Article About How "Hunters" Are Against Lead Bullets

[CraigC]

Doesn't have a single thing to do with being resistant to change. I'm the one advocating copper solids out of handguns for dangerous game, in staunch opposition to the cast bullet traditionalists. It has to do with not believing the "science" behind it. Coupled with heaping skepticism about anything even remotely related to a degradation of our rights. It wouldn't be the first backdoor attempt. The opposition has taught us that. My BS meter is always at full alert.

What we know about lead poisoning in humans is that it typically does not come from ingestion. The biggest risk comes from breathing vaporized lead from priming compound. Fact is, it is very difficult to get lead poisoning from ingestion. I also have a hard time believing these critters are ingesting much to begin with. It pegs my BS meter.

Around here, there is a HUGE populace that hunts and we have no shortage of buzzards or birds of prey. This further pegs my BS meter.

It seems to me that they are finding lead in these critters and just assuming it comes from bullet fragments. If it can be PROVEN that this is causing the issues, I'd be glad to consider changing regulations to require disposal of gut piles from critters shot with lead core bullets. NOT legislation banning them from use. Repeat, that is hunting regulations based on PROVEN studies. Not legislation based on half-assed assertions from dubious sources. So until it's proven, my BS meter will remain fully pegged.

 

[Texas10mm]

I don't know that bullet was used in that particular deer in the x-ray. If you watch the video embedded on page 1 of this thread you will see a Nosler Partition bullet lose 40% of it's weight after being shot into water jugs. That is a bullet specifically designed for hunting big game.



Banning lead bullets for hunting has nothing to do with bullseye handgun competitors. However, I will never convince you of that because you believe:

The left are masters of incrementalism.

It started with banning smoking on airplanes. Now in many cities it's illegal to smoke outdoors in a park. Same concept.

 

[wankerjake]

I advocate copper bullets all the time. They are great. I plug Barnes bullets all the time. Buy them. Use them. They are top notch and worth every cent.

Humans and lead exposure is not the issue.

There is evidence that some birds are dying from lead poisoning. Is that all or mostly from hunting? I've not seen that proven.

Say 20 eagles die every year in WI and every state, due directly from hunting (may or not be true but let's say it is)...

That's just not a big deal enough to ban lead bullets nationwide, not even close. It's not even a big enough deal to ban lead in Wisconsin. That is not the biggest killer of eagles at 20 a year. It is not impacting the eagle population whatsoever. The eagle population is THRIVING nationwide and is a straight-up problem in some places.

Now, take the case of the California Condor. It is greatly endangered. They say, lead poisoning is the biggest cause of mortality to this small and endangered population, and they think it's mostly from hunting. Let's assume that is true, and it might be. The death rate of Condors according to the Park Service is just over 1 bird a year from lead poisoning. The population is still growing every year. Is that worthy of looking at? I think so, because the population of condors is under 500.

In AZ we have an incentive program on the Kaibab where the condor range is. When you draw a tag for the Kaibab you get a voucher for a free box of bullets for reloading or a box of lead-free ammunition. If you use lead ammunition, you are required to bury the gutpile or bring the guts to the check station and you are entered into a raffle. The Kaibab tag costs a little extra, I don't know if that's where funding for this comes, but it's totally a reasonable program. No bans, no threat to the shooting community, no impact whatsoever to the rest of the nation, hunters or no.

Is this program working?? That's a responsible question that as far as I can tell is not being studied or at least not published.

We wanna talk about science, the conversation should be to USE it correctly to identify the problem and localize it, and then figure out ways to solve it. NOT to extrapolate hypotheses and then disseminate them as fact and changing legislation without testing them. That is not science.

I think that's the problem a lot of us have. Do the research or don't, but do not threaten the rights of people to hunt with lead because it would be a huge deal to do that, and it absolutely would impact hunters AND non-hunters, and the practice of taking away rights based on extrapolation instead of science is a bad, bad place to go. I don;t see it as different as magazine capacity or semi-automatic rifle or anything.

And I am all about hunters taking it upon themselves, if they think it's an issue in their area, to advocate for, and use themselves, and even get funding for a local program or whatever, to use lead-free ammunition. Great. You do you. I brought two rifles to the Kaibab this year, one shooting lead and one shooting copper. Deer died with lead and I brought in the gutpile.

If you wanna blow the whistle on everyone else, let's have a strong case for it. We ask that of everyone else trying to take away our rights, why is it different here? Right now, this is in the stage of the scientific method of more research is needed.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't know about anyone else but the exray of the deer looks to me like it was shot with a shotgun and bird shot. And why are all the bullet fragments so far back in the animal? Frankly I am not convinced those are fragments from a deer bullet. I'm like CraigC. My BS meter is smoking.

 

[George P]

1. What is the ONLY justification for owning a gun recognized by anti-gunners? Hunting.
2. What shooting activity (despite a burning hatred for working class hunters by cultural Marxists) are they afraid to attack DIRECTLY? Hunting.
3. What INDIRECT method could they use to discourage hunting? Artificially inflated costs.
4. If increased fees would be too much of a finger in the eye to Democrat hunters, what other method could they use to discourage hunting? Artificially grossly inflate the cost of ammunition.
5. If arbitrarily increased taxes on ammunition would be seen as too provocative, what could be done instead? So limit the available types of ammunition that it excludes the working class hunter. Justify this on "environmental" grounds.
6. If hunting can be markedly discouraged, and hunting is the ONLY reason to own a firearm, then firearms ownership can be diminished and then eliminated.

This is the method used to disarm Blacks in the Jim Crow South. Inexpensive handguns were banned. The "Army and Navy Revolver" laws aimed to make firearms ownership financially prohibitive to poor Blacks (just as did the Sullivan Law in NYC).

Forty years ago, I noticed that the anti-gunners invariably SAID the same things over time. They also DO the same things.

To keep this on point, look carefully at #4; start with the divide and conquer strategy - pit hunters against sport shooters against HD/SD shooters, and go for the jugular.

 

[Odd Job]

I can tell you the radiograph of the deer is consistent with the lead snow-storm effect of a rifle bullet.

 

[ThomasT]

George P that chart looks just like the plan of action the government used way back in the late 1800's to subdue the Indians. Guess there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[JSH1]

Now, take the case of the California Condor. It is greatly endangered. They say, lead poisoning is the biggest cause of mortality to this small and endangered population, and they think it's mostly from hunting. Let's assume that is true, and it might be. The death rate of Condors according to the Park Service is just over 1 bird a year from lead poisoning. The population is still growing every year. Is that worthy of looking at? I think so, because the population of condors is under 500.

The mortality rate from lead poisoning is relatively low in Condors because every one of them has a radio collar. When they start acting strange a team is sent out to capture the bird, it is treated for lead poisoning, and then released back into the wild.

 

[JSH1]

I don't know about anyone else but the exray of the deer looks to me like it was shot with a shotgun and bird shot. And why are all the bullet fragments so far back in the animal? Frankly I am not convinced those are fragments from a deer bullet. I'm like CraigC. My BS meter is smoking.

"Bullet Fragments in Venison.—Wound radiographs of all 30 eviscerated deer showed metal fragments (median = 136 fragments, range = 15–409) and offered a measure of fragment dispersion, albeit two dimensional. Extreme distance between fragment clusters in standard radiographs averaged 24 cm (range ± SD = 5–43 ± 9 cm), and maximum single fragment separation was 45 cm."

https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/natu...r Potential for Human Dietary Exposure-3.pdf

This is what happens to a rifle bullet on impact:

 

[Goosey]

Banning lead bullets for hunting has nothing to do with bullseye handgun competitors. However, I will never convince you of that because you believe:

"Eliminating and then crippling gun culture" might not be the intent, but for some people, it could be the effect. For example, if you were into hunting with traditional muzzleloaders, you might be out of luck, because you can't replace your patched round ball with a patched Barnes copper solid ball (and it wouldn't work as well if you could). If you're shooting old black powder weapons with soft steel you might not want to put a bunch of solid copper bullets down the tube. If you're into big-bore or pistol-caliber lever actions solid copper may not work as well as jacketed or cast bullets at those low velocities. In some guns it's advisable not to use mono bullets, particularly certain thin-barreled combination guns. And the mono bullets have their pros and cons anyways, pro: penetration, pro: less meat damage, con: less meat damage. In any case I'm not in favour of banning lead bullets for hunting or any other purpose, unless they can be shown to be causing serious specific damage as in lead shot and waterfowl, and even then, a blanket ban is excessive IMO. A low-velocity rifle like a .30-30 will produce less fragments than a high-velocity rifle like a .243, you have bonded bullets which retain much more weight, and you have muzzleloaders and older cartridges like the .44-40 or .38-55, which won't produce many fragments of lead at all and may not have reasonable lead-free alternatives.

 

[George P]

I'm not arguing for a solution. Talking about possible solutions is putting the cart before the horse when many can't (or refuse to) see that the problem exists in the first place.

I'm not a hunter, so anything I say regarding ammunition bans or lead-free ammunition wouldn't be taken seriously. I find it disturbing that so many outdoorsmen (and women, presumably) are completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that their hobby is harmful to the environment. And yes, for most, hunting is a hobby. If you are subsistence hunting and must hunt or starve, ya know what, you use whatever ammunition you want. But lets face it, most people are not hunting because they have to, they are hunting because they enjoy it. And there's nothing wrong with that. However, we still owe it to the environment and the wildlife that make our hobbies worthwhile by being good stewards.

One volcanic eruption puts out more pollution into the environment than all of the bullets, bombs and other nasty stuff man has done over the centuries. I guess you could call me a "Climate Change" denier (I like how those who believe this had to change the name from Global Warming since it is getting colder in many places) if by denier you mean those who refuse to think man is the culprit. Mother Earth has her own way of correcting everything we do.

 

[JSH1]

"Eliminating and then crippling gun culture" might not be the intent, but for some people, it could be the effect. For example, if you were into hunting with traditional muzzleloaders, you might be out of luck, because you can't replace your patched round ball with a patched Barnes copper solid ball (and it wouldn't work as well if you could). If you're shooting old black powder weapons with soft steel you might not want to put a bunch of solid copper bullets down the tube. If you're into big-bore or pistol-caliber lever actions solid copper may not work as well as jacketed or cast bullets at those low velocities. In some guns it's advisable not to use mono bullets, particularly certain thin-barreled combination guns. And the mono bullets have their pros and cons anyways, pro: penetration, pro: less meat damage, con: less meat damage. In any case I'm not in favour of banning lead bullets for hunting or any other purpose, unless they can be shown to be causing serious specific damage as in lead shot and waterfowl, and even then, a blanket ban is excessive IMO. A low-velocity rifle like a .30-30 will produce less fragments than a high-velocity rifle like a .243, you have bonded bullets which retain much more weight, and you have muzzleloaders and older cartridges like the .44-40 or .38-55, which won't produce many fragments of lead at all and may not have reasonable lead-free alternatives.

Seems like the industry is getting innovative with lead-free substitutes for muzzle loaders. They even have tungsten-iron round balls for the patch and ball traditional guys.

https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2015/10/2/five-muzzleloader-bullets-to-field-this-fall/

 

[Goosey]

Seems like the industry is getting innovative with lead-free substitutes for muzzle loaders. They even have tungsten-iron round balls for the patch and ball traditional guys.

Yep, I've seen these before, niche business based in America, several times as expensive, and inferior.

But not sure why old-timey muzzleloaders would need to resort to lead-free projectiles, when their low impact velocities don't produce the spray of lead fragments a high-velocity rifle can. I'm pretty sure eagles wouldn't eat an entire round ball.

 

[Robert]

If we haven't covered it in 6 pages we are unlikely to do so in another 6. Or rather, we appear to just be going in circles at this point.