Interesting Story: Army to Test New 'Green' Bullets


PDA






andrewdl007
May 4, 2011, 10:10 PM
Army to Test New 'Green' Bullets
http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/05/04/army-test-new-green-bullets

What do you all think of this? If they work as well or better then the current rounds I guess I am all for them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting Story: Army to Test New 'Green' Bullets" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
InkEd
May 4, 2011, 10:34 PM
Looks like a waste of time and money being done to satisfy the enviromental whackjobs. Lead free ammo with no ballistic improvements.

Remo223
May 4, 2011, 10:43 PM
stupid. its a solid copper bullet. anything lighter than lead is a downgrade. If they want to go lead free they need to go with tungsten.

Vin
May 4, 2011, 10:43 PM
If the army wants to invest money researching more effective rounds; green or otherwise, I'm all for it. The only problem is whenever you research something, a lot of money is spent on projects that don't bare fruit. Then again, sometimes even silly projects can bring interesting results. Laminated glass is one example.

Owen Sparks
May 4, 2011, 10:44 PM
Where does lead come from in the first place?

It is dug up out of the ground, millions of tons of it!
Lead is one of the basic elements.

clancy12
May 4, 2011, 10:54 PM
As far as reloading bullets go, all-copper bullets such as Barnes are way more expensive than a comparable lead bullet. Why would the government want to spend more per bullet (not to mention the trial costs as mentioned in some above posts) on bullets that may or may not even be of equal quality? Seems like a lot of tax dollars being wasted just to satisfy a few extremely left-wing people who will most likely still be mad due to their opinions on guns in general.

Kendal Black
May 4, 2011, 11:13 PM
If we work this right, we might be able to do away with the bogus "cop killer bullet" ban of '86. How? By arguing as follows:


New emphasis on environmentally friendly ammunition calls for more choices of bullet materials.

Improvements in body armor mean the banned bullets are not now the threat they were previously.


What we must avoid is the silly little dance some anti-gun people would like to see us dance. You can't use lead because it's un-environmental, and you can't use anything else that is practical, because it's banned. See how clever that is? :rolleyes:

gunnutery
May 4, 2011, 11:23 PM
Where does lead come from in the first place?

It is dug up out of the ground, millions of tons of it!
Lead is one of the basic elements.

Exactly, that's what I've been trying say all along with this whole EPA banning lead thing. IT'S NATURAL, IT CAN'T HURT THE ENVIRONMENT!!

I thought the Army was smarter than that. Just what we need, Foxnews AND the Army inadvertantly saying that lead bullets aren't safe for the enviornment.

I'm really a very patient man, but when it comes to lack of common sense at a federal level, I get really angry.

metalman8600
May 4, 2011, 11:33 PM
Geez, lead comes from the Earth. You aren't polluting when you take something from the Earth and put it back where it came from.

Plus, blood makes the grass grow ;)

Patchbunny
May 4, 2011, 11:59 PM
Waiting to hear more about its wound ballistics properties.

average_shooter
May 5, 2011, 12:03 AM
Uranium is natural too, so who cares if it gets in your water or food? Right? right...?

Lead and other metals are naturally contained deep under ground, where they are fairly well contained. When they enter a system in which they can be ingested, or otherwise contaminate organisms, they can become harmful to the environment.

Any of you folks like hunting waterfowl? Would you not also like for your grandchildren to have the chance to hunt healthy waterfowl? Just as an example.

I'm all for finding more environmentally-friendly ammunition. Especially considering the amounts expended by the U.S. military.

On another note, lead isn't as cheap as it used to be since China started buying it all. Never forget that likely the number one driving factor for change is $ financial $ .

Shadow 7D
May 5, 2011, 12:45 AM
Why not something like Zymak in a Tomboc (sp, gliding metal/mild steal)
seems like it would be a econical 'green' bullet, or WTH, how bout a mild Iron core bullet...
been done before

leadcounsel
May 5, 2011, 12:55 AM
Unfortunately, things like this that are impractical luxuries soon become mandatory requirements -

And that would price most of us out of shooting.

usmarine0352_2005
May 5, 2011, 01:49 AM
.

You've got to be kidding me......."Green" Ammo.....I'm sure the enemy is enthusiastic that they will be killed by ammo that is not only more deadly but also good for the environment!....the environment that they will no longer be around to enjoy.

.

merlinfire
May 5, 2011, 12:57 PM
To keep my post less political than some of my forebears, I will say only that which is relevant: namely cost and effectiveness should not be significantly compromised if this is going to be a mass-produced, military-use technology.

A very minor cost and effectiveness difference may be acceptable, but certainly not very much. The lead that comes from small arms is probably nothing compared to the pollution done by much larger ordinance.

9mm+
May 5, 2011, 01:41 PM
It's just plain weird. The environmentalists strike again. :mad:

RTR_RTR
May 5, 2011, 01:53 PM
Uranium is natural too, so who cares if it gets in your water or food? Right? right...?

Lead and other metals are naturally contained deep under ground, where they are fairly well contained. When they enter a system in which they can be ingested, or otherwise contaminate organisms, they can become harmful to the environment.

Any of you folks like hunting waterfowl? Would you not also like for your grandchildren to have the chance to hunt healthy waterfowl? Just as an example.

I'm all for finding more environmentally-friendly ammunition. Especially considering the amounts expended by the U.S. military.

On another note, lead isn't as cheap as it used to be since China started buying it all. Never forget that likely the number one driving factor for change is $ financial $

I hate seeing all this "natural is good, synthetic is bad" crap that gets spilled around everywhere. There's nothing inherently good or bad in general about anything natural or synthetic, it all comes down to the properties of the substance.

Assuming they can maintain reasonable effectiveness (cost and usability), this is a great endeavor.

Owen Sparks
May 5, 2011, 02:06 PM
Many millions of rounds of lead core bullets were sprayed all over the French country side in the First World War and the farms and fields are just as lush and green as before. Have you ever heard of any health problems in france because of lead contamination?

RTR_RTR
May 5, 2011, 02:12 PM
Have you met any french people?????

Edit: Ok, I kid

ZCORR Jay
May 5, 2011, 02:17 PM
Many millions of rounds of lead core bullets were sprayed all over the French country side in the First World War and the farms and fields are just as lush and green as before. Have you ever heard of any health problems in france because of lead contamination?

I'd say you can't beat that argument

Jim Watson
May 5, 2011, 02:20 PM
Before you all get excited, look up the subject someplace with credentials on guns and ammunition. What they show is M855A1 which has a gilding metal jacket and base core with an exposed long steel nose core. A previous version with a bismuth base core to add weight did not work well, so they went all copper alloy.

Owen Sparks
May 5, 2011, 02:25 PM
Lead is heavy and tends to settle out of the ground water very rapidly and return to the Earth. That is why heavy metals like lead, gold and uranium are not naturally found on the surface.

USAF_Vet
May 5, 2011, 02:40 PM
The environmentalists in ********** won some sort of law suit many moons ago regarding lead bullets. Where I was staioned at the time (Travis AFB), we had to use enviro-friendly lead free bullets on the range. What a waste. All because an endagered species of brine shrimp lived in the Solano marsh. Save the Sea Monkys! was the unofficial firing range motto.
I'm glad I got out of that place.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
May 5, 2011, 02:53 PM
I understand these new bullets are similar in design and in performance to the Barnes Triple Shock X-bullet. In fact, I read one place that they ARE Barnes Bullets!

If so, they should do much better than existing ball ammo as for terminal ballistics with the opened-up X-pedal razor-sharp points.

MachIVshooter
May 5, 2011, 02:56 PM
While I don't want to see lead completely banned, I'm all for a non-toxic replacement that works.

Kinda like fossil fuel alternatives; If we find a cost effective substitute that offers similar benefits, great! I just don't want to have a hybrid car or any other inferior product shoved down my throat in the name of saving the environment.

I have known a few shooters who's lead levels got too high just from spending so much time at an indoor range and breathing in the lead dust and vapors.

Unlike global warming, lead poisoning is a very real risk.

That said, ********** went a little nuts with the concept (as they do). A few lead bullets driven into the dirt when a game animal is missed really poses no threat to any critter, unless you happen to be a worm who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

merlinfire
May 5, 2011, 02:57 PM
I understand these new bullets are similar in design and in performance to the Barnes Triple Shock X-bullet. In fact, I read one place that they ARE Barnes Bullets!

If so, they should do much better than existing ball ammo as for terminal ballistics with the opened-up X-pedal razor-sharp points.

I don't know a lot about it, but I think its important to review what facts are available before jumping to the conclusion that if its good for the environment is bad for the shooting sports. I hope you're right. I don't doubt it will end up being more expensive but hopefully they will be as good or better in performance.

Squatting Bear
May 5, 2011, 03:18 PM
As someone who has been already exposed to waaay too many harmful chemicals at a previous workplace, I'm all for it.

Squatting Bear
May 5, 2011, 03:20 PM
Honest question out of ignorance...would a non-lead bullet be safer to game in a non-fatal shot? I really don't know if this is a concern or not, as I don't currently hunt.

Owen
May 5, 2011, 03:25 PM
Squatting, an embeeded bullet isn't much of a toxicity issue, and it beccomes encapsualted by the body.

At least that's my understanding. Hopefully a medical type person will chime in.

Kendal Black
May 5, 2011, 03:35 PM
I have several times heard of surgeons leaving bullets in the shootee and patching him up, saying the surgery to dig the slugs out would be far more risk than the lead absorbed over the rest of a lifetime.

As Owen said, maybe a doc with knowlege of the subject will chime in. Or, there may be people here on THR who are walking around with a bit of lead embedded somewhere. Perhaps they will comment.

Makes you think, when people talk about lead toxicity.

Drail
May 5, 2011, 03:35 PM
Copper (my favorite metal) comes from a couple of States. Think maybe these States are going to make jobs and money from this idea? The ridiculous aspect of this whole idea is that we're somehow going to make the military more environmentally friendly. Seems like I remember back when I was in the military our main function was to blow things up and make huge craters and dump Agent Orange all over the vegetation to kill it so the bad guys didn't have so much cover to hide in. I guess we weren't very environmentally friendly back then. We weren't very successful at winning the war either as I recall. I guess it's more important to be "green".

MachIVshooter
May 5, 2011, 03:44 PM
an embeeded bullet isn't much of a toxicity issue, and it beccomes encapsualted by the body.

That's my understanding as well. It doesn't behave like mercury. The amount of lead that would actually be absorbed over a lifetime is minimal. Usually bigger problems with being shot.........

Grey_Mana
May 5, 2011, 03:47 PM
Many millions of rounds of lead core bullets were sprayed all over the French country side in the First World War and the farms and fields are just as lush and green as before. Have you ever heard of any health problems in france because of lead contamination?
Lead from leaded gasoline is a major source of exposure in the US. Cities have much higher levels of lead (because of more driving). Have you ever met anyone who grew up in the 50s and 60s in a city?

Zoogster
May 5, 2011, 04:01 PM
MachIVshooter said: That said, ********** went a little nuts with the concept (as they do). A few lead bullets driven into the dirt when a game animal is missed really poses no threat to any critter, unless you happen to be a worm who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Actually the logic in California has nothing to do with missed rounds, but in fact the rounds that hit the animal. The primary danger was not to most animals as even when they eat pieces of lead little is deposited in the body. Unless in a powder or high surface area form (like in lead paint) most of it passes through the body unabsorbed.
The danger was to carrion birds or more specifically the California Condor, which have stomach acids strong enough to dissolve bone. Those same incredibly strong stomach acids also dissolve solid lead.
Hunters would clean the animals in the field and leave the guts in the wilderness. These guts often contained the bullets, and these gut piles would then be eaten by scavengers like the condor, vultures, and coyotes, and other opportunists.

Or when hunters shot an animal that got away and went and died someplace else. That animal including any bullets lodged in its body would be eaten by the same scavengers.



remo223 said: If they want to go lead free they need to go with tungsten.
They tried this before I believe to satisfy the MA environmentalists. It was found that the tungsten is actually more toxic than lead.

So not only is tungsten more expensive as a material, hard and so more expensive to process, but it is also quite toxic.

Here is a story on it from a few years ago: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/04/toxic-tungste-1/

Concerns over depleted uranium (DU) resulted in new procedures to deal with the possible risks, as seen in a 2004 DoD Memorandum on Medical Management of Army Personnel Exposed to DU; the argument over how safe or dangerous DU really is shows no sign of subsiding, and this may spread to tungsten. It’s already been shown that embedded tungsten fragments can cause tumors, but discovering that tungsten in the environment is also hazardous may escalate things to a new level — possibly putting tungsten on a par with DU.


“Over the past years, soil and groundwater samples collected at certain small arms ranges have demonstrated that tungsten is very mobile and soluble once it is released into the environment.



Owen Sparks said: Lead is heavy and tends to settle out of the ground water very rapidly and return to the Earth. That is why heavy metals like lead, gold and uranium are not naturally found on the surface.

Actually lead is one of the safest of the heavy metals, certainly of one found in abundance (and thus inexpensive) but it is not simply because it is heavy.
Many seriously dangerous substances are about as heavy as lead. Mercury is two spots away from it on the periodic table and is quite toxic, the term mad as a hatter comes from the fact that mercury was once used in part of the hat making process and many manufacturers suffered brain and nerve damage. You should see the birth defects women can cause to their babies just from eating fish that has too much mercury regularly.
Thallium next to lead is quite toxic, and has often been used as a poison to kill everything from rodents to people.
In fact Saddam Hussein's secret police often assassinated people with small amounts of thallium. Water wells of rebels were also poisoned with thallium.
It could even be slow acting, killing them after they fled the country. Small amounts in the body continuing to destroy it over time.
Polonium on the other side of Bismuth is extremely toxic, also used by spies to assassinate in very tiny amounts. Like Alexander Litvinenko in the infamous case :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400410.html
Of course it is also radioactive.
Heavy metals are generally bad in the human body.

The big danger with lead restrictions is lead is not only inexpensive making ammo affordable, but it is easily shaped and has a low melting point. You can't cast your own copper bullets with a burner or simple fire.
Legislation that restricted lead would not only dramatically increase the price of ammo, but it would give a monopoly of production to companies and remove production capability of ammo at a decent rate from the commoners.

Shawn Dodson
May 5, 2011, 06:17 PM
M855A1 does not use a Barnes solid copper bullet.

The M855A1 bullet consists of an exposed steel tip, copper base core and guilding metal jacket.

http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/M855A1_Enhanced_Performance_Round_EPR_US_Army_1.jpg

There is speculation the Army copied the remarkably similar Liberty Ammunition bullet:

http://www.libertyammunition.com/Lead_Free_Ammunition/LIBERTY_T_5.56_files/DSC_0001.jpg

See:

http://www.libertyammunition.com/Lea...TY_T_5.56.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rtk-...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap8O9ArPjWg

Double Naught Spy
May 5, 2011, 06:28 PM
Lead is heavy and tends to settle out of the ground water very rapidly and return to the Earth. That is why heavy metals like lead, gold and uranium are not naturally found on the surface.

The gravity theory sounds good, but it isn't good hydraulic or geologic theory. Placer deposits of minerals including heavy metals most definitely occur on the surface and do so quite naturally. Lead certainly can be found on the surface in galena deposts.

I have found gold, silver, and lead in exposed upthrusts. Various types of heavy metals can be found in hot springs as well or locations of previous superheated water activity, which is responsible for numerous types of mineral and gem development deposts, not all of which are deep underground.

Uranium? A bunch is mined from surface and "near surface" (less than 10 feet deep) mines. http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/U3O8-Corp-Extends-Near-Surface-Uranium-Mineralization-Over-28km2-Area-Laguna-Salada-TSX-VENTURE-UWE-1341941.htm


http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mendips/minerals/Mins_Mines_4.htm

Friendly, Don't Fire!
May 5, 2011, 06:35 PM
I apologize, I stand corrected, the new bullet is nothing like Barnes' X-bullet.

I thought I had read somewhere that it was.

Oh well.

HorseSoldier
May 5, 2011, 07:24 PM
This is very old news, even if Fox just heard about it.

Round is supposed to be an improvement over M855 in pretty much all ways. It's not an ideal solution -- SOCOM and USMC's SOST is probably a better round but fragmentation is pretty solidly implied by they two piece construction, and much more to the point 855A1 is supposed to improve on the spin-the-wheel 1-6 MOA accuracy performance seem from lot to lot (and within lots) with standard green tip.

Tommygunn
May 5, 2011, 07:31 PM
If they're going to make bullets in color I don't see why they don't make red, white and blue bullets. :rolleyes::scrutiny::D

Neverwinter
May 6, 2011, 03:02 AM
background information on bullet materials
Thank you for this post.

Soapy5
May 6, 2011, 03:45 AM
It looks like the primary purpose of the new bulllet was to design a round that would frament easier. I wouldn't be surprised if they developed the new bullet, realized that they did not use lead or any other toxic metals, and went "Hey, lets get some free publicity and advertise this as a green bullet!"

SwampWolf
May 6, 2011, 03:19 PM
What's next? Anti-Global Warming bullets? :what:

HorseSoldier
May 7, 2011, 03:30 AM
What's next? Anti-Global Warming bullets?

Every bullet leading to a dead jihadi reduces overall carbon footprint a bit. Think globally, shoot locally.

KimberUltra
May 8, 2011, 11:32 AM
We need environmentally safe bullets. When are we going to be forced to use environmentally safe bombs? Drop a biodegradable shell and when it lands a little white flag pops out that says "boom"

Hardtarget
May 8, 2011, 01:06 PM
Ever thought of how much lead was shot during the Civil War? I don't see stories of large segments of the population dropping dead from lead poisoning.

I think Europe got plenty of lead during two world wars as well.

The lead ban doesn't hold water for me.

Mark

Double Naught Spy
May 8, 2011, 04:47 PM
I think a lot of you have missed the point (whether or not the point is valid is another matter, however). It isn't how much lead was fired in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc., but the concentration of lead in a given area, often in an area of production or processing. The concentrations in a battlefield will not really be all that hight because not all that much lead would have been used relative to the area encompassed by fighting, but that differs from gun ranges where the number of rounds fired was concentrated, often occurring for multiples of decades.

Owen
May 8, 2011, 08:34 PM
there's also a concern for the health of the people that actually have to make the stuff.

hso
May 8, 2011, 11:28 PM
Where does lead come from in the first place?

It is dug up out of the ground, millions of tons of it!
Lead is one of the basic elements.

Considering that arsenic,mercury AND lead come from the earth, and I doubt anyone wants any dumped in their back yard, the "it comes from the earth" sound bite doesn't make much sense, does it?

The military has used lead free bullets in the past, so this isn't that new. Now they're looking at issuing a lead free ammo type for combat.

ggb3
May 9, 2011, 03:02 PM
The link is a study about lead on battle fields and in a berm. Very little issues with this.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/F/200005338.html

Double Naught Spy
May 9, 2011, 04:42 PM
Interesting...
Two studies done at Virginia Tech showed very little lead damage to the environment from bullets left on battlefields or on a carefully designed shotgun/rifle range.

How many gun ranges out there are carefully designed? Of course, the carefully designed range has extensive tree damage 90 meters beyond the range and extending to 140 beyond it, LOL.

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting Story: Army to Test New 'Green' Bullets" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!