Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

cincydooley wrote:Have any of you geniuses considered that $.05 a round to &.08 cents a round is a 60% increase in cost, meaning they're paying 160% of what they were, and that the extra zero might simply be a typo?

But you know, don't let logic and rationale get in the way of demonizing anything slightly right.

?

djones520 wrote:
The fact that a led bullet cost .5 cents to make, and these green ones cost 8 cents to make. And we're just talking the actual projectile here, not the whole thing, with casing, powder, etc...

.5 cents = $ 0.005
8 cents = $ 0.08

.005 * (1600/100) = .08

 cincydooley wrote:
Have any of you geniuses considered that $.05 a round to &.08 cents a round is a 60% increase in cost, meaning they're paying 160% of what they were, and that the extra zero might simply be a typo?

But you know, don't let logic and rationale get in the way of demonizing anything slightly right.

But of course not, because if anyone vaguely related to the Obama administration, or their cat's vet's niece's geography teacher's distance cousin had made that 'harmless mistake' the right wouldn't all be howling that it was a terrible conspiracy to bring about the Facislammunist Overlord's NEW DOMINION!

The one thing that lot do in such total fething abundance, is excel at passive aggressive horse gak.

Quick, look over there! Someone said 'Happy Holidays!', go pelt him with hot gravel! He's launching a war on Christmassssssss!

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect the B17s dropped a lot more steel than lead...


As for the smelting issue, almost all lead ammo in the US is made from recycled lead vice newly smelted lead.

Wasn't the one place that was shut down pretty much a new lead only operation, so the impact was going to be pretty minimal?

Yep. I don't think any major ammo makers got lead stock from the smelter that shut down.

The real victim here is the TSA, who buy 9 out of 10 rounds made in the US as I understand it

 daedalus wrote:

cincydooley wrote:Have any of you geniuses considered that $.05 a round to &.08 cents a round is a 60% increase in cost, meaning they're paying 160% of what they were, and that the extra zero might simply be a typo?

But you know, don't let logic and rationale get in the way of demonizing anything slightly right.

?

djones520 wrote:
The fact that a led bullet cost .5 cents to make, and these green ones cost 8 cents to make. And we're just talking the actual projectile here, not the whole thing, with casing, powder, etc...

.5 cents = $ 0.005
8 cents = $ 0.08

.005 * (1600/100) = .08

Well that would be your 1600% then wouldn't it. Maybe it isn't a typo. I was presuming it was 5 cents to Make presently and it was moving to 8 cents.

Lead bullets directly contributed to the near extinction of California Condors. It also affects other animals. Birds of prey in general are affected but scavengers most of all because they eat what the hunters don't actually kill. Lead shot also has other effects that I'm not recalling and can't be arsed to research.

Repopulated California Condors are still affected by lead bullets:

21 California condors treated at L.A. Zoo for lead poisoning
The number treated in one month is more than half of the total seen in a typical year. Use of lead ammunition in hunting is blamed.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/30/local/la-me-condor-20131101

So yeah, use of lead shot does have a direct and measurable effect on the environment.

I hate to say it, but if killing 21 birds leads to their extinction, the species was hosed anyway. And if the ecosystem has not self destructed yet, the loss of that species, though sad, isn't really a game changer. Some other species will (or already has) taken over the condors' role.

 djones520 wrote:
The only credible risk of lead poisoning that I've seen is from subsistence hunters who on a daily basis eat animals they have shot, and even that is rare.

Unless Afghani's are doing nightly BBQ's with the latest Jimmy Jihad we lit up, the risk is statistically negligible to them.

Umm, that's only the consumer end. The actual manufacture of lead leaves a tremendous ecological footprint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Have any of you geniuses considered that $.05 a round to &.08 cents a round is a 60% increase in cost, meaning they're paying 160% of what they were, and that the extra zero might simply be a typo?

But you know, don't let logic and rationale get in the way of demonizing anything slightly right.

What the gak? Dude, the numbers are right, 0.5c to 8.0c is a 1600% increase. The issue is that it is just one small component in the overall cost of a bullet, and so the total product won't be increasing by anywhere near that amount.

I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something.

I think I'm confused. Do we agree on the percentage? Was there a typo?

 CptJake wrote:
I hate to say it, but if killing 21 birds leads to their extinction, the species was hosed anyway. And if the ecosystem has not self destructed yet, the loss of that species, though sad, isn't really a game changer. Some other species will (or already has) taken over the condors' role.

Which misses the point. That was 21 of about 250 birds that were treated in one month. You might think that throwing away a species is meaningless, but I think guns are pretty meaningless. See, opinions. The point was that there is a measurable ecological impact, which others in the thread had questioned repeatedly as to whether it was an actual thing. I gave an example, one of many. Not gonna do a research paper for y'all. I like you but not that much.

Really though. Real life, what are we talking about?

Casual hobbiests: If shooting cans at Lytle Creek is your major hobby, a small price increase should be affordable. Don't we get told that all the time, hobbies are expensive?

For the doomsday preppers and survival nuts: paying a little more for a stockpile is chumpchange compared to the price of rations. Corn and rice prices have increased dramatically too.

And for actual Police and soldiers, they pay a lot more for a whole lot of tacticool stuff that may or may not be effective. DoD pays way too much for crap all the time because of laws about purchasing, things like food. Really, this means nothing end of day to these folks either.

I know, my point will be obtusely mistaken, but it is this: this price increase is irrelevant big scheme of things, and eliminates an actual harm. This story is just outrage farming.

Edit - clear up a point

I'm delighted by the phrase, "outrage farming".

 cincydooley wrote:
I think I'm confused. Do we agree on the percentage? Was there a typo?

I think we should all be able to agree that if a price went from 0.5c to 8.0c then it's increased 1600%. I know its popular on the internet to claim that we are all entitled to opinions, but surely we haven't let that get so silly that it extends to maths.

But the point is that's only one component in the cost of a bullet. If radiators increased by 1600% that doesn't mean the whole car will increase by 1600%, and as such the threat title is wrong or at least extremely misleading, because the cost of the casing and powder aren't increasing. The thread title should read 'one component that makes up a small portion of the overall cost of a round of ammunition is going up 1600%'. But of course that's not very catchy and doesn't work at all for outrage purposes....

meh...

Bring on the laser / plasma gunz already will ya.

Yeah, isn't it weird we still kill people with unguided pieces of flying metal, if you think about it? It's just about 2014. I'd figured by now we'd at least have XM25 style smart bullets and be well on the way to developing the Zorg ZF-1.

In fairness, we're really good at it now...
We even kill people without trying.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, isn't it weird we still kill people with unguided pieces of flying metal, if you think about it? It's just about 2014. I'd figured by now we'd at least have XM25 style smart bullets and be well on the way to developing the Zorg ZF-1.

I remember thinking how unrealistic it was in all those 1980s sci-fi movies where they were flying around in spaceships to other planets and still used things that were basically regular guns.

Turns out gakky 1980s sci-fi was probably pretty accurate, and 8 year old sebster was completely wrong - guided bullets and laser rifles maybe aren't going to happen any time soon.

Are we even close to laser rifles?

We sort of have laser cannons now.

I don't think we can make powerpacks small enough to power a killy laser man-portable yet, which is probably the real reason that Obama keeps investing money into battery technology. It's not about green cars or green jobs at all, he just wants drones with lasers.



Thanks, Obama.

The vast majority of rounds the US military buys (or any military really) are shot on rifle ranges back home. Over decades of use, and perhaps millions of shots fired on a range you end up with lead problems in the soil and eventually in the ground water, affecting rather a lot of people, not to mention the effect of lead exposure to soldiers, so it's probably a good idea generally. Protecting the homeland and protecting soldiers is worth a little extra, right? Especially as it'll probably save money in the long run.


Oh, and Breitbart as a source should be roundly mocked, you might as well link freerepublic, democratic underground or stormfront as credible outlets. Find a real news site to link.

Solar powered drones with lasers, controlled by a computer network that is tied into the NSA surveillance system.

It can identify and localise a suspect by their electronics use, and direct the drone in for a kill mission.

The laser allows precision assassinations to be done with no chance of collateral damage.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Solar powered drones with lasers, controlled by a computer network that is tied into the NSA surveillance system.

It can identify and localise a suspect by their electronics use, and direct the drone in for a kill mission.

The laser allows precision assassinations to be done with no chance of collateral damage.

Repost this on Infowars.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Solar powered drones with lasers, controlled by a computer network that is tied into the NSA surveillance system.

It can identify and localise a suspect by their electronics use, and direct the drone in for a kill mission.

The laser allows precision assassinations to be done with no chance of collateral damage.

Repost this on Infowars.

I went to that site a few years ago... I still think I lost a bunch of IQs... o.O

If they reduced the collateral damage I imagine it'd be a bit more palatable...;

.223 is going to get way more expensive...

Ouze wrote:Thanks, Obama.

Ugh, it's like he's history's greatest monster

Maddermax wrote:The vast majority of rounds the US military buys (or any military really) are shot on rifle ranges back home. Over decades of use, and perhaps millions of shots fired on a range you end up with lead problems in the soil and eventually in the ground water, affecting rather a lot of people, not to mention the effect of lead exposure to soldiers, so it's probably a good idea generally. Protecting the homeland and protecting soldiers is worth a little extra, right? Especially as it'll probably save money in the long run.


Oh, and Breitbart as a source should be roundly mocked, you might as well link freerepublic, democratic underground or stormfront as credible outlets. Find a real news site to link.

Wait, stormfront isn't a credible source? What if I'm interested in knowing what exactly idiot white supremacists are up to, does stormfront become credible now?

Only idiots would post their top secret plans on their web-site.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Only idiots would post their top secret plans on their web-site.

True, but Stormfront does have the added security that you can no longer see their forums without signing up... and Idk about you, but I don't need that site being associated with my email address or name.

I like the guys claiming that because the powder cost hasn't increased, the cost of the bullet couldn't have increased by 1600%.

You guys do know what bullets are, right?

Does the military have grunts that do all their own reloading for the military? Because that would be the only possible way your argument would even have any relevance to this thread.

Also doesn't change the fact that the EPA doesn't have anything to do with this.