I may just be a retard with a dumb question but why is it that

>>33217909

Not good against armor.

>>33217936
Well yeah but soldiers can't even opt to carry expanding ammo.

>>33217961

It's for standardization and versatility

File: 54r steel cores.jpg (411KB, 1280x1348px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1280x1348px

>>33217936
unless it's steel, then it'll punch through stuff that laughs off 54r within 100 yards

>>33217974
>and the fucking law

fucking Geneva convention

File: IMG_0254.jpg (87KB, 750x735px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 750x735px

>>33217992
>if Geneva bans painting tanks in rainbow camos because it offends the gays and America doesn't do it, it's because Geneva said so, not because it's stupid as fuck to begin with

>>33218027
>Comparing painting tanks a highly visible color to using expanding ammo to kill people

>>33218027
vaild. i however feel the hague conventions have somthing to do with it. or am i being a retard?

>>33217986

You dumb?

5.56 hollowpoints aren't going to have better penetration than 7.62x54r

>>33218090
If they're going the same speed, they'll probably defeat steel.

File: 1488731394579.png (375KB, 763x960px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 763x960px

>>33218114
oh god
please be b8

>>33218164
ok, "my" steel
which is about 1/4 inch thick, but hard as shit

>>33217909
Because that was part of the rules of warfare as outlined in the Hague Convention.

>But what was the rationale?
Expanding ammunition was the scary black death rifle of the time.

>But what about cops?
They never signed onto a binding international treaty preventing them from changing over.

>>33217992
Not this meme. The Hogue treaties which we aren't a party to disallow it against other treaty countries. There's no reason we can't use it, and in some cases we've started using open tips however that's for better barrier blind ballistics. They just don't want to,

The US isn't a signatory to the Hague convention. Why do people keep bringing it up?

>>33218304

>they never signed

neither did the US. they keep with the "code of war" but the US never signed shit.

File: bad touchy zone.png (264KB, 942x664px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 942x664px

>>33218226

>>33218054
It was the Hague, not Geneva. They banned expanding/explosive ammo back then before hollow-points were even a concern; they were more concerned about some sort of two-stage explosive projectiles like artillery, but for small arms.

>>33219360
>two-stage explosive projectiles for small arms

FUND IT

>>33222072
No.
Because there are treaties against it.
That's how that works.

>>33219360
You're thinking the St. Petersburg declaration that banned explosive ammo.
The Hague convention III banned ammunition designed to expand or deform.