Pentagon developes environmentally friendly bullet

By Andrew Buncombe

London - The Pentagon is spending millions of dollars to develop "environmentally friendly" lead-free bullets for all of the US armed forces. They'll still kill you, but at least the environment won't suffer so much.

www.thestar.co.za...

Today they're developing lead free bullets. Maybe tomorrow they will work on replacing the depleted uranium?

Military firing ranges are a considering environmental hazard (I have to deal with several of them). However, Tungsten core rounds (which was the first choice for lead free) is only considered environmentally friendly because Tungsten is relatively rare (and EXPENSIVE), and therefore no normally encountered in the environment. Therefore it is simply never sampled for in environmental sampling.

Copolymer copper rounds are interesting... but they will lack the penetration required for combat use, and will likely expand, violating the Geneva Convention.

That's interesting. How do expanding bullets violate the Geneva Convention?

Mycroft...

If a bullet expands, it causes ripping, and tearing of the flesh apart from a bullet wound. It is in the same boat as uneccessary cruelty.

As for an environmentally safe bullet...did anyone ever consider aluminum...? that seems like the best choice. Very hard, relatively cheap, and I don't think it'd expand...

I know about the expanding part doing more damage, it's just that I thought that was the purpose of a bullet. I wonder that the Geneva Convention would have a problem with it. War is ugly, after all.

As for aluminum, I don't think it would carry enough energy.

Could carry enough energy, you just have to know how to shape the bullet, and givve it the proper amount of thrust. You could make it a slightly larger shell, so that it would make little difference, or you could just use it in large ordinance(howitzers) that's about all. If there were such a need for it to have that much more energy, and you're truly that concerned for the environment, just make a gun that uses aluminum shells, and make that GI.

Originally posted by Loki If a bullet expands, it causes ripping, and tearing of the flesh apart from a bullet wound. It is in the same boat as uneccessary cruelty.

...As if shooting someone isn't cruel enough already...


It seems to me that this is "backwards logic": Isn't it more cruel to have a "clean" bullet wound that might not kill you quickly but keep you in a lot of pain than to have a wide, torn-out gaping wound that's more likely to at least cause a quicker death (& an end to the pain)?

[Edited on 8-9-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]

Hmm.. i thought that only lead buck shots (pellets..) were a enviromental hazard.. At least here where i am living things are so.

Normal bullets are made out of copper-alloy and steel.. :F

The standard .223/5.56mm round has a lead core at the base, with a hardened steel core up front at the bullet nose, in a copper jacket. What people dont know is that this particular design occassionally splits inside the target into 2 or more subprojectiles... Hmmm... wonder what the Geneva Convention has to say about that?

I dont think aluminum would be a really good idea either. Although an aluminum round would be much lighter than the standard round in the same caliber, and therefore allows much higher velocity, it would have far lower sectional density, and therefore it would not carry that energy for any appreciable distance.

Aquila Ammunition has a new line of handgun ammunition called IQ, aluminum hollowpoints that has extremely high muzzle velocity. This ammunition is extremely effective at around 15-20 meters range, but beyond that it looses velocity extremely quickly, and is almost worthless. However, since most handgun engagements happen within this range, it is a decent round to choose for self defence. In a military setting however, it would be useless.

In domestic cases I don't understand why they don't just use rubber bullets full stop. They get the job done and cut down on the loss of life, and the damage it does is no picnic.

Originally posted by John Nada
In domestic cases I don't understand why they don't just use rubber bullets full stop. They get the job done and cut down on the loss of life, and the damage it does is no picnic.

2 reasons:

First, it sometimes doesnt get the job done, esp if the bad guy is on drugs or something.

Second, for liability: Rubber buckshot is advertised as non-lethal or less-than-lethal... and it is sometimes lethal, esp if fired directly into a person at close range (it is actually made to be ricocheted off the ground and up into a bad guy: firing directly into a body at close range is very similar to using regular buckshot)

A bullet with an Aluminum casing, but with a more dense metal in the center, like steel, but in an area that would promote a longer...preservation?...of energy. Another idea could be a fluid-core bullet with aluminum casing. Just an Idea. Peace.

It's about time,
when i go shoot up cars in the woods, I want to know that i'm not causing green peace any troubles.

thank you pentagon.

Originally posted by Loki
A bullet with an Aluminum casing, but with a more dense metal in the center, like steel, but in an area that would promote a longer...preservation?...of energy. Another idea could be a fluid-core bullet with aluminum casing. Just an Idea. Peace.

That idea came to light thanks to Winchester/Olin Ammunition in the late 70s, with the Winchester Silvertip hollowpoint round. It used a standard lead core bullet with an aluminum jacket. Was a pretty good round also, although in certain guns the aluminum jacket would sometimes flake off and cause malfunctions.

As far as the core material, about the only materials available that have the needed density/weight per volume is lead, tungsten, or depleted uranium. Steel has been used with some success, although in terms of sectional density and performance it is still inferior to lead, and it has the added problem of destroying the barrel rifling much quicker as it doesnt compress to allow engagement with the rifling grooves.

I keep preaching, if it aint broke, dont fix it....

Another Pentagon circus. Aliant is a powder and firearm maker, not a bullet maker. Barnes has been selling solid copper bullets for hunting for years, and they work great. I can't believe they would pay $25 Mil to have these guys build a new bullet from scratch when just about any reloader would go out and buy a Barnes X-bullet. They make them from .224 caliber up to .458 caliber.
I guess the Pentagon doesn't get the Midway Catalog.

regards
seekerof

An idea just hit me! Nickel. That's a fairly dense metal that's not that hard to come by. I think a solid bullet made out of an aluminum/nickel hybrid could be a strong candidate. you could even make a copper bullet with a nickel core, that wouldn't make a bad bullet either. Just a few more thoughts. Peace.

Oh, BTW, what exactly is pewter, and is it dense enough to use in the core of a bullet?

[Edited on 8-9-2003 by Loki]

Btw, this is kinda funny now that i remember: They are talking about lead-free greenpeace friendly bullets, but have no problems using DU-rounds..

How funny is that?

[Edited on 8-9-2003 by FULCRUM]

Uni/Fulcrum...the US has a replacement in the works for DU rounds....the article is in a topic here at ATS.

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 8-9-2003 by Seekerof]

Seekerof,

The Barnes X is a very interesting round, although very expensive, and honestly, I think it doesnt perform that well against large game, IE Moose and Elk. I still prefer the double core Nosler Partition round for such purposes myself.

Loki,

A solid nickle slug, even in a copper jacket, would not give you any significant advantage over a steel core (already commented on that), and because nickle is harder than steel, it would be far harder on your barrel as well.