View Full Version : Movin away from CL?
sinlessorrow
02-26-13, 16:16
I was readin the Q&A from the IC and noticed one response stated CL was a environmental pollutant. Does this mean the Army is moving away from CL? Given the recent turn for goin green I found this interesting.
Okay, I just skimmed through the IC thread, but didn't find the reference to CL. What does CL stand for?
Okay, I just skimmed through the IC thread, but didn't find the reference to CL. What does CL stand for?
Chrome lining
Man, I knew I was reading too much into it. Thanks.
I was readin the Q&A from the IC and noticed one response stated CL was a environmental pollutant. Does this mean the Army is moving away from CL? Given the recent turn for goin green I found this interesting.
Lead is an environmental pollutant. Is the Army moving away from lead?
I'm not familiar with whatever you are referring to, but is there anything else to it besides somebody saying/finding that chrome lining is an environmental pollutant?
sinlessorrow
02-26-13, 20:14
Lead is an environmental pollutant. Is the Army moving away from lead?
I'm not familiar with whatever you are referring to, but is there anything else to it besides somebody saying/finding that chrome lining is an environmental pollutant?
The Q&A does not do much to really tell you alot but this is it.
51. Is chrome lined barrel considered an environmental pollutant?
RESPONSE: Yes.
I wondered if it wasnt a requirement to be environmentally friendly after the whole "green" ammo thing, but making them ask if CL was "green".
Lead is an environmental pollutant. Is the Army moving away from lead?
I wondered if it wasnt a requirement to be environmentally friendly after the whole "green" ammo thing, but making them ask if CL was "green".
I thought that's what the green ammo was, a move away from lead.
I thought that's what the green ammo was, a move away from lead.
I don't know much about the green ammo.
It seems to partially answer my question, perhaps the Army is moving away from lead? I don't know, that's why I asked.
Looks like some research on green ammo is in order. I"ll add it to my list of things to look into for the sake of being aware.
sinlessorrow
02-26-13, 22:33
I thought that's what the green ammo was, a move away from lead.
It was, I was asking if the army was moving away from CL to make their guns green
Green ammo?What's next bombing the enemy with hugs and kisses? The military's job is to destroy America's enemies, foreign and domestic (there are plenty of both right now). It's not there to play enviro-politics.
The way things are going, Hussein is going to have the military itself classified as an environmental pollutant and move towards a "greener" alternative. A kinder, gentler Islamophilic force. This treason disguised as Care Bear bullshit has gone way too far.
IZinterrogator
02-27-13, 06:19
Green ammo?What's next bombing the enemy with hugs and kisses? The military's job is to destroy America's enemies, foreign and domestic (there are plenty of both right now). It's not there to play enviro-politics.
The way things are going, Hussein is going to have the military itself classified as an environmental pollutant and move towards a "greener" alternative. A kinder, gentler Islamophilic force. This treason disguised as Care Bear bullshit has gone way too far.
Don't worry, my HMMWV engine still has a data plate that says it can pollute as much as it wants to and the EPA can suck it.
My definition of "green ammo" is whatever is the least expensive.
Green ammo?What's next bombing the enemy with hugs and kisses? The military's job is to destroy America's enemies, foreign and domestic (there are plenty of both right now). It's not there to play enviro-politics.
The way things are going, Hussein is going to have the military itself classified as an environmental pollutant and move towards a "greener" alternative. A kinder, gentler Islamophilic force. This treason disguised as Care Bear bullshit has gone way too far.
The concern is pollution at facilities in the US.
TriviaMonster
02-27-13, 13:21
Some rag posted about the new green ammo the arming is looking into. They were saying it was a big step down in performance and higher costs. I'll look for it to post a link.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
sinlessorrow
02-27-13, 13:25
Some rag posted about the new green ammo the arming is looking into. They were saying it was a big step down in performance and higher costs. I'll look for it to post a link.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
The Green ammo is M855A1, I know InfinateGrim had some he did gel tests on but was pulled due to being "classified" that said the gel test he did was very very impressive. R0N also posted costs for the Marines and it was .11C more than MK318SOS, and .20C more than M855, so while it is more expensive its not a huge amount.
Can we stick to the topic at hand about chrome lining and less on the M855A1.
The Green ammo is M855A1, I know InfinateGrim had some he did gel tests on but was pulled due to being "classified" that said the gel test he did was very very impressive. R0N also posted costs for the Marines and it was .11C more than MK318SOS, and .20C more than M855, so while it is more expensive its not a huge amount.
Can we stick to the topic at hand about chrome lining and less on the M855A1.
.20C isn't a huge amount??
Does that mean $0.20...per round? Or am I missing something?
It seems to me that, for their cost, that would be a HUGE difference, wouldn't it?
ChrisCross
02-27-13, 16:00
LMFAO... if the "Greenies" think a CL barrel is bad for the environment. They should look at what a Prius (or any hybrid)... specifically the nickel in the batteries does to the environment.
http://forums.motortrend.com/70/6259344/the-general-forum/prius-outdoes-hummer-in-environmental-damage-so-go/index.html
so stupid :rolleyes:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55588787/US-Army-IC-Q-A18-APR-2011
Almost two years old. I wouldn't worry about it.
sinlessorrow
02-27-13, 16:53
.20C isn't a huge amount??
Does that mean $0.20...per round? Or am I missing something?
It seems to me that, for their cost, that would be a HUGE difference, wouldn't it?
.20c over M855 for a round that actually works and is being made on older less efficient machines. I am ok with paying .20c more for a round that actually fragments and actually works a whole lot better than M855 according to InfiniteGrims gel tests back when he had them available to see.
It is .11c more expensive than MK318 SOS.
scoutfsu99
02-27-13, 20:07
Considering our training and operation budgets are being slashed, that .20 over M855 is a significant number for questionable gains.
MountainRaven
02-27-13, 20:13
.20c over M855 for a round that actually works and is being made on older less efficient machines. I am ok with paying .20c more for a round that actually fragments and actually works a whole lot better than M855 according to InfiniteGrims gel tests back when he had them available to see.
It is .11c more expensive than MK318 SOS.
I think the question being asked is, "Is it twenty cents more expensive or two-tenths of a cent more expensive?"
sinlessorrow
02-27-13, 20:43
Considering our training and operation budgets are being slashed, that .20 over M855 is a significant number for questionable gains.
I wouldnt say questionable. The gel tests showed large improvements over the maybe yaw in 6" M855. That stuff fragmented and split into 3 pieces(penetrator, slug, and jacket) jacket fragged, slug went straight, and penetrator went 40* up, it was impressive and would seem a large upgrade.
This again is about chrome lining not M855A1.
I believe R0N posted it was .60c per round of M855A1.
I think the question being asked is, "Is it twenty cents more expensive or two-tenths of a cent more expensive?"
Correct.
I'm guessing it's $0.002 based on what has been posted since, which makes a lot more cents. :p
The military by any definition should be considered by its actions an environmental pollutant.
So is chrome lining bad for pollution from manufacture, or is someone worried about all the little bits of chrome that are breaking off while firing?
Off topic: I love giving anyone who drives a brand new "green" machine the same facts of how in reality driving any used vehicle is leaps and bounds better for the environment then buying a brand new prius, or whatever.
scoutfsu99
02-27-13, 21:05
I wouldnt say questionable. The gel tests showed large improvements over the maybe yaw in 6" M855. That stuff fragmented and split into 3 pieces(penetrator, slug, and jacket) jacket fragged, slug went straight, and penetrator went 40* up, it was impressive and would seem a large upgrade.
This again is about chrome lining not M855A1.
I believe R0N posted it was .60c per round of M855A1.
I don't even pretend to fully grasp the minute details. Frankly, I heavily rely on DocGKR's words to form my opinion. But flat out, .20 is a significant price increase, especially with our budgets about to be slashed. They're talking about units not being able to train above CO/BN level. A move to such a high priced round is insane given the reality of our situation.
This goes hand in hand w/ the CL.....isn't 855A1 reputed to burn out barrels quicker due to the propellant? If they're leaning away from CL, what does that mean for barrel wear/ other options?
I believe R0N posted it was .60c per round of M855A1.
Holy crap.
But again, confusing. You of course mean $0.60/round, correct?
sinlessorrow
02-27-13, 22:48
Holy crap.
But again, confusing. You of course mean $0.60/round, correct?
Yes, here is what R0N listed the pricing as for ammo for the Marines(probably less for the Army given their quantity vs the Marines), Also remember it is being made on the slower more costly machines which I cannot remember their name.
I talk to the ammo guys for the Marine Corps they provided the following on current year ammo costs.
US military pays $.40 a round for AO59 Ctg, 5.56mm Ball M855 10/Clip; $.56 a round for AA53 Ctg, 5.56mm Ball Special Match LR MK 262 Mod 0; $.57 a round for AB49 Ctg, 5.56mm Ball MK318 MOD 0; $.68 a round for AB57 Ctg, 5.56mm M855A1 EPR
If the Army gets it running on the quicker cheaper machines the cost will go down.
I don't even pretend to fully grasp the minute details. Frankly, I heavily rely on DocGKR's words to form my opinion. But flat out, .20 is a significant price increase, especially with our budgets about to be slashed. They're talking about units not being able to train above CO/BN level. A move to such a high priced round is insane given the reality of our situation.
This goes hand in hand w/ the CL.....isn't 855A1 reputed to burn out barrels quicker due to the propellant? If they're leaning away from CL, what does that mean for barrel wear/ other options?
Would you rather our soldiers be strapped with M855 that has a tendency to do nothing but perform like an icepick? Supposedly it does but there are better barrel treatments like NiCor that would greatly increase barrel life vs CL.
Heavy Metal
02-27-13, 22:56
So is chrome lining bad for pollution from manufacture, or is someone worried about all the little bits of chrome that are breaking off while firing?
Off topic: I love giving anyone who drives a brand new "green" machine the same facts of how in reality driving any used vehicle is leaps and bounds better for the environment then buying a brand new prius, or whatever.
Manufacture. The plating waste is classified as Hazardous Waste and expensive to dispose of.
texasgunhand
02-27-13, 22:59
when puting crome on anything, the left over chems, are really bad, but as far as the m-855 it was made becouse it will go through stuff at longer ranges,thats becouse our rounds are 55-62 grains and such a small cal. 24 verses 30 cal. the m-855 does what its supposed to.
scoutfsu99
02-27-13, 23:02
Yes, here is what R0N listed the pricing as for ammo for the Marines(probably less for the Army given their quantity vs the Marines), Also remember it is being made on the slower more costly machines which I cannot remember their name.
If the Army gets it running on the quicker cheaper machines the cost will go down.
Would you rather our soldiers be strapped with M855 that has a tendency to do nothing but perform like an icepick? Supposedly it does but there are better barrel treatments like NiCor that would greatly increase barrel life vs CL.
How much to get those machines up and running? We've already wasted billions on this wonder round. Our budget is getting nothing but smaller. We do not and will not have the money to spend on this. They're talking about units not having enough money to train up for deployments for christ sake. Units not having enough money for the basics. We already don't have enough money to get enough rounds to run effective ranges.
And to answer you, I would rather my soldiers get enough rounds to train and use than going all in on a substantially more expensive round and getting less. M855? Is it the best out there? No, of course not. I would rather go with 318 or 262. But we've killed quite a few people with M855 and continue to do so. I'm about to head out the door again, my money is where my mouth is.
The fiscal reality of our military is that this round is too expensive to implement right now.
ETA: And I know this thread is getting side tracked.....but thats what happens. These topics all interweave and affect each other. You can't talk about one and not the other This round is supposed to wear on barrels faster. If they're trying to get away from CL, how will this round affect that?
The chemicals used in the chrome lining process are very toxic. The disposal of said chemicals is highly regulated. Hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, and hexavalent chromium are just a few of the chemicals used that i can recall. I know there are a couple more.
The reason why they want to get rid of lead in ammo is, because so much of it ends up in the ground. While the lead lies in the dirt it can end up in the water table. The chroming process is toxic, and certain forms of chromium are toxic as well. I do not know which form of chromium ends up as the lining in barrels, or how much of it ends up in the ground.
Another reason for going with a green bullet is clean up cost. I have read that after fighting a war we pay large amounts to clean up the lead that is left behind from the bullets. I have read that in a few places, but never been able to find anything that confirms it.
I doubt that the chrome lining process will be replaced. There are other processes that are being used now, but i doubt they are non toxic. Im not familiar with the processes, and only know a little bit about chroming.
Will the mil try to replace chrome lining? Who knows. If they do, and claim it is for environmental reasons they are full of it. Im sure there is more lead in the 210 rounds one soldier carries then all the chromium in all the barrels said soldier will use in his career.
Actually, the evidence that weapon's ranges are leaking lead into the environment in general and the water table in particular has been rather underwhelming
Grand58742
02-28-13, 21:53
Also remember it is being made on the slower more costly machines which I cannot remember their name.
SCAMP machines IIRC
Grand58742
02-28-13, 22:09
Actually, the evidence that weapon's ranges are leaking lead into the environment in general and the water table in particular has been rather underwhelming
Maybe, but still hasn't stopped the big Army (or USAF for that matter) from trying for years to "go green." Luckily we haven't talked about changing up from 855 for carry or deployment rounds for the moment. But most of our qualification is done using the Mk 311 frang and supposedly for environmental reasons.
Far be it for me to turn this into politics, but it seems the military starts looking at the "green" side of things whenever the DNC holds the White House. I know the 855A1 was in testing for a while, but didn't seem to get a front burner issue until after 09. I might be wrong and the tin foil side of me is coming out, but it looks like the .mil powers that be tend to try to please whomever is in power at the moment.
And I agree with the other poster that said we should be focusing more on killing bad people and breaking their toys rather than hugging bunnies. As well as the other folks that have said we simply cannot afford the expenses of fielding this round on a large scale right now.
trackmagic
03-01-13, 11:36
Would they be switching to Melonite? I have heard (from a manufacturer who does Melonite) that Melonite is as durable as CL, but it has a lower coefficient of friction so the barrel stays cooler during sustained shooting.
Take that with a grain of salt since the guy was trying to sell me a Melonite-coated gun at the time.
Actually, the evidence that weapon's ranges are leaking lead into the environment in general and the water table in particular has been rather underwhelming
I know they can not really show any true evidence of this, but it is why they made the change. I did not want to get into how much truth to it there is in my post.
Maybe, but still hasn't stopped the big Army (or USAF for that matter) from trying for years to "go green." Luckily we haven't talked about changing up from 855 for carry or deployment rounds for the moment. But most of our qualification is done using the Mk 311 frang and supposedly for environmental reasons.
Far be it for me to turn this into politics, but it seems the military starts looking at the "green" side of things whenever the DNC holds the White House. I know the 855A1 was in testing for a while, but didn't seem to get a front burner issue until after 09. I might be wrong and the tin foil side of me is coming out, but it looks like the .mil powers that be tend to try to please whomever is in power at the moment.
And I agree with the other poster that said we should be focusing more on killing bad people and breaking their toys rather than hugging bunnies. As well as the other folks that have said we simply cannot afford the expenses of fielding this round on a large scale right now.
I was issued about 100 855a1 and 100 855 my last combat load, with a few tracers here and there, by an Army-run joint RC-Cap FOB around this time last year.
I was so surprised I took a picture:
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/03/02/ypedy9e7.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.