US Army switched over to the lead-free M855A1 cartridge back in 2010. The new round has better performance overall and costs only 5 cents more per round than the old leaded M855.
Disappointingly enough, the Marines only just adopted the M855A1 in 2018, and the USAF has no intention to do so.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#M855A1
To be fair, the USAF doesn't do any ground combat with small arms that I'm aware of. Most likely, the only thing they do with that cartridge in deployment is to give it to their security forces, who are basically just guards and almost never use their weapons in combat these days. I'd be a lot more worried about what the USAF uses in much larger rounds, which they fire from aircraft.
The .30 will reliably put opponents down very well, even with the required FMJ rounds. The .30 stuff is far better at hard barrier penetration than the 5.56. The .30 turns cars and walls into concealment rather than actual cover. The 5.56 suffers here unless it's a crew served weapon that can chew through barriers.
I understand the reasons for going to the 5.56. I lived through the transition from the .45 to the 9MM, which was and is lamented by the USMC. The 9MM is analogous to the 5.56/.30 issue. NATO compatibility is the sole reason, but the troops suffer from the lack of power these rounds offer. In the gas-operated weapons used, recoil difference is negligible, since the system soaks up the recoil pretty well, and when the adrenaline runs, recoil and noise are not really noticed anyway.
Given the rapid growth in hard armor that can take a few 5.56mm rounds before failing, I wouldn’t be surprised to see militaries shift more towards a 6.5 or 7mm cartridge with a hardened steel penetrator.
What most people don't understand is the troop loadout for combat ops. Men are not dripping with weapons and rounds per Hollywood. The standard loadout is an M4 rifle with 6 30-round magazines (180 rounds). If you are issued a handgun, that is 3 15-round magazines for an additional 45 rounds of ammunition, albeit in the "weak" 9mm, which is a get-off-me gun meant for house-to-house, close quarters fighting where a long gun would be unwieldy.
As you suggest, there is a large push to go to the 6mm/243/6.5, which offers SUBSTANTIAL performance benefits over the 5.56. A .243 (6mm) is pushing more ballistic energy at 500M than a 5.56 does at 100M. That's a lot more. And the rounds don't weigh that much more or take up that much more space. Recoil, likewise, is negligible at best due to the gas-operated platform. But, NATO... NATO is sold on the idea of 5.56 and 9mm. I think that DMs should be issued the better long guns to deal with issues the 5.56 cannot handle.
That might be the reason for continuing to use 5.56mm, but it looks like America actually adopted the cartridge first.
At least that should slightly decrease the concentration of any single material when large quantities of bullets pile up.
Don't worry, then. They've been using depleted uranium rounds, too.
Depleted Uranium tank shells don’t produce too much dust, because of Uranium’s habit of braking into large pointed shards. This “self sharpening” aspect is why the material is used. But when it’s used in thermobaric arms, watch out.
Well, I guess consideration for anything except mission results is too much to ask of an organization like a military...
Most bullets are fired in training, an copper is recyclable, so cleaning up bullets is feasible. It might even be an opportunity for boots to relieve their boredom and learn about weapon systems
Has there been a study showing this correlation? As far as I know, countries that were shattered in World War 2, like Japan and Germany, are less violent on average, than the US. And note: the mainland continental US has been relatively at peace, and has not had any major domestic hostilities since 1865.
Also, have bullets always (historically) had lead? Or is this something that only newer ammo (since WWII) have?
Mainland Japan did not see any ground fighting, only firebombing and the two atomic bombs. Therefore, one would not expect the locals to have been exposed to the results of infantry firing thousands and thousands of bullets.
By the time the frontline reached Germany, the war was almost over.
Yes, but the volume has been way smaller before, until the advent of automated weapon in the 20 th century.
Some really early ones used stones or wooden bolts but firearms hadn't really taken off then and they fell into obscurity for a reason.
Before they also had more common /even worse/ practices like casting bullets by campfire for better fit and logistics than early manufacturing.
Even in inhabited parts of France they have an “iron harvest” as plows continue to turn up unexploded ordinance.
For these reasons the Army has expressed an interest in developing a non-toxic rifle bullet that’s cheap enough for their usages. Swaged copper bullets exist, but at ~$1 a pop they’re appropriate for hunters and not for an army that goes through billions of bullets.
Unfortunately many people on the webs are upset about this, perhaps out of the misguided opinion that we’re not being cruel enough in our foreign wars. In reality it’s well within US interests to reduce lead exposure to soldiers and combat zone civilians, especially to ensure that those zones transition better to peace once the fighting is over.