04-23-2014, 09:08 PM
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?
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. 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.
If it turns out that "green" bullets are the better tactical solution, I'm all for them.
John
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?
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. 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.
If it turns out that "green" bullets are the better tactical solution, I'm all for them.
John
:: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets
:: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::
:: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::
