Article About How "Hunters" Are Against Lead Bullets

[Speedo66]

Well, when the NY Times does an anti gun article, it catches the attention of many people, including state and Federal legislators. This article attacks lead bullets from the prospective of hunters, how they want to move away from them. While not an anti-gun article per se, it certainly is not in our favor.

The article also shows the female hunter holding the expanded copper bullet in her bloody hand. No doubt hundreds of NY Times readers will be seeking therapy having seen an animal's blood.

I don't know about you, but I've never heard another hunter express these thoughts. Maybe I live in a microcosm, but what I've heard is how expensive copper bullets are.

The article talks about how many states currently ban lead, and we all know that lead is prohibited for waterfowl hunting.

Makes you wonder what will happen to all our ammo stashes if lead is banned completely for any type of shooting.

Here's the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

 

[entropy]

Propaganda, pure and simply put.

 

[huntsman]

I don’t know about ulterior motives for use of cooper bullets in hunting I just know what I use works.

Remington Copper solids are expensive but how much is a one shot anchored kill worth? To me more than the $4.00 a round I have invested.

 

[buck460XVR]

Well, when the NY Times does an anti gun article, it catches the attention of many people, including state and Federal legislators. This article attacks lead bullets from the prospective of hunters, how they want to move away from them. While not an anti-gun article per se, it certainly is not in our favor.

I don't see it as anti-gun or anti-hunting, only anti-lead for hunting purposes. This is not new, but something every DNR/F&G department in the country is advocating. Here in Wisconsin, we lose about 20 Bald Eagles a year due to confirmed lead poisoning. These birds are not shot, nor have they ingested the lead naturally. They got it from scavenging gut piles during and after the gun deer season.

The technology is out there to produce non-toxic ammo that performs just a well as lead core and solid lead hunting ammo. Kind of what the linked article starts with. The biggest drawback for most of us hunters is cost, not performance. While availability can be limited, like with lead core and solid lead ammo, demand would dictate if that changes. What we have to ask ourselves is as hunters/sportsmen/outdoor enthusiasts, what are we willing to pay to protect other wildlife from the effects of the sport we enjoy. Waterfowlers have already decided. Hunters have always been on the leading edge of wildlife conservation, why is it we are so slow and hesitant on this? Folks have no problem paying big bucks for scents that are mostly bogus, bait and food plots to attract animals, yet a few dollars more for the ammo to protect non-game species is going to make them stop hunting? Sorry, but there is a popular term for hunters that only care about getting their animal the easiest and cheapest way possible, without any regard to the rest of the ecosystem. I don't care to be identified as such. Others are free to disagree.

 

[George Dickel]

I don’t know about ulterior motives for use of cooper bullets in hunting I just know what I use works.

Remington Copper solids are expensive but how much is a one shot anchored kill worth? To me more than the $4.00 a round I have invested.

Are you saying that copper solids will always give a "one shot anchored kill" and lead won't? You must have more money than most because at $4.00 a round sighting in a rifle and some target practice will get prohibitively expensive.

 

[cheygriz]

More pure BS from the anti gun NYT!

 

[George Dickel]

Waterfowlers have already decided.

Waterfowlers didn't decide anything, they were told they couldn't use lead shot.

 

[huntsman]

Are you saying that copper solids will always give a "one shot anchored kill" and lead won't? You must have more money than most because at $4.00 a round sighting in a rifle and some target practice will get prohibitively expensive.

the performance of 20 gauge Copper solids sabots(paired with a proper gun) we have witnessed is worth the added expense, superior to lead(Brenneke) yes I believe so.

don’t want to see anything mandated and In this case it’s my choice to stock quality over quantity.

don’t have rifles so can’t speak to that situation and as for my handguns I may feel different if forced into something.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

These people would really freak out if they saw me take a bucket full of greasy wheel weights, smelt them down, cast them into bullets, load them and then go hunting with them.

 

[JR24]

I know a lot of hunters, and none of them care. Even the bleeding heart liberals ones.

Closest is the regs to require steel shot for waterfowl.

 

[paulsj]

Looks like another way to make hunting and sport shooting more expensive, therefore, less accessible. The antis and gun grabbers will be all over that idea like flies on ransid meat.

 

[Speedo66]

I don't see it as anti-gun or anti-hunting, only anti-lead for hunting purposes. This is not new, but something every DNR/F&G department in the country is advocating. Here in Wisconsin, we lose about 20 Bald Eagles a year due to confirmed lead poisoning. These birds are not shot, nor have they ingested the lead naturally. They got it from scavenging gut piles during and after the gun deer season.

The technology is out there to produce non-toxic ammo that performs just a well as lead core and solid lead hunting ammo. Kind of what the linked article starts with. The biggest drawback for most of us hunters is cost, not performance. While availability can be limited, like with lead core and solid lead ammo, demand would dictate if that changes. What we have to ask ourselves is as hunters/sportsmen/outdoor enthusiasts, what are we willing to pay to protect other wildlife from the effects of the sport we enjoy. Waterfowlers have already decided. Hunters have always been on the leading edge of wildlife conservation, why is it we are so slow and hesitant on this? Folks have no problem paying big bucks for scents that are mostly bogus, bait and food plots to attract animals, yet a few dollars more for the ammo to protect non-game species is going to make them stop hunting? Sorry, but there is a popular term for hunters that only care about getting their animal the easiest and cheapest way possible, without any regard to the rest of the ecosystem. I don't care to be identified as such. Others are free to disagree.

Others may indeed disagree. If you read the article, you'd note that while certain DNR dept's, which are probably led by political appointees, may be for it, the actual wardens themselves are not, at least in the state quoted.

As mentioned above, waterfowlers didn't decide to go lead free, it was decided for them.

People may have a lot of time and effort, not only money, tied up in their hunting rounds, especially handloaders. To change to a completely different format is not necessarily as minor an effort as you purport. Hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds may be involved that could suddenly be deemed useless. That would not constitute just "a few dollars more".

 

[paulsj]

Others may indeed disagree. If you read the article, you'd note that while certain DNR dept's, which are probably led by political appointees, may be for it, the actual wardens themselves are not, at least in the state quoted.

As mentioned above, waterfowlers didn't decide to go lead free, it was decided for them.

People may have a lot of time and effort, not only money, tied up in their hunting rounds, especially handloaders. To change to a completely different format is not necessarily as minor an effort as you purport. Hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds may be involved that could suddenly be deemed useless. That would not constitute just "a few dollars more".

There are plenty of people willing to take iffy investment plunge. Please see Strategy for Ammo/Supply Shortages....Since I don't believe in throwing money away I do not participate in that scheme.

 

[buck460XVR]

Waterfowlers didn't decide anything, they were told they couldn't use lead shot.

I'm well aware that the use of lead shot for hunting birds of the Anatidae family, was banned starting 30 years ago. I also remember well how many resisted then using the same excuses. Now three decades later you hear little or no snibbling over the lead vs steel debate. The switch to non-toxic from lead did not kill the sport, nor did the cost drive folks away from the sport. Nowadays a good non-toxic goose load costs me no more than a good quality lead pheasant load. In fact, I don't have an issue with using non-toxic for pheasants. Nor do I have an issue with using it for Wild Turkeys. In the last few years, altho I have a huge stockpile of cup and core bullets to reload for my handguns, I have switched over to Barnes solids for hunting deer with my .44s and .460. The cost difference for the small amount I use over the hunting season is minimal at best, compared to other monies I spend on the sport. Will my changeover affect anything? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd rather be one of those folks known for fighting for the well-being of non-game animals than one known for ignoring an issue that has been proven over and over. Right now, the threat to me and my family from the incidence of CWD in deer is probably more of a threat than me or my family getting lead poisoning from eating animals I've killed. But....any risk, regardless of how small to my grand-kids, concerns me, and I will do what ever I can to reduce that threat. As I said....others are free to scoff if they want. One can bury their head in the sand and shout....na, na, na, na, nah, all they want. As with waterfowl, the restricting of lead for use in hunting game animals is on all of our horizons. As the article states, it has happened in many areas and is happening more and more. It seems the push now is to get folks to change willingly as opposed to making them, via a ban. Maybe if enough folks use non-toxic voluntarily, there would be no ban and folks that want to melt and cast their own lead projectiles will still be able to. To me, that seems like the best solution.

 

[labnoti]

I'm fully on-board with one caveat. I would never support any control of what you do. But the reasoning behind using non-lead bullets is totally sound. I've read all the arguments why it "doesn't matter," how bubba's been doing it for four-hundred years, yada yada. Bullets like the Barnes XPB, TTSX, and Hornady GMX are very effective on light and medium game. The bullets are so effective, I carry them for personal protection as well since in some cartridges they outperform most lead projectiles in standardized testing (look at how the TAC-XPD and XPB performed in the Luckygunner .357 test). Those bullets are loaded by Barnes (Remington), Federal, and Buffalo Bore and not at all because of a lead-ammo ban, but because they work.

I will also say that I only shoot lead-free primers, and I think it is even more important to go lead-free with primers for all the shots not on game to be consumed. Again, like motorcycle helmets, I don't support any force used to make other people comply with my choice, but ignoring the dangers and forgoing a proven-effective way to reduce harm seems like foolishness. I can also say that the Fiocchi Zeta-Pi primers I use outperform Federal, CCI, and Remington primers hands-down. I've loaded thousands and they're perfect, consistent, accurate, and reliable every time while also leaving the cases far cleaner of visible contaminants besides lead salts.

When the US military implemented their EPR initiative with the M855A1 and later M80A1 rounds, the result was consistent effects against soft targets; increased effectiveness at long ranges; increased defeat of hard targets; and reduced muzzle flash -- improvements across the board.

Not only does lead-freeness affect my decisions about primers and bullets, it also affects my decisions about what cartridges I will shoot and therefore what firearms I will buy. Because lead-free primers are only presently available in small pistol and small rifle size, I will shoot .454 Casull instead of .44 Magnum. I will shoot .45ACP (with SP primers) instead of 10mm. I will shoot 6mm Creedmoor or 6.5 Grendel instead of .243. I will shoot 6.5 Creedmoor instead of .308. I will shoot a flintlock shotgun with Bismuth shot instead of a 12ga. And if you look at each and every one of my alternative choices, you can see a good argument can be made that they're better anyway.

 

[Speedo66]

There are plenty of people willing to take iffy investment plunge. Please see Strategy for Ammo/Supply Shortages....Since I don't believe in throwing money away I do not participate in that scheme.

Seriously, I may be a little thick but it's not clear to me what you mean or what position you're taking.

 

[wankerjake]

The reasons behind the push for lead-free bullets are doubtfully all innocent.

There are upsides and downsides.

That article is biased and full of misinformation.

Few points of interest to me:

So the bald eagle population in the United States is... stable? Declining? Thriving? Growing? Or does that not matter because 20 eagles a year die in Wisconsin?

Many areas have adopted lead-free hunting. Should we maybe see if this has made a meaningful difference before advocating the banning of lead for hunting?

And a ban on all lead for hunting is the only and most effective solution to this “clear problem?”

And once that happens, they definitely won’t ban lean bullets for shooting, will they?

And if they did, it would definitely not practically impact the shooting community, would it?

And a complete ban on lead for hunting will be totally seamless, almost certainly. And if it isn’t, well, who cares because it’s RIGHT. (If only everyone would approach every issue thusly, what a utopia we would all have)

Right now, the threat to me and my family from the incidence of CWD in deer is probably more of a threat than me or my family getting lead poisoning from eating animals I've killed

Actually it’s less. CWD is not transmitted to humans. Lead can be. But it isn’t really a threat, is it?

 

[hso]

Makes you wonder what will happen to all our ammo stashes

It will be like anything else, sales will be prohibited instead of any direct ban on the use by private citizens.

 

[GAF]

Now that this has been brought up . Plus I watched the video. I think I will have to try copper ammo.
The cost of this ammo will not stop me from deer hunting. The price of ammo is a very small part of hunting.

This ammo shoots good as seen in the video. I am convinced that I could make the change to copper bulleted ammo
and really never know the difference in accuracy. If it is good for the environment I am in and even if it make no difference
I think it could just be better ammo. I will be trying it. I`m pretty sure if the ammo is good for nothing else is will keep me from
ingesting small quantities of lead and that is good for me. The article seem straight forward to me without bias. Watch the video and get a biologist that hunts point of view.

 

[Mk VII]

Lead in ammunition is on the march here, as well, and not just hunting, and not just wetlands.

 

[wankerjake]

nothing else is will keep me from ingesting small quantities of lead and that is good for me.

It’s actually not a big deal, which is why you are fine now. There are other ways to minimize your lead exposure as well.

But I do recommend trying monolithic copper bullets for hunting. They are excellent for various purposes. I myself shoot Barnes bullets in several cartridges and am very happy and I advocate their use. Unfortunately the fact that they are good hunting bullets is a straw man argument regarding the assertion that raptor populations in the the US are declining in a meaningful way specifically because of lead exposure from hunting, and that a ban on lead for hunting would fix it.

The article seem straight forward to me without bias.

“And between 10 million and 20 million animals, including eagles, hawks, bears, vultures, ravens and coyotes, die each year not from being hunted, but from lead poisoning, according to the Humane Society.”

^^What about this little gem?

 

[Hokie_PhD]

I deal with lead based paint safety in construction. So I’m familiar with the dangers of lead.

Personally, I’d like to see an alternative to lead bullets that isn’t more expensive and that works as well as lead bullets. As there isn’t a good alternative right now, all I can say is that we need to exercise care when dealing with lead.

As for the NYT I agree. I no longer accept them or the Washington Post as unbiased, so I take their “articles” with a grain of salt and suspicion of driving an agenda.

 

[dh1633pm]

The article true to its objectives is a hit piece on lead. Facts are quoted always without source. People adjust as in the lead shot ban, but that doesn't mean that it's better. Same with lead versus copper bullets. Hard to get a bullet the same physical size without the normal lead core. The density of copper is just not the same.

 

[GAF]

[QUOTE="wankerjake, post: 10975911,



“And between 10 million and 20 million animals, including eagles, hawks, bears, vultures, ravens and coyotes, die each year not from being hunted, but from lead poisoning, according to the Humane Society.”

^^What about this little gem?[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely right. This is the part of the article I do not believe. That number seems to be way out of line with what I think reality is.
It would not be to many years and as they "Humane Society" says we would run out of those animals. Sometimes estimates are used to make things look worse than they really are and I think that is the statement in the article that does that.

 

[labnoti]

...Personally, I’d like to see an alternative to lead bullets that isn’t more expensive and that works as well as lead bullets. As there isn’t a good alternative right now, all I can say is that we need to exercise care when dealing with lead....

Part of the higher price is the economy of scale because lead alternatives in bullets and primers are not selling in as high volume. While there certainly is a difference in commodity prices between lead and copper or bismuth or tungsten or whatever, there's also a difference in the costs of casting versus CNC machining a bullet like Lehigh does for example. It would seem predictable that if a lead ban was enforced, the volume of non-lead ammunition sold would inevitably result in lower prices. If Federal, Remington, Winchester, Hornady, etc. etc. were all focused exclusively on competing in non-lead ammo, we could be pretty sure the prices would come down from where they are now, and they're not that much higher. I don't think that forcing the market with a ban is the right thing though. Forcing the light bulb market to CFL's by banning E26 sockets in new construction was stupid, and when LED alternatives came out primarily for the most common E26 socket, the ban areas were screwed. Instead, I think ammo companies need to know there is a demand for lead-safe ammo and I think they need to have the assurance that they will have to compete with the best-performing ammo of any kind and that substandard performing products are not going to be protected by bans.