I wouldn't hunt with BI-METAL bullets

Wouldn't using a bimetal expanding bullet like the 203gr be against Geneva convention ?

Its the Hague Convention actually. Prevents the use of expanding bullets which were deemed to be too violent to use on people. You do hear the BS about using FMJ's with the intention of removing fighters from the fight. Not the intent, just a byproduct of use.

"Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body such as Bullets with a Hard Covering which does not Completely Cover the Core, or containing Indentations
This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using "bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body." This directly banned soft-point bullets (which had a partial metal jacket and an exposed tip) and "cross-tipped" bullets (which had a cross-shaped incision in their tip to aid in expansion, nicknamed "Dum Dums" from the Dum Dum Arsenal in India). It was ratified by all major powers, except the United States.[15]"
 
Its the Hague Convention actually. Prevents the use of expanding bullets which were deemed to be too violent to use on people. You do hear the BS about using FMJ's with the intention of removing fighters from the fight. Not the intent, just a byproduct of use.

"Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body such as Bullets with a Hard Covering which does not Completely Cover the Core, or containing Indentations
This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using "bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body." This directly banned soft-point bullets (which had a partial metal jacket and an exposed tip) and "cross-tipped" bullets (which had a cross-shaped incision in their tip to aid in expansion, nicknamed "Dum Dums" from the Dum Dum Arsenal in India). It was ratified by all major powers, except the United States.[15]"

What's funny about the hague convention is they prevent the use of bullet designed to expand but you have the 5.56 MK 262 Mod 0 which have a hollow point and is used legally because the hollow at the tip was designed for ''flight stability''.
 
Because many can't hit at distance. I have seem some using pig roasts and beef at range, but they're few and far between. I never understood rife caliber gel tests at these close ranges, they're next to meaningless.
Penetrate deeply - I agree
Expand at all velocities - I'm not so sure.

Most chaps seem to like doing the ballistic gel test at 25 metres
Where is the realism in that?

I'd like to see a terminal ballistics test for expansion between 150m to 250m with bi-metal projectiles
Anyone know of such a test? Please chime in and enlighten me....
 
And another interesting fact is that match ammunition has this with and without polymer tips ... and people do hunt with those very effectively. Here's looking at Hornady, even though they say their BTHP are not meant for hunting. (also look at all those using A-Max).

What's funny about the hague convention is they prevent the use of bullet designed to expand but you have the 5.56 MK 262 Mod 0 which have a hollow point and is used legally because the hollow at the tip was designed for ''flight stability''.
 
It sure is amazing how many arm chair warriors / lawyers think they know all about small arms munitions in relation to conventions, combat & war.

As an aside, there are provinces that prohibit the use of FMJ for hunting.
 
This thread went side ways the moment people started confusing bi metal Soft points to bi metal FMJs.... and some are arguing there is no difference lol
 
If you read the manufacturer's sales documentation, All bullets apparently penetrate deeply, expand hugely, and retain much of their weight at all velocities.

Grease datasheets are like that too. It's frustrating from the point of view of trying to match a product to an application.

What I'd really like to see is a plot of retained energy vs distance traveled through a standardized medium, for a range of initial velocities. I haven't found that yet for any product, but hey, if anyone from Speer or Hornady is reading this, PM me. I'll happily sign any reasonably scoped NDA.

>marketed as hunting ammunition

I had understood that to be for import permit reasons. Same as for scopes.

It was explained to me that in a military application, bullets are intended to wound. Ideally you want the combatant you shoot to scream, thrash around and bleed all over the place while 2 or 3 people you haven't shot yet stop what they're doing to retrieve him. Then you want to tie up medical staff, transport, and operating rooms to work on him (each with their associated logistical burden). Then you want him to cost a whole bunch more money to rehab and care for etc.

In a hunting application, bullets are intended to kill quickly. Like in a Hay's code cowboy movie. *blam* "Ack!" -crescendo- *thud* -minor chord-.

Different tools for different goals.

Who told you this load of horse pukie?

The ghost of General Patton?? :rolleyes:
 
I'm not seeing the issue here, I use a mosin with bi-metal soft point bullets for hunting (MFS manufacture I think?) And any deer I have taken with them they have either dropped like a rock or made it no further than 50 yards.
 
A ban? So we need more laws??? Don't think so.

Nope we don't need more laws, we need far fewer laws than we currently have, but we do need some SMARTER laws and less DUMB laws. (For example, having an unpinned 6 round rifle magazine can get you locked up for 10 years. Shooting and killing someone with a single-shot rifle, on purpose, not in self defense, and you get out in about 3-4 years if you say you didn't mean to kill them, you just wanted to hurt them very badly without killing them)

A ban on shooting bullets that make sparks and can cause fires in forests during times of extreme forest fire hazard is a SMART law.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need laws to keep idiots from doing stupid things like burning down the forests because there wouldn't be any idiots. Unfortunately..... idiots are plentiful. Bans on doing stupid things only get in the way of those who are stupid enough to want to do them.
 
A ban on shooting bullets that make sparks and can cause fires in forests during times of extreme forest fire hazard is a SMART law.

Lol, this sounds like a Simpson law.

You can't be serious can you? Might as well outlaw lightning, meteors, naturally occurring compost piles and smokers.

o_O
 
Nope we don't need more laws, we need far fewer laws than we currently have, but we do need some SMARTER laws and less DUMB laws. (For example, having an unpinned 6 round rifle magazine can get you locked up for 10 years. Shooting and killing someone with a single-shot rifle, on purpose, not in self defense, and you get out in about 3-4 years if you say you didn't mean to kill them, you just wanted to hurt them very badly without killing them)

A ban on shooting bullets that make sparks and can cause fires in forests during times of extreme forest fire hazard is a SMART law.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need laws to keep idiots from doing stupid things like burning down the forests because there wouldn't be any idiots. Unfortunately..... idiots are plentiful. Bans on doing stupid things only get in the way of those who are stupid enough to want to do them.

They already do a shooting ban in BC when it gets too dry. Last summer there was a shooting ban all summer long in the lower mainland. Manslaughter is 5 years sentence but good luck proving to the crown that you shot someone without the intent
of killing them. Plus the multiple other firearms act related charges in a situation such as that. You would at the best get charged with third degree murder if the dude slept with your wife. If you dropped the gun at the shooting range, it went off, and killed the guy beside you, that would be easy to plee for manslaughter rather than second degree murder.
 
Back
Top Bottom