Jump to content

150 grain .308


Recommended Posts

Not specifically, but as MC said above the 150g and 55g do specifically refer to the weight of the bullet, and not the whole cartridge.

 

The jacket, most commonly copper, obviously does has a weight but the lead accounts for the vast majority of the total weight!

 

Best I can do!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roughly speaking most bullets by weight are 95% lead. But if you are looking at teaching a class about the envirionmental impact of ammunition look towards the current issues of birth defects in Faluja caused by the American use of depleted uranium shells which are still very dodgy in in terms of legality.

Edited by Vince Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good call on the DU! I already have all the data. According to the US Army they have fired 1.8 billion rounds of small arms ammo in Iraq! Thats a hell of an amount of lead! Apparently its 230,000 per iraqi killed! I did a study into lead pollution at uni so know a bit about it!

 

MC - Cheers for the offer but I have a few 150 grain FMJ'S here so might just melt out the core and see what the jacket weighs!

 

Thanks guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roughly speaking most bullets by weight are 95% lead. But if you are looking at teaching a class about the envirionmental impact of ammunition look towards the current issues of birth defects in Faluja caused by the American use of depleted uranium shells which are still very dodgy in in terms of legality.

 

 

I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself...there is no link yet as far as I am aware :D :( :sly:

 

Very few rifle shells get anywhere near uranium, they certainly do have some other nasty things in the propellent and the projectile, not to mention the ballistic effect.

 

For all we know it is a local chemical leak :hmm::D:good::hmm::hmm: :o

Edited by Dekers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself...there is no link yet as far as I am aware :D :( :sly:

 

Very few rifle shells get anywhere near uranium, they certainly do have some other nasty things in the propellent and the projectile, not to mention the ballistic effect.

 

For all we know it is a local chemical leak :hmm::D:good::hmm::hmm: :o

I know rifle bullets have no DU in them but a large number of tank rounds, and aircraft cannon rounds contain the stuff. A lot of armour nowadays also contains the stuff. I spent some time training with the army when I was younger and saw how effective a DU shell from a Chally 2 is! Its like a 2 foot long dart going at 3000 fps!

 

The links between DU use and birth defects etc is very strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know rifle bullets have no DU in them but a large number of tank rounds, and aircraft cannon rounds contain the stuff. A lot of armour nowadays also contains the stuff. I spent some time training with the army when I was younger and saw how effective a DU shell from a Chally 2 is! Its like a 2 foot long dart going at 3000 fps!

 

The links between DU use and birth defects etc is very strong.

 

 

Cheers chap, I think most of us know about potential issues relating to some heavy calibre munitions, just seemed to be getting a little ahead of ourselves on a thread ref .308..

 

ATB!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good call on the DU! I already have all the data. According to the US Army they have fired 1.8 billion rounds of small arms ammo in Iraq! Thats a hell of an amount of lead! Apparently its 230,000 per iraqi killed! I did a study into lead pollution at uni so know a bit about it!

 

MC - Cheers for the offer but I have a few 150 grain FMJ'S here so might just melt out the core and see what the jacket weighs!

 

Thanks guys!

Lead is quite inert when it goes into the ground. There are scores of fields around the country where they hold clay shoots but still graze cattle and it doesn't contaminate the milk. Also they graze cattle and grow crops on the old WW1 battlefields like the Somme and Ypres with no apparant problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself...there is no link yet as far as I am aware :/:yes: :o

 

Very few rifle shells get anywhere near uranium, they certainly do have some other nasty things in the propellent and the projectile, not to mention the ballistic effect.

 

For all we know it is a local chemical leak :P:yes::yes::hmm::hmm::hmm:

I doubt you will ever get a confirmed link regarding depleted uranium. Far too political They did however have all the same problems in Iraq after the first gulf war and depleted uranium was already in the frame regarding childhood leukaemias and cancers in children before this present lot started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lead is quite inert when it goes into the ground. There are scores of fields around the country where they hold clay shoots but still graze cattle and it doesn't contaminate the milk. Also they graze cattle and grow crops on the old WW1 battlefields like the Somme and Ypres with no apparant problems.

 

Lead is not inert! Whilst at University I undertook a lengthy study into the impacts of lead shot on the environment. I used a small clay shooting club in Scotland that had been running for over 30 years. A quick calculation estimated that in the order of 2 million cartridges had been fired at the club in its history. If I remember correctly levels of lead in some soil samples was 23 times what is normal for that area. Lead contamination was also found in the vegetation growing on the site.

 

It certainly does contaminate the land hence why the US Army is investigating using non lead ammunition on training ranges.

 

I can only imagine what levels are at larger clubs. One near me had the lead taken out of one of the DTL backstops and apparently they got 96 tonnes out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

230,000 just to pop one Iraqi, always knew the yanks can't shoot :good: when I was in the Army many moons ago we had a range day with the yanks, we shoot one target one rifle at that time, it may have changed now but then they were clocking 5 rifles to one target at 300 yards. I guess you can imagine what the outcome was he he. Mind you it's a good way to use up all that old ammo they have lying around in the States.

 

 

Good call on the DU! I already have all the data. According to the US Army they have fired 1.8 billion rounds of small arms ammo in Iraq! Thats a hell of an amount of lead! Apparently its 230,000 per iraqi killed! I did a study into lead pollution at uni so know a bit about it!

 

MC - Cheers for the offer but I have a few 150 grain FMJ'S here so might just melt out the core and see what the jacket weighs!

 

Thanks guys!

Edited by ianstaley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick tell me where so i can get teh odd ton please :good:

 

 

Lead is not inert! Whilst at University I undertook a lengthy study into the impacts of lead shot on the environment. I used a small clay shooting club in Scotland that had been running for over 30 years. A quick calculation estimated that in the order of 2 million cartridges had been fired at the club in its history. If I remember correctly levels of lead in some soil samples was 23 times what is normal for that area. Lead contamination was also found in the vegetation growing on the site.

 

It certainly does contaminate the land hence why the US Army is investigating using non lead ammunition on training ranges.

 

I can only imagine what levels are at larger clubs. One near me had the lead taken out of one of the DTL backstops and apparently they got 96 tonnes out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Milk Marketing Board monitor all milk from farms for various toxins and I have never heard of any farm being affected by lead contamination as a result of shooting activity. Of course I stand to be corrected but if it were a problem I think we would have heard about it long before now.

 

What is a bigger problem and it has been documented is the level of pesticides in shot pigeons but it doesn't seem to stop them being sold. I would imagine the same goes for rabbits but thats only a guess.

 

The lead issue seems to be a bandwagon being jumped on by various environmental activists and of course the antis but where is the proof? I for one would be very quick to lend my support to any cause that could demonstrate that a problem exists but so far I have seen nothing. Lead , tin and some levels of background radiation exists naturally in the soil, particularly in the South West but so far nothing seems to have sufaced in milk or meat production that gives grounds for concern. I think that until it does I would be inclined to favour caution.

 

There are many causes for concern, particularly where land fill sites are concerned regarding dioxins but the activities of various environmental groups are getting a bit ahead of themselves where this matter is concerned because they are trying to use it for political ends without recourse to hard evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...