In the e-mail:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Buy ammo NOW!
****
You HAVE TO read this. The rifling/barrel of your weapon is
about to be ruined. See these quotes below:
1. "The new bullets are being manufactured at the Army
Ammunition Plant in Lake City, Mo., which is owned by the
Winchester Co. Winchester also manufactures ammunition used by
civilians and law-enforcement personnel. "As the new tungsten
bullets are phased in," says Ricci, "the lead bullets will be
phased out."
2. "The concern is that once the ammunition change is in full
swing, civilians will be heavily restricted in purchasing
ammunition for privately owned firearms. They expect
governmentally licensed manufacturers to retool to produce only
the new bullet, with lead being phased out as environmentally
unhealthy."
I cleaned up the internet forwarding-junk on this to pass it
along. VERY important!!
It was mentioned on Zoh Show a few times; and when I asked BW
about the details, he sent me this article. The scarey stuff is
at the end. Shorter "shelf life" AND this new ammo will cost
many times more than our "lead" ammo does, AND will ruin your
barrel much sooner, and hence shorten the life of your weapons,
unless you have a weapon "made for" tungsten bullets. You know,
the NEW "made for tungsten" / "registered" ones with the
"internal locks". And btw, GUESS WHO produces tungsten??
Coming to a store near you:
Army Embraces 'Green Ammo' By Kelly Patricia O'Meara
omeara@insightmag.com (Insight Magazine)
The Army's plan to use lead-free bullets is drawing criticism
from ballistics experts, while gun-rights activists see it as a
scheme to make an end run around the Second Amendment.
In his 1989 inaugural address, President Bush appealed to
Americans to become a "kinder, gentler nation." Naturally most
Americans understood the intent did not include sabotaging the
fighting capabilities of the armed services. But the Clinton
administration has taken this philosophy to its extreme: With the
U.S. Army now manufacturing environmentally friendly bullets,
the famous profane admonition by Gen. George S. Patton Jr.
that U.S. soldiers should let the enemy be the ones to die for
their country apparently is out the window.
The Department of the Army announced last March that it would
begin issuing U.S. troops "lead-free" bullets as part of a
comprehensive program to move to "green ammunition" in the 21st
century.
The new M-16, 5.56mm, copper-jacketed bullets are the brainchild
of the Army's Armament Research, Development and Engineering
Center in Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. A tungsten-tin composite is
used to make these bullets rather than the standard lead core
that has been used effectively for centuries. Critics of the new
"green" ammunition not only question the reasoning behind the
change but, more importantly, are concerned whether the new
bullets will do the job intended.
According to Joseph Ricci, a spokesman for the U.S. Army
Environmental Center in Aberdeen, Md., the tungsten-tin bullet
has "comparable ballistics, weight and extremely low toxicity
characteristics." Ricci explains that "the development of the
lead-free bullet is a partnered effort between the Army
Environmental Center and the Army Research, Development and
Engineering Center and is just one of the many types of
pollution-prevention programs that the Army has been working on."
Most weapons experts aren't aware of any environmental problem
stemming from the use of standard M-16 ammunition. They blame
busybodies at the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, for
the ammunition switch, but Ricci says it was the Army's
idea. He explains that "health-hazard assessments and potential
for environmental consequences of tungsten alloys in bullets were
studied and tungsten was found to be of no health risk. While
the EPA has had lead removed from many of our household products
[paint and gasoline, for example], it doesn't have any specific
regulation prohibiting the Army to fire lead bullets.
"We're simply trying to be better stewards of the environment,"
says Ricci. "If we know that one compound is more environmentally
friendly than another, and we can make that material
substitution, such as tungsten for lead, it's the right thing to
do. The tungsten bullets showed to perform as well as the lead
bullets. The soldier will notice no difference when he/she fires
the lead-free bullets." Shawn Dodson, former technical
consultant with the International Wound Ballistics Association
and director of the Firearms Tactical Institute, a company based
in Washington state that specializes in wound-ballistics
research, tells Insight: "It's a mistake to go to this new
bullet."
Although neither Dodson nor anyone else he is aware of in the
industry has been allowed to test the new Army ammunition, he
says the merest tyro will see that it is "inferior to its lead
predecessor because of the way it is constructed." That is, "The
new bullet stays completely intact. Basically you'll just be
punching small holes in your enemy with far less serious wounds.
We can see them using this bullet on the test range, but not as
combat ammunition." Cpl. Edwin Sanow of the Benton County, Ind.,
Sheriff's Department is another wound-ballistics expert and
author of several books on the subject, including Street
Stoppers: Actual Effectiveness of Police Handgun Ammunition.
Sanow agrees with Dodson but explains to Insight that "tungsten
is the hottest trend in the industry. Everybody is going to
something like it, and 10 years from now they will be the
predominant bullets in law enforcement. The changeover is like
front-wheel-drive cars. You get them whether you want them or
not. The same will be true of ammunition because that is what the
manufacturers are producing. Without a doubt, ballistically
speaking, lead is the best material to make bullets, which is why
we've been using it for more than 200 years. But the
tungsten-tin composite bullets unquestionably are more difficult,
expensive and profitable to manufacture." Critics say the
problems with the new tungsten bullets have even more
far-reaching implications. "One twist," explains Sanow, "is that
the tungsten is outrageously abrasive.
Normally the barrel life of a weapon is 20,000 rounds, but with
the new tungsten composites the rifling life of the barrel is
much shorter. It literally gets sandblasted away to a point where
it doesn't function correctly. Furthermore, there is discussion
about the shelf life of the lead-free primer. With lead bullets
we know that the shelf life is almost infinite, but with
lead-free bullets it can be surprisingly short." Forget the
profitability for the manufacturers and the politically correct
opportunity to make obsolete all firearms not manufactured for
tungsten bullets. From a ballistics standpoint the resultant
wound creates a disadvantage for our military forces. "The
current military bullet," says Sanow, "is dual-core. There is
steel in the front
and lead in the back. As the bullet tumbles toward the target,
the round snaps in two right behind the steel penetrator.
It's a highly effective system at doing what it's supposed to do
- incapacitate the enemy. . We want the bullet to cause multiple
wound paths because it gives us greater incapacity. We can't
have the enemy walking around after we've shot them. The
difference in these bullets is whether the new bullet tumbles and
breaks or doesn't." The Army made the decision to change the
ammunition on the basis of environmental claims that no one
outside the Clinton-Gore administration has seen and without
input from outside sources. Even Congress, which authorizes and
appropriates the Army's funding, was not consulted or even made
aware of the sweeping change. According to Ricci, the Army
followed "a long-standing approval process for making a materiel
substitution to existing engineering processes in the manufacture
of bullets." If so, it certainly blew one by Congress and the
National Rifle Association.
The new bullets are being manufactured at the Army Ammunition
Plant in Lake City, Mo., which is owned by the Winchester Co.
Winchester also manufactures ammunition used by civilians and
law-enforcement personnel. "As the new tungsten bullets are
phased in," says Ricci, "the lead bullets will be phased out."
Critics, including several in law enforcement, have suggested to
Insight that this change in military ammunition should be a
wakeup call to civilian firearms owners. The concern is that once
the ammunition change is in full swing, civilians will be heavily
restricted in purchasing ammunition for privately owned
firearms. They expect governmentally licensed manufacturers to
retool to produce only the new bullet, with lead being phased out
as environmentally unhealthy.
And there is more. With ballistics experts already noting the
damaging effects the tungsten-tin bullets are likely to have on
the rifling of the barrel, most agree that it isn't too far a
leap to think that this may be just another step to get around
the Second Amendment and disarm the civilian population. If the
experts are correct about the damage to the rifling of the gun
barrel caused by firing the new tungsten bullets, existing
weapons will have to be either retooled, replaced or become
useless.
Then there is the matter of the nation's tungsten reserves and
the cost of importing the heavy metal. While Congress often has
been accused of micromanagement, that rarely is the case.
Certainly lawmakers would have been very interested in the Army's
ammunition changes if hearings had been held and Congress had
been made aware that the United States has no tungsten reserves,
a problem that could become a matter of national security.
Commercially, the United States uses nearly 20 million pounds of
tungsten ore every year in products such as filaments for
lightbulbs, oil-drill bits, steel and automobiles. About 83
percent of both the tin and tungsten being used in the United
States is imported. The tin comes from Brazil, Indonesia - and
China, which is the world's largest producer of both tungsten and
tin.
Peyton Knight, associate editor of the DeWeese Report, a monthly
newsletter of the American Policy Center in Herndon, Va., is
concerned about the prospect of such a reliance on the new
Clinton-Gore "strategic partners." He asks, "Do we really want to
depend on Communist China for our ammunition supply?" The Army's
deep desire under Clinton-Gore to be environmentally correct may
be good politics, but Congress is likely to find Knight's
question important not only to the personal well-being of the men
and women in the U.S. military but also to the state of our
national security. As the Department of Defense Authorization
process goes forward, Congress may want to focus on these issues.
___________________________________
Thanks for reading this. Now go buy "old fashioned" lead
ammo... and lots of it.
Nanc Without free and uninfringed access to guns, we won't have
to worry about "political parties".
"Infringe, v.t. 1. to break; to violate; to transgress; to
neglect to obey. 2. to destroy or to hinder Infringe, v.i. 1. to
break in; encroach or trespass. Syn. -- violate, transgress,
encroach, infract, intrude, invade, trespass"
What part of "Shall not be Infringed" don't they understand?[/quote]
------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Buy ammo NOW!
****
You HAVE TO read this. The rifling/barrel of your weapon is
about to be ruined. See these quotes below:
1. "The new bullets are being manufactured at the Army
Ammunition Plant in Lake City, Mo., which is owned by the
Winchester Co. Winchester also manufactures ammunition used by
civilians and law-enforcement personnel. "As the new tungsten
bullets are phased in," says Ricci, "the lead bullets will be
phased out."
2. "The concern is that once the ammunition change is in full
swing, civilians will be heavily restricted in purchasing
ammunition for privately owned firearms. They expect
governmentally licensed manufacturers to retool to produce only
the new bullet, with lead being phased out as environmentally
unhealthy."
I cleaned up the internet forwarding-junk on this to pass it
along. VERY important!!
It was mentioned on Zoh Show a few times; and when I asked BW
about the details, he sent me this article. The scarey stuff is
at the end. Shorter "shelf life" AND this new ammo will cost
many times more than our "lead" ammo does, AND will ruin your
barrel much sooner, and hence shorten the life of your weapons,
unless you have a weapon "made for" tungsten bullets. You know,
the NEW "made for tungsten" / "registered" ones with the
"internal locks". And btw, GUESS WHO produces tungsten??
Coming to a store near you:
Army Embraces 'Green Ammo' By Kelly Patricia O'Meara
omeara@insightmag.com (Insight Magazine)
The Army's plan to use lead-free bullets is drawing criticism
from ballistics experts, while gun-rights activists see it as a
scheme to make an end run around the Second Amendment.
In his 1989 inaugural address, President Bush appealed to
Americans to become a "kinder, gentler nation." Naturally most
Americans understood the intent did not include sabotaging the
fighting capabilities of the armed services. But the Clinton
administration has taken this philosophy to its extreme: With the
U.S. Army now manufacturing environmentally friendly bullets,
the famous profane admonition by Gen. George S. Patton Jr.
that U.S. soldiers should let the enemy be the ones to die for
their country apparently is out the window.
The Department of the Army announced last March that it would
begin issuing U.S. troops "lead-free" bullets as part of a
comprehensive program to move to "green ammunition" in the 21st
century.
The new M-16, 5.56mm, copper-jacketed bullets are the brainchild
of the Army's Armament Research, Development and Engineering
Center in Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. A tungsten-tin composite is
used to make these bullets rather than the standard lead core
that has been used effectively for centuries. Critics of the new
"green" ammunition not only question the reasoning behind the
change but, more importantly, are concerned whether the new
bullets will do the job intended.
According to Joseph Ricci, a spokesman for the U.S. Army
Environmental Center in Aberdeen, Md., the tungsten-tin bullet
has "comparable ballistics, weight and extremely low toxicity
characteristics." Ricci explains that "the development of the
lead-free bullet is a partnered effort between the Army
Environmental Center and the Army Research, Development and
Engineering Center and is just one of the many types of
pollution-prevention programs that the Army has been working on."
Most weapons experts aren't aware of any environmental problem
stemming from the use of standard M-16 ammunition. They blame
busybodies at the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, for
the ammunition switch, but Ricci says it was the Army's
idea. He explains that "health-hazard assessments and potential
for environmental consequences of tungsten alloys in bullets were
studied and tungsten was found to be of no health risk. While
the EPA has had lead removed from many of our household products
[paint and gasoline, for example], it doesn't have any specific
regulation prohibiting the Army to fire lead bullets.
"We're simply trying to be better stewards of the environment,"
says Ricci. "If we know that one compound is more environmentally
friendly than another, and we can make that material
substitution, such as tungsten for lead, it's the right thing to
do. The tungsten bullets showed to perform as well as the lead
bullets. The soldier will notice no difference when he/she fires
the lead-free bullets." Shawn Dodson, former technical
consultant with the International Wound Ballistics Association
and director of the Firearms Tactical Institute, a company based
in Washington state that specializes in wound-ballistics
research, tells Insight: "It's a mistake to go to this new
bullet."
Although neither Dodson nor anyone else he is aware of in the
industry has been allowed to test the new Army ammunition, he
says the merest tyro will see that it is "inferior to its lead
predecessor because of the way it is constructed." That is, "The
new bullet stays completely intact. Basically you'll just be
punching small holes in your enemy with far less serious wounds.
We can see them using this bullet on the test range, but not as
combat ammunition." Cpl. Edwin Sanow of the Benton County, Ind.,
Sheriff's Department is another wound-ballistics expert and
author of several books on the subject, including Street
Stoppers: Actual Effectiveness of Police Handgun Ammunition.
Sanow agrees with Dodson but explains to Insight that "tungsten
is the hottest trend in the industry. Everybody is going to
something like it, and 10 years from now they will be the
predominant bullets in law enforcement. The changeover is like
front-wheel-drive cars. You get them whether you want them or
not. The same will be true of ammunition because that is what the
manufacturers are producing. Without a doubt, ballistically
speaking, lead is the best material to make bullets, which is why
we've been using it for more than 200 years. But the
tungsten-tin composite bullets unquestionably are more difficult,
expensive and profitable to manufacture." Critics say the
problems with the new tungsten bullets have even more
far-reaching implications. "One twist," explains Sanow, "is that
the tungsten is outrageously abrasive.
Normally the barrel life of a weapon is 20,000 rounds, but with
the new tungsten composites the rifling life of the barrel is
much shorter. It literally gets sandblasted away to a point where
it doesn't function correctly. Furthermore, there is discussion
about the shelf life of the lead-free primer. With lead bullets
we know that the shelf life is almost infinite, but with
lead-free bullets it can be surprisingly short." Forget the
profitability for the manufacturers and the politically correct
opportunity to make obsolete all firearms not manufactured for
tungsten bullets. From a ballistics standpoint the resultant
wound creates a disadvantage for our military forces. "The
current military bullet," says Sanow, "is dual-core. There is
steel in the front
and lead in the back. As the bullet tumbles toward the target,
the round snaps in two right behind the steel penetrator.
It's a highly effective system at doing what it's supposed to do
- incapacitate the enemy. . We want the bullet to cause multiple
wound paths because it gives us greater incapacity. We can't
have the enemy walking around after we've shot them. The
difference in these bullets is whether the new bullet tumbles and
breaks or doesn't." The Army made the decision to change the
ammunition on the basis of environmental claims that no one
outside the Clinton-Gore administration has seen and without
input from outside sources. Even Congress, which authorizes and
appropriates the Army's funding, was not consulted or even made
aware of the sweeping change. According to Ricci, the Army
followed "a long-standing approval process for making a materiel
substitution to existing engineering processes in the manufacture
of bullets." If so, it certainly blew one by Congress and the
National Rifle Association.
The new bullets are being manufactured at the Army Ammunition
Plant in Lake City, Mo., which is owned by the Winchester Co.
Winchester also manufactures ammunition used by civilians and
law-enforcement personnel. "As the new tungsten bullets are
phased in," says Ricci, "the lead bullets will be phased out."
Critics, including several in law enforcement, have suggested to
Insight that this change in military ammunition should be a
wakeup call to civilian firearms owners. The concern is that once
the ammunition change is in full swing, civilians will be heavily
restricted in purchasing ammunition for privately owned
firearms. They expect governmentally licensed manufacturers to
retool to produce only the new bullet, with lead being phased out
as environmentally unhealthy.
And there is more. With ballistics experts already noting the
damaging effects the tungsten-tin bullets are likely to have on
the rifling of the barrel, most agree that it isn't too far a
leap to think that this may be just another step to get around
the Second Amendment and disarm the civilian population. If the
experts are correct about the damage to the rifling of the gun
barrel caused by firing the new tungsten bullets, existing
weapons will have to be either retooled, replaced or become
useless.
Then there is the matter of the nation's tungsten reserves and
the cost of importing the heavy metal. While Congress often has
been accused of micromanagement, that rarely is the case.
Certainly lawmakers would have been very interested in the Army's
ammunition changes if hearings had been held and Congress had
been made aware that the United States has no tungsten reserves,
a problem that could become a matter of national security.
Commercially, the United States uses nearly 20 million pounds of
tungsten ore every year in products such as filaments for
lightbulbs, oil-drill bits, steel and automobiles. About 83
percent of both the tin and tungsten being used in the United
States is imported. The tin comes from Brazil, Indonesia - and
China, which is the world's largest producer of both tungsten and
tin.
Peyton Knight, associate editor of the DeWeese Report, a monthly
newsletter of the American Policy Center in Herndon, Va., is
concerned about the prospect of such a reliance on the new
Clinton-Gore "strategic partners." He asks, "Do we really want to
depend on Communist China for our ammunition supply?" The Army's
deep desire under Clinton-Gore to be environmentally correct may
be good politics, but Congress is likely to find Knight's
question important not only to the personal well-being of the men
and women in the U.S. military but also to the state of our
national security. As the Department of Defense Authorization
process goes forward, Congress may want to focus on these issues.
___________________________________
Thanks for reading this. Now go buy "old fashioned" lead
ammo... and lots of it.
Nanc Without free and uninfringed access to guns, we won't have
to worry about "political parties".
"Infringe, v.t. 1. to break; to violate; to transgress; to
neglect to obey. 2. to destroy or to hinder Infringe, v.i. 1. to
break in; encroach or trespass. Syn. -- violate, transgress,
encroach, infract, intrude, invade, trespass"
What part of "Shall not be Infringed" don't they understand?[/quote]
------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com