05-07-2011, 06:55 AM
The exact wording of Declaration III of the 1899 Hague Convention is:
"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".
European lawyers interpret this to mean that the jacket must entirely enclose the nose of the bullet. The MK318 SOST definitely fails this test, and the M855A1 EPR technically does. As the EPR is designed to fragment easily, it also gets caught by the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the use of "weapons, projectiles and material and methods of war of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering". This one is so vague it's a lawyers' delight.
Personally, I think that placing restrictions on bullet types like this is ridiculous - but my personal opinion does not matter. This is the situation we are faced with on this side of the Pond, and which caused the UK to introduce a thicker jacket for their 5.56mm because the original fragmented too easily.
So yes, yaw performance is the key to terminal effectiveness, and that is difficult to combine with other requirements. This makes the design of the bullet essential to get right - it's the first priority, and may even determine what calibre the bullet comes in. Everything else follows from that.
Incidentally, some of the more radical types in the International Red Cross (who monitor these things) would like to see bullets which yaw banned as well. In which case, we'd be back to round-nose bullets which rely on calibre to do the job, and the choice would be between a .458 SOCOM and a .50 Beowulf!
"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".
European lawyers interpret this to mean that the jacket must entirely enclose the nose of the bullet. The MK318 SOST definitely fails this test, and the M855A1 EPR technically does. As the EPR is designed to fragment easily, it also gets caught by the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the use of "weapons, projectiles and material and methods of war of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering". This one is so vague it's a lawyers' delight.
Personally, I think that placing restrictions on bullet types like this is ridiculous - but my personal opinion does not matter. This is the situation we are faced with on this side of the Pond, and which caused the UK to introduce a thicker jacket for their 5.56mm because the original fragmented too easily.
So yes, yaw performance is the key to terminal effectiveness, and that is difficult to combine with other requirements. This makes the design of the bullet essential to get right - it's the first priority, and may even determine what calibre the bullet comes in. Everything else follows from that.
Incidentally, some of the more radical types in the International Red Cross (who monitor these things) would like to see bullets which yaw banned as well. In which case, we'd be back to round-nose bullets which rely on calibre to do the job, and the choice would be between a .458 SOCOM and a .50 Beowulf!