The Government Wants To Make Bullets That Turn Into Plants

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The Department of Defense is putting out a request for environment-friendly bullets designed with biodegradable materials (e.g., bamboo fiber). They will be embedded with seeds, and the plants that spawn will ultimately consume the bullet. Is this idea crazy enough to work?

…rounds are left on the ground after use given the lack of any efficient way of recovering them, despite the fact that they can take “hundreds of years or more” to degrade, posing a substantial environmental risk insofar as the casing could pollute water supplies or be discovered by animals. According to the Department of Defense call for proposals, these spent shells are also liable to be found by locals around the training facilities, who may be unable to differentiate the training rounds from tactical rounds. As such, the DoD wants to manufacture munitions out of naturally occurring biodegradable materials to eliminate the environmental hazard posed by used munitions.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
This is specifically for training rounds, and that seems reasonable.

All that lead doesn't just magically disappear. It ends up in the local environment.
Click to expand...
I know, just pointing out the hypocrisy through the use of irony. Edit: I was exhausted and failed to translate my thoughts to words, which are now included in italics.
 
Last edited:
"We are going to blow the hell out of you and your country, but we want to be Eco Friendly in the process. Much like your rotting dead corpse will biodegrade, we would like whatever munitions that killed you to do the same".

....Oh brother, yep, its certainly 2017.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
You didn't read the article, OP, or any of the posts in this thread... yep, it certainly is 2017.
Click to expand...

For you. Have a nice day.

jump-to-conclusions-mat.jpg
 
Not a bad idea really, as long as the price is reasonable. When I am shooting in the backyard, all I'm doing is turfing up the ground anyways.
 
Megalith made this more click-baity by omitting the most useful snippet from the article:
specifically looking for a bullet design that can be used on US military training facilities. According to the report, the US Army currently manufactures and consumes “hundreds of thousands” of rounds of ammunition at its proving grounds around the world, etc...
Click to expand...
Obviously, these would not be viable outside of training. The real question though, is why not find a way to use technology to avoid firing a single round in the first place for training purposes?

Surely we have the tech now that can simulate firing without actually expending a live round downrange, no? That would be safer as well, just using laser systems that can estimate bullet drop and the like for training exercises.

And when you really want to do live-fire as the very last part of the training, have that specific part done at a range, where you have a backstop that is collecting all the bullets, and all the brass is right nearby you which can be easily scooped up and resold to companies that can reload them for civilian or further training use cheap. After all, you should be able to reload brass dozens of times before retiring it, which would reduce costs.
 
An intersting concept to be sure, but it is certainly a "do we really want to pay for this research or the product it creates" sort of thing. I am not sure. If it can be done without spending billions of dollars, it might be worthwhile to at least take a look at the possibility.
The article did state training rounds. So I am guessing this is going to mostly affect weapons systems that fire explosive rockets, and aircraft.

Anyone that has been in the military knows, training ammo is, for the most part, regular old ammo. As in, the same bullets you run through the M16, M2, or even a howitzer, at the range or in field training, are the same rounds you kill enemies with.

Brass is almost always policed at a range. It is part of both, accountability procedures, and range housekeeping/brass recycling. You were issued x amount of rounds for range use, you return a similar number of spent brass to prove you are actually using it and not stockpiling.
 
Ducman69 said:
The real question though, is why not find a way to use technology to avoid firing a single round in the first place for training purposes?

Surely we have the tech now that can simulate firing without actually expending a live round downrange, no? That would be safer as well, just using laser systems that can estimate bullet drop and the like for training exercises.

And when you really want to do live-fire as the very last part of the training, have that specific part done at a range, where you have a backstop that is collecting all the bullets, and all the brass is right nearby you which can be easily scooped up and resold to companies that can reload them for civilian or further training use cheap. After all, you should be able to reload brass dozens of times before retiring it, which would reduce costs.
Click to expand...

DoD has spent many millions on some pretty good and also pretty terrible training simulators. I used this one: . It broke often.

Nothing beats firing live rounds, infantrymen become good marksmen by firing thousands of rounds at the range, not sitting on simulators.
 
Ducman69 said:
Megalith made this more click-baity by omitting the most useful snippet from the article:

Obviously, these would not be viable outside of training. The real question though, is why not find a way to use technology to avoid firing a single round in the first place for training purposes?

Surely we have the tech now that can simulate firing without actually expending a live round downrange, no? That would be safer as well, just using laser systems that can estimate bullet drop and the like for training exercises.

And when you really want to do live-fire as the very last part of the training, have that specific part done at a range, where you have a backstop that is collecting all the bullets, and all the brass is right nearby you which can be easily scooped up and resold to companies that can reload them for civilian or further training use cheap. After all, you should be able to reload brass dozens of times before retiring it, which would reduce costs.
Click to expand...



Everything you listed, is already done.


Also, there is no "environmental" impact to a training range from normal bullets. These stupid eco bullets would have a larger environmental impact than normal bullets because they will start making plants grow on the range, you then will need to use some form of air polluting machine/vehicle to cut down the plants that would grow.

Normal bullets cannot penetrate more than even a few feet into the ground (including .50 cal), so cleanup is very easy once the range is no longer in use. Just excavate a few feet of soil.


This is simply hippies looking for a problem where there isn't one to begin with, this is why our government is so bloated and wasteful. Hopefully Trump will take care of stupid shit like this causing taxpayers money.
 
Gorankar said:
Brass is almost always policed at a range. It is part of both, accountability procedures, and range housekeeping/brass recycling. You were issued x amount of rounds for range use, you return a similar number of spent brass to prove you are actually using it and not stockpiling.
Click to expand...


Yep, and ive seen a couple times where the brass weight didn't "add up". A few handfulls of sand at the bottom of an ammo can took cake of that issue. ;)
 
There are too many trees growing on the shooting range sergeant. Let's go clear cut this area next to it and make a new one.
 
A biodegradable bullet seems like a good idea. One with seeds could create a logistical nightmare due to various state and federal regulations on transport and seeding harmful plants. A plant safe for Georgia might be a ecological disaster if shot over parts of California.
 
Dead Parrot said:
A biodegradable bullet seems like a good idea. One with seeds could create a logistical nightmare due to various state and federal regulations on transport and seeding harmful plants. A plant safe for Georgia might be a ecological disaster if shot over parts of California.
Click to expand...
XRay or gamma burst them...problem solved.
 
Ducman69 said:
Megalith made this more click-baity by omitting the most useful snippet from the article:

Obviously, these would not be viable outside of training. The real question though, is why not find a way to use technology to avoid firing a single round in the first place for training purposes?

Surely we have the tech now that can simulate firing without actually expending a live round downrange, no? That would be safer as well, just using laser systems that can estimate bullet drop and the like for training exercises.

And when you really want to do live-fire as the very last part of the training, have that specific part done at a range, where you have a backstop that is collecting all the bullets, and all the brass is right nearby you which can be easily scooped up and resold to companies that can reload them for civilian or further training use cheap. After all, you should be able to reload brass dozens of times before retiring it, which would reduce costs.
Click to expand...

Two reasons only why this isn't being done in America like it is in other western nations. #1, It's common sense. #2, Our Military Industrial Complex will loses a lot of money by having a company "recycling" used casings vs the MIC making new ones. As the saying goes, if you want to know why something hasn't been fixed in America (like it has been in other nations for decades) follow the money. #OverturnCitizensUnited
 
Kind of poetic. How does that saying go? A bullet is like a flower of death. Plant it in a person and watch it grow.
 
It'll make the shooting range look like a jungle! :)

What about invasive species? Introducing plant life in an area it's not native.
 
Chunder said:
Two reasons only why this isn't being done in America like it is in other western nations. #1, It's common sense. #2, Our Military Industrial Complex will loses a lot of money by having a company "recycling" used casings vs the MIC making new ones. As the saying goes, if you want to know why something hasn't been fixed in America (like it has been in other nations for decades) follow the money. #OverturnCitizensUnited
Click to expand...
They do in fact recycle the brass at training ranges. Always have as far as I know.
 
Chunder said:
Two reasons only why this isn't being done in America like it is in other western nations
Click to expand...
maybe because we like having the best military in the world?

Chunder said:
. #1, It's common sense.
Click to expand...
This statement makes it obvious you have not spent any time actually using a firearm. There is this little thing called Physics that dictates how a 50,000 PSI contained explosion thrusting a projectile in one direction at 2500-3000 fps will thrust back on the shoulder of the operator of the device. In addition, the sound resonance can cause a significant reaction in the operator if the operator is not used to the sound. This sound resonance cannot be accurately replicated by a speaker, and the inertia cannot be properly replicated by computer. If you want the best trained marksmen, they will be using live-fire training, not computer simulations.

Chunder said:
#2, Our Military Industrial Complex will loses a lot of money by having a company "recycling" used casings vs the MIC making new ones. As the saying goes, if you want to know why something hasn't been fixed in America (like it has been in other nations for decades) follow the money. #OverturnCitizensUnited
Click to expand...

This has nothing about casings, and only the projectiles, which are non-reusable anyway, so this statement reeks of "conspiracy nut"
 
For training areas....These people suggesting this have never been on a firing range no less a training area, which seeds would never grow with the amount of rounds fired. Chances of seeds growing would be small, as the material would need to be hard enough to survive firing etc chances are the seed would never grow anyway, not even considering the fact it would be mowed down from other firing. Would also need to keep bullet price and weight the same, would be willing to bet just simple traps or recovery would be cheaper than this option. Also don't forget for those talking about lead, we already have a WHOLE market of lead free rounds to pick from.

The idea behind this just shows how detached from reality some of these people spending our tax dollars are.
 
Bullet mass is critical to bullet performance. You can't just replace the lead core with seeds and expect to train with a bullet that weighs 1/4 what a normal bullet should.

A super light bullet won't cycle the action on a hand gun because there won't be enough recoil. (I know they are talking rifles but just you wait)

Are we putting a copper jacket on these things? If they don't have a lead core then they won't be the proper weight and they won't have the same ballistics as a normal bullet and won't be as accurate.

I also doubt a seed could survive the temperatures of a fired bullet - especially a rifle bullet.

I think the real point of this idea is to make American soldiers into terrible, ineffective shooters.
 
Get rid of the waste and move to energy based weapons.
 
Next person that gets an attitude will be filled full of oak trees and tulips. Try me.
 
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
Brought to you by Funfetti(tm) ammo, where it isn't just the roses that are red!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top