04-28-2017, 12:10 PM
BluntForceTrauma Wrote:Stan, none of this works against my position.
I am fine with militaries using lead, steel, copper, or Gummi Bears in their bullets as long as they choose their bullet construction to meet military performance parameters.
I am fine with militaries substituting a material in their bullets to conserve strategic resources.
I am NOT fine with the construction and performance of military ammunition being trumped by the concerns of politically correct environmentalists.
Pretty sure the Russians don't use steel-core bullets because a tree-hugger got elected and mandated it.
BFT:
Maybe the mil is using the environmentalists to justify the cost of what the mil believes are much more lethal bullets? I am pretty sure they cost a lot more than the old lead core bullets and maybe the mil figured that it would be easier to get funding if they used lead contamination as a reason for the new bullets.
I think the Russians went to soft steel cores because it was cheaper than lead. Or perhaps steel was easier to get than lead during WWII? Not sure but I doubt DoD would go to a less lethal bullet that costs a bunch more just to appease leftists in congress.
LR55