I apologize for the sarcasm, but I wanted to make a point. I also want to thank the NRA’s American Hunter magazine for some very good reviews on their advertisers lead free bullet choices. I’ve found several excellent performing big game rounds (243 and 30-06, America’s most under-rated cartridges) and I am proudly choosing to go lead free, even when their magazine labels me as an anti-gun wacko.

Good hunting, folks!

Please rate this comment: 0  0

For those IGNORANT that lead build up in birds of prey body prevents proper forming of shells in eggs, you must live in a state where education funding stops at the 5th grade. Heard about this in the early 80′s……….

For all those varmint carcass left behind in the field, and or wounded left running a bird of prey will clean up.

SO in 2011, even if it raises costs a bit, THUMBS UP to manufacturers for adopting such ….

Please rate this comment: 0  0

And yes, the lead is terrible for groundwater. Many outdoor ranges could not sell out to developers, as the cleanup cost is horrendous. If you shoot indoors and the range does not have exhaust fans you are foolish.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

I’m tired of hearing that any change in ammo or firearms manufacturing is due to the wacko {fill in the blank}. Some of the materials used in making bullets is harmful to people. I’m glad they’re getting rid of it, and I’m willing to pay more for ammo because of it.

Good for Winchester.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Lead released into the environment makes its way into the air, soils, and water. Lead can remain in the environment as dust indefinitely. “The lead in fuels” contribute to air pollution, especially in urban areas. Soils near highways, freeways, and smelting facilities have higher levels of lead than soils in other areas because of their exposure to lead dust, which accumulates over time.

Other ways lead can enter the environment are through mining practices, steel industry, crop enhancers, improperly disposed of batteries.

Yes lead bullets do contribute to the lead in the enviroment, but it is such a small part, it shouldn’t be an issue but the Wacko Environmentalist and Anti gun crowd will jump on anything that they can use to further their agenda.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
Hillary Clinton: “We’re Going to Take Things Away From You on Behalf of the Common Good”
“BuckFarack”

Please rate this comment: 1  0

I think that’s completely meaningless and a big red herring. People don’t consume lead shot, bullets or bullet fragments from the environment in the same way that some forms of wildlife can, regardless of whether these people are hunters or not.

There are some reasonable examples of how various forms of wildlife ingest small chunks of lead. Birds don’t have teeth so some birds eat pebbles to grind their food as an aid their digestive process. It’s their instinct to do this. Other animals accidentally consume lead contaminates that are in their food. People would be almost 100% effective in removing any lead bullet fragments from any animals they shot before eating them. Hunters don’t eat gut piles like scavengers do, and that’s where most of the lead bullet fragments will be.

It should be easy enough to show wild animals that have been poisoned by environmental lead resulting from shooting. Unless you believe these cases are hoaxes by anti-gunners for political purposes, then those are the issues we need to address. Talking about lead levels in hunters compared to non-hunters is a dog that just don’t hunt.

The shooting sports community, including manufacturers and shooters, needs to examine the evidence and verify that there is a problem, and then use that evidence to structure an appropriate solution. We don’t need any draconian bans or blanket solutions to non-problems that are crafted to chip away at our right to keep and bear arms, but we also can’t ignore any problems that result from our actions. With rights come responsibilities. We have the right to keep and bear arms, but we must ensure that we do so in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.

I guess this means I’m going to be forced to abandon my plan to introduce a line of depleted uranium bullets for sporting use.
:^)

Please rate this comment: 0  0

I also have a degree in biology and education. I consider myself an environmentalist. Lead is a problem, and working on ways to cut its use in ammunition is good science and not a move to do away with guns as some would like to think. It is time hunters and shooters stop looking so stupid and start working with conservations for the overall good of our planet and its life forms.

Sportsmen already contribute a lot of money due to taxes on ammunition and other products as has been pointed out. They can also join groups like Ducks Unlimited and Quail Unlimited.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Shotgun pellets have far more surface area than bullets and waterfowl have different anatomy than most upland game birds.

I didn’t read the Condor study, but I’d bet bonded bullets would be nearly as good as lead free.

The CDC did a study and found human lead levels in hunters was below average. Even so, I’m moving to heavy for caliber bullets when I use lead bullets for big game (lower velocity = less fragmenting). The deer I shot with a 6.5mm 140g Remington PSPCL at about 2500fps showed no fragmentation and the bullet passed completely through. Contrast that with a small elk I shot with a 165g 30-06 bullet at about 2700fps and there were visible lead fragments.

The falconer who did the X-ray study deliberately chose 7mm Magnum wounds so that he’d be sure to see fragments. Still, gives you something to consider.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

You are using the lead shotgun pellets stats as a reason to lead lead bullets. You must know the difference? One shotgun shell contains many lead pellets which are fired into the air and drop down onto the ground. A bullet usually will stay inside the animal that was shot, and eventually hit the ground, probably penetrating it. How often do you find bullets on the ground? Copper jacketed bullets would be easy to spot. Not only that, but one hunter may only shoot one round (one bullet) when hunting, or 3-4 in a season, compared to a shotgun bird shooter who will easily discharge 100′s of shot.

Hunters contribute more to conservation, through taxes, than any other group.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

I don’t know about you, but I don’t really to have my selfishness cause these beautiful birds to die an ugly and painful death because of something I have done.

Lead-free shotgun shells were expensive at first, but now they are similar to the lead shells. Once we learned how to use them (shorter shots, larger, faster pellets), they were at least as effective as lead. Copper rifle bullets are a little expensive, but extremely effective, and how many does one shoot in the season? If it is more than three or four, better spend some serious time at the range!

I’d think someone who loves the outdoors would embrace lead free ammunition for a whole lot of reasons.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

well said!

Please rate this comment: 0  0

By using lead free you are not protecting the sport, you are probably harming it if you are using lead-free ammo where you can legally use lead.

Please rate this comment: 1  0

LEAD affects the environment by contaminating soil, ground water & water ways.

If manufacturers can replace lead with a suitable replacement that has less impact on the environment then so much the better for all of us gun owners!!

Protect our sport & our environment!!

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Anyway, did anyone hear about this ammo at the Shot show?

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Lead in the environment from leaded gasoline was a big problem, but we haven’t had leaded gasoline for decades, so that argument is meaningless. Was that some anti-car propaganda to make us all drive less and limit ownership of cars? Lead has been removed from a number of products and we’re probably better for it. I intensely dislike government regulation, but I hate environmental pollution too.

At lower exposures, lead poisoning is a subtle problem. Who notices when a couple IQ points go missing? Lead is a carcinogen, and who thinks to blame lead exposure for some of the cancer we have? Lead causes neurological and reproductive damage, and while the damage is very real and very noticeable, it’s often difficult to trace to some previous lead exposure.

Shooting will survive the efforts to reduce lead exposure. It’ll be inconvenient, but at least we’re getting something for the trouble, unlike some of the BS data that’s flaunted to mislead a gullible public about social issues such as guns and crime. More guns equals less crime, but they keep disarming law abiding citizens, shifting the balance of power to armed criminals who never obey gun control laws, and then when the crime rates increase, they use that to justify even more gun control.

Trying to make a lead ban into some sort of attack on shooting after every other industry has reduced or eliminated lead makes gun rights activists appear to be self centered cry babies who are no better at analyzing real data than the lying and denying gun control harpies who ignore facts and shout their propaganda. Lead IS hazardous, and trying to say it isn’t makes us look stupid. People will think we lost too many brain cells from excessive exposure to lead.

Even though it’s off topic, I’ll briefly address the similar climate change propaganda. Atmospheric CO2 is a major contributor to global warming. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by almost 30%, and that is increasing the rate of global warming. It IS warming our planet. It’s having a few other effects on the biosphere too. Weather patterns are changing and weather is chaotic. Saying that it’s snowing in New Orleans so global warming is a hoax only shows how ignorant you are about global warming, and that’s ALL it proves. Picking one data point is meaningless and ridiculously simplistic. Average global temperature is easy to measure, it’s been measured many different ways and the planet is warming. It’s not the source of any scientific uncertainty. It’s well defined. To claim otherwise is once again ignoring incontrovertible evidence in an attempt to cling to an opinion. Facts trump opinions. It’s basic science. All of your wishing won’t change the data, so check your faith based belief system at the door where science is involved. But I know from trying to discuss the science of global warming that this isn’t a scientific debate. It’s a political argument. Global warming deniers will shun the real science and find some weatherman in Oklahoma or a chiropractor in Oregon and claim that these scientists are saying that global warming is a hoax. Whatever.

Please rate this comment: 0  0