Keith Devens .com

What is prohibited is the use of ammunition that causes "undue suffering" on the part of the casualty, and includes not only explosive bullets, but also projectiles made of glass (hard for surgeons to find the pieces) but also hollow point, as well as pure lead bullets. This bullet technology seems to be exactly what is intended to be prohibited -- I don't think we'll see this stuff in the Army arsenal any time soon.

Although 5.56 Is not a "frangible" bullet, it does just that at normal velocities. "Undue Suffering" is a rather ambiguous phrase, when a person has received between 5 and 8- 62 gr projectiles in their body and have not died from this "LEGAL" ammo. Is death equated with "Undue Suffering"? This RBCD ammo is not a "Hollow Point" or any of the other banned items. The current issue of Black Hills 77gr is technically a "Hollow Point" but the decision of JAG that its use would not be a violation of "International Law". It really is a matter of "Operator Survivability" that should govern the operations and if an improved platform(i.e. the 6.8) for more lethality, then why not an improved munition for the EXISTING platform? If the idea that you need more lethality in theater by increasing caliber(and the expense & logistics of deployment) is somewhat foolhardy IF the existing platform can deliver the same lethality (without retraining, refitting, replacing existing ammo stores, ad infinitum)
Now about the superiority factor.
CQB:
If a secondary weapons platform (i.e. pistol) can deliver the same lethality as your primary(rifle using current issue ammo)how could this change the survival of the operators and momentum of the operation?
The new Lethality studies group at Picatinney should shed some light on the issue
soon… and for some of our troops, that is is not quick enough.

I would agree,

These are inredible rounds but they do violate the geneva convetions polcy on "dum dum" bullets

As a member of the UK armed forces, I've seen a few different types of ammo in my time.

Even without details, I can say with confidence that the use of this type of bullet would indeed be illegal - at least if the Country subscribes to the Geneva Convention (not to mention basic levels of human decency). I'm no soft lad but a bullet that is deliberatly designed to cause maximum damage to soft tissue is out of order.

The linked article states that a soldier died after being hit in the buttocks. A bullet of that capability will certainly never have any place in the British Army. Heck, if you're trying to drop the guy, don't shoot him in the ass - aim properly for Christs sake!

First, Hollow points are "illegal" because of the Hague Accords of 1899. This treaty stems from the use of what today are known as "soft point" bullets--imagine an FMJ with the tip cut off, but no hollow. These are also known as "Dum Dum" bulets. The Hague Accords were agreed to when battlefield medicine was basically at the same stage as it was during the US Civli War--if you got hit and lived you were probably facing an amputation with a saw and no anasthetic. The Geneva Conventions have nothing really to do with hollow points or "dum dum" bullets. One of the 1977 Protocols did prohibit the use of weapons designed to cause "unnecessary suffering" or "superflous injury". And other treaties concerning "conventional weapons" decree that projectiles which had undetectable particles could not be used. The hollow tipped rounds used by the US military are only designed with a very small opening and the hollow simply moves the center of gravity back a little, providing better accuracy, thus are called "open tip match" bullets. These rounds do not normally expand beyond what an FMJ would do. A hunting hollow point bullet has a larger opening and does expand. Further, only specific OTM bullets have been said to be OK.

Now, the RBCD does not violate any restrictions on "dum dum" or other expanding bullets. Where it seems to run afoul of things is that at least some RBCD bullets appear to have a core which is some kind of polymer and is not detectable by X-Ray.

Regarding the anectdotal story about the shooting by the former SEAL, folks, there is no reason to beleive a standard FMJ 5.56 bullet like the M193 or M855 would not do the same thing. In fact the story sounds quite similar to some of the wvie's tales that came out of 'Nam.

As for testing, the folks who make these bullets have been challanged to provide samples for testing but do not want to. Instead they make up lame excuses about how temperature of the test media (ballistics gel) affects their bullet. Little issues like are they loaded to SAAMI/NATO pressure specs are not forthcoming and the company refuses to give test bullets to anyone it feels will not do testing that is biased for their product. They prefer to shoot warmed up pot roasts, clay, phone books, and pigs--all of which is about as standardized and scientific as trying to pick lotto numbers

IOW, this is basically another infamous "magic bullet" not unlike that junk from Extreme Shock... long on claims but failing to measure up.

I say use what ever you can get. They are useing a 7.62mm round at you. I not saying the 5.56 is bad, but if RCBD kills with one shot or puts the enemy out of action. I would rather kill the enemy than have him kill me. With 14 years in the military, one thing I did learn. I go home in one piece, not the enemy. I have RBCD ammo in my weapon at home. I am not afraid to use it either.
I think once the enemy learns that we mean business, they will think twice about attacking a convoy.

Does anyone know the meaning of international law and the rules of the Geneva convention?

This round is against the Geneva convention, that simple, does anyone get that?