Talk:Expanding bullet

message: I have moved the page from Dum dum to Dum-dum. This makes the title consistent with the text. Axl 10:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moved 

message: The article states:
:Illegally modified bullets found on a soldier would be evidence that the soldier was not following the conventions of land warfare, and he could be treated as an illegal combatant (subject to summary execution).
I do not believe that prisoners ever are subject to summary execution.  Prisoners are supposed to be treated according to the Geneva Conventions by their captors.  If doubt exists that they are entitled to being classified as a POW, then a "competent tribunal" is supposed to convene to make a determination about their status.  I believe that, until that time, an execution, or even brutal treatment, constitutes a war crime.
I removed the reference to execution, and placed a link to unlawful combatant. 3mta3 06:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To the unsigned poster above: If a person does not qualify for combatant status, they become subject to the criminal law applicable. That means they can be arrested, tried and sentenced, but Geneva Convention 4 prohibits punishment without due process. To confirm what 3mta3 said, it also provides that: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." (Geneva Convention 4, http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument). It's quite true that there used to be a tradition of summary execution for violations of IHL, but that's no longer official policy in "civilized" armed forces. But I'm getting a teeny bit off-topic ;-) UrsusMaximus (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: May I also add that a combatant doesn't become an illegal combatant by using expanding bullets. It is a violation of the laws of war, and a person can be punished but Article 85 of the GC IV states that "Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention". Sjö (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  illegal combatants subject to summary execution? 

message: this article needs some serious work on referencing. Check out WP:CITE and then find a free bibliography maker of the net. Enjoy. --CyclePat 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marc Bossuyt and Jan Wouters (2005): Grondlijnen van internationaal recht, Intersentia, Antwerpen enz., p. 539 (in Dutch) says dum-dum bullets were first produced in 1867. In 1868, a Saint Petersburg declaration (written bij 26 states) said that this type of bullet was "be contrary to the laws of humanity"; so the 26 states forbade the use of these bullets. NL-Ninane 20:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, adding a source showing hollow point express bullets in established use by the mid 1870s.  scot (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: During the Great Depression and the Second World War, when the only ammunition inexpensively available in certain calibers (such as .30/06) an old American hunter's trick was to pull the bullets and reverse them in just this manner, placing the exposed lead of their bases forward.  This would cause the bullet to expand like a softpoint bullet, at least sometimes; the projectiles, having not been designed for use in this manner, usually did not give consistent accuracy, expansion, weight retention, or deep penetration.  But for light game like whitetail deer, it was said to be better than the alternatives.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I can't help but remark that the matter of this page seems to be overlapping a lot with that of Hollow-point bullet. Would it not be desirable to cull the intersting parts of this page and make them into a section of the one I mentioned?
If not, can somebody explain clearly how the expanding bullets are not a subset of hollow point ones (or the reverse, though as far as I can tell all expanding bullets have a hollow in the tip) --Svartalf (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think articles should be merged.  This article is awkwardly positioned as a short subset of bullet, and superset of hollow point bullet and soft point bullet (which is similarly short, as well as partially overlapping).  The current article division is esoterically gangly for most readers.  I think the most logical organization would be to have hollow point bullet and soft point bullet merged into expanding bullet. ENeville (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose: Hollow point and soft point rounds are both notable enough to stand as their own articles.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Expanding bullets are are subtype of Hollow tip.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably mean the other way around, don't you? There are many expanding bullets that are not hollow tip.Sjö (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Oppose The two are different--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose As noted above, all bullets of this type are expanding bullets but there are many different versions.109.158.254.149 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a merge desirable? 

message: There's been a rumor ever since that the real motivation for the German complaints was that when they copied the bullet, its blunt shape caused frequent feedway stoppages in Maxim guns.  Is this worthy of inclusion?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  German complaints to the Hague Convention 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Expanding bullet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925190004/http://www.thegunzone.com/dum-dum.html to http://www.thegunzone.com/dum-dum.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I found this source in Swedish about a study that supports that expanding bullets do reduce the risk of overpenetration , but it would be preferable to have an English-language source in the "Function and use" section. Sjö (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing risk of overpenetration 

message: Could we perhaps have a translation from German to English for that image of a sketch from, what I assume to be, a medical book or whatever. Here is a link to the image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet#/media/File:Wundbalistik_DumDumGescho%C3%9F_001.jpg
Thanks! : )  ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 20:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation...