Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

lead-free 'green' bullets may not be so eco-friendly after all

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Drizzt, Jul 30, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Drizzt

    Drizzt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,648
    Location:
    Moscow on the Colorado, TX
    U.S. military: lead-free 'green' bullets may not be so eco-friendly after all
    By JAY LINDSAY

    BOURNE, Mass. (AP) - Army officials at a Massachusetts army base said they thought they were being eco-friendly when they started using "green bullets" that contain no lead - a move meant to prevent polluting an aquifer beneath Camp Edwards.

    But six years later, after a million rounds have been fired at the base's shooting ranges, new information suggests the green bullets may not be much better for the environment than the lead ones.

    "It's frustrating," Col. William FitzPatrick of the National Guard's Environmental Readiness Center said Thursday. "You're doing what you think are the right things. As science evolves, you wonder, 'Am I in front of the curve, or behind?' "

    The green bullets are made of nylon and tungsten, a metal that supposedly does not seep into ground as quickly as lead. That's important because the aquifer below the base supplies upper Cape Cod with drinking water.

    But conventional wisdom about tungsten has been challenged by tests done in recent years at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J.

    Lab tests there found in 2002 that tungsten was not insoluble and it could travel through soil under certain conditions. It also found tungsten enables lead to move through the soil more quickly.

    The army has now begun field tests on how tungsten moves through the ground.

    Camp Edwards is part of the Massachusetts Military Reservation, which covers nearly 80 square kilometres. It's been a major training centre for decades.

    The camp has had a history of environmental problems since it opened in 1911.

    Jet fuel, solvents and other pollutants contaminated the aquifer and the groundwater is now under constant monitoring.

    In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered target practice halted at the camp and ordered a clean-up of lead buried in and around the berms at the base shooting ranges.

    Lead was later found six metres underground and moving toward the aquifer - though it never reached the water.

    For now, the tungsten bullets are still officially considered safe by the Department of Defence, and they are still used at the base.

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2005/07/29/1152539-ap.html
     
  2. Crosshair

    Crosshair Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,985
    Location:
    Grand Forks, North Dakota
    Take that Greenpeace. :evil:
     
  3. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    48,594
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    What the article does say is that tungsten" could travel through soil under certain conditions", but it doesn't say what conditions. What it doesn't point out is that Tungsten is essentially non-toxic with no OSHA exposure limit having been established and a NIOSH and ACGIH exposure limt based on it's dust's irritant factor when machined, ground or crushed instead of any significant toxicity.

    While the article interests me enough to look into it. It certainly doesn't cause me to knee-jerk a reaction to ban "greeen" ammo.
     
  4. Ohen Cepel

    Ohen Cepel Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    Where they tell me to go
    I'm worried about the whole situation in that I'm afraid we'll be prevented from using tungsten in the future and won't be able to go back to lead.

    They could just keep finding issues with all the options and drive the cost of everything up to the point were civilains won't be able to afford to shoot or may not have a place to shoot. Also, the continued training cost for the military could become an issue.

    My biggest worry with the tungsten is the recent research on it's cancer effect in mice. I don't currently see that as a huge issue. However, could see others grabbing onto it and twisting it.

    I think we should have stuck with lead and took more precautions.
     
  5. Mauserguy

    Mauserguy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Messages:
    793
    Location:
    Orange County California
    Okay, I have a question. For pistols, why can't we just use plastic, maybe weighted with an internal core of ceramic or something. I know that it would be ballisticaly inferior to lead, and would not be suitable for defensive loads, but at the range that most people shoot pistols, would it really make much of a difference for simple paper punching? Of course, for rifle practice, it would not work, but why not for pistols.
    Mauserguy
     
  6. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,722
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    Agh, guess it's paintball for military practice from now on.....
     
  7. Tag

    Tag Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    599
    Location:
    Marquette, Michigan
    would it be so terribly difficult to line the underside of their backstops with... say concrete or something?
     
  8. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Bingo! I'm sure that's a topic under hot discussion in leftist extremist circles. The issue won't be whether to ban lead in ammunition, but how, followed by banning tungsten in ammunition, copper in ammunition, and...
     
  9. KriegHund

    KriegHund Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,514
    Location:
    Colorado, Broomfield
    How ironic.
     
  10. MarkDido

    MarkDido Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,057
    Location:
    FL
    National Guard Environmental Readiness Center?? :banghead:
     
  11. Doc

    Doc Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2003
    Messages:
    457
    Location:
    Grosse Ile, Michigan
    i thought the green bullets were copper and tin???
    sinterfire website says

     
  12. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,266
    Location:
    Washington
    Is it the Army's own study that starts to contradict their earlier findings? If OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH don't have major issues with it, I think they're just trying to find something to complain about. Granted, the bigger issue might be that tungsten might as a catalyst that makes lead more readily absorbed into groundwater tables.

    I guess we better ban all arms! It'll keep arms out of the hands of guerilla forces globally as well as keeping arms out of the hands of criminals on the streets nationally! More legislation, more legislation!
     
  13. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    48,594
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    The tungsten bullet is a polymer/tungsten powder composite.

    This is a single study and as such has little scientific weight. Information about what conditions resulted in tungsten solubility in the field would be helpful to determine if these conditions can actually exist. Since that information isn't readily available with a search I'll wait to see what other studies come out.
     
  14. K-Romulus

    K-Romulus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
    different "green" ammo out there

    the DOD stuff uses one recipe, Sinterfire another recipe, and PMC Green (with Longbow branded "green" bullets) a third copper/polymer recipe . . . plus the Winchester?/Remington? "Disintegrator" probably has it's own formula as well. :confused:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page