Just how stupid can they get?

Professur

Professur

Well-Known Member
Arms manufacturer loads lead-free bullets
Traditional variety 'pose a risk to people', warns BAE Systems
By Lester Haines → More by this author
Published Monday 18th September 2006 13:22 GMT


Arms manufacturing monolith BAE Systems has decided to improve its whale-hugging credentials by developing a range of next-generation, environmentally-friendly weapons designed to be friendlier to Mother Earth.

Included in the list of tree-hugging hardware is the "lead-free" bullet, offering clear advantages over the traditional variety which "can harm the environment and pose a risk to people".

According to The Sunday Times, BAE Systems is also looking to green up its "jets, fighting vehicles and artillery", including cutting carbon emmissions and the use of Volatile Organic Compounds. The company has already shown it intends to walk it like it talks it, and in 2003 stopped using depleted uranium in its products.

BAE Systems' intiative is backed by the Ministry of Defence which has, rather spendidly, "proposed quieter warheads to reduce noise pollution and grenades that produce less smoke".

BAE systems' corporate social responsibility supremo, Dr Debbie Allen, declared: "Weapons are going to be used and when they are, we try to make them as safe for the user as possible, to limit the collateral damage and to impact as little as possible on the environment."

The anti-arms lobby has reacted with predictable derision. Symon Hill of Campaign Against Arms Trade slammed the propsals as "ridiculous", adding: "BAE is determined to try to make itself look ethical, but they make weapons to kill people and it's utterly ridiculous to suggest they are environmentally friendly." ®
Click to expand...

Source
 
Included in the list of tree-hugging hardware is the "lead-free" bullet, offering clear advantages over the traditional variety which "can harm the environment and pose a risk to people".
Click to expand...

Umm excuse me, what is wrong with this sentence?

"Pose a risk"? if a person catches a bullit isn't that a risk?
 
Anything that reduces the use of lead is a good thing.

You all forgetting that someone has to manufacture all these bullets? Someone has to mine the lead? Ship it? etc...

I'm thinking that they're more worried about the long term effects of spraying lead around and it contaminating ground water than they are of the 1/100th of a second that it takes for the lead to go into and out of its intended target. :shrug:
 
Ask any hunter about the usefulness of the lead-free birdshot that's all they're allowed to use for duck hunting now. Fucking useless. They don't use lead and DU because it's toxic. They use it because there's nothing better for carrying energy to the target.
 
Professur said:
Ask any hunter about the usefulness of the lead-free birdshot that's all they're allowed to use for duck hunting now. Fucking useless.
Click to expand...
You want to eat a duck that's been taken down with lead shot..be my guest.

There are plenty of alternatives to lead-shot...some of which work better.
 
MrBishop said:
Anything that reduces the use of lead is a good thing.

You all forgetting that someone has to manufacture all these bullets? Someone has to mine the lead? Ship it? etc...

I'm thinking that they're more worried about the long term effects of spraying lead around and it contaminating ground water than they are of the 1/100th of a second that it takes for the lead to go into and out of its intended target. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Umm...you don't get it. I'll explain. The NATO combat round is a 5.56mm copper-jacketed lead 'ball'-type ammunition. The reason the calibre is so small is to make a nasty wound. Wound the enemy, and you take three out of the fight. (The wounded guy and the two needed to carry him off the field). The bullet, when it hits, rapidly loses the jacket and/or fragments. Anything else just goes right through. Not a good thing unless you hit a vital organ or make the enemy lose a limb.
 
and this is related to removing lead from the equation how exactly?

Steel shot is more accurate than lead shot...mostly because the shot isn't deformed while its accelerated. A steel 'bullet' or shotball flies straighter and has less drag than a flattened lead shot or bullet. (re: hunting)

Re NATO - using a steel ball instead of a lead ball in your quasi-sabot round will not lessen the desired impact/effect.

So...we've got an opportunity to remove lead from the environment with minimal or no change in the effectiveness of the ammo...so what's the issue with the change again?
 
I think their stance isn't so much about the direct lead issues with the targets... but the more long term effects of lead all over the battlefields. That stuff does leach down into the water table eventually over the course of years.
 
No takers. I've seen the flight graphs for 12 different types of ammo. Steel looses energy way faster than lead. It's also much harder on barrel rifles.
 
Professur said:
No takers. I've seen the flight graphs for 12 different types of ammo. Steel looses energy way faster than lead. It's also much harder on barrel rifles.
Click to expand...
Not with the new shell casings... Steel might lose on distance, but it makes up for itself with the tightness of the shot groupings.

*Oh, and yes..I've seen the manufacturer's videos and graphs.
 
MrBishop said:
Not with the new shell casings... Steel might lose on distance, but it makes up for itself with the tightness of the shot groupings.

*Oh, and yes..I've seen the manufacturer's videos and graphs.
Click to expand...
And it won't matter a damn because it's got no penetration. There's a reason Olympic shooters all fire .22. lighter bullets are always more accurate. But non-lead bullets are gonna take that 9mm and dowgrunge it to the hitting power of a .32.

Ask any shooter out there right now about the debate between 9mm and .45. The short of it is that a 9mm is more accurate, but lacks the stopping power of the .45. Non-lead is gonna back up every single class by at least one step .... and without improving the range any. You're gonna need a .484 to match the energy of the lead .45, but at less range than the .484 has now ... which is already less than the .45.


Unless you're worried about trees ... it's a lose-lose proposition. And when someone's shooting back .... who really gives a fuck about trees?
 
Imagine yourself duck hunting... you're out on the edges of a lake, in the rushes with a nice cammo boat, decoys in the water and a skilled caller. The ducks come in, you fire off your shotgun and between you and a few buds, you bag a few. Repeat. etc... nice picture opportunity, right?

Now... you just spent the morning shooting lead shot into the air towards some fowl... how many do you recover? Shot, not ducks.

The answer? - maybe a dozen that are still inside the birds. 98%+ don't get recovered. Multiply that by the hundreds of hunters and the thousands of shot going off just in that area during a typical season.

The rest of 'em?

Well...they're busy polluting the water, killing fish, birds and other animals that use that source of water to live.

So what? You might be asking yourself.

Well...they're killing the fish, game and fowl that brought you to that lovely spot in the first place.

It's a shame that by getting back to nature, you're fucking up the 'nature' that you're there to enjoy.

There are rules to hunting: Don't overhunt in the same area. Don't kill pregnant does. Don't surpass your limit. Don't dump gasoline in the water. Don't litter. Be careful with fires. etc...

Why? So that you can come back next year and enjoy the hunting experience over again. Ditto for fishing.

So why is it so difficult to understand that you can still hunt effectively with steel and/or other alloy shot without fucking up the environment? Short-sighted thinking.:rolleyes:
 
First off ... lead shot has been banned for years. Noone's talking duck hunting. I used that as an example of lead-alternative, since (to most people paying attention) the differences between the balastic capabilities of lead and bismuth are well documented.

The article linked isn't about hunting ammo. It's about war ammo.


Last time I checked ..... Bambi didn't shoot back.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Umm...you don't get it. I'll explain. The NATO combat round is a 5.56mm copper-jacketed lead 'ball'-type ammunition. The reason the calibre is so small is to make a nasty wound. Wound the enemy, and you take three out of the fight. (The wounded guy and the two needed to carry him off the field). The bullet, when it hits, rapidly loses the jacket and/or fragments. Anything else just goes right through. Not a good thing unless you hit a vital organ or make the enemy lose a limb.
Click to expand...

As a side note: This is why they used full metal jackets on larger rounds. Because you want to fuck the guy up, not kill him. Kill him, and it takes 2 guys to bury him after the fight. Fuck him up, and you take thousands of dollars required for his medical care out of the enemy warchest. You tie up doctors, medicine, ambulances, corpsmen, etc. The last thing you want to do is kill the guy.


BTW, if you can leave the round in the guy ... there's less lead on the battlefield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top