Ban on lead bullets

Status
Not open for further replies.

Buckyt

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
36
I was watching CNN today and saw a discussion that sounded like the Govt wants to ban lead bullets. There were 2 guys one pro and the other con. The fellow who was pro lead ban said that water fowlers were happy with the lead ban for water fowl hunting.
Did I hear this right, or did I dream it?
I have never shot steel shot, so I don't know, but is it competetively priced with lead, and is it as effective?
 
The fellow who was pro lead ban said that water fowlers were happy with the lead ban for water fowl hunting.
I'm not a waterfowl hunter, so I don't know if they are generally happy (or grudgingly accepting of) non-lead shot or not. However, shot and bullets are two different things. You can't just substitute hard steel slugs in a gun designed to shoot soft lead bullets.
 
I think it is only a matter of time till there is a total ban on lead bullets.

Just search the web and read about all the groups pushing for lead bullet and sinker bans.
 
They dont like teflon bullets, tungsten core bullets, steel core bullets, exploding bullets, and now lead bullets. I think we should quit asking them what they like, and ask them which kind they'd prefer to be shot with. :cuss:
 
I saw a very similar video on foxnews.com and the host said that the lawsuit from 2010 involving the EPA was dismissed. Last I had heard, the EPA was going to have a better look at it, but I was glad to hear it was dismissed.

About the whole "being happy about steel shot" I think is a stretch. I've never heard any waterfowl hunters laughing and giggling about how happy they were about shooting steel instead of that outdated lead stuff. :)

I don't think Congress is going to allow this to happen, they know it could cost them their jobs. I can MAYBE see outlawing it for hunting only, but an all-out ban on lead bullets is NOT going to happen.
 
I would tend to agree, but then again I have seen things happen in this country in recent years that I never thought would/could happen. I don't look for a lead ban in my lifetime, don't know about some of you young guys.
 
Ross Lake National Recreational area (run by NPS) has had a "management plan" in place since the 60's that included hunting (forced on them by congress)..last year they went out to "update" their management plan, of the three options we were supposed to choose from, all three banned lead bullets.
 
Are they going to ban the lead that is formed naturally in the Earth also? :fire:
 
Quote:
The fellow who was pro lead ban said that water fowlers were happy with the lead ban for water fowl hunting.
that is, in my opinion as a former duck hunter, a load of crap...

Someone should have asked him how much waterfowling he's done.
My guess is none and he's probably totally opposed to hunting of all types.
 
Lead for Ducking is this best for a good quick kills and steel cripples a lot of birds that die
a slow death. my two cents
 
I was under the impressioin that lead BULLETS (projectiles fired from pistols and rifles) were Federally exempted from any rulings by the EPA and like agencies ... dating back to the passage of the '68 Gun Control Act.
 
I duck hunt. Agree, steel cripples ducks and lead penetrates - allowing quick kills. It was always frustrating to have to spend more money on steel loads and know it performs inferior to lead.
 
I don't like the idea of sending steel down my shotgun's barrel, much less a rifle. I'm even a little leary of the steel casings that some manufacturers are using now. Just my $.02 worth.

Jeff
 
Well, for waterfowling shotgunners, you have tungsten which, by all accounts, penetrates as well if not better than lead. But no I am in no way promoting this farce. Just saying there are alternatives to waterfowlers. As far as rifle and handgun ammo, there is also many brands of monolithic bullets on the market that are performing very well it seems. So there are alternatives if needed and more than likely, they will be needed with the little girly people we have in office nowadays.
 
Now that so many high preformance bullets are made of pure copper or guilding metal the government will probably abandon the lead ban angle. This was NEVER about lead toxcisity but about keeping commonors from obtaining ammunition.
 
A hundred pounds of lead is about 2500-2600 .45 bullets. Several hundred pounds would not last ME a lifetime. Several thousand pounds might see me from age 60 to age 90. Well, at least for .45's...................:D
 
Lead bans have nothing to do with saving wildlife or the environment and everything to do with infringement,
 
I don't believe their reasons for lead bans are any more valid than al gore's support of global warming. Unfortunately, it seems to be working in a lot of areas.

I do know that the last time I managed to get some wheel weights, there were a lot of them that were made out of something other than lead. And the only local source I had for wheel weights (Discount Tire) dried up. According to the store manager, because "Headquarters" started to mandate that all the used ones had to be shipped to their supplier for reuse.
 
Ban lead bullets/shot because they hurt wildlife that were not the hunter's target. Ban various coatings because they can leach into the groundwater. Tax copper and steel loads because those metals are needed for other uses...and so on.

Stated goals: protect environment and support various responsible, jobs-of-the-future-producing [read, gov't-friendly] industries.

Actual goal: make shooting as expensive and restrictive as possible so that people are discouraged from owning guns but the perpetrators of the laws and regulations can show that they have not restricted RKBA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top