Skip to main content
Thank you for your patience as we work through our high volume of requests. If you need assistance with 2FA, please provide the correct phone number in your ticket request so we can assist quicker.
Help Center Community Shop

.223 DRT 79 Grain bullets

Comments

16 comments

  • hotshoot
    yep, whating for them to get some .45 in[:(]

    http://store.drtammo.com/
    0
  • FrancF
    quote:.223 79 Grain

    I would like to see 400 yard ballistics for that one-[:D]
    0
  • watrulookinat
    It was e-mailed to me from a company and I have never heard of this ammo before. I was just wondering if anyone has shot this ammo down range before and what the results were.
    0
  • joshmb1982
    so as for the military aspect of this. what happens when these round encounter any kind of body armor? how about shooting through windows? i could see how this would devistate flesh and bone but what about going through protective clothing?
    0
  • 46270
    I want to try some.
    shoot some gel, gallon jugs. I would
    like to see what happens
    0
  • FrancF
    quote:Originally posted by watrulookinat
    It was e-mailed to me from a company and I have never heard of this ammo before. I was just wondering if anyone has shot this ammo down range before and what the results were.


    I was too, I got to looking at it from a reloading prospective and said "no thanks" I bet in the "Reload Forum" the hidden talent can build it better.[:D] If you reload, (don't recall)
    0
  • watrulookinat
    They claim this ammo will shoot through a 2x4, but won't go through a body.


    quote:I was too, I got to looking at it from a reloading prospective and said "no thanks" I bet in the "Reload Forum" the hidden talent can build it better. If you reload, (don't recall)

    No..I don't reload, but with the way things are looking I problay should.
    0
  • FrancF
    Want me to put this over in the reload forum for the diehard's?
    0
  • watrulookinat
    Sure go ahead.
    0
  • FrancF
    Done- It might move a little slower here but with JustC, Tailgunner, BertH and others you will get pointed in the right direction. I have my own opinion. Not knocking the ammo!
    0
  • bpost
    I would question its use in war. The Geneva convention specifically prohibits the use of such projectiles.
    0
  • joshmb1982
    but isnt the good ole usa about the only one to honor the geneva convention?
    0
  • nononsense
    The Geneva Conventions don't prohibit any such thing.

    The Hague Conference of 1899 is where the prohibitions of certain types of ammunition and gaseous weapons come into use. And as an aside, The U.S. is a NON-signatory, we didn't sign or ratify these rules but we adhere to them.

    Laws of War :

    Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899

    The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

    Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

    Declare as follows:

    The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

    The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

    It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

    The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.

    The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.

    A proces-verbal shall be drawn up on the receipt of each ratification, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.

    The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

    In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

    This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

    In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Declaration, and have affixed their seals thereto.

    Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and of which copies, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.
    0
  • sandwarrior
    watrulookinat,

    I can tell you with pretty much certainty that our military has not adopted such a bullet...at least for anti-personnel uses. I also find the characteristics of this bullet to be 'somewhat unbelievable'.

    For the basis of the 1899 Hague Convention and the reasons we came to adhere to it and not sign it, the link below provides some pretty good insight:
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague99/haguemen.htm

    It does not go as far as to cover the 1907 Hague convention in which we ascribed to more diligent rules of war. That convention was pretty much a recap of the first but more countries got on board with it.

    quote:joshmb1982,
    but isnt the good ole usa about the only one to honor the geneva convention?

    [{EDIT:} I got caught on that one, Geneva accords pertain more to treatment of people and the Hague rules pertain more to weapons and usage.]

    No, 88 countries adhere to the 1899 and 1907 (edit:{Hague})Convention declarations. However, in practice the declarations are subject to interpretation. For example, the reason we use some hollow point/match ammunition instead of FMJ bullets in our sniper rounds. The purpose of that use is for precision of flight not for terminal effect. And, at the ranges normally used the terminal performance is not exacerbated as it would be under normal combat ranges. Other countries use 'interpretation' the same way with various weapons of their own.
    0
  • joshmb1982
    hague convention? ive never heard of this. please explain
    0
  • nononsense
    joshmb1982,

    I have no intention of writing a comprehensive history paper about the various and interlinking Agreements and Conventions that have been occurring since long before you and I were born. Here is the basic concepts of a couple of them mentioned here:

    Geneva Convention of 1864

    "One of a series of agreements first formulated at an international convention held in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1864, establishing rules for the treatment of prisoners of war, the sick, and the wounded."

    That's as simple and concise that I can subscribe to.

    Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907

    "Both were attempts by the world powers to codify the Rules or Laws of Land Warfare. During the Convention of 1907, the directives were to extend these rules and create new ones for Warfare at Sea. It is these Conventions where the prohibition of the so-called 'dum-dum' bullets came about."

    Since these are also linked to others in history, it's important to read the longer versions and the original text to see and understand the detail that the world powers wanted to project onto the concept of warfare.

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague99/hag99-09.htm

    http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html (good summary)

    Best.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?