AP And Ecological Impact

[R127]

I was just thinking about how many people we have in our country and how many of them are shooters. Obviously that adds up to a whole lot of lead down range. I'm aware of ecological issues because I have enough sense to realize it's dumb to foul your own nest so I don't do much shooting on my land and when I do I recover the lead with a metal detector. Not too hard. Most of my shooting is done at an approved range with their own cleanup procedures. Makes sense, lead has a value and like most metals is easily recycled.

Fowlers have had bismuth and I'm sure other shot available to them for some time. I think I've even seen similar products for handgun and rifle ammunition. Again it makes sense and while it should never be mandated by legislation it's good to have the option available. That's where the AP thing comes into play. Reading about the bullet construction regulations which are stupid and ineffectual anyway it occurs to me that the anti-AP laws actually get in the way of a few options that could reduce or eliminate lead content for those of us who are concious of such things. I know the law is unlikely to ever be repealed because like everything else that makes too much sense but I do find myself laughing at the irony that the ban on so-called "cop killer!" (ooh! scary!) bullets which does nothing to make anybody safer actually has a negative environmental impact. This is kind of like how you'd think you'd be able to approach OSHA in the right way and have them fight the switchblade bans but nope.

 

[RecoilRob]

You are implying that fired bullets present some sort of ecological problem or 'impact'. This really isn't true. The bullets just lay there and, unless you plan on digging up and eating the dirt, don't bother anyone and don't leach into the groundwater.

Worrying about fired bullets is just one more way the 'antis' are worming their tentacles into our world.

 

[brickeyee]

It takes very odd chemistry to leach lead from bullets into the soil.

 

[R127]

I'm actually a farmer so I have a keen interest in soil and it isn't nearly as odd or unusual as you'd think. That's why I dig up my bullets when I shoot on my land. Now your local ecosystem can have a lot to do with it too. If you live in a very dry area it isn't much of a big deal because it's likely a low energy system short on acids, oxidization and solvents. If you live in a wet area it's more of a concern. Can I interest you in some tap water from some old lead pipes for instance?

No need to worry about "one more reason" anyway. The antis already know everything they need to know about firearms to ban them. The depth and breadth of that required knowledge is best summed up in the following video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

So yeah, there's pretty much no way you can defeat insanity with logic anyway. Instead of trying to promote the idea that fouling your own nest is ok as a conservative value for the sake of pointless fears we should concentrate instead on practical things that work. For instance repealing a bad law that doesn't make anybody safer but does interfere with creative bullet design that could reduce or eliminate lead content without increasing cost for those who want alternatives. Not to mention all the really neat new ballistic ideas we could try out and new cartridges we could develop.

 

[matt87]

Lead in its pure form at room teperature (as in, in a bullet) is chemically unreactive. Thus one of the reasons it's used in bullets. Thus the reason it's used in roofs.

 

[R127]

Do you know much about water? Do you know what a galvanic series is? At any rate I see this matter is completely lost on this crowd.

 

[GlowinPontiac]

If lead from a range's berm can leech into the groundwater and be a huge public health hazard then why aren't there huge exclusion zones around all lead mines and natural deposits?

what about europe? 2 world wars and probably billions of rounds of lead cored ammo fired and sitting in the ground and people still live there.

 

[Zoogster]

Can I interest you in some tap water from some old lead pipes for instance?

Certainly. Lead pipes were primarily a problem when new. Old pipes have a calcium deposit that essentialy seals the water from the lead.

I do see your point however and I have mentioned it previously.

Bismuth however is several times more expensive than lead, and is fairly rare in the earth.

It simply does not have a high demand so its price remains where it is, if however people attempted to use it in place of lead it would skyrocket due to low relative supply to over $20 a pound. It went to over $15 a pound in 2007 and its not even that widely used. The main demand was in place of lead in some industries.
Lead has never gone above $2 a pound. What would you do if ammo suddenly cost 10x more? If that demand remained the price would go even higher because bismuth is not anywhere near as common in the earth as lead.

Another shocker? Bismuth is primarily produced as a by product of lead processing! So it is in fact because of lead that most of the bismuth on the market is on the market.
It is generaly not profitable to mine it primarily, even at its substantialy higher value.

There is many metals that could in fact be used though. Steel while not as suitable ballisticly would work in some circumstances. Steel with a polymer coating to protect the rifling could be used as a very cheap source of bullets. Iron and steel being very cheap, much more so than lead in fact. Scrap iron trades in the cents per pound, in single digits. With it never going aboive 10c a pound, and prior to China buying very large amounts it was trading at less than a half cent a pound!
It however along with other metals is "armor piercing" and prohibited in the main platform it would be most beneficial in. Handguns, where the range is short and the low density of the projectile would effect its performance less, especialy if it had higher velocity to compensate.

If you could use cheap steel plinking ammo with some sort of polymer coating to protect the rifling, ammunition costs would be dramaticly reduced. The bullet cost would essentialy disappear and you would be left with just the other costs. For reloading rounds that can use the same brass many times that means the main cost would be just the powder and the primer.

 

[32winspl]

Ok, so where the heck do you think the lead came from in the first place? (Isn't lead decayed uranium?) It's mined. So aren't we (by shooting) merely "re-distributing" it in true Liberal fashion?

 

[NG VI]

We're returning the lead to it's home!






Was that an emotional enough claim?

 

[TexasRifleman]

You are implying that fired bullets present some sort of ecological problem or 'impact'.

I'm pretty sure lead comes from the ground in the first place.

ETA: NG VI and 32winspl beat me to it

 

[primlantah]

a bigger environmental concern should be production and disposal methods of primers. most cities have a hazmat center that takes deposits and...well production is production... the economy doesn't stop for mother nature or captain planet.

 

[hso]

Ignorance is not bliss.
Outdoor ranges can contribute to groundwater contamination when conditions are "right". At pHs below 6.5 lead compounds become mobile migrating to groundwater and representing a public health and environmental concern. The solution is to ensure the range pH conditions stay between 6.6 and 8.5 by ammending the soil and preventing any leachate from reaching groundwater. Saying "lead comes from the earth so there's no problem" isn't accurate because it's a question of what form of lead at what concentration that determines whether there's a hazard or not (soluble vs insoluble compounds). Small arms firing ranges have been shown to contribute to hazardous lead concentrations in groundwater (Folks, my company works in this field and helps the military with range sustainment issues so I know for a fact lead from firing ranges can get into groundwater.) when conditions are "right".

http://rangeinfo.org/resource_libra...executive_summary.htm&CAT=Facility Management

http://rangeinfo.org/resource_libra...y/design_criteria.htm&CAT=Facility Management

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA418373

http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/SMART-1ExecSum.pdf

http://proceedings.ndia.org/jsem2007/4082_Begley.pdf

 

[Yaqob]

Lead emitted as particulate matter is really the only concern (meaning likely immediate problem) from firing off rounds and I would say the impacts are rather negligible as it is more a concentration issue than anything. So long as airflow regulations are followed in indoor ranges, I don't see this as a huge issue.

This is what I do for a living, if that helps. Responsible conservatives should be aware of the impact that we make on the earth and seek to minimize it. This does not mean one has to believe everything the media regurgitates about global warming, but it does mean that one should pay attention.

Caring about the environment should not be a negative attribute applied to crazy liberals. Doing so to a fault, should.

 

[harbingerm]

Lead (Pb) in the form of bullets in the ground is not an issue. It's a naturally occurring element. We mine it from the earth and return it as such. It's not like we're making more of it or anything. It's just being recycled.

 

[RecoilRob]

After reading through the links provided by HSO (great info. Thanks!) I wish to slightly amend my previous statements.

MOST places in the USA fired lead isn't a problem. However, IF your particular locality has some geological/chemical reason that lead doesn't lie dormant in the ground and WILL migrate into the ground water, by all means take precautions to prevent this contamination.

Us Pennsylvanians don't have much problems with lead put into the ground. Perhaps Floridians or others who live in different environments MIGHT have a problem. We can only wish that the Anti's will confine their regulatory scope to those areas that HAVE the problem. Hah! And pigs CAN fly...