Lead bans

Guys, lead is dangerous pure and simple...but only in certain concentrations distributed over a period of time. For adult humans, lead poses no significant health threat unless the PPM levels are well beyond EPA standards, exposure is over a long period of time, and is ingested in a oxidized state. As for having solid lead deposits in our digestive system where stomach acid (HCl) is acting to oxidize the metal deposits...well I think it is common sense to keep those levels to a minimum. :rolleyes:


It turns out that the Romans (and the Greeks before them) knew about lead poisoning, and that cases were only really reported among folks like blacksmiths, who were actually smelting the stuff, and certain parts of the aristocracy, who boiled wine in lead cauldrons.
Click to expand...

Where is the proof, please cite a source for this statement?



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
The simplest rebuttal about lead getting in the environment

Just look at lead bullets found in the ground after having been there for hundreds of years. Lead bullets and musket balls from hundreds of years ago turn up completely intact. Not melted looking, not partially dissolved (as they would have to be if they were leaching into the groundwater).

They weigh the same as they did when they hit the ground. They are the same size. They do not migrate, dissolve, or otherwise do ANYTHING that gets them into the water supply. Metallic lead is simply inert in this regard. The only thing metallic lead does is oxidize (develop the white coating) if left exposed to the air long enough.


Lead VAPOR in the air is hazardous. Lead compounds can be hazardous, but lead in bullets is only hazardous if the bullet hits you.
 
An odd sort of way to "hamper hunting" when there are just as effective and non-toxic metals to replace lead in bullets.
Click to expand...
They are more expensive and many don't perform well in some guns. If demand for them goes up they will become even more expensive.
Using materials safer than lead isn't a big conspiracy to outlaw hunting.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was. I gave three types of people who are trying to ban lead and only one of them had anything to do with hunting.

I definitely believe that SOME people are using the lead ban as a way to make hunting more expensive and more restrictive. That belief is well-supported by looking at the considerable overlap between those who are trying to restrict hunting and those who pushing the lead ban. It's clearly not a coincidence that anti-hunting groups are spending money to push the idea that lead bullets are a problem.
On the contrary, hunters should be the most interested in making sure that there's a wilderness left to hunt in some day for their descendents.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no evidence to support the implication that the continued use of lead bullets will destroy the wilderness. On the contrary, historically it has been organized, legal hunting (involving lead bullets) that has been the biggest reason that wilderness has been preserved.
The new stuff is just as effective and safer, so why not?
Click to expand...
"Safer" means nothing unless it is quantified. Once the increase in safety is quantified it can be compared with the quantified costs of the change and a determination can be made as to whether the safety benefit is sufficient to warrant the costs. THAT would be the responsible way to do this.

What we're faced with at this point is people who are pushing increased safety without providing any evidence to prove that this safety benefit is anything other than theoretical AND who are completely unconcerned with any of the possible costs that would be incurred by the change. That is irresponsible.
 
ADB

You use wikipedia as a source??Try Mother Earth News and Al Gore,too.

And,when folks tell you it isn't so,you attack them as xenophobic and paranoid? Since you set the precedent of attacking who someone is...rather than the merit of their arguement;

There are also folks who have tofu for brains.Tofu is a bland meatless protein that supplies bulk to the pot,brings no flavor of its own,but picks up the flavor of it's surroundings.

As has been mentioned,lead artifacts,from ancient ships to old battlegrounds stays in good shape.

If you really,truly believe lead substitutes are just as good for bullets(or sinkers) I suggest you are ignorant on these matters.

You may feel comfortable shooting steel shot through your shotgun.Go ahead.

I happen to like doubles.If you would shoot steel through an old Fox.LC Smith,Ithaca,Parker,etc,well,that would be ........OK,I'll bite my tongue.

If you are sayng we should not shoot fine old shotguns,.......I'll bite my tongue again.

I suppose you are one of those who thinks that your shooting sport is OK,but some other guy who uses XXXXX gun should be banned.

To set up a new rifle range,you have to fle a lead recovery plan with the EPA,I have been told by a gentleman who was setting up a range.

I also know there are people who make money recovering shot from shotgun ranges.

Perhaps if you were a more knowledgable shooter,you would understand that for longer ranges,projectiles made from materials lighter than lead cannot perform as well as lead.There are also rifling twist versus length issues.

Handgunners,blackpowder cartridge shooters,and muzzleloaders need to be able to use cast lead bullets.

Then there are the .22's and other older firearms with very soft steel barrels.

So,please,do not attempt to identify your own firearms ignorance as someone else's xenophobia and paranoia.

How do you feel about he heavy metals in electric and hybrid car batteries?

Al G is a lot like Elrond and Moon.He is a master with TOFU.

White lead in paint on baby cribs is a different story.



Thanks Gobs
 
You use wikipedia as a source??Try Mother Earth News and Al Gore,too.
Click to expand...

I use facts as a source. Science that you disagree with is still science.

How does this have anything to do with xenophobia? It struck me as paranoid to equate lead bullet bans with assaults on hunting, and I said so. It still does. The harmful effects of lead are well documented, as is the fact that a lead bullet striking a hard object like a rock can and does release lead into the air. This is why indoor firing ranges have to be careful about being well ventilated, so as not to kill their customers.

Your assumptions about what I do and don't think are absurd. The fact is that there ARE substitute materials which are suitable for use in any sort of gun, and while they're expensive it's primarily because they're such a niche product. A few more companies see the incentive to get into lead-free ammo, and the prices will drop like a rock.
 
The fact is that there ARE substitute materials which are suitable for use in any sort of gun, and while they're expensive it's primarily because they're such a niche product.
Click to expand...

BS.

My favorite two coyote hunting weapons are a Ruger M77 MkII in .223 and a Savage 24F-12 in .223 & 12ga. I had a single pet load (lead-based) concocted that would shoot beautifully in both rifles (but that's a bit beside the point). The rifles have 1:12" and 1:14" twist rates, respectively.

When I hunt in the condor zones in CA now, I must use non-lead bullets. I have not found a single suitable bullet available on the market which will stabilize in these rifles and simultaneously be effective at useful ranges. This latter portion is largely due to an abysmal ballistic coefficient due to lower-than-lead densities.

If I have the shotgun barrel on the Savage loaded I must use either steel (which I don't deem suitable for coyotes) or some other alloy that costs an obscene amount of money (Hevi-Shot, for example, is $35 for 10 rounds). Non-lead shotshells have been around long enough that I hardly consider them niche in the sense you allude to, and that price is not coming down at all. Bismuth and Tungsten are very expensive no matter what when compared to lead due to availability and processing requirements.

This current situation is based on very questionable science regarding condors. They are an incredibly fragile species that keels over when you look at them funny. The condor issue was most certainly used disingenuously as a vehicle to further an anti-hunting/shooting agenda in an indirect manner.
 
For rifle bullets, about the only thing that is even remotely suitable as a lead replacement is tungsten, which is FAR more expensive, at current values, roughly 26 times more expensive.
 
The real problem is not lead....

It is not even the well intentioned attempts by activist groups to regulate lead in the public domain. The real problem is the incredibly poorly written legislation that results from the activist activity.

There is currently legislation due to go into effect that "bans lead" from "children's toys". This is a fine, and noble ideal. How ever, this legislation is set to basically destroy the motorbike/four wheeler orv industry (among others). This is because of the lead in the batteries, and the paint on the vehicle frames. The vehicles are classified as "children's toys", even though one must be 18 to buy one, and "children" of an age to ride them are highly unlikely to be putting them in their mouths. The legislation will force dealers to remove from stock ALL the affected items, unless they are tested and certified by specific laboratories. Of which, there are 4 (four) approved in the country.

These kinds of badly written laws can result in huge unintended consequences. And it is not beyond credibility that some of the consequences are actually intended by certain groups with their own agendas. For one example, while you may not consider a ban on lead in bullets as an attack on hunting, there has been proposed legislation that, due to the picking and choosing of data used to support arguments, would prohibit the eating of animals shot by hunters.

Rumors exist that they have been known to take lead levels (from flesh with a bullet in it), and postulate these levels throughout the whole animal. Then convince legislators (who have no clue about these matters) how dangerous eating such animal flesh is, and get them to write a bill. If it becomes a law that one cannot eat game taken with a gun, just what do you think that will do to the popularity of sport hunting? I would consider such behavior an attack on hunting. But you might not see it as such.

IF this seems like a wild fantasy about extreme tactics, a "conspiracy theory", perhaps it is. But there are people who would use such tactics in their pursuit of their goal, the end of hunting in the US, and by extension, removing a major reason for personal firearms ownership. Once they can get that, they will then likely add their efforts to the anti-self defense groups, because, after all, nobody needs a gun.
 
...the only thing that is even remotely suitable as a lead replacement is tungsten...
Click to expand...
Tungsten is also much harder than lead which makes its use in bullets problematic. Lead is just about the perfect bullet material. It's very soft, very dense, very cheap and doesn't form an abrasive oxide. There is simply nothing else that comes close.
ADB said:
the fact that a lead bullet striking a hard object like a rock can and does release lead into the air. This is why indoor firing ranges have to be careful about being well ventilated, so as not to kill their customers.
Click to expand...
Indoor ranges are ventilated because some lead is typically vaporized from the base of the bullet when the gun is fired but PRIMARILY because the lead compounds in primers are vented from the gun during the firing process and can be inhaled. Studies have shown that primer compounds are the main cause of lead exposure in indoor shooting ranges. As I mentioned earlier, lead compounds are a completely different story than metallic lead, but even they can be dealt with safely with only simple precautions. The bullet splatter downrange has nothing to do with why indoor ranges are ventilated.

Most of what you've posted on this thread, both about the threats that lead poses and also about the costs that will be inherent in a lead bullet ban, is incorrect or misleading.
 
"Tungsten is also much harder than lead which makes its use in bullets problematic."

You don't use a slug of elemental tungsten shaped like a bullet.

Most of the lead replacement bullets that are using tungsten are using a powdered form mixed in a polymer or epoxy matrix.

In that form it can be moulded into a form (or injected) into jacketing materials.

Upon firing, the tungsten powder gives weight somewhat similar to a lead bullet, and the polymer matrix encapsulating the tungsten powder allows the slug to flex like lead, which keeps bore pressures and wear down.

Again, though, the problem is price.
 
Between the lead matter and this obviously unrelated change http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=377568&highlight=california+internet+ammo
it must feel like some kind of noose tightening, I don't know how long I could remain a resident if an option to leave presented itself.

Have the ammo companies spoken to these issues yet? A google search seems to show enough percieved problems with tungsten to rule that out, army tests and rejection due to more EPA science and so forth.
 
So,relative to lead,let us consider what is going on with Carbon Dioxide right now.The head of the EPA is declaring it a dangerous substance .

Like lead,CO2 is part of the Great Circle as it was Created.

Green plants,photosynthesis,the foundation of the food chain,loves CO2.It gives back Oxygen and food fiber,fuel,lumber,shade,and cools the earth through transpiration.

Beware what is about to happen in Copenhagen.Global Rules

And this EPA person claims the power to rule the Great Circle?
 
Two things.

One, in WA state, the lead problem is reaching more than shooters.

During the December meeting, the commission directed WDFW Director Phil Anderson to develop alternatives for public processes on two proposals that have drawn considerable interest. Anderson is scheduled to present the proposals at the commission's January meeting in Olympia.

The two alternative processes would address a proposal that would ban the use of small lead fishing tackle at 13 lakes in Washington, and a proposal that would close fishing for bottomfish and halibut off the northwestern tip of the Olympic Peninsula.

Commissioners indicated that more public-input opportunities might be needed before a decision is reached on the two proposals.

The proposal prohibiting the use of lead weights weighing less than half an ounce or lead jigs measuring less than 1.5 inches is designed to protect loons from being poisoned by ingesting small lead fishing gear lost by anglers. The other proposal is intended to provide additional protection for bottomfish and halibut in an area extending 1.5 miles offshore and stretching about 4 miles from Cape Flattery east to Neah Bay.
Click to expand...

The other is a question. What would the effect of a ban on lead be to the military and defense?
 
What would the effect of a ban on lead be to the military and defense?
Click to expand...
It's hard to quantify, but it would be significant. They experimented with "green" ammo for awhile but recently switched back to lead ammunition after running into problems.
 
Fair enough,CO2 is off topic.
I brought it up mostly about how the EPA can do the same with lead,and it was a good example of the EPA's willingness to abuse
 
As previous posters have pointed out - research has shown that lead from bullets or lead shot do not create any significant environmental hazards or increased risk of lead poisoning. Bullets and shot in the environment or exposed to water calcify and do not therefore migrate into water supplies. The lead ban to protect the condors - from ingesting the lead in animal carcasses that were shot but not recovered by hunters - is based on slim findings - as there is no conclusive proof that any condors have died from such. Lead poisoning from firearms is primarily from lead primers and washing ones hands after shooting or reloading after depriming is usually sufficient to eliminate that danger.

Next we'll be told that firearms contribute to so called global warming. Some firearms owners just get a little weary of one extremist/alarmist call after another to regulate firearms and the shooting/hunting sports. Repeat after me - It's for the children, we have to save the environment, if it saves just one life, that's what the police are for, I have the right not to be afraid, it can't happen here, nobody "needs" to have a gun, only a vigilante would use a gun to defend themselves and take the law into their own hands, there will be blood in the streets, nobody has the right to have a gun, there is no need for guns in a civilized society. Oh, now I have a headache.
 
They experimented with "green" ammo for awhile but recently switched back to lead ammunition after running into problems.
Click to expand...
Winchester experimented with lead-free primers back in the mid-90's. They had a lot of duds, which led to a rumor that they were "expiring primers." Some of us still remember the Expiring Primer Panic of 1995, which made a brief reappearance last year.

Now, as far as an "advantage" to a ban on lead ammunition, I don't see one. It's easy to imagine skyrocketing ammunition prices and shortages in the wake of such a ban.

As has been mentioned, lead is an excellent material for bullets, and one for which few suitable alternatives exist. I doubt that responsible use poses any quantifiable health risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top