"Green" bullets give criminals an advantage?

Ammunition manufacturers are in the process of removing lead from their bullets--a new development that experts say could threaten law enforcement's ability to arrest and convict criminals.

Right now, investigators can reconstruct most gun crime scenes because they know how lead bullets perform in every conceivable situation. The science is foolproof and accepted in every court.

Knox said investigators have no idea how lead-free bullets will react when fired. There is little acceptable science because lead free bullets are so new; certainly nothing any court would rule admissible -- yet.

Lead-Free bullets could give criminals an advantage

Seems much ado about nothing to me. More "teflon-bullets" style media hyperbole?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


tough.. They aren't law enforcements bullets.. Learn new tricks of the trade I guess. Meanwhile why would you not make a bullet out of lead. I'm confused. Are they making bullets harder? or what?

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

tough.. They aren't law enforcements bullets.. Learn new tricks of the trade I guess. Meanwhile why would you not make a bullet out of lead. I'm confused. Are they making bullets harder? or what?

Health concerns over lead exposure in indoor ranges, constant EPA targeting of lead bullets in hunting, rising cost of raw lead, etc....

At least these are the reasons that are stated. Whether true or not I dont know.

reply to post by Dustytoad


Newer non-lead "bullets" are largely made of copper while over in the shotgun world, the replacement of lead shot is generally with steel shot. Officially, the measure seeks to reduce lead poisoning (especially with the steel shot used for waterfowl hunting these days). The basic premise for safety is that the new bullets "disintegrate" when they hit something "solid" like a brick wall and will not ricochet - the "side benefit" to these frangible rounds is that they create a devastating entrance wound when they encounter soft tissue - they've been called "DRT ammo" for dead-right-there. Check out "Mag Safe" ammo, Glazer "Safety Slugs" and shotgun breecher rounds for a better idea of what's different about these kinds of munitions. Some companies are manufacturing polymer/plastic/teflon enhanced jacketed lead bullets as well for better expansion and other deadly benefits.

Personally, I don't see any issues with the forensics with these new munitions - except they generally don't leave an intact round that can be ballistically matched to a particular firearm - that could be a problem. Of course, while any gun could've fired the round, it would be so highly unusual that statistically one could validly assume that if a suspect's gun is found with this new ammo, that weapon fired the fatal shot. On the other hand, valid statistical assumptions don't make "facts", so ultimately it'll be up to a jury to decide.

ganjoa

reply to post by ganjoa


Thanks guys.. Title makes sense to me now.

Dang I'm behind the times.

So in the future I can't say "pump em full of lead?"

aww..

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I have a hard time imagining LE labs cannot make the adjustment. New technologies come along all the time.

its about the new frangible bullets using compressed powder metals, like zink, and a copper/tin alloy,when they hit a hard target(steel metal gunrange backstop) the bullet just disentigrates and their is no ballistic evidence (rifling marks) left to match gun with bullet.this is practice ammo made for the shooting range to reduce the lead levels,not made for self defence,ammo makers are making it as cheap as they can , no thought went into LEO conserns because its range ammo only..ballisic testing has shown these frangible bullets are poor choices for self defence ,producing either a shallow wound in bad guy from braking up on the surface , and not much penetration or vital organ damage. or simply penetrating like a FMJ bullet also doing not much damage.. this is an ongoing technology that will work it self out. the ammo makers will delvelop green ammo that will retain rifling marks if they are forced to,remember its range ammo so it needs to as cheap as possible for the cops use a lot of it and the lowest bid gets the cops contract .. While its new using compressed metals for bullets, Ford started using compressed (5000 tons)metal powder for making gears for auto tranmissions in 1964.new Corvettes have compressed powdered metal connecting rods too.using this technology for bullets got started with Breaching rounds for shotguns that would destroy door hinges and locks without endangering the SWAT shooter or people on the other side of door.first it was a bag of powder, then a slug made of compressed powdered metal, which is mostly used today.

reply to post by Dustytoad


because thegreat state of california declared it self to be a lead free state meaning stuff made to be sold in state has to have no lead used in its manurfacture. i work making plumbing and 2 years ago we had to stop using lead in our products to comply with calis new law.

Originally posted by ganjoa
Of course, while any gun could've fired the round, it would be so highly unusual that statistically one could validly assume that if a suspect's gun is found with this new ammo, that weapon fired the fatal shot. On the other hand, valid statistical assumptions don't make "facts", so ultimately it'll be up to a jury to decide.

ganjoa

This is true until everyone is using these bullets. Then there will be nothing unusual about it.

Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

I have a hard time imagining LE labs cannot make the adjustment. New technologies come along all the time.

All bullets react the same because they are made of the same material. Every material will react differently. When you replace 1 material with 20 you no longer are able to scientifically state what the bullet did as a fact. Especially since the new bullets may disintegrate on impact. They may eventually make an adjustment, in the mean time killers will walk free since the science has not adjusted yet.

I am not saying this is a bad thing bullets are changing, just explaining it.

reply to post by Dustytoad


It is yet again another environmental thing. Somebody did a study years ago that "proved" cranes or some other aquatic bird was swallowing lead pellets from shotguns used by duck hunters. There followed new regulations requiring shot to be made of steel. which lead to higher gun barrel prices because now the barrels had to be harder than the shot to avoid rapid wear. And of course the ammo costs more too. Now ammo manufacturers are all being pressured to remove lead from their bullets. I however seriously doubt any aquatic bird would be swallowing a .45 slug. But logic is not the strong suit of most enviro nuts. Plus it has the added advantage of making everyone's ammo more expensive and increasing the wear and tear on your gun of choice. I have no idea what they will be putting into the new formulation of projectiles, but I am betting on steel being a major property as it is cheapest. I am assuming this will indeed make the bullets harder and possibly more effective against body armor. Many military rounds now contain significant amounts of tungsten for that very reason...

The law enforcement community could always easily switch to steel or tungsten cored ammunition, which was developed decades ago.

Only thing is, they are pretty hard hitting rounds. And would likely pass through your target rather than mushrooming inside. But if that target is wearing kevlar, they should be good to go.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Valid statement: Bullets made of materials other than lead, will behave differently on impact with walls, cars, windows, the ground, flesh, bone, and brain matter.

Invalid statement: This gives criminals an advantage.

Yes, obviously the ballistic qualities of a non lead round are going to differ from those of a traditional bullet. However, all it would take to rectify this situation, is ballistics labs being allowed to have a couple of thousand rounds for testing, to get a good idea of the differences in thier behavior upon impact with a selection of surfaces, into which they are likely to come into contact upon being used in the commission of a criminal act.

Once testing has been performed on these rounds, when fired from a variety of weapons, at a selection of targets, at various angles (essentially speaking, when rigorous scientific method has been applied to them), then the information gained can be sent to ballistics laboratories all over the country, so that law enforcement have as good a chance of keeping up with the new advances as is possible.

Assuming they do not have the dullest minds in the US working on it, testing good enough to determine things like the way these bullets fragment, the way rifling appears on the side of the round, the way they deliver thier kinetic force dependant on surface impacted and angle of impact, should all be able to be devised.

Unless the rounds have been designed not to accept rifling (LOL) or have been formulated to be utterly untraceable using ANY familiar method (highly bloody unlikely, and I would say well nigh impossible), then this scaremongering is ...well just that really.

Utter bunkum.

Are these green bullets more deadly than lead bullets? I have a 22 long pistol. I use regular lead bullets now. Can I get a better advantage against a human attacker by using these green bullets?

Puts all firearms in the same position as a shotgun.

"rifling" marks are the small grooves machine in the barrel to spin the projectile, and can be "read" like fingerprints, to establish if a particular firearm fired a particular projectile. So if i fire a round at random and it is collected by forensics, even 20/30 years later it can be shown that this gun fired that round.

With a shotgun there are no rifling marks on the projectiles, so the same methods of identification are not possible. Police need to prove that X was on scene, X owned a shotgun, and Y was shot with a shotgun.

WRT efficiency of lead vs anything else, it really doesn't matter much whether you get hit with lead or cork, at that kind of velocity your flesh means nothing. Lead has always been the cheapest and easiest option.

Whoever researched that source piece didn't do a very good job or worked with a grossly incompetent forensic examiner. There are far more factors that come into play than if something if lead-free or not. This sounds like FUD for the sake of trying to come up with a new anti-Second Amendment angle. The OP's initial suspicions are right, this is much ado about nothing. -Mags