New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[stanc]

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?

For sure, the environmental concerns came first. And if you wish to argue that "all the rest is simply trying to make the best of it," I won't disagree.

What I take issue with is the notion that "lead-free" necessarily equals "less effective."

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.

I agree that they shouldn't. However, the unavoidable fact is they are mandated, and I fail to see what good it does to complain about it. Wouldn't it be more productive to put our efforts into planning for the reality of the situation?

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.

Generally, we're talking about no difference in weight between lead-core, steel-core, and lead-free bullets. And since a lead-free bullet will necessarily be longer (and therefore have somewhat higher BC) than a lead-core bullet of the same weight, it is the lead-core bullet which will lose velocity faster. Why would you want that?