German 9mm Mauser Rifle Cartridge


#1

What is the purpose of the FMJ projectile on this 9mm Mauser cartridge. Big game?

Thanks Liberty



#2

RN-FMJs (called “Solids” in the Hunting (African) Jargon,) were especially used for such hard skinned animals as Rhino, Elephant, Cape Buffalo (Thick Horn Bosses) and some of the heavier Antelope such as Eland, etc.

Although the 9mm (x57?) Mauser would be marginal on some of these, It is known that an Austrian Nobleman, in 1905, shot TWO Rhino, literally back to back, with a single round of “Solid” 8x50R M93, out of a M95 Straightpull Mannlicher ( 247 grain FMJ, steel jacketed projectile). He aimed at one, and unknowingly hit the second one as well–the solid went thru the first Rhino ( heart area) and then hit the second, hidden by long grass…dispatching it as well.

THis cartridge was one of the Chamberings offered by CG Haenel in their M88/1907 carbine ( also offered in 7x57, 7,65x53, 7,9x57J) for use by Germans in the Colonies, and Germans in Latin America, either as Hunters, Settlers, or as Administrators.
I have several M88/07 carbines in 7x57 (the most popular) but have not seen any either personally, nor on the net, in 9x57…Only in the 1911 ALFA catalogue.

Anybody out there have a Kar88-9mm (Marking on receiver sidewall)???

Regards,
DocAV
AV Ballistics.

PS, addendum: And being FMJ, could be legally used against Humans according to the Hague Convention of 1899, which outlawed the use of soft point, open point, or other expanding Bullets in “European” Warfare…ie, it was still OK to use Dum dums( so called) against Non-Europeans (Natives etc)…The Japanese were considered “Europeans” for the purposes of the Convention.


#3

The DWM code indicates that this is a 9x56 Mannlicher-Schönauer cartridge.


#4

The Hague Convention of 1899 with the time had 49 signers and deals with international conflicts. With all the colonies around 49 members represented most of the independent world at that time. Signers for example were China, Japan, Mexico, USA, Persia, Siam. So obviously not a convention exclusive for the European theatre.
I’m not sure if what the singnees did in their colonies (dum-dums against natives) was considered as an internal affair, thus the rules would not apply!

Hans


#5

Dear Hans,
The term “European” at the time of the Hague Convention, refers to people of European or Caucasian origin, not necessarily “European” Continental Nations alone.

Persians were considered “aryan”, and the Japanese, by their Western Form of Centralised Government and Civilization and Independance were as well. Siam, too, being an Independant state in the midst of many European Colonies, was also given Hague Convention Recognition.

In other words, Civilised, “White” or “near White” People. Without going into Modern Politically Correct Terminologies…Whites versus Blacks.

Also, “Police actions” ( or internal Native Control activities) were not bound by the Convention…only formally conducted Warfare…so the Boer War (White Englishmen against White Boer Farmer Republics), was a "European "War.
The Putting down of “the mad Mullah” in Somaliland as it was then, was an English/Italian “Police action” against a native Religious Fanatic., and not covered by the Convention.

The Russo-Japanese War (1904-5) was another such “European” War, whilst the Moro Rebellion in the Philippines( 1903-1906 or so–Just acquired by the US in the Spanish-American War, 1898, just before the Convention) was another “Police Action” etc…

Regards,
Doc AV
AV Ballistics.


#6

DocAV, thank you for interpreting your words.


#7

Saw a pack of .303" MkIV HP service ammo with a sticker saying “Not for use against civilised troops”.


#8

I thought the USA was not a party to the Hague or Geneva Conventions. Or is that simply an urban myth?

Interesting that you can blow a guy’s legs off with a land mine but you cannot shoot him with a soft point bullet.

Ray


#9

Ray,

check the centre of this quick find out, table of signatures, also scroll to the right:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1053&chapter=141611&layout=html&Itemid=27

Hans


#10

Hans

Thanks for that link. I’ve never seen that before. Interesting.

Ray


#11

Thanks for the details on this.

Liberty


#12

What an interesting thread. As always, DocAV put it in perspective. The topic in general makes me feel like Johnny Carson, e.g. I DID NOT KNOW THAT!

Thanks to all for the enlightenment.


#13

After reading the Hague convention rules on ammunition think I will give up the funnies and read the whole thing for kicks. Can anyone more up on international history show me any treaty/law from Babalonian times on that was worth the papirus,sheep skin,clay tablet or paper it was written on?

Gourd


#14

Short answer to Gourd re: Valid, Observed Treaty on Humanitarian Warfare>>>

“NO.”

Doc AV
AV Ballistics.


#15

I remember reading that insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan could be shot with expanding ammunition as they are not unfiromed troops of a nation state. However I don’t think they would do this as it is politically incorrect.