The US Army’s Green Bullet: Can War Be Environmentally Friendly?
 

US Green Army Bullet

Four years ago June, the US Army adopted the lead-free 5.56 mm M855A1 Enhanced Performance cartridge as its standard combat ammunition. Instead of the traditional lead core, the bullet has a copper core. Actually, this isn’t the first time the Army has gone “green”—three other lead-free versions came before the M855A1—but this model finally demonstrated better field performance in addition to environmental factors. However, the 15-year search for a practical “green” bullet probably cost taxpayers about $100 million. In an age where anti-war sentiment in the US rivals that of the 1960s and ‘70s during Vietnam, we have to wonder: can we really achieve an eco-friendly military? And if so, is it worth it?

When the Army talks about environmental hazards, it means material waste, not lethality of projectiles. The bullets and grenades must still “neutralize” the enemy, but their manufacture and disposal should not harm the rest of us (including the troops) through volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ozone-depleting substances, and heavy metals. From the Army’s perspective, this is only logical.

The Army’s efforts to engineer a more environmentally friendly bullet began back in 1995, when the Armament Research Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) established the Joint Working Group (JWG) for Non-Toxic Ammunition. Funded through the Army’s Environmental Center, the JWG offered contracts to research centers. First, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (yes, the atomic bomb people) came up with a tungsten-tin bullet, while the Texas Research Institute manufactured one made of tungsten and nylon. Interestingly, there was no hesitation concerning tungsten, despite the fact that an ARDEC-funded study in 1994 warned of its toxicity. It seems developers were concerned only with replacing lead, deemed more toxic than tungsten. Unfortunately for these initial contractors, production of tungsten bullets would have used up the Western Hemisphere’s entire annual output of the substance. What about the Eastern Hemisphere? It’s true that China produces 88% of the world’s tungsten, but relying on China during wartime, due to our tenuous relationship with the Communist country, would severely compromise US security. As a stop-gap measure, it was decided to recycle the bullets and, if necessary, revert to lead.

By 2000, over 3 million tungsten rounds were ready for testing. Yet the tests showed that the tungsten did not perform as well as the lead-based ammunition. During the resulting delay in production, new studies emerged, revealing that tungsten was just as hazardous as lead and could leach into the soil. The Army had spent $12 million in research, but was left with about 30 million unfired tungsten rounds. Three years later, the US Special Operations Science and Technology Office (SOST) developed an extremely accurate, lethal 5.56 mm round—which contained lead. ARDEC emphasized that the next general-purpose ammunition must “balance cost, performance, and environmental factors.”

Between 2005 and 2008, a collaborate effort began involving ARDEC; the Army’s Project Manager Maneuver Ammunition Systems (PM MAS); the Army Research Lab (ARL); and Alliant Techsystems (parent company of Federal Ammunition and operator of Lake City Army Ammunition Plant). Their goal was to produce a round both “green” (lead-free) and combat-ready. Indeed, only an environmentally friendly round would justify using the funding and program already in place. Otherwise, researchers would be forced to ask for funding for an entirely new development program. Towards the end of 2008, the team had developed a bismuth-tin bullet which seemed to fit the bill. Once again, the bullet failed the performance tests. Over the next few months, the team worked on a new design, this with a copper core. As soon as the bullet demonstrated superior performance in the tests, production got under way, and our troops in Afghanistan received the new rounds. As of this year, Lake City Army Ammunition Plant is also producing a 7.62 mm round of the same design as the 5.56 mm.

The M855A1 is not a perfect cartridge by Army standards, but it offers improved accuracy, lethality, and barrier penetration—all of which are vital qualities for a soldier’s survival and effectiveness. As is usually the case with Army developments, controversy surrounded the new cartridge back home, due to the fact that the program initially stressed “environmental compliance” above accuracy. The green ammo designs would “eliminate 2000 metric tons of hazardous material” every year in keeping with the Army’s “commitment to environmental stewardship.” In fact, and quite ironically, the Army’s 2010 Life Cycle Environmental Assessment referred to developing an eco-friendly bullet as a “moral obligation.”

What are your thoughts on this topic?  Share them below.

NOTE: Views expressed in this blog represent those of the author and do not reflect any affiliation of GBRI as an organization or any opinions we hold as an organization.

References

Plaster, John L. (Maj., US Army, Ret.). “It Has To Be ‘Green’”: Testing the Army’s M855A1 Standard Ball Cartridge.” American Rifleman June 2014: 58-79. Print.

Be it a few hours or all your CE hours, Learning Hub @ GBRI is your one stop shop for all your CE needs. Earn hours through watching courses, attending trainings, reading articles, and working on projects. Watch the courses online or on-demand from the comfort of your home, office or mobile device or in-person at a location near you.

  • Kayla Gerstenberg  August 25, 2014 at 4:28 am

    As a reminder, the views expressed here represent those of the Author. As an organization, we hope to begin a conversation here and provide a platform for your voice to be heard. Feel free to share your thoughts with us here.

    Reply
  • Oz  August 25, 2014 at 9:18 am

    War’s very nature is to degrade the life support systems for some people so that it may improve living conditions for others. How could this possibly yield a net benefit to the world’s people? This question relies on a very troubling notion: caring for my enviroment is an acceptable reason for me to damage your’s. In a sustainable world, resources are not something we should be fighting over; and Power is not about controlling access to prosperity.

    Reply
  • Emilio Nehme  August 27, 2014 at 12:12 am

    Dear all,
    It’s good to hear that the US Army is investing a lot (100 million $) in research in order to reach a green ammo and army. When we hear that the US is helping other countries to improve the performance of their armies like Lebanon for example even that it still a shy try, I wonder if this ammo would be the new developed and green one with Copper core or the old traditional with the known Lead core. If the second choice is adopted I found it a good way to handle and dispose it’s Lead core cartridge which cause an environmental Hazards risks and like this it’s a win win situation. From one side the other countries will be thankful without knowing the reason for US and from other side they are dealing with their army and ammo waste with the concept it’s not in my backyard.
    I wish my concept and analysis is wrong but after all it’s something to raise it up for all to know,
    Many Thanks,
    Emilio

    Reply

Leave A Comment

Please enter your name. Please enter an valid email address. Please enter a message.

*