
Liam Fisher
You know the drill
Gavin Harris
>hehehe I posted a bait picture with a one line discussion prompt!
GTFO
Kevin Gonzalez
I always figured it was like gas, where it was such a nightmare for every commander to deal with they were like fuck it. Imagine every 5th bullet or w/e being a plastic or ceramic hollowpoint.
Sure you might balloon the support structure of your enemy so much they collapse, but then you've got tens of thousands of injured with undetectable shrapnel in them too. Maybe you win the next war and the one after that. Then you go to fight a fresh opponent and oh shit, you're spending as much manpower looking after your wounded as supporting your dudes.
Complaining about shotguns in a gas war was pretty nearsighted though, not gonna lie.
Justin Campbell
>Why doesn't the military use [thing]?
Logistical cost/benefit. The answer to this question is ALWAYS always logistical cost/benefit (excepting of course the niche issue of bias/corruption in awarding military contracts).