The Lead Free Ammo Movement


PDA






dbyrne
February 21, 2009, 05:23 PM
Why is it that so many firearms enthusiasts are against lead-free ammunition? There are plenty of credible studies showing that lead exposure originating from ammunition has a negative effect on both wildlife and humans. To be clear, as far as "human exposure" goes, I am talking about both airborne lead that the shooter is exposed to as well as lead particles then end up in the meat of animals killed with lead bullets. As far as wildlife lead exposure goes, I not referring specifically to the legislation passed to protect the California condor, but in a more general sense.

It seems that many people see the lead free movement as some kind of government conspiracy to infringe upon our 2nd amendment rights. However, virtually every other industry has gone "lead-free". The dangers of lead paint are well documented. One of the big arguments against importing manufactured goods from China is that they don't have the same safety precautions when it comes to lead. When gasoline went completely unleaded, was that a plot to keep Americans from owning cars?

It is shocking for me to see hunter's write off these studies as phony or based on junk science. For group of people who allegedly enjoy the outdoors, many seem to take a cavalier stance towards conservation.

As a long time lurker of THR, I am very interested to see what people on both sides of this issue have to say.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Lead Free Ammo Movement" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ZombiesAhead
February 21, 2009, 05:26 PM
Some worry that mandating lead-free ammunition will make ammunition prohibitively expensive and this campaign may be in part a movement to this end.

Hungry Seagull
February 21, 2009, 05:31 PM
What? Same as the recent anti uranium tank rounds flap?

I think this whole thing goes over like a lead balloon.

Owen Sparks
February 21, 2009, 05:32 PM
Ever thought that the "war on lead" was concocted to circumvent the 2A?

Lead is really not that toxic unless you eat it. I am a printer and we used to use lead type in our business. I personally handeled lead every day for about twenty years with no ill effects, as well ac cast my own bullets out of it. I also know of several people who have bullets and even multiple shotgun pellets embedded in their bodies who are walking around several decades after the accident.

TMM
February 21, 2009, 05:32 PM
part of the reason, i'd guess, is because the amount you're exposed to is minute...

secondly, lead-free is more costly... with ammo prices the way they are, (and quick check at metalprices.com, lead is around 46 cents a pound, and bismuth is around $7.75), and the numerous copper-jacket bullets out there to reduce or eliminate lead exposure, i'd be against legislation preventing the use of lead bullets. if you want to buy them, all the power to you. i just don't want to be forced to buy more expensive ammunition.

tmm

Duke of Doubt
February 21, 2009, 05:40 PM
It's a cost and performance issue. Lead is heavy and cheap. Not many materials are. I'm not going to shoot gold bullets.

Some older guns really require cast lead bullets. Blackpowder cap and ball revolvers and rifles designed for lower-pressure loads should not be shot with other materials.

All ballistics computations assume lead rounds. New rounds would require all ballistics tables, and all rifle sights, to be changed.

Some local statutes and ordinances ban "armor-piercing" rounds -- meaning, other than lead rounds. You'd have to revise all of those laws if you banned lead rounds, unless your purpose were to ban all ammunition.

Build a better mousetrap and we'll beat a path to your door. But chemistry has found nothing better combining heavy, soft and cheap than lead. And some guns would be dangerous with other materials.

Hazwaste
February 21, 2009, 06:49 PM
Lead ban = Backdoor 2nd Amendment Infringement

jcwit
February 21, 2009, 07:05 PM
The hazards of lead is so overblown in regards to adults its not even something to concern oneself with.

If it does concern you get your levels checked, its not expensive and simple to do.

ArmedBear
February 21, 2009, 07:12 PM
People still find intact lead bullets in Civil War battlefields, dbyrne, where they've been lying for a century and a half.

That's why those of us who spend time outdoors are more concerned about these veiled efforts to stop hunting than about lead.

Lead, except in certain circumstances, is inert. It stays where it lies.

A recent study of people who eat game meat regularly found less lead in their systems than those who ate only commercial meat. There's simply no reason to see lead bulelts or shot as an across-the-board threat to humans or the environment.

Larry Ashcraft
February 21, 2009, 07:35 PM
dbyrne, its not so much that shooters are against lead-free ammunition, its that we're leery about government intervention. Baby steps, as they say.

Once the gov decides what goes into our ammo, and we let them get away with it, the door is open.

rickomatic
February 21, 2009, 07:47 PM
dbyrne,
You need to understand that we all are a bit leary of someone who comes on this board claiming to be a longtime lurker and asking such a loaded question filled with left wing buzzwords like, "credible studies" (by the way, the one you eluded to about dangers of lead in meat from wildlife is well debunked), and "shocking".
A lot of us here are living breathing proof that your and other's claims of the evils of lead (which is one of the most abundant naturally occuring minerals), are the ideas that are far fetched. We've been around it and exposed to it not only growing up with lead paint everywhere, but shooting, casting and reloading for years with no adverse affects. Just look at the many threads here about people having been tested for lead exposure. I don't remember ever seeing one where a member found out they had high levels.
As for "virtually every other industry going lead free", I think the automotive battery industry might have a slight bit of difference with you. Automotive batteries are still lead based, and 99% of that lead is recycled.
So, you'll have to exuse our suspicion. Perhaps you'd like to state some of your bona fides to ease our minds that you really are one of us, just with a different opinion. What are your "credentials" in regards to the shooting sports?

Floppy_D
February 21, 2009, 07:59 PM
For me, it's plain and simple cost. I can't cast copper bullets. I can make lead bullets less than a penny a piece including electricity, lead and lube.

On a side note, I cast, load and shoot thousands of rounds a year, my blood tests low for lead, even though I handle gobs of it. I'm not sold on lead bullets = lead poisoning.

qwert65
February 21, 2009, 08:13 PM
lead is dangerous if inhaled, in the intestines(readily absorbed) or in joints otherwise its pretty innocous(for a toxic metal)

Tinker
February 21, 2009, 08:37 PM
"There are plenty of credible studies showing that lead exposure originating from ammunition has a negative effect on both wildlife and humans."

Well, yes, there can be negative effects on wildlife and humans by ammunition. Especially if that lead is moving at a high rate of speed. :cool:

If you are referring to the "groundwater pollution" angle here's a link about the results of two credible studies which found that this is BS:

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/F/200005338.html

cdet69
February 21, 2009, 08:42 PM
so if we outlaw lead ammo what are you going to use in your 22lr rimfire? no manufacturer makes anything for them yet. just a way to price people out of the sport. if you can't take their guns just make it impossible to use them.

jcwit
February 21, 2009, 08:47 PM
Winchester will have .22 cal rimfire ammo available shortly, this year.

KBintheSLC
February 21, 2009, 08:58 PM
Lead ammo bans are just another one of the leftist ways to make ammo more costly. Its not a "government conspiracy", its more of a neo-liberal scam. Granted, lead is dangerous if you eat old paint chips for an afternoon snack. But numerous studies have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that hunting with lead ammo does not make the meat unsafe to eat as long as the game is properly processed. I use myself as an experiment... I have been shooting for 25 years, indoors, outdoors, and have eaten many pounds of game killed with lead. I have never had lead poisoning, or anything that resembles those symptoms.

Now on the other hand, scrap steel would make a great medium for casting cores in plinking ammo. Recycled steel is cheap as dirt, but it has to be hotter to cast than lead... AKA more energy needed.
However, for hunting and defensive loads, lead is the best since it is nice and soft. I doubt a hollow point would work with a mild steel core.

cdet69
February 21, 2009, 09:05 PM
where can you find the ammo specs for the winchester lead free rimfire ammo

dbyrne
February 21, 2009, 09:11 PM
Rickomatic: I understand your suspicion. I posted this here because I knew the THR crowd would provide me with some well thought out counter-arguments and it would not become a flame war.

cdet69: you make a good point about .22 lead-free ammo not being currently available. I have a bolt action .22 so I assure everyone I fire my share of leaded rounds! :evil:

I also agree that the cost can be prohibitive, although I do believe that if lead-free ammunition became more popular it would encourage manufacturers to find a solution to this problem.

To make my stance more clear, I don't think lead bullets should be banned, just that developing alternatives can only help our sport. I don't hear people yearning for the days when primers had mercury in them. If we can eliminate lead, why should that be any different?

LtShortcut
February 21, 2009, 09:12 PM
I'm guessing that you are with the "green" movement who wants us all to use tungsten bullets. Well here are some facts about tungsten.

Tungsten melting point = 6,192 degrees F
Lead melting point = 621 degrees F

Which do you think would be easier/cheaper to cast into bullets? You'd use up so much energy trying to melt the tungsten you'd burn through enough electricity to power a small town.

Tungsten is just as poisonous as lead if not more so.

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002231/

Do a google search if you want to see more.

I think an above poster mentioned the armor peircing of bullets. Tungsten is so hard and tough it would probably make all tungsten bullets armor peircing "cop killer" rounds.

Not to mention the wear to barrels that such a hard metal would cause.

dbyrne
February 21, 2009, 09:20 PM
cdet69: Here is the info on the new winchester ammo:

http://www.winchester.com/products/newitems/whatsnewcontent.aspx?productid=74

dbyrne
February 21, 2009, 09:25 PM
LtShortcut: I agree Tungsten isn't practical.

A lot of the newer lead-free rounds (like the one I just linked to) are using tin. I'm sure that is not all they are using, but some companies are more forthcoming than others about exactly what metals are going into these bullets.

Sauer Grapes
February 21, 2009, 09:29 PM
None of my shotguns can handle steel shot. I guess I'll melt them down for ammo! :rolleyes:

cdet69
February 21, 2009, 09:30 PM
i live in the central hudson valley region of new york. last year there was talk of making lead free ammo mandatory for big game hunting. i did some testing with lead free bullets because i handload most of my ammo. i found that the barnes 7mm 160 grain bullet was excellent in accuracy and terminal performance. while the nosler 150 e-tip was super accurate but not as good. in my 222 the barnes 36 grn varmint granade was supe accurate. in my ar the 55 grain barnes mpg was also great. i myself do not have a problem with lead free bullets and use them when i can. my concern is that other people whose income can not afford to use the or worse yet will you them but will forego practicing with them. then how many critters will be gravely wounded? also what will become of just shooting for fun?

cdet69
February 21, 2009, 09:36 PM
thanks for the info dbyrne look forward to trying it out

bensdad
February 21, 2009, 09:40 PM
Lead-free ammo = no ammo. We know what the real goal is. We're not stupid.

I've eaten more pheasant, grouse, woodcock, rabbit, etc. to have ingested dozens (if not hundreds) of lead pellets. Anybody claiming lead is the real issue is lying. Period.

Mr_Rogers
February 21, 2009, 09:41 PM
There are many WW2 vets who carried bullets and shrapnel around inside them to the end of a happy life (surgical technology was not so good then). Lead that is ingested is the problem and now-a-days this is likely to be a very small amount, much less than in the past.

In the open air lead dust is not much of a problem and in most indoor facilities the local building codes usually require efficient air filtration.

To provide a true story:
Near the town where I was born, but before my time, there was a group of hat manufacturing companies. Lead was used in some of the material preparation processes and some people ingested enough lead to develop mental problems. This led to the expression "As mad as a hatter" which is reflected in Lewis Carrol's book "Alice in Wonderland" with the character "The Mad Hatter".

the foot
February 21, 2009, 09:52 PM
dbyrne,

Please describe the weapons you shoot on a regular basis with non-lead ammunition.

What is your experience with both types of ammunition, and what are your conclusions about the differences between lead bullets and non-lead ammunition?

cdet69
February 21, 2009, 09:55 PM
ah you must be from connecticut where mad as a hatter was in reference to those who treated the felt wiht mercury not lead. also why areas around derb, shelton have mercury super fund sites.

fireman 9731
February 21, 2009, 09:59 PM
The Winchester 22s look a little sketchy to me, made of tin and only 30 grains? Decreased performance and I'm sure with a price tag at least double that of good ol' lead ammo!

Not to mention, has anybody ever tried to clean tin out of a barrel? is it even possible with today's solvents?

Don't get me wrong, I love some bullets that are lead free, specifically Barnes, but nobody's going to stop me from casting my own lead bullets!

JImbothefiveth
February 21, 2009, 09:59 PM
I think it's just against banning lead ammo, not using lead-free ammo. Lead is often cheaper than other metals.

BHP FAN
February 21, 2009, 10:02 PM
I am a cast bullet BPCR shooter.I have ZERO [or less] interest in lead free anything,and a certain degree of animosity to anyone insensitive enough of MY sport to suggest it.

Birdhunter1
February 21, 2009, 10:06 PM
I can see every side of this issue, but I still can't get over the fact that lead comes from the ground, I shoot my shotgun or rifle with lead ammunition and it eventually falls into the ground where it came from.

Personally I think all this hype over lead is nonsence anyway, lead paint, toys and shot never hurt our parents or many of us!

cdet69
February 21, 2009, 10:11 PM
cleaning tin out of the barrel will not be a problem because the still use a copper jacket. it is the only thing holding the tin core together. i have noticed shootin the tin core bullets that they are far more frangable than even their lead free counter parts ie: v-max, ballistic tips. i have seen some reviews where their penatration on coyote size game was limited to only 4" but i have not personally expeirienced this. the only problem i have seen is if you like to use say a sierra 55 grain 22cal hollow point the penetration will be far more better on coyotes in less than adequate shooting positions than the tin core bullets will. this will result in far more chances at getting off a shot.

JImbothefiveth
February 21, 2009, 10:14 PM
lead paint never hurt our parents
I do believe there was a reason they banned it. You should wash after shooting.

fireman 9731
February 21, 2009, 10:28 PM
cleaning tin out of the barrel will not be a problem because the still use a copper jacket

Jacketed 22LR bullets now? I highly doubt that.

Of course high performance .224 caliber lead free bullets use copper jackets. I am very very familiar with them, as varmint grenades are some of my favorite bullets for my 22-250.

22LR bullets aren't jacketed for a reason, the increased friction with low velocities isn't a good mix.

taliv
February 21, 2009, 10:36 PM
i'd very much like to go lead-free.

i share the concerns of others that gov is really just trying to ban hunting/shooting.

what i'd especially like to see is the ABSURD restrictions on other metals lifted. (i.e. illegal because it makes the EVIL COP-KILLING ARMOR PIERCING DEATH RAYS OH NO!!) if those restrictions were lifted, i think we'd see market testing and moving to all sorts of other stuff on its own.

cdet69
February 21, 2009, 10:42 PM
if the 22lr bullets are made in the manner of compression like pill machines work there will be 2 halves of copper compressing a tin core together. still i agree with the others it is a way as to limiting participation in our sport. also think about this in california the stopped the use of laed ammo because of the condors. why then do the rest of the states see a flourish in the birds of pray. i see hawks and vultures every day in my state and they seem the none worse for wear. if nothing the have become moer prevalent than ever because i do not rememer seeing as many as a child

whatnickname
February 21, 2009, 10:44 PM
This is nothing more than an attempt by those individuals with leftist views to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The amount of lead deposited in the ground and acquifer by lead bullets is negligble with little if any potential for damage to wildlife or humans.

Jorg Nysgerrig
February 21, 2009, 10:51 PM
To provide a true story:
Near the town where I was born, but before my time, there was a group of hat manufacturing companies. Lead was used in some of the material preparation processes and some people ingested enough lead to develop mental problems. This led to the expression "As mad as a hatter" which is reflected in Lewis Carrol's book "Alice in Wonderland" with the character "The Mad Hatter".

Your true story isn't. Hatters developed mental and physical problems from the use of mercury to cure felt , not lead.

cdet69
February 21, 2009, 10:54 PM
well my opinion is this and that the lead free movement is a way to put and end to our sport. it is unaffordable to a lot of people and in a lot of cases there is no real facts showing any real dangers to both humans or land animals. it is also another stepping off point for the antis looking for any way in to force thier views on every one else

colorado_handgunner
February 21, 2009, 10:55 PM
I don't want to pay over $1 a round or more (the price of lead free ammo in my town)! Ammo is expensive enough as it is!!

KelVarnson
February 21, 2009, 10:55 PM
...virtually every other industry has gone "lead-free".

I'm in the electronics industry, and we're being pushed to go lead-free by the Removal of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive enacted by the EU. Lead-free solder has begun to present some problems with reliability, because it is not as soft and will develop fractures during temperature cycling.

I know, not really gun-related, but another case in which many of the facts are distorted or ignored in order to push a cause.

fireman 9731
February 21, 2009, 11:03 PM
if the 22lr bullets are made in the manner of compression like pill machines work there will be 2 halves of copper compressing a tin core together.

The day that they start making ammo the same way they make medicine is the day that I stop shooting!

This is nonsense... like I said before, you cant have a jacketed 22LR bullet for a reason! Its not a question of how to make them, the practice of making lead free bullets has been pretty much perfected already. Its the fact that the higher frictions of copper jackets, combined with lower 22 velocities doesn't lend itself to a safe or reliable operation!

BlacklabelOP
February 21, 2009, 11:05 PM
Don't feed the troll!

/end

ants
February 21, 2009, 11:07 PM
It's interesting that the regulators know virtually nothing about the technology of our sport, but claim to know everything about our bullets.

Lead in its elemental form (pure lead pellet) does not get absorbed by the body in any appreciable quantity, unless absorbed at high velocity.

[Be careful telling these things to people who will find a way to use it against you:

Copper in the environment is just as hazardous as lead. It kills small critters. That's why they formerly coated ship hulls with copper plates and copperized paint, to keep barnacles and other critters from attaching themselves. But copper started killing off all the living things in harbors and bays, so copper plating and paint are now banned or heavily regulated for use on ships.
The problem with lead shot in wetland environments is that the outside of the shot oxidizes over a year or two. When bottom-feeding birds scoop it up from the mud, the gravel in their craw grinds the lead oxide off the shot. The rest of the lead pellet is pooped out harmlessly. When lead oxide shows up in the blood of dead birds, it is unkown whether the lead killed the bird or it died naturally. So caution has led many states to require steel or bismuth shot in certain environmental zones. Of course, the lead ban in condor habitat is bogus, because lead bullets don't have time to oxidize before the condor scavenges the carcass.]

cdet69
February 21, 2009, 11:27 PM
remington use to use the same type of machinery as drug manufactures used to make a 22 lr bullet out of iron powder with a copper jacket it is not new technology but one that dates back to the sixties when the price of lead spiked. also a lot of 22 lr bullets are made with a exterior copper wash. tin core bullets can be made in the same fashion and tin is also still a pliable metal wile harder than lead it is nowhere close to steel.

ChemicalArts
February 22, 2009, 12:02 AM
The only real non-toxic alternatives that have a high enough density are prohibitively expensive or aren't malleable enough to make bullets out of.

The best real alternative is copper, but it is 3 times more expensive and less dense than lead. Although, copper and lead have both dropped by about 60% over the past year (and even more off their highs).

Blast
February 22, 2009, 01:26 AM
Again, tungsten has such a high melting point that hand-loaders would be very much restricted.

I do, however, support a move toward tungsten in place of "depleted" uranium in tank rounds, and reactor designs that re-use waste materials, but that's getting a bit off-subject...

ThrottleJockey
February 22, 2009, 01:37 AM
When children ate lead paint chips, did the lead cause brain damage, or did brain damage cause them to eat paint chips? The only ones in the study that had problems were the ones eating paint chips, so maybe they already had the problems? You know what I mean? Like if they didn't have problems to begin with, they didn't eat PAINT CHIPS. I think the lead paint ban was so they can see through our walls. LOL Tinfoil hat time again!

Beagle-zebub
February 22, 2009, 01:42 AM
For sure, lead oxides and other compounds of lead are dangerous. Plain old lead is pretty benign stuff.

And Mr. Byrne, let me just say that I'm a huge Talking Heads fan. :D

Duke of Doubt
February 22, 2009, 01:45 AM
Those of us who have inhabited and rehabilitated large, dark and ancient Victorian and Edwardian homes are here to tell you that long before lead was banned in paint, the lead content was dramatically reduced. And before it was reduced, the lead content was so high, the paint SHONE. It's hard to describe what those old paint jobs looked like unless you've seen a locked room in a Victorian home, painted with that stuff, which stuff went up to as much as 50% lead, and I seriously kid you not. It was beautiful -- but not a great idea from a health standpoint. Ironically, that really old stuff didn't tend to flake off as easily as the reduced lead paint used in the middle twentieth century. The really old stuff, you'd strip or burn off, and of course you didn't sand it or inhale it, or eat it. It was huge in lead content, and yet, unless you made your kids eat it to get benefits and claims (yes, this actually did happen in the last couple of decades), it was pretty inert. Like fishing weights. Or wheel weights. Or bullets.

swagner89
February 22, 2009, 01:56 AM
in my area there is one indoor range that requires TMJ ammo to protect the health of participants. of course, they are the only ones that carry it, and charge $17 for a box of 20. tell me that's not cost prohibitive. seems like ploy to get you to pay more. i would like to know, are shooters getting sick from shooting too much? who decided that this was a problem? are there any real studies or did someone just make this crap up?

Coronach
February 22, 2009, 02:01 AM
I also agree that the cost can be prohibitive, although I do believe that if lead-free ammunition became more popular it would encourage manufacturers to find a solution to this problem.This "problem" is physics. As was said, lead is heavy and cheap. In order to be effective for bullets, a material has to be comparatively heavy for a given unit of volume. The only really inexpensive material that does this is lead. Sure, you can develop other materials that do the same thing (heck, they can do the same thing better, e.g. depleted uranium), but since lead is a common element and is basically mined out of the ground with a minimum of processing, you're not going to find a way to manufacture a substitute material as economically. You're running into the laws of physics and economics. Sure, you can find a way to work with other materials and get the costs down via economies of scale, but it's not going to be as cheap as digging a hole in the ground and using refining techniques that predate the Roman empire.

What may make alternatives economically viable is the fact that known lead reserves are becoming depleted. This would not be a case of other methods being made more economical, but rather one of the original method becoming more expensive.

Mike

jon_in_wv
February 22, 2009, 02:03 AM
The owner of a local indoor gun range claimed he contracted lead poisoning from poor ventilation in his shop. The range was downstairs from his shop. I don't know if its true or not but he seemed honest enough.

HeavenlySword
February 22, 2009, 02:30 AM
Tungsten is much more expensive to buy and work, and is extremely toxic & carcinogenic.

DU or depletealloy is far safer, and plus at the energies military weapons are at, is self sharpening (gets pointier as it fractures). Even better, it ignites upon impact.

DU IS legal for civilians to own, in small quantities.

If you have the equipment to smelt & machine them in an noble gas atmosphere, you could make API munitions... at a cost of ~200 $ per KG if you bought commercially.

BHP FAN
February 22, 2009, 02:51 AM
I have enough lead to cast for the rest of my life.Especially if I quit casting 405 gr. .45-70,and get that .375gr. Saeco mold I've been looking at.

HeavenlySword
February 22, 2009, 03:25 AM
*insert rant about how DU will go through UN disarmament troops's plate armor like a hot knife through butter & then explode when they come to take over, and therefore is better than lead which merely reveals your location*

just kidding.

More constructively, to throttlejockey:

Lead is mildly sweet, so children will eat it if they do not know it is poisonous.

HeavenlySword
February 22, 2009, 08:36 AM
most little kids tend to stick random things into thier mouths...

they dont know its toxic, all they know is that it tastes mildly sweet.

jon_in_wv
February 22, 2009, 11:22 AM
maybe they should have used unsweetened bakers lead.

ScottyB
February 26, 2009, 09:02 PM
FWIW, I've shot Magtech TMJ w/non-toxic primers and SBR Greenmatch (non-toxic, frangible) through my P99 and they worked great (admittedly small sample size, but I digress...).

From now on I'll only shoot lead free. It's more expensive, but worth it to me.

lonegunman
February 27, 2009, 01:13 PM
Actually nearly all of the "research" on the dangers of lead bullets has been debunked as crap. The lead in meat thing was completely disproved last winter after anti-hunters in North Dakota tried to ban hunters from donating meat to food banks.

As far as the dangers of lead in ducks and water fowl. The numbers of ducks that research was based on were low and no doubt tens of thousands of prefectly healthy ducks had to be ignored to make it as dangerous as they proclaimed.

The next thing after lead will be to ban tungsten from ammunition because it is used in armor piercing ammunition. Then to ban copper, then ban steel because it causes rust. Ban bismuth because it is dangerous to who knows what.


The problem shooters and hunters and gun owners in general have to deal with is the basic dishonesty of anyone on the other side. The goal of whatever excuse they have is to ban civilian ownership of firearms and ammunition and ban hunting. They will support anything that gets them closer to their goal, regardless of the truth.

Hungry Seagull
February 27, 2009, 01:56 PM
Well, I guess Im going to have to learn how to cast all over again going back to 1865 technology and advancing as money permits if they wussify ammo because it got something hard in it.

Hell, they ban iceballs and permit snowballs LOL. Usually school marm asks did you get hit with ice ball or snow ball as prelude to handing out punishment.

BillyBA
February 27, 2009, 02:13 PM
My only concern to "lead free" is not getting shot ?!
Next thing it will be , "low fat brass with fewer calories" and enviromentally friendly fire arms with extra fiber ??

moooose102
February 27, 2009, 05:55 PM
you know, the stuff came from the ground, so if we shoot it, that is where it ends back up. people get crazy about the dumbest things. personally, i believe it is becase they dont have anything else that really concerns them. life is pretty good in america, and the people who have it really good worry about stuff they shouldnt. hundreds of millions of bullets (and most of them straight lead) have been fired in the last 500+ years, and other than the ones that had a bullet hit them at speed, i really dont think you will find anyone who has suffered from shooting them. casting them, or someone who works in a bullet factory, might be a different thing. but even professional hunters / shooters do not seem to develop anything from it. the residue from the gunpowder is probably at least as dangerous as the lead. but lead is an enviromental "hot topic" so it gets blown all out of proportion.

Duke of Doubt
February 27, 2009, 07:10 PM
mooooooooooose: "personally, i believe it is becase they dont have anything else that really concerns them."

You're onto them. Hippie chicks whose allowances and trust funds finally ran out went to school and became white-haired psych majors and social workers. They've never had to make a living, and anyone who struggles so to do, must be disturbed and be either a victim or an abuser, according to their Hashbury ethos.

Bezoar
February 27, 2009, 11:29 PM
Well sure it seems nice that we should use lead free bullets to save the poor animals. However these demands and "studies" are by organizations that want to disarm us, and to end hunting.
As a side note, youll see PETA is big for lead free everything and no more hunting. They say its evil and inhumane but they were encourageing their more violent supporters for a while out west to make vietnam style booby traps for people to get killed by on popular atv two tracks.

Non lead ammo is mainly bigwith bird and turkey hunting. The problems there are that you need to get a new barrel that can survive the new pressure levels of bismuth or heavy shot loads.
At the same time the new non lead shot come in a very limited selection of shot sizes. And its hard for reloaders to get the correct size shot they need. At the same time, my good family friend admits that the no lead stuff for bird hunting just doesnt have the energy for longer ranges. Strange, they say its a "magnum" power shell, but a federa high brass load from 25 years ago reaches out farther with more power.

Duke of Doubt
February 28, 2009, 03:16 PM
Bezoar: "As a side note, youll see PETA is big for lead free everything and no more hunting."

Nine years ago I was dodging does on Route 28 in Montgomery County, Maryland one fine afternoon. Their habitat had been destroyed by Habitat for Humanity, of all things, and I kid you not. So I round a bend and skid off my cruiser on the guts of one deer and plow right into the ass of another one headfirst, total highway evisceration. Headfirst into a deer's ass, on account of no hunting in Montgomery County, Maryland. They seriously discussed airlifting them over to Frederick, and I swear I am not making this up. Choplifted venisen. Man.

Yeah, hunting is inhumane.

RP88
February 28, 2009, 03:25 PM
keep in mind how many things are in your house that - in some way or another - have in them or have made contact with lead.

People act as if hunters go around dumping tons of lead off from their shotguns and whatnot, but it is simply not true.

Maybe they should worry about the hundreds of other things that are way more pollutant than lead is. Car exhaust, factory plumes, fertilizer, washing your car, etc. etc.

AKElroy
February 28, 2009, 03:31 PM
Lead ammo bans are just another one of the leftist ways to make ammo more costly. Its not a "government conspiracy", its more of a neo-liberal scam. Granted, lead is dangerous if you eat old paint chips for an afternoon snack. But numerous studies have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that hunting with lead ammo does not make the meat unsafe to eat as long as the game is properly processed. I use myself as an experiment... I have been shooting for 25 years, indoors, outdoors, and have eaten many pounds of game killed with lead. I have never had lead poisoning, or anything that resembles those symptoms.

Exactly right. Lead may not be the best food to eat, but neither is it asbestos or uranium. I really wish my dad had not let me chew on all those 177 pellets when I was a kid, though---Maybe I would have done better in school!

Duke of Doubt
February 28, 2009, 03:37 PM
Ya know, you try to avoid Hazmats, and then you wake up one morning in 1993 to find in the paper where it says that Rico Fermi and the Boys didn't clean up so well after themselves after all, back when they built the first Atomic Wedgie in 1942.

I've made Geiger Counters rave for decades. It's alright; I tell myself the rads killed all the germs the alcohol missed.

As to lead? Heck, so long as my finger nails don't look like my Dad's oak tree rings, I figure I'm alright. ;)

Hans Esker
February 28, 2009, 07:20 PM
I am with Lonegunman and others:

Subtle Troll is subtle.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Lead Free Ammo Movement" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!