The Army's new "Green" Ammo

Status
Not open for further replies.
What would I love to see?

A massive flood of cheap 223 ammo that the manufacturers are practically giving away because the government no longer wants it!
 
A massive flood of cheap 223 ammo that the manufacturers are practically giving away because the government no longer wants it!
Click to expand...

Its not the way its going to work. I'm assuming they are talking about M855A1.

The old M855 will be depleted for training, etc. They aren't going to be unloading it, unless it would have been surplussed anyway.
 
Its not the way its going to work. I'm assuming they are talking about M855A1.
Click to expand...

I know it would never work that way...but I can still dream of cheap(er) ammo. :)
 
"The new M855A1, which the Army will be demonstrating Wednesday at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, is deadlier, faster, and may soon replace its older cousin."---article

"...the new rounds won't be substantially more deadly, in other words".---article

sounds like they are going to make a very expensive bullet that does the same thing as the old lead one
 
Last edited:
LOL yeah "Eat a various conglomerate of polymers and copper" doesn't have the same impact, does it?

Does anyone really think the government cares about the lead in bullets it's firing into foreign soil?
 
It would suck not to be Green...i guess they can't find any Radway either?

Sure, there'll be a little less lead out there; but those chopper-door mounted miniguns are still spewing heavy depleted uranium rounds; that's environmental potential far worse than all the small-arms combined.
 
So we all need to get the military on board with how awful 5.56mm is and really get the push going for a switch to 6.8
Click to expand...

^smartest comment here. Unless we violate the 1899 Hague, 5.56 will continue to show its shortcomings. Whoever thought wounding is more humane, I would punch 'em. The enemy does not care about men down, just some twisted jihad martyrdom. 6.8 would provide a cheaper solution then say a switch to 7.62x39. Then, we need to repeal the Hughes, and then the army will sell off its AR systems, get new G36Cs in 6.8 and the world will be a better place... not
 
lethality is difficult to discuss.

Define lethality.

How do you measure that?

Do you include vehicles?

Do you include body armor?

I promise you the Army's definition and means of measurement is convoluted and multifaceted. When the Army talks about lethality, no one knows exactly what it means.
 
Good, my first concern in a firefight is the impact it will have on the environment. I wouldn't dare engage insurgents if I knew that my ammo was going to poison the ground water. :rolleyes:

If it proves more effective then I'm all for it. Seems like it would be more expensive to produce though.

Don't get me wrong, I like "greener" things, only when it saves me money though.
 
liberty video @ 1'20"

"The new round will out perfrom against hard targets at distance the current 7.62 NATO"

That was unexpected to hear...
 
cavman said:
liberty video @ 1'20"

"The new round will out perfrom against hard targets at distance the current 7.62 NATO"

That was unexpected to hear...
Click to expand...
Out perform it in what way? Muzzle Velocity from point blank range or somethin? I highly doubt that's true. If it is, I guess they should just use 5.56 to snipe too. Since it out performs 7.62, why not? It might save the Government some money.:rolleyes:

Sounds like a lot of hoopblah if you ask me.
 
Hooray for Govt spending in order to appease the environmental wacko crowd.
What a waste, really.
Why not spend the money on armor for GIs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top