I'm going to pass on commenting on the insult, but will address the intellectual aspect.Originally Posted by Nightvisionary
"If it saves 1 spotted owl"...
...No, this is not about a damn owl. It's about ingesting lead fragments/shavings/spalling. I choose not to. You seem to take umbrage to the fact that I'm sharing that choice, explaining it, and asking if others have decided similar (many have, per this thread).
Volume. Everything here is dependent on volume.
If you shoot 100 rounds of pure, soft, lead per year into a dirt berm, your contribution to lead in the environment will be immeasurable.
If you shoot 10,000 rounds of pure soft lead per year into a dirt berm, your contribution to lead in the environment will be measurable, but likely minimal.
If you shoot 10,000 rounds of pure soft lead per year into a steel bullet trap in a poorly ventilated indoor range? Your contribution to lead in the local environment (i.e., inside the range) is likely measurable and likely impactful on both you and the other individuals nearby. Your contribution to lead outside? Immeasurable.
In other words, there are scenarios where shooting lead is virtually harmless and where it is very harmful. Each individual is allowed a choice, at present, to choose between leaded and unleaded ammunition. For hunting purposes, the impact of rifle rounds on the environment is very minimal. The impact on individual hunters is larger and thus, it's probably best for you, if you choose unleaded ammo for your hunting purposes. It's up to you, but I don't like eating lead kind of like I don't like breathing in car exhaust if avoidable.
For waterfowl hunting, where the shot landing zone is directly in contact with water and runoff zones? Absolutely should unleaded shot be used, period. It's not about saving a bird. It's about not contaminating your neighbor's drinking water. It's about not contaminating YOUR drinking water. That's not only logical, it's responsible. Responsibility is sometimes expensive.
As for the future and legislation, blah, blah, blah - Look do or don't shoot lead-free ammo. I personally try to shoot as much lead-free as I do lead-based. I use lead-free ammo indoors and lead-based outdoors most regularly. It costs more. But the more I support lead-free ammo, the lower the costs will become. People keep pointing out costs, yes, lead is cheaper than copper. Cheaper than both will be copper/polymer matrix bullets, eventually. When we will we get cheap ones? When the market demands it. If we embrace this now, it will curtail legislative efforts and reduce costs.
Also, if you haven't acquired enough ammunition to shoot regularly for the rest of your life at this point, I suggest you do. Death, taxes, and the cost of ammunition rising are the only sure things in life. If you have acquired that much ammunition then this thread probably doesn't apply to you, anyways.
By-the-by - Responsibility is expensive and that means making sure your gun clubs/ranges/facilities are adequately doing their best to avoid excessive and unnecessary lead exposure and pollution. For every good range I've been to, there are a dozen or more bad apples. If we don't start policing ourselves trust me, they will come to police you.
Last edited by RevolverRob; 01-31-2019 at 05:19 PM.
Getting back to the effects of lead on humans eating it:
-----------------------------
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tested 736 people, mostly adults, in six North Dakota cities and found that those who ate wild game had 50 percent more lead in their blood than those who did not eat it. The lead exposure was highest among people who consumed not only venison, but also birds and other game, according to the study published last month in the journal Environmental Research.
Those who ate wild game meat had average lead levels of 1.27 micrograms per deciliter, compared with 0.84 for those who ate no game. Most said they either hunted the animals themselves or obtained the meat from friends or family members.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...mmunition-ban/
--------------
Note: the CDC's current standard(article is 10 years old) for an "elevated" blood lead level for children is 5mcg/dl, so even the "high" lead levels in the study are well below that.
My personal choice is to take steps I think are reasonable to avoid eating, drinking, breathing or absorbing stuff I know is toxic. Shooting things I intend to eat with non-toxic projectiles seems reasonable to me. YMMV.
Last edited by peterb; 01-31-2019 at 06:10 PM.
A PH I hunted Africa three times with, carried Barnes X bullets in his .458 Lott, as he thought they performed better than anything else he tried, for backing up clients on Cape Buffalo. Lead vs alloy didn’t enter into his decision, just pure performance.
I have been shooting Barnes 180 bullets in my .300 WM in recent years. They group well and they have successfully harvested a moose, two mule deer and three elk at ranges from 125 to 450 yards. I am not convinced whether lead bullets in my game meat is harmful or harmless, but given how well the Barnes bullets have performed for me, using non lead is an easy choice.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
The Barnes 458 Lott is $5.75 per round. I can't afford to shoot that or hunt in Africa but I can afford to remain a proficient and ethical hunter by shooting several hundred rounds every year of hand loaded 308 using reasonably priced Hornady SST 165 grain bullets.
That's a little apples to oranges don't you think? He mentioned a 300 WM too that you conveniently didn't mention.
A quick look at Midway shows SSTs are roughly 0.30 a bullet and Barnes are about twice that. More expensive? Yes. Bank breaking? Probably not.
Paying 100% more for a similar product is an unwise use of my hard earned money.
I didn't read the article, but I wonder what the average lead level of regular shooters is among that group. It could be that exposure to lead from primers is the primary factor, versus ingestion of game itself.
Last edited by scw2; 02-01-2019 at 12:44 PM.
Right. So we've established that you choose not to use lead-free ammunition for shooting or hunting due to economy.
So question, if Barnes bullets were the same price as Hornady SSTs would you buy and load those instead?
An excellent question, though those with higher levels that got game from friends would indicate they were likely not present when the shooting occurred. In which case it would likely be due to lead exposure from the game.
That is a good point, and it would be helpful to see that controlled for. I definitely have an elevated lead level, based on testing the last few years.
The way I look at it, I can’t justify shooting lead free ammo for practice, and I can’t justify shooting anything but lead free bullets on my game animals. I spend considerable time, energy and money to ethically harvest high quality game animals. Then a lot of care in handling the meat after the kill, both in the field and with the game processor, all in an effort to end up with the highest quality game meat possible for our consumption. Barnes VOR-TX .300 WM 180 grain costs $49.99 for a box of twenty, and one box has harvested two mule deer, one moose, and three elk with half the box still available for future hunts. Even if the health benefit turned out to be zero, the Barnes bullets kill like crazy in the game fields and cost me less than $5.00 a hunt.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Reply With Quote