Ammunition: Congress Demands Army and Marine Corps Standardize Rounds

[Unobtanium]

Unless you shoot at steel targets and have a safety of use message related to face deformation and bouncing penetrators.
Or shoot inside shoothouses and don't want to replace your walls every 2 years.

That said, my prediction is that if the USMC can't stave off the uninformed opinion of the current regime, that A1 will be forced into adoption.
A lot of the early issues with A1 has been solved, so the complaints about it are pretty much relegated to training and support.

Ranges would have to be re-vamped, yes. Should cost peanuts compared to what developing and later stealing M855A1's final design cost.

[Al T.]

Army thinks nothing of using depleted uranium for lots of different uses, but is cracking down on lead.

It ain't Big Army, it's a congress driven directive. Think "Red Cockaded Woodpecker" fiasco..............

[RevolverRob]

You want to live in a lead house or a uranium house?

Wha? Depleted Uranium has 60% the radioactivity of natural uranium. Yea...if you uhh powder up a few dozen 30mm DU rounds and inhale it like cocaine, you're not going to be doing so well. But overall the effects of the rounds hitting targets and "powdering" are dissipated into the atmosphere within a few days usually. The half-life of DU exposure in humans is 15-days or so. Which means, if you wash your hands and don't inhale powder from that stuff daily, your entire exposure will be eliminated in about two-weeks.

Whereas in the case of lead rounds, they take considerable time to dissipate from both the environment and the body. And large build-ups tend to leach into the soil and ground water around facilities where there is considerable lead build-up. I'm sure that we don't want to stack up DU like we do lead, either to be honest.

But the long-term towards non-lead bullets and toxic-free (or at least toxic-reduced) primers is the future. And frankly a good one. In the long-term more and more outdoor and indoor ranges will move to lead-free ammunition in general day-to-day life. Make no mistake, eventually the EPA will get on the lead-management band-wagon and start cracking down much harder on ammunition. If the military can lead the way, it will allow faster acceptance among the shooting community, greater manufacturing ability, and reduced cost in terms of production. You look at this as a "waste" of taxpayer dollars. And while I admit, I'd prefer if we spent some tax dollars doing other things. I'm all for investing in overall developmental infrastructure that will help get the future of shooting here in a better way.

[Failure2Stop]

Personal opinion:
Obviously the Marines don't want anything to do with the Army, but the request makes sense. Even more sense would be asking about the whole initiative.
Just how much does the new lead-free, steel-core copper bullet being specified cost? How reliable is the new lead-free primer? If they aren't using lead-free primers, why the hell are they worrying about lead-free bullets?
In case of a major war, could production this boutique bullet meet the needs of the troops vs mass-produced swaged bullets, or would NEW production of standard bullets be required to keep ammo in the troop's hands?
As a tax-payer, if the new bullet costs even 1 cent more per bullet than a jacketed lead-core with steel penetrator, I would tell them where to shove their "lead-free" agenda and get back to buying ammunition at a reasonable cost.
Unless they show the TACTICAL superiority of the new bullet over any possible lead core bullet, they are WASTING taxpayer money.
I like the fact that the Army thinks nothing of using depleted uranium for lots of different uses, but is cracking down on lead. You want to live in a lead house or a uranium house?

A1, no matter personal agenda, crushes bodies.

[Failure2Stop]

Ranges would have to be re-vamped, yes. Should cost peanuts compared to what developing and later stealing M855A1's final design cost.

Range stuff in the military is ridiculously expensive.
I think that the restriction of A1 to operational use only is largely linked to the safety issues in training environments.

[busdriver]

Many mil ranges use frangible. At least in the AF.

[jetfire]

Many mil ranges use frangible. At least in the AF.

Some AF ranges still use those plastic training rounds and the special bolts.

I hate those fucken bolts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Failure2Stop]

Many mil ranges use frangible. At least in the AF.

That is a very AF specific thing.
The major ground branches will rarely use frangible, and only in specific instances use SRTA (blue plastic) for training.
Rezeroing for every training event is a good way to ensure that the maximum amount of personnel never actually have a good zero.
The other issue is that there are more than just M4s as 5.56 consuming platforms.

[DocGKR]

These remain the best articles on this subject:

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=2879

http://www.gunsandammo.com/uncategor...rs-and-marines

The USSOCOM/USMC SOST is a superior round for carbines, but Big Army wants M855A1 despite numerous continuing issues. I am also sure Army wants this settled before a potential SecDef Mattis is in charge....

[jetfire]

That is a very AF specific thing.
The major ground branches will rarely use frangible, and only in specific instances use SRTA (blue plastic) for training.
Rezeroing for every training event is a good way to ensure that the maximum amount of personnel never actually have a good zero.
The other issue is that there are more than just M4s as 5.56 consuming platforms.

I can really only speak for my unit, but I know that SRTA is mandated in our case because our range is sort of under the flightline for an international airport. The people at the airport are worried someone is going to shoot down a 737 with an errant 5.56 round.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk