TexasCHLforum.com

"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

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

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.

If they do the job well then I don't care. I have my doubts that they will do the job well though.

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?

More details can be found here.

Cost isn't discussed, but the initial take is that it performs better than the original M855 "green tip" ammo.

Stay tuned to see if what looked good in the lab works out in the field.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

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?

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.

Excaliber wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

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?

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.

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.

Bio-degradeable paint balls might be a better solution.

JJVP wrote:"Green" bullets. Arggggg

Would it suit you better if they were "OD Green" bullets?

Excaliber wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:Why are you bashing your head over the idea of healthier products being used in firearms?

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.

Thank you.
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.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

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?

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.

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.

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?

mgood wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:Why are you bashing your head over the idea of healthier products being used in firearms?

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.

Thank you.
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.

My pleasure.

We're thinking along the same lines.

Excaliber wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

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?

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.

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.

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?

How about

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

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.

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.

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?

How about

Why