There's a lot more to the story than the MO smelter. The conspiracy theories there have been overplayed.
But the facts that CA has banned lead bullets for hunting and the military is phasing them out are very real. The military phase out is based more on eco-nonsense than genuine environmental science. The decreased performance will put our soldiers and marines at risk.
By costing the tax payer about three times as much per projectile, the effectiveness of the 5.56mm infantry round is comparable with the lead based round it replaced. I am not as optimistic about the 7.62x51mm replacement bullets. Simultaneously addressing the terminal performance, muzzle velocity, and aerodynamic trade-offs in a lead free bullet is a much bigger challenge in a cartridge whose primary usage has shifted to longer range uses since the broad use of the 5.56mm for shorter range work.
And there is just no way to duplicate current performance levels of the current US Army and Marine sniper load in the .300 Win Mag with a lead free bullet. The performance of the 220 grain SMK can be matched using several other jacketed lead bullets from Berger, Lapua, or Hornady. Muzzle velocity, ballistic coefficient, accuracy, and terminal effect will all be significantly reduced compared with the current jacketed lead projectile. See the current ammo spec at:
https://www.neco.navy.mil/upload/N00...0_0002_att.pdf
The combination of decreased performance in multiple areas will lead to needing a .300 Win Mag to achieve effective kill ranges that are now available with a 7.62x51mm. Soldiers will need a .338 Lapua to achieve the effective range currently available in the .300 Win Mag. In the era of big defense cuts, do we really need to be crippling our capabilities or spending billions to eliminate lead?