National Weather Service buying hollow point bullets?

I really get a kick out of the comments here that suggest that hollow-points are good for bear, boar, and other dangerous animals. Hollow-points are DEFINITELY NOT good for that purpose. For dangerous animals, you need penetration – bone-busting penetration. Also, .40 caliber is most definitely not a good caliber for use on dangerous animals. .40 caliber hollow-point ammunition is made and intended for only one purpose – shooting humans. In bear or boar if you are carrying a handgun for protection, you need at least a .44 magnum. .454 Casull or .500 S&W are better. But .40 caliber? Not on your life. Hollow-points, no way. Hollow-points are also not generally used for target shooting except when practicing with the self-defense rounds you will be using. So, folks, the ammuntion in question is intended for shooting human targets.

captainfish says: “still begs the question why the Fisheries Service needs Hollow-Point bullets?”
To take down those CO2 Mutated man-eating bass and salmon. 😉

I’d like to know how the other agencies in the Gov’t get away with lead ammo, when the military and civilian shooters have been repeatedly castigated by environmentalist’s and the EPA for poisoning various spotted and non-spotted wildlife with the very same ammo. Fair is fair.

Bob says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:52 am
Paul,
The .45 you belittle (.45 long colt or, more accurately simply .45 Colt) is most definitely NOT a slouch. You are confusing the original loads which were black powder or the similar loads that cowboy action shooters use. But modern .45 Long Colt ammunition can be loaded to exceed the power of .44 magnum ammunition in the right gun. The original Colt SSA could not handle that but many modern guns can including many Ruger “cowboy” guns. I have a old model Ruger Vaquero in .45LC that can handle anything you put in it. Also, you are incorrect about them being dangerous to carry. Most modern “cowboy” guns have transfer bar safeties or similiar devices that allow them to be carried will all chambers loaded safely just like modern double-action revolvers
You should get your facts straight.
_________________________
Howdy Bob,
Re- read what Paul said and you’ll find he was talking about .45acp 1911’s (low magazine capacity, “condition one”, etc.)
You just almost have to feel sorry for someone who doesn’t appreciate a fine .45 acp auto.
Examine ballistics for the 9mm and .45 acp and find that the .45 retains almost as much energy at 100 yards as the 9mm has at the muzzle (comparing both heavy or light bullet weights in each caliber) and you will see why the US Marine Corps and various Special Ops Groups have all gone back to the venerable .45 acp.
in re: .45Colt- there is nothing about the original black powder .45 Colt load which could label the round a “slouch”, as it was designed to “shoot through a horse” (sorry, horse lovers, but wars back then were fought with mounted cavalry). There are any number of loads with modern powders which exceed the original ballistics while remaining at safe operating pressures of 14K psi, safe enough for Colt SAA and clones.
One powder mfg. even lists load data of 1129 fps w/ Hornady’s 250 gr. XTP… safe and potent.
.45 Colt loads with 260 gr. cast bullets @ur momisugly 900fps (close to old black powder load) are known to shoot lengthwise through a mule deer at 100 yards.
What a fun thread. Can you tell I like .45’s in all the various flavors?

Apparently, when all is said and done, the total amount of various kinds of bullets being purchased by non-military agencies is more than 1 billion. And some agencies have set it so that their purchases are recurring annually.
Why does the TSA need hundreds of millions of hollow point bullets? Especially with no money available to the government for these large purchases, and with the military cuts that are taking place? Why cut the military and then heavily arm other government agencies??

From John Marshall on August 15, 2012 at 2:49 am:

So ammunition banned by the Geneva Convention is OK for US Federal agencies for use against their own population, who else is it for use against?

Sorry, that’s a common misconception. It was actually the Hague Convention (aka Hague Accords) of 1899. Even Wikipedia has it right in their Expanding bullet entry, which is a good read for the history and current application of the prohibition.
I’m trying to figure this part out:

Until relatively recently, the prohibition on the use of expanding bullets was only applicable to international armed conflicts. The International Committee of the Red Cross’s customary international law study contends that customary law now prohibits their use in armed conflicts not of an international character.[15] The adoption of an amendment to Article 8 at the Review Conference of the Rome Statute in Kampala makes the use of expanding bullets in non-international armed conflict a war crime.[16]
Because the Hague convention applies only to the use of expanding bullets in war, the use of expanding rounds remains legal, or even required, in some circumstances. Examples of this are use of appropriately expanding bullets in hunting, where it is desirable to stop the animal quickly either to prevent loss of a game animal, or ensure a humane death of vermin, and in law enforcement or self defence, where quickly neutralizing an aggressor may be needed to prevent further loss of life, or where the bullet must remain inside the target to prevent collateral damage e.g. on an aircraft.[17][18]

So governments are allowed to use expanding bullets against their own citizens, except in the case of armed insurrection (revolution) which would be non-international armed conflict?
Of course I find the whole issue horribly outdated. We can bomb enemy positions flat, employ missiles, mortars, and grenades to annihilate mass quantities at will. But expanding bullets are banned as too messy and lethal? In the models of “civilized” warfare, non-expanding bullets results in loading down the enemy with wounded, draining their resources. Nowadays we face enemies who leave their wounded for we to tend to, with the occasional booby-trap added, when the injured fighter isn’t conscious enough to wait with a grenade or other weapon for our medics to approach.
What purpose does this prohibition serve in modern times?

Amino Acids in Meteorites: “Why cut the military and then heavily arm other government agencies??”
Likely answer straight from the horses mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Along with the military, for the most part, being prohibit by the Posse Comitatus Act from being used / acting inside U.S. against U.S. citizens; whereas Big-Brother agencies are all to willing.