Military round comparisons

[BjornF16]

Actually, that isn't really why, although I suppose it could be used as a legal rationale. IIRC, the US JAG authorized use of Sierra MatchKing hollowpoints mainly on the technicality that they were not designed to expand in flesh.

That rationale is the second link I provided.

And BTW, the US is also not a signatory to Hague Declaration III.

However, HD III (1899) was the basis for other "findings" or agreements to which we ARE signatories, notably Hague Declaration 1907, Section IV, Article 23e which basically says the same thing. (The US considers HD III section relating to explosive bullets to be a part of international law as it is closely related to HD 1907 Section IV, Article 23e.) The second link I provided also gives other Treaty agreements to which we are signatories.

The bottom line is that the Law of War constraints upon the US include not using bullets designed to fragment or expand upon contact (this is routinely taught in Law of War "classes" which we had to routinely take). The OTM bullet does not meet this criteria (as outlined in the finding I provided).

Finally, these conventions to which we are signatories are obligatory between warring parties who are both/all signatories. As soon as a non-signatory is introduced, the limitations are removed. Al Qaeda is NOT a signatory, and therefore we wouldn't be held to those restrictions (and my original post is still correct).