The new Army pistol may use hollow point ammunition. Washington Post.

A soldier fires a M9 pistol at a firing range. Lealan Butler/Washington Post

The newest requirement for the Army's replacement for the venerable M9 pistol is the ability to use hollow point rounds. Washington Post. The pistol, tentatively named the XM-17 will have several upgrades to the old M9 pistol including the ability to add accessories and adjust to different hand sizes. But the change to hollow point and fragmenting rounds is a major departure since in the past most military firearms have used full metal jacketed or ball rounds. Both hollow points and fragmentation rounds are considered more deadly and effective then ball ammo because they break apart on impact, which causes significantly more damage. However, the Hague convention of 1899 bans hollow point rounds in war, though the U.S. never signed it, and the Hague convention of 1907, which the U.S. did sign, bans any weapon that tends to cause undue suffering. Until now, the Untied States has abided by the 1907 convention, only using hollow point rounds in anti-terror missions. 

My Comment:

This is fairly old news, the article was from last month, but I wanted to talk about it anyways. The Army's new pistol has been on my radar for quite some time and I meant to write something up when I first saw the article... but I forgot. Oh well, better late then never.

I'm not too surprised that the Army is moving in this direction. I have heard a lot of stories out of both Afghanistan and Iraq of soldiers having to rely on their M9's for close combat and most of what I heard is not good. The problem is that the gun just does not have the stopping power needed in a combat situation. And the cause is the 9x19mm parabellum round. The ball ammo for that gun just isn't powerful enough to put someone down right away. Though 9mm is used by millions of cops and civilians for self defense, none of them use the ball rounds. They all use hollow points because if you don't you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. Add in the fact that the M9 can't add accessories and you can understand why they want to upgrade their pistols. 

Hollow points have other advantages as well. Hollow points tend to not over penetrate the way ball ammo does. That's not a huge concern with a round as small as a 9mm but even then, ball ammo can over penetrate and hit something you don't want to hit. For example, if you are in a close combat situation you can shoot through your target and hit an innocent civilian or have a bullet go through a wall. Those situations are rare and soldiers, police and civilians are trained to watch out for over penetration, but even so, it could save lives. And given how much of our engagements have been in close range combat during the Iraq war, I can see why over pentration could be a concern.

There is one huge disadvantage to using hollow points though. They are defeated by body armor the much greater extent then ball ammo is. Which is a major factor in why you don't see the military using them in rifles. For a 9mm round even a typical Kevlar vest will protect you from a hollow point while military spec plate armor will laugh off the round. Not that 9mm should be used against body armor in all but the most desperate cases, but a desperation attack with ball ammo would have a better chance of penetrating (almost zero) then hollow points would (zero). I don't know how many of our current enemies use body armor regularly but I am guessing that it is easily available. Still, the situation seems so unlikely that it probably wouldn't come up that often. 

As for the legality of the round, it seems insane to me that a round that is regularly used for self defense and police work could ever  be illegal for war. If the situation calls for hollow point or frag rounds, then that is what should be used. And if some 100 year old agreement says that it's unethical then who cares? I don't see hollow points being any more cruel then any other round. Who knows if the international community will think though.

The whole argument reminds me of the debates over weapons like cluster bombs, napalm, white phosphorous and land mines. People think all of those weapons are either cruel or cause secondary problems. But if they end the war quicker, then why not use them? It's better to kill 10,000 people in cruel ways if it ends the war and you don't have to end up killing 1,000,000 with "humane" weapons. I don't think hollow points reach quite that level of usefulness but the advantages are obvious and they could save lives. At the very least if the XM-17 does end up using hollow points then our soldiers will have a weapon with stopping power. 

Of course they could bypass the whole argument and go back to .45 like the old Colt had, but I don't see that happening due to NATO treaty regulations...