HANKA Wrote:To be technical, 5.45 DOES have a small amount of lead.

Quote:The reasons for steel-core at the end of WWII are inconclusive. I would tend to think it was due to a shortage of raw material, rather than rigorously examined technical improvements.

Quote:It could well have "reduced the effectiveness" of small arms. Could be at that point the powers that be realized small arms were a relatively small factor in the overall killing and wounding equation, and that as long as it goes bang it's good enough when resources are scarce.

Quote:Again, the Russian use of steel core is to gain a certain amount of penetration, all while maximizing their use of raw materials. As such, they, again, exhibit cooly rational thinking to gain a military, albeit strategic advantage, and it has nothing to do with environmentalism.

Quote:If you want to compare apples to apples, and put up a steel-core 6.5 Grendel round against their steel-core 7.62x54R, that's a more fair comparison than hobbling the 65G to a lead-free bullet vs. Russian lead-cored, as we were discussing above.

HANKA Wrote:Maybe you're confusing mild-steel cores, which I would guess is a lead-preserving, cost-saving measure (unless mild steel flies and penetrates better than lead FMJs?), and Armor Piercing steel cores, instituted for the specific purpose of gaining a tactical military advantage through superior penetration.

Quote:So, to the point, we've agreed the Russians were seeking either a tactical edge via AP or a strategic resources edge via cheap mild steel. Now, is the U.S. military going lead-free because they're coldly seeking a tactical or strategic edge or because they want to be environmentally sensitive? I think I know the answer.

Quote:[COLOR="darkgreen"]...there were three sets of competing requirements.

The Infantry Center expressed a number of performance goals compared to M855:
Improved soft target lethality over M855;
Improved accuracy over M855;
General purpose capability;
Ballistic similarity to M855;
Similar hard target performance to M855;
Optimized for the M4 carbine; and
Reduced flash.

SOCOM was most interested in finding a round that would have significantly better accuracy than Mk262 and be available at lower cost – best, in fact, if one of the other services adopted it, as a SOF-specific round would be purchased out of SOCOM budgets rather than provided by the big Green Army. Other concerns were secondary provided the round could be optimized for the shorter barreled weapons SOF operators were using.

The program manager (PM-MAS) needed to find a solution that was “environmentally friendly” (defined as a lead-free projectile, no tungsten) to meet the Green Ammunition mandate for which they were already funded.

Ultimately, the team came up with a plan that would meet most of the requirements of most of the parties. The design effort would work to the Infantry Center’s basic requirement, with the understanding that SOCOM could take or leave the solution depending on its performance. The solution would have to be “green”, which would justify using the available funding and existing program to do the work, rather than having to go back and justify and fund a new ammunition development program.[/COLOR]

JASmith Wrote:They think that less capable weaponry might keep us from getting into a war.

JASmith Wrote:Let's not confuse a general statement with specific situations.

Quote:Nonetheless, a counter example is: A more capable armor-piercing bullet would have a tungsten carbide core. As has been pointed out, tungsten is viewed as "not green."

stanc Wrote:..The discussion is about general-issue, Ball ammo, not special purpose loads like AP or HPBT.

HANKA Wrote:Stan, in the green text you quoted above, it states: "The program manager (PM-MAS) needed to find a solution that was “environmentally friendly” (defined as a lead-free projectile, no tungsten) to meet the Green Ammunition mandate for which they were already funded."

Does this not prove my point that environmental concerns came first? M855A1 is lead-free first and foremost because of an environmental mandate. All the rest is simply trying to make the best of it, trying to optimize a "green" bullet. You see why I complain political correctness is placed before military effectiveness?

Quote:I'm simply echoing a point you, yourself, have already made. If lead-free bullets are too long to be practical then lead-free should not be mandated.

Quote:It's a simple matter of the physics of ballistics, a matter of material density. While both have similar form factors, throw a ping pong ball and a golf ball as hard as you can and see which sheds velocity faster.

HANKA Wrote:Specialized loads might be irrelevant, but you're the one who brought up M2 AP.

Quote:We're discussing what bullet and ballistics the 6.5 Grendel needs to match 7.62x54R. And it's unclear to me whether we're comparing 7.62x54R lead-core, mild steel core, or AP.

Quote:Nothing makes sense until the military specifies its requirements, then one begins to design a bullet.

stanc Wrote:Not sure what you mean by "flies better." According to what I've read, steel-core bullets typically are less accurate, but also have higher BC, than lead-core bullets of the same weight.
."

bwaites Wrote:Huh? Steel core bullets in the same form factor as lead core bullets will have a LOWER BC than the heavier lead core bullet.

HANKA Wrote:There are many 7.62x54R bullets. Which one is the mild-steel core load, the standard PKM load, to which we should compare?

Quote:Regarding your point that a lead-free bullet, by virtue of its length, has a higher BC, is something I didn't realize. I thought material density also factored into BC, in the sense that if form factors are equal, the bullet with a higher material density has a better BC. Conversely, a bullet of a lesser density needs to be longer to have the same BC as a bullet of higher density.

Quote:This is why I postulated that a 108gr lead-free bullet in the 65G case might be too long to be practical to match 7.62x54R.

bwaites Wrote:Huh? Steel core bullets in the same form factor as lead core bullets will have a LOWER BC than the heavier lead core bullet. If you maximize the optimum shape for two bullets of the same weight, the denser bullet will always win on BC.