Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They all expended and caused horrific wounds so were banned by, first a mutual agreement (hate to think what threats brought this on)then by international convention.

---

While true, the real reason FMJs are used and not SPs or HPs or other expanding bullets, is because of military strategy and logistics. A wounded enemy needing enemy care, is far more resource consuming than a dead body.

It is funny to think, that while grenades, mines, anti personal artillery and other horrendous weapons causing "horrific wounds" as well are not considered cruel, expanding bullets are "too cruel" to be used.

If being captured with expanding ammo causes the POW to be "adversely" treated by his captors, I wonder if any other sort of weapon also gets a similar result? Serrated bayonets?

---

Serrated bayonets are not banned specifically, but soldiers in the field very often have their own rules, and modified bayonets are one of the things that could get you (unofficially, of course) shot out of hand. Similar treatments have been known for captured snipers, and especially for those captured who were operating flamethrowers.

In truth, the bullet that the .303 replaced, the .577/450, caused wounds just as devastating as the expanding bullet, simply through sheer size. That was actually cited as justification for the continued use of soft tips. The expanding bullet was devised because the new high-velocity rounds were drilling neat holes through assorted frenzied dervishes and not stopping them before they managed to do mischief. The horrendous effect of large lead projectiles was amply demonstrated by the American Civil War, which killed more Americans than both world wars combined, and produced a huge proportion of amputees. A big chunk of lead smashing into an arm or leg is going to cause massive and irreparable damage.

Post Extras