http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/ ... test=faces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Green" bullets. Arggggg

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
WWII German ammo was "green" steel cases, steel bullets, no lead. Lots of folks learned the hard way they would kill you as dead as a wedge.JJVP wrote:"The new ammunition is notable for being "green" for one thing; it's lead-free, meaning the new ammo is environmentally friendly, the Army said. The military began providing the lead-free round last June to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. "
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/ ... test=faces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Green" bullets. Arggggg
Why are you bashing your head over the idea of healthier products being used in firearms?JJVP wrote:"The new ammunition is notable for being "green" for one thing; it's lead-free, meaning the new ammo is environmentally friendly, the Army said. The military began providing the lead-free round last June to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. "
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/ ... test=faces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Green" bullets. Arggggg
Unfortunately much of what is ballyhooed as "green" in fact doesn't do the job as well as what it is intended to replace, and almost always costs more.Hoi Polloi wrote:Why are you bashing your head over the idea of healthier products being used in firearms?JJVP wrote:"The new ammunition is notable for being "green" for one thing; it's lead-free, meaning the new ammo is environmentally friendly, the Army said. The military began providing the lead-free round last June to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. "
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/ ... test=faces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Green" bullets. Arggggg
More expensive and less effective is reason to bash one's head. A knee-jerk reaction to anything that could be better for people or the environment isn't.Excaliber wrote:Unfortunately much of what is ballyhooed as "green" in fact doesn't do the job as well as what it is intended to replace, and almost always costs more.Hoi Polloi wrote:Why are you bashing your head over the idea of healthier products being used in firearms?JJVP wrote:"The new ammunition is notable for being "green" for one thing; it's lead-free, meaning the new ammo is environmentally friendly, the Army said. The military began providing the lead-free round last June to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. "
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/ ... test=faces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Green" bullets. Arggggg
I haven't seen any information to indicate that's the case here, but there's enough prior history on this subject that an initial head bashing reaction is not IMHO wholly unreasonable.
Would it suit you better if they were "OD Green" bullets?JJVP wrote:"Green" bullets. Arggggg
Thank you.Excaliber wrote:Unfortunately much of what is ballyhooed as "green" in fact doesn't do the job as well as what it is intended to replace, and almost always costs more.Hoi Polloi wrote:Why are you bashing your head over the idea of healthier products being used in firearms?
I haven't seen any information to indicate that's the case here, but there's enough prior history on this subject that an initial head bashing reaction is not IMHO wholly unreasonable.
In view of the history of many green "innovations", would you go for at least an eye roll until the details on the latest and greatest gets sorted out?Hoi Polloi wrote:More expensive and less effective is reason to bash one's head. A knee-jerk reaction to anything that could be better for people or the environment isn't.Excaliber wrote:Unfortunately much of what is ballyhooed as "green" in fact doesn't do the job as well as what it is intended to replace, and almost always costs more.Hoi Polloi wrote:Why are you bashing your head over the idea of healthier products being used in firearms?JJVP wrote:"The new ammunition is notable for being "green" for one thing; it's lead-free, meaning the new ammo is environmentally friendly, the Army said. The military began providing the lead-free round last June to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. "
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/ ... test=faces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Green" bullets. Arggggg
I haven't seen any information to indicate that's the case here, but there's enough prior history on this subject that an initial head bashing reaction is not IMHO wholly unreasonable.
My pleasure.mgood wrote:Thank you.Excaliber wrote:Unfortunately much of what is ballyhooed as "green" in fact doesn't do the job as well as what it is intended to replace, and almost always costs more.Hoi Polloi wrote:Why are you bashing your head over the idea of healthier products being used in firearms?
I haven't seen any information to indicate that's the case here, but there's enough prior history on this subject that an initial head bashing reaction is not IMHO wholly unreasonable.![]()
I was trying to write something, rambling on about the differences between lead and steel. I never hit submit because it was garbage as far as trying to get my point across. Your post says exactly what I wanted to say, but much more succinctly than what I was typing.
How aboutExcaliber wrote:In view of the history of many green "innovations", would you go for at least an eye roll until the details on the latest and greatest gets sorted out?Hoi Polloi wrote:More expensive and less effective is reason to bash one's head. A knee-jerk reaction to anything that could be better for people or the environment isn't.Excaliber wrote:Unfortunately much of what is ballyhooed as "green" in fact doesn't do the job as well as what it is intended to replace, and almost always costs more.Hoi Polloi wrote:Why are you bashing your head over the idea of healthier products being used in firearms?JJVP wrote:"The new ammunition is notable for being "green" for one thing; it's lead-free, meaning the new ammo is environmentally friendly, the Army said. The military began providing the lead-free round last June to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. "
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/ ... test=faces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Green" bullets. Arggggg
I haven't seen any information to indicate that's the case here, but there's enough prior history on this subject that an initial head bashing reaction is not IMHO wholly unreasonable.
Hoi Polloi wrote:How aboutExcaliber wrote:In view of the history of many green "innovations", would you go for at least an eye roll until the details on the latest and greatest gets sorted out?Hoi Polloi wrote:More expensive and less effective is reason to bash one's head. A knee-jerk reaction to anything that could be better for people or the environment isn't.Excaliber wrote:
Unfortunately much of what is ballyhooed as "green" in fact doesn't do the job as well as what it is intended to replace, and almost always costs more.
I haven't seen any information to indicate that's the case here, but there's enough prior history on this subject that an initial head bashing reaction is not IMHO wholly unreasonable.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()