Non lead ammo and the future of ammunition development: A inside look/review.

A quick background: This is a review I have been working on for the forums for a few months now. One of many of my professional shooting responsibilities these days is that I work as a R&D for a Ammunition Laboratory. We develop every kind of ammunition mainly for LE and Military application. I had to ask permission to do this review and it had to be released as not to give away any sensitive or proprietary information. Good news is that with all the R&D for LE and Military, there will also be similar consumer lines closely mirroring the Pro stuff. Obviously the consumer wont get the very specialty stuff directly designed for the Military but from evaluating both, the consumer gets a very similar product. Here is the review:

Non lead ammo and the future of ammunition development:

The future of ammunition isnt that hard to predict. The EPA as well as other outside forces have imposed their concerns on the ammunition industry for awhile now. The outrageous expense of lead clean up at public and private ranges have close many. A lot of this depends on which state you live in. That said, my concerns about my ammo are that it is reliable and accurate. I don’t want to seem insensitive to the environment but my heart is all about performance. I am all for non-lead bullets providing they equal or better the current high performance lead based ammo. I think those days are here. I have been involved with testing some very interesting ammunition for Law Enforcement and Military application over the last few months. There is also a consumer line that mirrors most of the LE/ Military version and this makes sense because of all the R&D in this kind of ammunition is expensive. I was allowed to do this review through the Ammunition Laboratory as long as I did not give any proprietary secrets so I will give a general review and most of all the ammo pictured is from the consumer line. LE and Military have certain specs they require for the bullets of tomorrow. What this means is that their specs will become the standard of ammo for the general public.



The Test Firearms and Caliber: As with most LE and Military testing, there are certain platforms that are required. I am testing with the required firearms as well as others not on the list.

My test firearms are: Sig Sauer P226, P229, P220, P227 Glock 17,19, 23, M&P 45, 380, Walther PPQ 9mm, PPQ 45, PPK, HK USP, HK USP Compact, LWRC M6 iC, HK416. The Calibers being evaluated are 380, 9mm, 38spl, 357 Sig, 40S&W, 45acp, 5.56, 7.62, 300 BLK.



The AMMO:
There are two non lead bullets being tested. A Zinc general range and mil spec bullet to replace the lead based fmj. This would be used as a range and mil-spec duty round. It is currently called “Zclean” in its consumer name. Its main component is zinc as well as other proprietary compositions.

The next is a compressed copper Frangible. It is currently labeled as a “Alchemist C3 round” for non-LE sale. This is used as training rounds for CQB, door breaching, hostage rescue, etc. Some may know these training areas as the “kill house”. These enclosed areas have hard walls such as cinder blocks and other real world hard surfaces where ricochets and “bounce backs” are extremely dangerous with conventional ammo. Air quality is also a factor and there are guidelines that must be met. Cheaper alternative frangible ammo was known to create a high content of airborne silica. The Alchemist are engineered to stay well within the guidelines. The last performance factor that has been associated with frangible bullets are the content of iron. These older types of frangible bullets have been known to spark when hitting steel plates and cause range fires. The Alchemist and their LE counter parts have eliminated the spark issues with not having any iron in them. As you can see there are a lot of factors that go into a modern frangible. Both types of ammo use a sealed non lead primer that does not absorb moisture. This gives them a very long shelf life that most military ammo is known for.


Zclean (non lead bullet) testing:
I will first start with the Zclean ammo since this will be the most popular for myself and most shooters. I quickly found many benefits of this kind of bullet for the average shooter. First, as the name implies, it is actually very clean to shoot. Shockingly so that after 500 rounds of shooting through many different platforms of firearms, all remain cleaner than what they would have been with a quality lead fmj.



Obviously cleaner ammo means less cleaning for the LE or soldier in the field as well as the serious shooter that takes extended tactical classes. Next is the inherent accuracy. Groups are as good or better than what I typically get with premium ammunition like HST or Gold Dot. I actually used several calibers of HST as the control round to compare against.



Because it is not a lead round, bullet weights of the Zinc bullets are different than their lead counter parts but poa/poi are the same. For example 9mm ='s 100 grain, 40S&W='s 125 grain, 45acp='s 155 grain, etc.... I tested the rifle zinc rounds but at this time only the pistol calibers are ready for prime time release.

The ammo with its truncated design inherently feeds better and has functioned flawlessly with all firearms tested.
The Zink bullets has not created any issue with any build up in either conventional or polygonal rifling. They also have a lubed characteristic between the bullet and barrel from the zinc. This is kind of a added benefit not foreseen at the beginning of the testing. At this point with 1000s of rounds I have shot, I see no down sides to this bullet. There was only one issue brought up to me and its either a positive or negative quality depending if you are using this as a practice round or NATO military replacement. It penetrates better than the conventional FMJ. This means it may ricochet (or penetrate) with poorly designed steel bullet traps. Some may see a tactical advantage for these characteristics, especially the military. Both of the “Alchemist” frangible and “Zclean” zinc ammo ran flawlessly in full auto weapons that they were tested. I can confirm there were many more than the ones mentioned above.

Alchemest (copper frangible) testing:
That brings us to the Frangible ammo. It was currently labeled as “Alchemist” for the consumer. This is a compressed copper bullet with non lead primers. These are also in different weight bullets than we are use to seeing with their lead counter parts. 380='s 75gr, 9mm='s 90gr, 38spl='s 100gr, 357sig='s 100gr, 40s&w='s 105gr, 45acp='s 145gr, 5.56='s 45gr, 300blk='s 125gr, 7.62='s 112gr, 308='s 125gr, 50BMG='s 640gr.



These frangible bullets are already being used all over the world by the military. As mentioned above they have no iron or silica in them. I watched a 30 round full magazine of 5.56 be walked disturbingly close to a steel plate under full auto fire.



As long as the steel plates are at a 90 degree of the bullet impact, the small fragments travel along the steel and are dispersed in that direction. There is a standard on how small the fragments have to break up in size. The energy has to go somewhere so it is directed away from the path of the bullet.



This includes 380 all the way up to 50BMG. (Have to enclose a “do not attempt unless you are a professional” disclosure). Accuracy of the copper frangible were outstanding. Certainly well within the specs required and most rival match grade in accuracy. They have to be because they have to accurately simulate the duty round in every way.



I found their recoil pleasant to shoot and would function reliably even with a fresh/new recoil spring in every caliber. The 5.56 frangible turned out to be one of the most accurate rounds out of my M6. 200 yard groups were outstanding considering I only was using a 6x VX6 optic. It out shot the typical mill spec xm193 and xm 855.



So in closing, the non-lead future of ammunition is nothing to curse or be fearful of. Technology is developing better bullets in every way. You can accurately say you are saving the planet every time you go to the range even if your main priority for your ammo is accuracy and reliability.

Mystro, thank you so much for taking the time and effort to create your post, good stuff! It will be interesting to see how this all progresses, the effectiveness of this new ammo, and of course, the cost. Any thoughts on when will this type of ammo become more available, and/or required?

What are you hearing about how existing lead-based ammo will be handled in terms of allowing/banning its use in the future? Are we going to be stuck with a stockpile of ammo that we won't be able to use in the future?

Thanks again.

Very close in cost. There is actually one distributor that has the consumer line up for sale now. I am told most all pro ammo suppliers will eventually be carrying it. Obviously the R&D is not paid for from the consumer sales but the back end is that the consumer gets their own version and reaps the benefit of . I teach a CCW class as well and I will probably shoot the Zink in every caliber. Its really clean ammo.


Leadlessammo:
Home - Leadless


Lead ammo will eventually be replaced but over a long time. Certain states "might" ban lead ammo very soon. You would probably guess who those states would be. The pressure is already being put on local ranges and gun clubs by epa. Its a chess match. They can change the game but we will evolve and make a better product in the end. Thats whats happening now. A better practice ammo to replace the fmj/NATO round. Many LE are going completely leadless.
Once the military has completely gone leadless, that will push lead out. Monolithic bullets use to not be what hunter wanted but now they are cutting edge in accuracy and performance on game. Thats whats happening across the entire field of ammo.

dmar said:

Mystro, thank you so much for taking the time and effort to create your post, good stuff! It will be interesting to see how this all progresses, the effectiveness of this new ammo, and of course, the cost. Any thoughts on when will this type of ammo become more available, and/or required?

What are you hearing about how existing lead-based ammo will be handled in terms of allowing/banning its use in the future? Are we going to be stuck with a stockpile of ammo that we won't be able to use in the future?

Thanks again.

Click to expand...

The US is a net importer of Zinc and with an increased demand coming from ammunition production you will see the price increase. No doubt about it but the price of ammo is going to go up.

BTW don't ranges mine the lead on their property for recycling?

What impact will Zinc bullets have on reloading equipment. What changes will be required if any?

None. Its harder than lead but similar to a brass jacket in performance. Not all Zink bullets will be made the same. How the zink bullet is made will separate its cost. There is alot of proprietary magic that goes into making a quality Zink bullet. They are not just cast like a lead bullet. I was so impressed with shooting 10's of thousands of these particular Zink bullets through every kind of gun imaginable. They have a "lubing" property between the Zink and Steel barrel's rifling. It makes them very accurate and the barrels will last longer.

ladyT said:

What impact will Zinc bullets have on reloading equipment. What changes will be required if any?

Click to expand...

ladyT said:

BTW don't ranges mine the lead on their property for recycling?

Click to expand...

They can mine the backstops but most often end up having to pay to have it done due to .Gov hazmat restrictions. My club stopped trap and skeet because the occasional pellets that would drop off our property.

I was formerly in charge of USAF lead-free small arms ammunition development until my retirement about 10 years ago. I was also involved in the development of the M855A1 bullet and cartridge (5.56mm NATO), now standard issue for the U. S. Army, and I could write a book about the ups and downs of that project which extended over years. One item that deserves some mention is the use of lead-free priming compositions, as of course traditional lead styphnate primers do contain lead, and with the continued use of such primers, ammunition cannot be said to be fully lead-free. Lead-free training ammunition in use by the USAF uses lead-free primers. Instead of lead styphnate as the impact-sensitive component of the primer mixture, lead-free primers typically use diazodinitrophenol (DDNP). DDNP is not a new material, and in fact it was used for certain types of military small arms and other primers as far back as WWII. It does have one major drawback as compared to lead styphnate primers, namely that primer sensitivity and reliability tend to decrease at temperatures below about -20 degrees F. While that does mitigate against use in combat under conditions of extreme cold, DDNP primers are fully acceptable in a training environment, and do not promote airborne lead contamination and human exposure to same at small arms ranges, especially those ranges which are enclosed rather than open.

Few things in the world are as uncertain as the "inevitable'. The EPA may be rallying hard, the gun controllers may be rallying hard, and anti hunters may be rallying hard to ban lead bullets, but then again, we've faced off against legions trying to end gun ownership for almost half a century. They told us that handguns were "inevitably" going to be banned, that the assault weapons ban was going to be renewed and the permanent law of the land in the US, and that with Sandy Hook the mountains would quake, the earth itself would shift, and we would all be consumed by the coming darkness and lose our firearms. None of which happened.

Some states may try to go lead free, but most won't, and nationally I doubt our lobby will let it happen. Federal is rolling out coated lead bullets as a big thing for manufactured ammunition, and I doubt the boys at the top would be pushing this innovation from the casting community if they thought the end was neigh. Statewise there are still many American states that have very strong grassroots hunting movements, and as shooting sports stay strong such bans could only be passed in very anti gun states, counties, municipalities, ect. Certainly many threats, many of them quite credible, to lead bullets, but no certain end, at least not to the vast majority of shooters.

I know I come from the oldest of the oldest, ancient school of politics, but one thing that never changes is, you don't have friends in the political realm. Never have, never will. Never turn your back on anyone, unless you want to be knifed.

Beware your "friends" in the shooting sports industries. as some of them are the very people pushing mandates. If you can't get the consumer to buy non toxic, you can always force him. It would be a shame if someone invested a lot of money into non lead projectiles, than realize nobody wants to buy them because they are inferior to standard projectiles for most purposes, and find yourself with a product that won't make the return you hoped for. Just saying.

The best soft points and self defense rounds are still lead core, and that won't change. Lead bullets are still safer for steel shooting because they splatter better, lead bullets will still be cheaper. The shooter who collects range scrap can try to cast his own bullets, while the shooter who relives on factory ammunition alone is subject to metal market price fluctuations, more numerous metals to worry about in terms of fluctuation and shortage, and an inability to find his own way if the government cracks down on ammunition/bullet manufacturers. Lead isn't dead, probably won't die, and will still be the performance king in almost every category going forward.

Not trying to attack anyone or rain on any parades, but whenever anybody starts speaking of doomsday scenarios and then bright visions of an alternate future, I usually stop to look into some of the prophecies being touted. I highly question both the certainty of the end of lead, and the potential of the "future".

I totally agree. The military are setting their own parameters in what they want. The LE follows along. The review is showing what they are/will be using in one form or another. The frangibles are used in extensive training already and that's why you see 7.62 being shot in full auto 10" from a steel plate. No lead bullet will do that. The politics and reason why many are going leadless are its own topic. This is a look into the industry of where and what a leadless replacement can do. Hunting bullets like the TSX from Barnes has shown a monolithic bullet can be superior in accuracy and terminal effectiveness so it's only a matter of time that your range ammo will be chooses for the same accurate quality of a monolithic bullet.

The LE is largely dragged along by the EPA, with shooting and training budgets drained by increased costs. Taxpayers bear the weight.

I have a metric ****-ton of old wheelweights, linotype, roof flashing and some lead pipe in the garage and enough powder, brass, primers and .223 and .308 bullets to last me a couple of more lifetimes, and lots of desert to shoot them in.

Yes, the U.S. imports our zinc, but we also now import our lead. Environmental Nazi-ism is perhaps the second strongest tool the loonies have to limit and then ban firearms usage.

Sometimes I hate change.

My department began using Federal ammo with totally-jacketed bullets and lead-free primers for training and qualification a couple years before I retired. I have bought and shot similar Win-Clean ammo from that maker, too. Fired casings look like they have already been tumbled clean, so it isn't all bad.

Still, I'm glad I'm old! Sometimes I hate change.

Same song, Different band

Years ago, I read a national magazine article about Freon. Dupont's manufacturing patents were going to expire for the various R-??? refrigerant compounds. Environmentalists were concerned about holes in the ozone, US government was the biggest consumer of Freon (navy ships, federal buildings, government vehicles), and Dupont was going to lose it's chemical manufacturing monopoly.

Antarctica had a "huge ozone hole" that was growing in size. It was located above the world's most active volcano. The situation was described as a "Trillion Dollar" opportunity for higher costs to the consumer. Now Freon is gone, Dupont (or its corporate decedents) are still making significant profits, and nothing changed in the ozone layer.

The analogy was "acid rain" is killing deciduous trees in October to November. No, trees lose their leaves every fall, its called a normal changing of the seasons.

This 'lead free' ammo will be jammed down our throats in another attempt to reduce "environmental damage' by the environmental Nazis with enthusiastic support from the gun control groups. But we will have found a use for all those old zinc wheel weights . We just need hotter melting pots and ferrous bullet molds. Just think, a Lee 6 cavity iron bullet mold for only $250 !

I'm glad I'm old ! ! ! !

I found two distributors that have some of these in stock. Looks like only a limited amount and calibers so far. Prices vary but one has them selling 9mm by the case. The price break down from the, is $9.25 a box of 50 with free shipping so unless this is a introductory price, Zclean will under sell most all quality FMJ. That said about the price point, the Zclean is cleaner in the gun and more accurate than any FMJ at bargain prices so from a performance stand point, the Zclean really comes out ahead from my experience. When I test new ammo, I never really know it's price point. Now that I know, it's advantages blow traditional lead FMJ away.

I have purchased a lot of ammo from Massammo with always a good experience. I worked out some forum deals awhile back.
9mm - 9mm - MassAmmo.com - - $12.99 Flat Rate Shipping on every order

This distributor has some more calibers.
Home - Leadless

Here are a few LE dept that has adopted Zclean. Since this was publicly announced I can repeat it.
(source from "Police Weapons Magazine")
2 Major Florida Agencies Adopt National Police Ammunition (NPA) Z-Clean Ammunition - News - POLICE Magazine

Give us another 50 years of experience shooting people with this stuff and additional, resultant product development and we will mebbe see if it works any better on people than what we have now.

I am glad I am not the test subjects who have to carry this to work. My momma didn't raise me to be a beta tester.

Groo here
By that time we will have Needlers and direct energy stuff.

I always question reviews when the reviewer has an apparent financial interest in a product. Prior to Remington buying AAC, their chief of R&D Robert Silvers literally spent hours on the 'net each day hyping on various forums the superiority of the 300 Blackout over the 6.8 SPC II, 6.5 Grendel, 7.62x39, and even the .308. He cherry picked information like ammunition sales from Midway when 300 Blackout was the only ammunition they had in stock to sell. He was eventually banned from ARF.com, the 6.8 Forums, and others.

I'm not attacking the OP. I will simply wait until the product is in common use and more end user reports available prior to making any decision on the ammunition. I currently load Barnes mono-metal bullets for about half of my rifles, so I have nothing against non-lead projectiles. I remember experimentation with zinc projectiles during the 1960's. I strongly suspect experiments were carried out much earlier than that. Certainly technology has advanced, but the basic metal stays the same.

I never have understood the debate of dirty vs. clean shooting powders outside of the military. You still have to clean the gun eventually.

Thanks to the OP for posting the review.

Just to clarify. I do not have a financial interest in this or any product I evaluate. I am a independent consultant that works with everything from pre production firearms to ammunition development to all sorts of shooting gear. I make no money if a product sells nor am I paid to push a product. I am a R&D guy. This is one big reason why my services are in demand in the shooting industry. My reputation was built up over many years in all aspect of the shooting industry starting as a professional IPSC shooter in the early 90's.
These days as a "Industry Product Specialist" I work with LE as well as manufactures. I get a product before it's ready for release and as a engineer with years of professional shooting experience, I give the company my thoughts and opinions. If a project I am working on might be an interest to one of the forums I hang out on, I try to get permission from the company if a general forum review can be made. I always have to sign a NDF, but some companies will extend me the courtesy to do a forum review providing I don't reveal any sensitive or proprietary information.
It keeps me diverse and if I can help my forum buds out with arranging a "forum group buy" or bring some cool info from new products I am happy to be in a position to make that happen.

I absolutely agree that any product needs "consumer testing". As much testing you can do on a product, it needs to have the consumer use it, mess with it and in many cases, use it as "not intended."
I will say that in all my forum reviews over the years, my end opinion and data are always mirrored on the forums by other members that use the firearm or product. I try to be very critical if I say a product performed well.

MichiganScott said:

I always question reviews when the reviewer has an apparent financial interest.

Thanks to the OP for posting the review.

Click to expand...

lead free ammo for a Gary Reeder custom 500 S&W

I live and hunt in California. In 2019 July lead ammo will be completely banned. The Reeder revolver's cylinder is shorter than standard [a little under 2.25"]so my options for lead free ammo is limited. Any suggestions on lead free ammo that will fit this revolver?

Any word if powder companies are working on developing reloading data with these materials for the future?