Interesting Story: Army to Test New 'Green' Bullets

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks like a waste of time and money being done to satisfy the enviromental whackjobs. Lead free ammo with no ballistic improvements.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 ;)
 
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 $ .
 
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
 
Unfortunately, things like this that are impractical luxuries soon become mandatory requirements -

And that would price most of us out of shooting.
 
.

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.

.
 
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.
 
Big thumbs up

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 $
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
I'd say you can't beat that argument
 
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.
 
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 environmentalists in California 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.
 
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.
 
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, California 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
The Army's new "Green" Ammo
Replies
21
Views
871
Art Eatman
A
D
  • Locked
lead-free 'green' bullets may not be so eco-friendly after all
Replies
13
Views
1K
K-Romulus
K
R
  • Locked
Explain "green bullets" please.
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
brickeyee
B
kcofohio
  • Locked
The U.S. Army Chose a New Bullet for Its New Rifles
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
FROGO207
FROGO207
B
  • Locked
Allegations that "green" ammunition more hazardous than lead
Replies
8
Views
918
MD_Willington
M
Back
Top