Expanding Bullets 1

Expanding Bullets: Impractical as well as Illegal

Sheldon Tan
University of British Columbia









Expanding Bullets 2

War has always been a brutal business. Since the beginnings of civilization, people have
gone to war and killed each other for causes both just and unjust. Though the rules of war, the
conduct of the combatants, and the nature of the hostilities have constantly changed over time,
throughout most of history the actual means of killing have remained largely the same, blade,
point, or blunt instrument. But with the advent and subsequent widespread adoption of firearms
as the preferred weapon of choice of nations' armies, the technology of killing began to change at
an ever accelerating pace. Thus as international agreements on how wars should be conducted
started being made (the first major one being the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law
that outlawed privateering), it was inevitable that agreements as to what weapons were
permissible would also come into existence. The first agreement of that kind was the 1868 St.
Petersburg Declaration that banned explosive projectiles of under 400 grams. The next major
international accord prohibiting certain sorts of weapons was the 1899 Hague Convention, which
prohibited, among other things, the "use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human
body."
1
Expanding bullets, colloquially known as hollow-point bullets or dum-dums, are bullets
that typically have a tip that is not fully jacketed or made of a soft metal and result in much more
grievous wounds since they deform and essentially shred soft tissue upon impact. The ban faced
vehement opposition on the part of both the United Kingdom and the United States, two of the
most powerful nations attending the conference (however, the UK eventually ratified the
declaration in 1907) but was widely supported by the other states in attendance. This agreement
was not binding to nations that did not sign the agreement or during wars between signatory and
non-signatory nations, but despite this the use of expanding bullets by any nation's army became
rather rare. But how did the ban of the expanding bullet actually come into being and why were
so many nations in support of the ban despite the opposition of two of the world's major powers?

1
Hague Peace Conference of 1899.
Expanding Bullets 3

And more importantly, why did nations that did not sign Declaration III of the 1899 Hague
Convention generally refrain from using such bullets despite the lack of legal prohibition?
The Birth of the Expanding Bullet Ban and how it Became International Law
The calls for a ban of expanding bullets came in 1898, when a German professor by the
name of von Bruns presented findings demonstrating the differences in wounds inflicted by
regular and dum-dum bullets to the Congress of German Surgeons. The Congress decided to
denounce the bullets and call for an international moratorium of using them in warfare, a call the
German War Office quickly picked up and began to propose as a subject at the upcoming Hague
Peace Convention.
2
At the time, many nations had expanding bullets in their arsenal but the
nation that by far used them the most was the United Kingdom (in fact, calling the bullets 'dum-
dums' was a reference to the British factory in Dumdum, India that produced such bullets),
mainly in their colonial wars. When the matter was brought up for debate at the Hague Peace
conference, only the United States and United Kingdom were against the ban (out of 25 nations
in attendence), with the British arguing that "there is a difference in war between civilized
nations and that against savages"
3
and in such situations, expanding bullets are necessary as
savages "even though pierced two or three times, [do] not cease to advance."
4
To the other
nations at the convention, this assertion seemed "contrary to the humanitarian spirit" that the
convention was centred around.
5
American opposition seemed to be more based on the fact that
the proposed ban "would not prevent the use of another bullet... which would attain the same end
as the dum-dum, but in a much more cruel manner."
6
It is unclear what sort of bullet the
Americans were referring to, but an amended version of the ban put in much more vague terms

2
Ogsten, A., 1899 July 29, 278-279
3
Scott, J. 1920
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
"Dum-Dum Bullets in War", 1899
Expanding Bullets 4

and would apparently cover this new bullet was voted down by the committee.
7
In the end the
expanding bullet ban was adopted after a vote in which all countries present save the United
States, United Kingdom, and Portugal (which abstained) voted in support of the measure.
8

Despite not initially signing it, both Portugal and the United Kingdom signed and ratified the ban
of expanding bullets after the second Hague Peace Conference in 1907. The United States "[was]
not... bound by the action of the conference respecting [expanding bullets]"
9
and since then, the
US has never signed the pertinent declaration.
It is interesting to note how nearly all the states that participated in the deliberations on
the expanding bullet ban supported a measure that not only could have reduced the future combat
effectiveness of their armies, but was also vehemently opposed by the imperial behemoth of the
United Kingdom and the up-and-coming economic superpower of America. There are several
possible explanations for the great support of the ban such as, in the words of a Russian
councilor of state in attendance, "the humanitarian spirit which [dominated the] end of the
nineteenth century,"
10
Humanitarian issues were surely the most promoted reasons to ban
expanding bullets during the debates at the Hague Convention; a claim was even made that that
the expanding bullet ban "[proceeded] exclusively from humanitarian sentiment."
11
While the
desire to prevent unnecessary human suffering certainly was likely a part of the decision making
process and may have been the sole concern of certain delegates, there were without doubt other
factors in play that lead the convention to take the course it did.
It may have been a form of bandwagoning that motivated some states to add their voice
to those in support of the ban. Germany, a nation that was emerging as an economic juggernaut

7
Scott, J. 1920
8
Ibid.
9
"The News Condensed", 1899
10
Scott, J. 1920
11
Ibid.
Expanding Bullets 5

and challenger to the United Kingdom's hegemony in Europe, was the first to call for a ban of
expanding bullets and championed for that cause. Russia strongly supported the ban as well and
despite the fact that Russia was a rather backwards country economically and only just
modernizing militarily and culturally, they still held much power on the European stage. Ergo,
the support of both Russia and Germany could have possibly provided an incentive to support
the ban for nations that wanted to curry favour with either the Germans or the Russians.
The ban could also have been seen as a small step towards voluntary disarmament of the
major powers. Russian Tsar Nicholas II was the first to call for the 1899 Hague Convention and
one of his major motivations for doing so was his desire to halt the arms race between the
European powers and disarm (however, some of this sentiment came from his belief that Russia
simply could not keep up with other nations in this arms race).
12
Though little was actually
accomplished to that end, largely thanks to the American delegates,
13
many nations echoed the
sentiments of Tsar Nicholas and may have seen a ban of expanding bullets as an achievable goal
that may open the door for future disarmament.
The above factors may have played a part in the widespread support of the expanding
bullet ban, but it is likely that another factor played a much larger role, that of the fact that many
nations would see relative gains if the ban was to be put in place. The United Kingdom was the
nation that used expanding bullets most extensively, particularly in their colonial wars, as the
bullets were seen as being particularly effective against charging 'savages.'
14
Thus it would be the
United Kingdom that would have to most alter its existing war model to conform with a ban of
expanding bullets and they would be left with the vast number of approximately forty-five

12
Vagts, D. 2000, 33
13
Ibid. 34
14
Scott, J. 1920
Expanding Bullets 6

million already produced expanding bullets that could no longer legally be used for much other
than training purposes.
15

Another important consideration of the relative gains component of the expanding bullet
ban is that the United Kingdom relied on the bullet expansion for the combat effectiveness of
their rifles. The standard round used in British rifles was of a slightly smaller diameter than that
of the bullets used by many of the other European powers as well as having a slower muzzle
velocity (the speed at which the bullet leaves the gun), meaning they had less stopping power.
16

The British had specifically designed the expanding bullet to rectify this after they found that
their bullets were insufficient to stop a foe according to reports from soldiers taking part in
colonial wars in India.
17
Thus the great multinational espousal of the expanding bullet ban may
have been, as some Britons believed it was, an attempt to use humanitarian sentiments as a cover
to prevent the United Kingdom from "[rendering its] military rifle equal to [those of the other
European powers]."
18

It is of course impossible to truly know why the states at the 1899 Hague Convention
chose to vote how they did on the expanding bullet ban, but the fact remains that it easily passed
the vote and was adopted as an official declaration of the convention. Twenty-two states signed
the declaration at the 1899 Hague Convention and at present there are thirteen states that have
signed it since, many at the 1907 Hague Convention.
19




15
UK House of Commons, 1901
16
Ogsten, A. 1899 July 29, 278
17
Ibid. 278
18
Ibid. 279
19
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, n.d.
Expanding Bullets 7

Adherence to the Expanding Bullet Ban: Why did it become so widespread?
The declaration explicitly states that it "is only binding for the Contracting Powers in
the case of a war between two or more of them"
20
though nations not party to the agreement
could at any time inform the Hague that they would abide by the agreement. A number of states
have informed the Hague as such in more recent years and since it came into effect in 1900 no
violations of the expanding bullet ban have been proven to have occurred.
21
Even for nations that
never signed the declaration, the use of expanding bullets by their armies is extremely rare. The
prohibition of expanding bullets in international warfare has over the last century become an
accepted practice and the International Committee of the Red Cross states that "state practice
(regarding the expanding bullet) establishes [the] rule as a norm of customary international law
applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts."
22
It is likely that a
number of factors are responsible for the non-use of expanding bullets quickly becoming normal
after the 1899 Hague Convention, such as purely humanitarian concerns which, if liberal
tendencies were to hold true, would result in all nations refraining from using such bullets to
prevent 'unnecessary' human suffering and reap the benefits of the absolute gains of not having
their nation's soldiers subjected to such weapons so effective at killing. But it would be difficult
to believe that the myriad of states conforming with the ban have done so out of the goodness of
their collective hearts.
Though the possible humanitarian motivations of nations not using expanding bullets
are admirable, the truth is that probably the most influential factor in their rarity of use is that, to
put it simply, a wounded soldier is more expensive to a nation than a dead one. Bullets that are

20
Hague Peace Conference of 1899.
21
Coupland and Loye. 2003, 135
22
International Committee of the Red Cross, n.d.
Expanding Bullets 8

fully jacketed in hard metal are much more likely to pass through the body completely;
23
it is
even possible for such bullets to pass through "three or four human bodies" at long range.
24
A
bullet passing though the body means less kinetic energy is transferred from the bullet to the
target, leading to less serious injuries. Jacketed bullets are also smaller in diameter when passing
through the body and thus leave smaller wounds. Accordingly, wounds inflicted by fully
jacketed bullets are much less likely to be fatal than wounds inflicted by expanding bullets. In
fact, the mortality rate of an abdominal wound inflicted by an expanding bullet of roughly the
same energy as the typical bullet at the time of the Hague Declaration is greater than 50% and
may even approach 90%.
25
However, it should be noted that fully jacketed rounds can,
depending on a number of factors including bullet size, muzzle velocity, and gun construction,
cause essentially the same amount of damage as expanding bullets (particularly if it turns after
tissue penetration).
2627
This means that, in general, if more wounding fully jacketed bullets are
used as opposed to killing expanding bullets, the nation that is sustaining these causalities will
expend valuable time and resources to care for the wounded and bring them back to health.
If one were to look at this through the lens of the rational actor model, the cost of a man
wounded by a fully jacketed round would be the resources and manpower required to care for
him, the time required for him to recuperate, and the loss of the required resources from
wherever they would have otherwise been utilized. In some cases there may also be a cost to
physically retrieving the wounded soldier to allow medical attention to be given in the first place.
The act of retrieving the wounded soldier might expose more personnel to enemy fire as well.
Compared to this rather high cost of a wounded soldier, the cost of a dead soldier would simply

23
Berry, J. 2010, 65
24
Ogsten, A. 1899 March 25, 754
25
Coupland and Loye, 2003, 141
26
Coupland et al. 2000, 3
27
Coupland and Loye, 2003, 138-139
Expanding Bullets 9

be the resources and manpower required for a burial (if such a burial is actually performed), the
cost of training a replacement soldier, and the cost of losing whatever combat experience the
deceased soldier may have possessed. Initially, the cost of training a new soldier may seem large
but one could reasonably presume that in a time of war newly trained soldiers are being supplied
constantly. One could also venture that due to the nature of this training (fixed training camps
and training personnel, standardized training regimen), it is an economy of scale, meaning that at
high volumes, the cost of training an extra soldier is negligible. Conversely, the treatment of
wounded is not an economy of scale; it is not much cheaper to treat the hundredth casualty than
to treat the first casualty. To put it simply, much of the cost of training soldiers is in the form of
fixed initial costs that do not continue accruing whereas much of the cost of caring for wounded
soldiers is in the form of variable costs that must be constantly paid.
Thus it is in a nation's ultimate interests to use fully jacketed bullets against the armies
of their foes. Relative gains would be yielded as for the small expense of ever so slightly
reducing their combat effectiveness (i.e. their ability to render enemy soldiers hors de combat),
they would force the enemy to use precious resources to heal the wounded rather than use those
resources to fight the war. Fully jacketed bullets are also marginally cheaper to produce than
most sorts of expanding bullets, which further incentivizes their use. The only situation in which
using expanding bullets, and thus killing more of the enemy nation's soldiers, would be more
advantageous would be when a war of attrition is being fought or the enemy is unable to replace
their soldiers at an equal or greater rate than they are dying. It may also be beneficial to kill
rather than wound your enemy for the purpose of propaganda but ultimately that is a secondary
concern that does not likely affect the any large number of conflict situations. In the vast
majority of combat situations the these factors do not hold true, making fully jacketed bullets the
Expanding Bullets 10

preferred weapon, in turn contributing to the customary practice of refraining from using
expanding bullets.
Yet another reason that could explain the rarity of expanding bullets regardless of
legality is that for much of the 20th century, the primary concern of states in terms of conflict
was that of interstate armed confrontations. In these situations, well supplied and equipped
armies would be fighting each other and thus soldiers on the battlefield would have access to the
best military equipment available in the nation the army fights for. Beginning in the early years
of the 20th century, body armour technology advanced more and more rapidly. By the time of
World War I, many of the European powers already had body armour that was relatively
efficient at protecting the wearer from bullets.
28
With these advances, more and more
consideration had to be afforded to the aim of penetrating body armour.. Fully jacketed bullets
are significantly more effective in punching through body armour than expanding bullets and
thus many nations used jacketed bullets specifically designed to pierce body armour.
29

It is still important to note that the ban on expanding bullets has by no means been
perfect, as there was no way that the delegates of the 1899 Hague Convention could have
predicted advances in technology and the novel bullet ballistics that may cause. Firearm
technologies have since been developed that allow fully jacketed rounds to inflict wounds near
identical to that of an expanding bullet. Since 1899, the muzzle velocities of guns have increased
significantly and velocity is a major component of "the causation of large wounds"
30
since a
faster bullet will possess a larger amount of kinetic energy. Bullet and gun design has also
moved towards smaller calibres in general and with this shift it has been noticed that fully

28
Dean, B. 1920
29
Berry, J. 2010, 90
30
Coupland et al. 2000, 2
Expanding Bullets 11

jacketed bullets are more susceptible to turning after penetrating soft tissue, some more than
others.
31

The ban of expanding bullets put forth in Declaration III of the 1899 Hague Convention
has proved extremely effective over the last century, not because any great number of nations
were party to the agreement or that it is effectively enforced, but because the agreement to not
use expanding bullets in warfare often aligns with the interests of states. Whether there will be a
time in the future when the use of expanding bullets becomes advantageous and their use once
again enters the mainstream is unclear but it is undeniable that the feat of an international
agreement ratified by only 35 states giving rise to a customary international law is no
unremarkable accomplishment.
Declaration III of the 1899 Hague Convention: A model for future international
agreements?
The ban of expanding bullets may seem on its surface to be a prime example of
international cooperation and respect for the humanitarian principle of unnecessary suffering, but
the reality is quite different. While the true motivations of the states that supported the expanding
bullet ban and helped make it a reality are unknowable, it seems a prominent possibility that the
nations of Europe were, with the expanding bullet ban, attempting to lower the combat
effectiveness of the United Kingdom, the nation most invested in the use of expanding bullets.
The realist notion of relative gains comes into play here, as many of the European powers would
benefit from a reduction in British military strength, with sentiments of humanitarianism and
disarmament being secondary factors that were potentially used as a cover to act as a justification
for the ban. As for the seeming success of the ban since 1899, it is true that expanding bullets are
rarely used by either signatories of the ban or non-signatories, but that again has its roots in

31
Coupland and Loye, 2003, 138
Expanding Bullets 12

relative gains and other incidental considerations, such as firearm and body armour technology.
Refraining from using expanding bullets has been compatible with the interests of states, so the
bullets have not been used. Any sought after international arms agreement in the future that may
wish to emulate the success of the ban of expanding bullets cannot simply use it as a template
and find equal success. The success of the expanding bullets ban can be just as much, likely
more so, attributed to the political climate of the time, the nature of warfare since the ban, and
the technological advancement of firearm and body armour technology in the past century as it
can be to the cause of humanitarianism. This ban serves as the perfect example of how dependent
international arms agreements are on factors that are not in control of the states that may be
wishing to make such agreements. In essence, certain arms agreements have finite windows of
time that they can be practically implemented, widely supported, and commonly adhered to by
the international community.

Bibliography
Berry, J. (2010). Hollow Point Bullets: How History Has Hijacked Their Use in Combat and
Why it is Time to Reexamine the 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets.
Military Law Review. 206(88), 88-156. Retrieved from http://www.heinonline.org/

Coupland, R., Kneubuehl, B., Rowley, D., and Bowyer, G. (2000). Wound Ballistics, Surgery
and the Law of War. Trauma. 2(1), 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com/

Coupland, R. and Loye, D. (2003). The 1899 Hague Declaration concerning expanding bullets:
A treaty effective for more than 100 years face complex contemporary issues. International
Review of the Red Cross. 85(849), 135-142.

Dean, B. (1920). Helmets and body armor in modern warfare. New Haven: Yale University
Press. Retrieved from http://www.archive.org/

Expanding Bullets 13

Dum-Dum Bullets in War: Ambassador White Defines America's Attitude at the Hague. (1899,
July 22). The New York Times. p. 5

Hague Peace Conference of 1899. Declaration concerning the prohibition of the use of bullets
which can easily expand or change their form inside the human body such as bullets with a hard
covering which does not completely cover the core, or containing indentations. (July 29 1899)

International Committee of the Red Cross. (n.d.). Customary International Humanitarian Law
Rule 77. Expanding Bullets. Retrieved from http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_
rule77

Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (n.d.). Declaration concerning the prohibition of the
use of bullets which can easily expand or change their form inside the human body such as
bullets with a hard covering which does not completely cover the core, or containing
indentations. Retrieved from http://www.minbuza.nl/en/key-topics/treaties/search-the-treaty-
database/1899/7/002423.html

Ogsten, A. (1899 March 25). Continental Criticism of English Rifle Bullets. The British Medical
Journal. 1(1995), 752-757. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/

Ogsten, A. (1899 July 29). The Peace Conference and the Dum-Dum Bullet. The British Medical
Journal. 2(2013). 278-281. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/

Scott, J. (1920). The proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences: Translation of the official
texts. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.archive.org/

The News Condensed. (1899, July 25). The New York Times. Front page.

United Kingdom House of Commons. (1901). Rejected Mark IV Bullets. Commons Sitting of 21
March 1901. cc699-700. Retrieved from http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1901/
mar/21/rejected-mark-iv-bullets#S4V0091P0-01962

Vagts, D. (2000). The Hague Conventions and Arms Control. The American Journal of
International Law. 94(1), 31-41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/