Is there anyone who can tell me about this cartridge is an M24 or a T-42
The M24 is a 40 grain, gilding metal jacketed bullet issued during WWII to U. S. aircrews as survival equipment ( ammo ). There are several variations. M. Rea
I have heard these were used through the Vietnam war. I have a box still sealed in a paper-foil protective wrapper. Wish I could find others, but in 10 years of collecting 22’s I have never found a single or any other box.
The things you learn on this forum, I didn’t know they ever made .22LR jacketed.
Yep - Hague Convention protocols and all that.
For the veiwing audiance here is a box in original wrapping of .22 FMJ military ammunition.
Since (presumambly) the rounds were intended for survival ie food gathering etc ( what we would call E&E, escape and evasion) where is the issue? Unless I am reading it wrongly.
My guess would be that if a pilot or air crewman was shot down behind enemy lines, he might well be required to use a .22 survival gun as a defensive (or offensive) weapon against enemy combatants, if it’s all that’s available to him at the time. Note that the US was not a signatory to the Hague Convention but as a matter of policy, the US Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) recognize the Hague tenets and abides by them. This is because the US does not wish to be a target for charges of committing uncivilized atrocities. Regarding bullets, Hague requires that bullets not expand upon impact with the body nor can they be designed with the intent to cause “unnecessary suffering.” This all came about from British use of .303 expanding bullets during the Boer War, which was viewed as being ungentlemanly (particularly so as they were being used against other whites). There are lots of ambiguities concerning the circumstances under which Hague bullet protocols apply, and military lawyers don’t agree on everything. For example, current sniper rounds use what amounts to hollow-point bullets, but are OK because the bullets are designed for maximum accuracy, but are NOT designed to expand or inflict unnecessary suffering. Similarly, combat shotguns using lead 00 Buck shot are also OK in combat, even though the shot can flatten going through human tissue, thereby expanding and inflicting “suffering.” Of course explosives and thermonuclear weapons are fine under Hague regardless of the suffering they can cause.
If you have a few hours, there are lots of websites that provide a much more detailed explanation of the Hague Convention’s requirements, and some legal arguments as to what is/is not allowed in the way of bullets.
I also read that expanding ammunition was being used in Iraq against insurgents. It said this was allowed as they are not uniformed combatants and not covered by the Hague convention. However this sounds likely to be an urban myth.
Depending upon your viewpoint, “expanding” bullet ammunition is (and has been) used by some US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both the M118LR (7.62mm NATO for sniper use) and the much more recent Mk318 (5.56mm NATO) both use open-point bullets and can expand upon impact. There are also other examples. The trick is that these bullets were DESIGNED for other purposes. The M118 was designed for accuracy, and the Mk318 was designed for barrier penetration. That alone gets them a pass concerning Hague bullet restrictions.
The standard US M855 round (5.56mm NATO) is designed such that the bullet yaws and breaks up while passing through human body tissue, accomplishing much the same effect as an expanding bullet. However, the M855 (and the earlier M193, which has the same yaw/breakup performance) are “Hague-Legal.” Go figure.
This goes back to the original “dum dum” question and the British Government’s response. The dum dum arsenal in India continued to produce .303 ammunition in the 215 grn soft point varient because, it was claimed, the ammunition was intended to be used against non signatories. In simple terms native “insurgents” to use a modern term.
Britain got its ass kicked from pillar to post over this policy and had to backtrack totally although it was 15 years before the washthrough was complete.
I have a particular bee in my bonnet over this subject. My grandfather was attached to the Indian Division in 1915 in the trenches at Loos.(WW1) He told my father catagorically that the Indian troops had dum dum ammuniton and used it. I have never been able to prove it. That was way past any cutoff date officially. I would love to be able to bring it up and I have tried but with the passing of time and the people involved it now seems unlikely.
[quote=“DennisK”]Depending upon your viewpoint, “expanding” bullet ammunition is (and has been) used by some US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both the M118LR (7.62mm NATO for sniper use) and the much more recent Mk318 (5.56mm NATO) both use open-point bullets and can expand upon impact. There are also other examples. The trick is that these bullets were DESIGNED for other purposes. The M118 was designed for accuracy, and the Mk318 was designed for barrier penetration. That alone gets them a pass concerning Hague bullet restrictions.
The standard US M855 round (5.56mm NATO) is designed such that the bullet yaws and breaks up while passing through human body tissue, accomplishing much the same effect as an expanding bullet. However, the M855 (and the earlier M193, which has the same yaw/breakup performance) are “Hague-Legal.” Go figure.[/quote]
We have a very similar problem in Britain with the intepretation of the law. following on from one of the school shootings and changes in the law HP bullets are banned except where exemptions are granted on humane grounds for deer shooting and the like.
This meant that Sierra matchkings for example fell into a big black hole. The tiny hole in the nose was in no way intended to aid expansion but dealers would not sell them to target shooters. Afraid of their own shadows in this respect.
Now the new official NRA target shooting round from RUAG uses matchkings suddenly these objections are swept away.
There are some US locations (notably New Jersey) that ban other than FMJ handgun bullets, and also some cities ban their use by police. What good this accomplishes is not evident to me. Sort of like the failed efforts in some cities to require police to shoot guns out of the bad guy’s hands instead of aiming at his body. Federal Cartridge marketed (and may still market) handgun ammunition using an expanding FMJ bullet, sort of an umbrella-like affair with a polymer nose under the jacket, but it was considered an FMJ.
Also, and someone may be able to amplify on this story with some authority, I have heard and read many times that cutting or grinding off noses of FMJ bullets to expose the lead core (and possibly also hollow-pointing the bullets with a drill) allowing them to expand was a widespread combat practice during both WWI and WWII, albeit unofficially performed. I personally know this practice was done to create hunting ammo from military ball ammo. I think it was Col Askins that wrote that he did this a lot himself for hunting purposes between the wars, and that it worked well. I think he also claimed that he never had an instance in which the core left the jacket in the barrel.
I had some 220 grain FMJ-RN bullets made for the .30-40 Krag that had been crudely modified into an expanding style by grinding the jacket away at the nose, exposing the lead. When this was done, or for what purpose, I have no idea, but there were over 20 of them which I found in a box of odds and ends.
Vince, I’m sure I read before that no expanding ammunition was used in the Dunblane shootings. I was told that they just used it as an excuse to put this ban through. This is also definitely true for incendiary and AP rounds.
Falcon, there is much we do not know about the Dunblane Shootings, partly because the govenment chose to impose “D” notices. High level reporting bans. Why? nobody knows, we can suspect, but one thing is clear, In our lifetimes we will never get answers. Its not worth trying to dig deeper. I suspect that the perpetrator Thomas Hamilton did use expanding ammmunition because it was commonly available at the time but its all cloaked in secrecy now and will remain so. No point in wondering.