6 ms·

I believe the US army has created an EPA superfund site out of one of its rifle ranges due to the sheer volume of lead that built up into the earthen berms wher

I believe the US army has created an EPA superfund site out of one of its rifle ranges due to the sheer volume of lead that built up into the earthen berms where privates learned how to shoot. Just because the kinetic energy has been taken out of the bullet doesn’t mean you can just ignore them. A similar effect has happened in former battle grounds, leaving the locals exposed to all of the known consequences of early life lead exposure including (ironically) an increased propensity for violence. For these reasons the Army has expressed an interest in developing a non-toxic rifle bullet that’s cheap enough for their usages. Swaged copper bullets exist, but at ~$1 a pop they’re appropriate for hunters and not for an army that goes through billions of bullets. Unfortunately many people on the webs are upset about this, perhaps out of the misguided opinion that we’re not being cruel enough in our foreign wars. In reality it’s well within US interests to reduce lead exposure to soldiers and combat zone civilians, especially to ensure that those zones transition better to peace once the fighting is over.

moccachino 8y ago
It seems to me that on a budget of 600-700 billion, it would not be too difficult to spend a few billion on bullets. Also not every bullet has to be the same (ignoring logistics and interoperability for the moment), but if there are already different sizes of bullets then they could be made out of different materials. At least that should slightly decrease the concentration of any single material when large quantities of bullets pile up.
- _jal 8y ago
  > slightly decrease the concentration of any single material when large quantities of bullets pile up. Don't worry, then. They've been using depleted uranium rounds, too.
  - moccachino 8y ago
    ... Great. Well, I guess consideration for anything except mission results is too much to ask of an organization like a military...
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Oh, it’s worse than that. Depleted Uranium tank shells don’t produce too much dust, because of Uranium’s habit of braking into large pointed shards. This “self sharpening” aspect is why the material is used. But when it’s used in thermobaric arms, watch out.
winter_blue 8y ago
> A similar effect has happened in former battle grounds, leaving the locals exposed to all of the known consequences of early life lead exposure including (ironically) an increased propensity for violence. Has there been a study showing this correlation? As far as I know, countries that were shattered in World War 2, like Japan and Germany, are less violent on average, than the US. And note: the mainland continental US has been relatively at peace, and has not had any major domestic hostilities since 1865. Also, have bullets always (historically) had lead? Or is this something that only newer ammo (since WWII) have?
- pjc50 8y ago
  http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/ http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-cou... ?
- fhars 8y ago
  The major source for environmental lead during the second half of the 20th century has been gasoline, not ammunition, and the correlation is quite well established: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  > As far as I know, countries that were shattered in World War 2, like Japan and Germany, are less violent on average Mainland Japan did not see any ground fighting, only firebombing and the two atomic bombs. Therefore, one would not expect the locals to have been exposed to the results of infantry firing thousands and thousands of bullets.
  - vkou 8y ago
    And most of the fighting in WW2 took place way outside German soil. By the time the frontline reached Germany, the war was almost over.
- baud147258 8y ago
  > Also, have bullets always (historically) had lead? Yes, but the volume has been way smaller before, until the advent of automated weapon in the 20 th century.
desdiv 8y ago
>For these reasons the Army has expressed an interest in developing a non-toxic rifle bullet that’s cheap enough for their usages. Swaged copper bullets exist, but at ~$1 a pop they’re appropriate for hunters and not for an army that goes through billions of bullets. US Army switched over to the lead-free M855A1 cartridge back in 2010. The new round has better performance overall and costs only 5 cents more per round than the old leaded M855. Disappointingly enough, the Marines only just adopted the M855A1 in 2018, and the USAF has no intention to do so. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#M855A1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#M855A1
- village-idiot 8y ago
  It seems I’m only half behind on my knowledge then.
- magduf 8y ago
  >Disappointingly enough, the Marines only just adopted the M855A1 in 2018, and the USAF has no intention to do so. To be fair, the USAF doesn't do any ground combat with small arms that I'm aware of. Most likely, the only thing they do with that cartridge in deployment is to give it to their security forces, who are basically just guards and almost never use their weapons in combat these days. I'd be a lot more worried about what the USAF uses in much larger rounds, which they fire from aircraft.
  - stirfrykitty 8y ago
    USAF Combat Controllers, Pararescue (PJs), and others are elite troops. In fact, the requirements for Combat Controller are extremely mentally and physically demanding. They are not only Air traffic Controllers, which is tough enough, but they are also effectively equivalent to Army Rangers.
  - LgWoodenBadger 8y ago
    USAF has a "Special Tactics" force, similar to the USN's SEALs.
stirfrykitty 8y ago
I agree with the lead being removed. More lethal is actually better for small arms, though lead doesn't play a real point in this area. The 5.56 is very frustrating for combat troops, though. In many thousands of demonstrable instances, it takes more than one round to bring an enemy combatant down. This was not the case when the US still issued .30 caliber individual weapon systems. Massive difference in power between the two. The 5.56 is OK out to about 100M if the operator puts the projectile in a CNS region. The .30 will reliably put opponents down very well, even with the required FMJ rounds. The .30 stuff is far better at hard barrier penetration than the 5.56. The .30 turns cars and walls into concealment rather than actual cover. The 5.56 suffers here unless it's a crew served weapon that can chew through barriers. I understand the reasons for going to the 5.56. I lived through the transition from the .45 to the 9MM, which was and is lamented by the USMC. The 9MM is analogous to the 5.56/.30 issue. NATO compatibility is the sole reason, but the troops suffer from the lack of power these rounds offer. In the gas-operated weapons used, recoil difference is negligible, since the system soaks up the recoil pretty well, and when the adrenaline runs, recoil and noise are not really noticed anyway.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  I was under the impression that weight and the ability to carry more rounds into combat was a bigger driver of the original 5.56mm development, not recoil. Given the rapid growth in hard armor that can take a few 5.56mm rounds before failing, I wouldn’t be surprised to see militaries shift more towards a 6.5 or 7mm cartridge with a hardened steel penetrator.
  - stirfrykitty 8y ago
    The reason is NATO compatibility. No more, no less. That was the answer when I asked when serving. Now, having said this, there are .30 caliber individual weapons aplenty in troop hands and those that use them prefer them. They do perform far and away better. What most people don't understand is the troop loadout for combat ops. Men are not dripping with weapons and rounds per Hollywood. The standard loadout is an M4 rifle with 6 30-round magazines (180 rounds). If you are issued a handgun, that is 3 15-round magazines for an additional 45 rounds of ammunition, albeit in the "weak" 9mm, which is a get-off-me gun meant for house-to-house, close quarters fighting where a long gun would be unwieldy. As you suggest, there is a large push to go to the 6mm/243/6.5, which offers SUBSTANTIAL performance benefits over the 5.56. A .243 (6mm) is pushing more ballistic energy at 500M than a 5.56 does at 100M. That's a lot more. And the rounds don't weigh that much more or take up that much more space. Recoil, likewise, is negligible at best due to the gas-operated platform. But, NATO... NATO is sold on the idea of 5.56 and 9mm. I think that DMs should be issued the better long guns to deal with issues the 5.56 cannot handle.
xkcd-sucks 8y ago
>Swaged copper bullets exist, but at ~$1 a pop they’re appropriate for hunters and not for an army that goes through billions of bullets. Most bullets are fired in training, an copper is recyclable, so cleaning up bullets is feasible. It might even be an opportunity for boots to relieve their boredom and learn about weapon systems

moccachino 8y ago

It seems to me that on a budget of 600-700 billion, it would not be too difficult to spend a few billion on bullets. Also not every bullet has to be the same (ignoring logistics and interoperability for the moment), but if there are already different sizes of bullets then they could be made out of different materials. At least that should slightly decrease the concentration of any single material when large quantities of bullets pile up.

_jal 8y ago
> slightly decrease the concentration of any single material when large quantities of bullets pile up. Don't worry, then. They've been using depleted uranium rounds, too.
- moccachino 8y ago
  ... Great. Well, I guess consideration for anything except mission results is too much to ask of an organization like a military...
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Oh, it’s worse than that. Depleted Uranium tank shells don’t produce too much dust, because of Uranium’s habit of braking into large pointed shards. This “self sharpening” aspect is why the material is used. But when it’s used in thermobaric arms, watch out.

winter_blue 8y ago

> A similar effect has happened in former battle grounds, leaving the locals exposed to all of the known consequences of early life lead exposure including (ironically) an increased propensity for violence. Has there been a study showing this correlation? As far as I know, countries that were shattered in World War 2, like Japan and Germany, are less violent on average, than the US. And note: the mainland continental US has been relatively at peace, and has not had any major domestic hostilities since 1865. Also, have bullets always (historically) had lead? Or is this something that only newer ammo (since WWII) have?

pjc50 8y ago
http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/ http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-cou... ?
fhars 8y ago
The major source for environmental lead during the second half of the 20th century has been gasoline, not ammunition, and the correlation is quite well established: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis
Mediterraneo10 8y ago
> As far as I know, countries that were shattered in World War 2, like Japan and Germany, are less violent on average Mainland Japan did not see any ground fighting, only firebombing and the two atomic bombs. Therefore, one would not expect the locals to have been exposed to the results of infantry firing thousands and thousands of bullets.
- vkou 8y ago
  And most of the fighting in WW2 took place way outside German soil. By the time the frontline reached Germany, the war was almost over.
baud147258 8y ago
> Also, have bullets always (historically) had lead? Yes, but the volume has been way smaller before, until the advent of automated weapon in the 20 th century.

desdiv 8y ago

>For these reasons the Army has expressed an interest in developing a non-toxic rifle bullet that’s cheap enough for their usages. Swaged copper bullets exist, but at ~$1 a pop they’re appropriate for hunters and not for an army that goes through billions of bullets. US Army switched over to the lead-free M855A1 cartridge back in 2010. The new round has better performance overall and costs only 5 cents more per round than the old leaded M855. Disappointingly enough, the Marines only just adopted the M855A1 in 2018, and the USAF has no intention to do so. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#M855A1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#M855A1

village-idiot 8y ago
It seems I’m only half behind on my knowledge then.
magduf 8y ago
>Disappointingly enough, the Marines only just adopted the M855A1 in 2018, and the USAF has no intention to do so. To be fair, the USAF doesn't do any ground combat with small arms that I'm aware of. Most likely, the only thing they do with that cartridge in deployment is to give it to their security forces, who are basically just guards and almost never use their weapons in combat these days. I'd be a lot more worried about what the USAF uses in much larger rounds, which they fire from aircraft.
- stirfrykitty 8y ago
  USAF Combat Controllers, Pararescue (PJs), and others are elite troops. In fact, the requirements for Combat Controller are extremely mentally and physically demanding. They are not only Air traffic Controllers, which is tough enough, but they are also effectively equivalent to Army Rangers.
- LgWoodenBadger 8y ago
  USAF has a "Special Tactics" force, similar to the USN's SEALs.

stirfrykitty 8y ago

I agree with the lead being removed. More lethal is actually better for small arms, though lead doesn't play a real point in this area. The 5.56 is very frustrating for combat troops, though. In many thousands of demonstrable instances, it takes more than one round to bring an enemy combatant down. This was not the case when the US still issued .30 caliber individual weapon systems. Massive difference in power between the two. The 5.56 is OK out to about 100M if the operator puts the projectile in a CNS region. The .30 will reliably put opponents down very well, even with the required FMJ rounds. The .30 stuff is far better at hard barrier penetration than the 5.56. The .30 turns cars and walls into concealment rather than actual cover. The 5.56 suffers here unless it's a crew served weapon that can chew through barriers. I understand the reasons for going to the 5.56. I lived through the transition from the .45 to the 9MM, which was and is lamented by the USMC. The 9MM is analogous to the 5.56/.30 issue. NATO compatibility is the sole reason, but the troops suffer from the lack of power these rounds offer. In the gas-operated weapons used, recoil difference is negligible, since the system soaks up the recoil pretty well, and when the adrenaline runs, recoil and noise are not really noticed anyway.

village-idiot 8y ago
I was under the impression that weight and the ability to carry more rounds into combat was a bigger driver of the original 5.56mm development, not recoil. Given the rapid growth in hard armor that can take a few 5.56mm rounds before failing, I wouldn’t be surprised to see militaries shift more towards a 6.5 or 7mm cartridge with a hardened steel penetrator.
- stirfrykitty 8y ago
  The reason is NATO compatibility. No more, no less. That was the answer when I asked when serving. Now, having said this, there are .30 caliber individual weapons aplenty in troop hands and those that use them prefer them. They do perform far and away better. What most people don't understand is the troop loadout for combat ops. Men are not dripping with weapons and rounds per Hollywood. The standard loadout is an M4 rifle with 6 30-round magazines (180 rounds). If you are issued a handgun, that is 3 15-round magazines for an additional 45 rounds of ammunition, albeit in the "weak" 9mm, which is a get-off-me gun meant for house-to-house, close quarters fighting where a long gun would be unwieldy. As you suggest, there is a large push to go to the 6mm/243/6.5, which offers SUBSTANTIAL performance benefits over the 5.56. A .243 (6mm) is pushing more ballistic energy at 500M than a 5.56 does at 100M. That's a lot more. And the rounds don't weigh that much more or take up that much more space. Recoil, likewise, is negligible at best due to the gas-operated platform. But, NATO... NATO is sold on the idea of 5.56 and 9mm. I think that DMs should be issued the better long guns to deal with issues the 5.56 cannot handle.

xkcd-sucks 8y ago

>Swaged copper bullets exist, but at ~$1 a pop they’re appropriate for hunters and not for an army that goes through billions of bullets. Most bullets are fired in training, an copper is recyclable, so cleaning up bullets is feasible. It might even be an opportunity for boots to relieve their boredom and learn about weapon systems