>there is no clear universally accepted definition of what a dum-dum bullet is.
Probably because it is not the proper name. Dum-Dum is not a bullet, it is
(was?) and arsenal in the British West Bengal (today India) which manufactured
bullets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_Dum_Arsenal
the term you are looking for is "expanding bullet".
>rulings which contravene convention
Hmmm. AFAIK, the use of expanding bullets is prohibited only in _international_
warfare, by the 1899 Hague Convention, Declaration IV,3.
The restriction was introduced to keep them allowed for law enforcement, chiefly
in the colonies against local "savages".
(Politikorrect Komissars on patrol may jump in here. Nab those 1899 guys)
Caveat: my knowledge is from the 1960s-70s. I suspect that this has been changed
in the 2010 Kampala revision to bar them among countries which signed the Rome
statute. But frankly I didn't keep current.
- - -
I remember periodic inspections of our soldiers' ammo, looking for those who
incised the tips of their 9mm bullets, to turn them into makeshift expanders.
Some conscripts with kin hurt by the terrs would do that for revenge. We'd can
them.
(Shame too: an incised 9mm would throw back a dummy by 2 or 3 metres. Good way
to absolutely stop anyone in point-blank fights, within bunkers and such).
>I wondered "just exactly what is a "dum-dum" bullet?".
>The link below appears to air an impartial and objective discussion on
>the topic.
>
>http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html
>
>The bottom line (notwithstanding the fact that the US government has
>willy-nilly made rulings which contravene convention as it sees fit
>based on perceived expedience) it seems, is that there is no clear
>universally accepted definition of what a dum-dum bullet is. This is
>certainly true for the past. Maybe into the future some universal
>definition will emerge.
|
|
')){kind=link}