The future of Lead

amassi

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 26, 2018
Messages
2,319
no he doesnt because it is completely bunk.
Show your work with a study disputing that lead kills more raptors than clean energy. Usda keeps detailed records. Your feelings are completely bunk.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 

fwafwow

OG Meme Master
Classified Approved
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
2,552
I’ve got lots of lead ammo and I’m not in favor of a ban. But a magazine ad for Sako Powerhead Blade bullets reminded me of this thread. I’d like to look into the copper (or other options) vs lead comparisons. Can anyone point me to a source (other than the Google) - ideally that isn’t biased one way or another?
 

Campaignhat

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2022
Messages
17
I think its hard to sift through the info. It seems that whomever puts the research out has it skewed to fit whatever opinion they have. It's one of those issues that cross the politeness and thus it gets attention from some groups that shouldn't even be involved in the decisions.

I would think that after 100s of years, especially the most recent 50 years of records, some type of conclusion should be able to be reached when it comes to a correlation between eating game meat and high lead levels.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
I’ve read some good research that shows hunters who use lead have a higher blood concentration than non-hunters but also fail to prove there’s a medical consequence of the elevated lead levels that were found in the study. So I don’t think anyone is going to die from eating meat with some lead in it, but higher lead levels in blood is less desirable than having no lead in your blood. I’m transitioning to copper bullets, as I hear they work very well. I’ll be my own judge on their performance I suppose.
 

DuckDogDr

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 24, 2019
Messages
300
It would suck to not be able to use high BC frangible bullets like Berger’s for long range hunting. They really are more effective at making long range hits and quickly killing what you hit.

That being said maybe it would be better if our projectiles limit us to reasonable distances

I know a lot of people swear by bergers but I in my limited experience on an elk hunt 2 years ago… saw more wounded animals than successful harvests


But back to the original post…
It’s sad what the government over reach has become
 

SDHNTR

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
3,670
I don’t really care about raptors or other research that gets tossed around as reasoning behind a lead ban. There’s agendas behind both sides that can’t be trusted. The fact of the matter is that I have little kids and my family lives off game meat. It’s simply common sense that no lead ingested is better than even the faint possibility of trace amounts of lead being ingested, so for the sake of my kids, I’ve gone to 100% copper. Don’t miss lead one bit. Good monos are every bit as effective.

The long range hunting argument of a lead advantage is bunk too IMO. Even the lowly 30-06 retains enough speed to open up a modern mono bullet reliably at 700+ yards. Some guys aren’t gonna like this statement, but animals shouldn’t be shot at beyond that point anyways. They deserve better. That’s not even hunting, to me anyways, it’s shooting. That’s what inanimate targets are for. Those of you holding on to lead like it’s the ultimate last stand worth fighting for must have really great lives where nothing else in your life is more important.

This one is a no brainer for me… there are two options that are equally effective in the field for ethical hunting. One might be bad for you and one is not. Choose the one that’s not, case closed. On to the next debate.
 

willfrye027

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
1,459
I don’t really care about raptors or other research that gets tossed around as reasoning behind a lead ban. There’s agendas behind both sides that can’t be trusted. The fact of the matter is that I have little kids and my family lives off game meat. It’s simply common sense that no lead ingested is better than even the faint possibility of trace amounts of lead being ingested, so for the sake of my kids, I’ve gone to 100% copper. Don’t miss lead one bit. Good monos are every bit as effective.

The long range hunting argument of a lead advantage is bunk too IMO. Even the lowly 30-06 retains enough speed to open up a modern mono bullet reliably at 700+ yards. Some guys aren’t gonna like this statement, but animals shouldn’t be shot at beyond that point anyways. They deserve better. That’s not even hunting, to me anyways, it’s shooting. That’s what inanimate targets are for. Those of you holding on to lead like it’s the ultimate last stand worth fighting for must have really great lives where nothing else in your life is more important.

This one is a no brainer for me… there are two options that are equally effective in the field for ethical hunting. One might be bad for you and one is not. Choose the one that’s not, case closed. On to the next debate.
I can’t argue at all with keep lead out of meat for your kids. But the lower BC of monos makes them difficult to shoot accurately at distance because of wind drift. I shoot both lead and copper loads at my home range out to 700 yards and unless you’re shooting a very specialized long range copper bullet, it is much much more difficult to consistent hit where you want with copper when there is any kind of wind involved.
 

SDHNTR

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
3,670
I can’t argue at all with keep lead out of meat for your kids. But the lower BC of monos makes them difficult to shoot accurately at distance because of wind drift. I shoot both lead and copper loads at my home range out to 700 yards and unless you’re shooting a very specialized long range copper bullet, it is much much more difficult to consistent hit where you want with copper when there is any kind of wind involved.
I don’t want to debate, but that’s a largely theoretical and academic argument that holds far less water in the field under the vast majority of realistic hunting scenarios.

And you are talking about target shooting at a range. I don’t believe anyone is proposing banning lead ammo for target shooting.

Plus, the Hammers and LRX’s of the world have good, acceptable BCs, and then some.
 
Last edited:

willfrye027

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
1,459
I don’t want to debate, but that’s a largely theoretical and academic argument that holds far less water in the field under the vast majority of realistic hunting scenarios.

And you are talking about target shooting at a range. I don’t believe anyone is proposing banning lead ammo for target shooting.

Plus, the Hammers and LRX’s of the world have good, acceptable BCs, and then some.
I am a big hammer fan and do have hammer loads in most of my rifles. You are definitely right that for the majority of hunting use they are great, maybe even ideal. But they do fall short at long distance in theory, and in personal experience.

I shoot both the hammers and Berger’s at my range to practice for hunting season. Not a competitive shooter just treat it like archery in terms of practice. When it comes to wind calls, the Berger’s have a higher margin for error which is huge for me. If I could call the wind perfectly, then it would not be an issue.

On a very very good day maybe I can accurately call the wind 8-10mph. Including the wind direction component which is huge as you know.

At 600 yards with my 25-284 and Berger’s, that is 13-17 inches of wind drift, depending on whether it’s 8 or 10 mph. That is within margin of error to make a good hit on a deer.

At 600 yards with my 25-284 and 90gr absolute hammer, now it’s 21-27in. We’re getting into gut shot territory.

With my 30-06 and 151 absolute hammer it’s similar, about 8in for margin of error.

Definitely you could build something specific to narrow the gap, but realistically in the field my wind call may not be within 2mph of reality. That is probably overly optimistic. And the farther you push the distance the more dramatic it gets. I’ve shot Barnes and SBDII with higher BC but have not liked the performance on game at longer range with those.

Absolutely if you had to, monos can work at long range. I will probably be building a dedicated “longer” range mono gun for here in CA at some point. But in my personal experience I will get a more dramatic kill and a higher first round hit percentage with a high BC lead bullet.

Sorry OP this has gone pretty far off track..
 

SDHNTR

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
3,670
I am a big hammer fan and do have hammer loads in most of my rifles. You are definitely right that for the majority of hunting use they are great, maybe even ideal. But they do fall short at long distance in theory, and in personal experience.

I shoot both the hammers and Berger’s at my range to practice for hunting season. Not a competitive shooter just treat it like archery in terms of practice. When it comes to wind calls, the Berger’s have a higher margin for error which is huge for me. If I could call the wind perfectly, then it would not be an issue.

On a very very good day maybe I can accurately call the wind 8-10mph. Including the wind direction component which is huge as you know.

At 600 yards with my 25-284 and Berger’s, that is 13-17 inches of wind drift, depending on whether it’s 8 or 10 mph. That is within margin of error to make a good hit on a deer.

At 600 yards with my 25-284 and 90gr absolute hammer, now it’s 21-27in. We’re getting into gut shot territory.

With my 30-06 and 151 absolute hammer it’s similar, about 8in for margin of error.

Definitely you could build something specific to narrow the gap, but realistically in the field my wind call may not be within 2mph of reality. That is probably overly optimistic. And the farther you push the distance the more dramatic it gets. I’ve shot Barnes and SBDII with higher BC but have not liked the performance on game at longer range with those.

Absolutely if you had to, monos can work at long range. I will probably be building a dedicated “longer” range mono gun for here in CA at some point. But in my personal experience I will get a more dramatic kill and a higher first round hit percentage with a high BC lead bullet.

Sorry OP this has gone pretty far off track..
I hear ya. That is a valid, and well thought out, response. I just maintain a more simplistic approach. If it’s windy, or even breezy, and there is one shred of doubt, I don’t shoot. Or, being an archery hunter as well, I figure out a way to get closer. Which is almost always the right answer. Yet it leaves the hard core LR guys with nothing to brag about. Lol!

As a lifelong Western hunter with literally and honestly hundreds of kills under my belt and a species count well into the double digits, I can count on my fingers (and maybe a toe or two) how many times I’ve had to shoot over 400 yards. Yes, I’m capable of much longer and am well practiced and have the equipment to do so capably, it’s just not usually necessary. The difference between a .500 and a .650 BC is fun to mess with on paper, but in the real world, it would rarely make a meaningful difference in the field, at least to me. Certainly not difference enough to justify breaking the law and making some of extremely bold calls like some have done on this thread. It’s just not worth the fuss to me. I can’t think of a single trophy on my wall that’s there because of a few extra points of BC. Or because it was shot with a copper or lead bullet.
 
Last edited:

fwafwow

OG Meme Master
Classified Approved
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
2,552
I don’t really care about raptors or other research that gets tossed around as reasoning behind a lead ban. There’s agendas behind both sides that can’t be trusted. The fact of the matter is that I have little kids and my family lives off game meat. It’s simply common sense that no lead ingested is better than even the faint possibility of trace amounts of lead being ingested, so for the sake of my kids, I’ve gone to 100% copper. Don’t miss lead one bit. Good monos are every bit as effective.

The long range hunting argument of a lead advantage is bunk too IMO. Even the lowly 30-06 retains enough speed to open up a modern mono bullet reliably at 700+ yards. Some guys aren’t gonna like this statement, but animals shouldn’t be shot at beyond that point anyways. They deserve better. That’s not even hunting, to me anyways, it’s shooting. That’s what inanimate targets are for. Those of you holding on to lead like it’s the ultimate last stand worth fighting for must have really great lives where nothing else in your life is more important.

This one is a no brainer for me… there are two options that are equally effective in the field for ethical hunting. One might be bad for you and one is not. Choose the one that’s not, case closed. On to the next debate.
If you are not reloading, what are your preferred copper rounds? I know every caliber (and gun) is different, but I’m curious. I’m early in my process of adding copper to my stockpile - currently just in 30-06 and 25-06.
 

SDHNTR

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
3,670
If you are not reloading, what are your preferred copper rounds? I know every caliber (and gun) is different, but I’m curious. I’m early in my process of adding copper to my stockpile - currently just in 30-06 and 25-06.
I do reload, but man if I can avoid it and find a factory load that shoots well, I will take factory ammo convenience any day. Factory ammo is so good these days. Especially with some of the boutique loading companies like Unknown Munitions, Copper Creek, Choice, etc.

Assuming accuracy in a particular gun, I’ve had nothing but great terminal results with Barnes LRX, TTSX, Nosler Etips and Hornady GMX’s. I have multiple rifles that prefer one of the above. All come in factory options. All drop game efficiently when placed in the right spot (shoot IN the shoulder, not behind). Sometimes it takes some experimentation, but I’ve never not been able to find a mono option that shoots well in a given rifle. If given the choice, why not take the higher BCs and better expansion of LRX’s and Hammers, but outside of that, I don’t have a preference. I let the rifle tell me what it wants to shoot. They all work and work well.
 
Last edited:

amassi

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 26, 2018
Messages
2,319
I’ve read some good research that shows hunters who use lead have a higher blood concentration than non-hunters but also fail to prove there’s a medical consequence of the elevated lead levels that were found in the study. So I don’t think anyone is going to die from eating meat with some lead in it, but higher lead levels in blood is less desirable than having no lead in your blood. I’m transitioning to copper bullets, as I hear they work very well. I’ll be my own judge on their performance I suppose.
Which research? What made it good? Who volunteered to be lead poisoned? How did they control other environmental lead exposure like shipyards, batteries, auto mechanic et el?
Cite the "good research" study.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 

Mark.c

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2022
Messages
38
Living in CA I transitioned to copper and loose no sleep over it. The non-lead bullets do absolutely just fine in terms terminal velocity, range, accuracy and energy for dispatching game animals. Taken pigs, deer and elk with them. Even hunt rabbits with lead free .22LR. The big issue is cost to the hunter. As non-lead bullets become more commonly used industry will respond and price will normalize. The junk (political) science driving government agencies to push the ban is the polarizing part.
 

Bubblehide

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 13, 2015
Messages
3,182
I’ve read some good research that shows hunters who use lead have a higher blood concentration than non-hunters but also fail to prove there’s a medical consequence of the elevated lead levels that were found in the study. So I don’t think anyone is going to die from eating meat with some lead in it, but higher lead levels in blood is less desirable than having no lead in your blood. I’m transitioning to copper bullets, as I hear they work very well. I’ll be my own judge on their performance I suppose.
Lead for decades has been directly linked to mental retardation, to name just one consequence. As such, there is plenty of medical research exhibiting that anyone with elevated "blood concentration" of lead, will be exhibiting a significant decline in mental abilities. So in short, what you stated makes no sense at all. Where are these research citings?
 

Campaignhat

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2022
Messages
17
Which research? What made it good? Who volunteered to be lead poisoned? How did they control other environmental lead exposure like shipyards, batteries, auto mechanic et el?
Cite the "good research" study.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban/
Which lists multiple independent research studies at universities and by the CDC. Again, not saying that anyone has died from lead tainted meat, but that there exists elevated lead levels in individuals who eat wild game killed with lead vs those that didn’t. What sub-lethal affects there are is yet to be determined or too hard to isolate given all the other things we are exposed to on a daily basis. Given a choice, I’d rather have lower levels of lead in my blood as opposed to higher. Just seems logical to me.
 

amassi

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 26, 2018
Messages
2,319
Here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban/
Which lists multiple independent research studies at universities and by the CDC. Again, not saying that anyone has died from lead tainted meat, but that there exists elevated lead levels in individuals who eat wild game killed with lead vs those that didn’t. What sub-lethal affects there are is yet to be determined or too hard to isolate given all the other things we are exposed to on a daily basis. Given a choice, I’d rather have lower levels of lead in my blood as opposed to higher. Just seems logical to me.
That isn't a research study, it is an article. You won't find any studies on humans.

There hasn't been a single study on humans and Ingesting lead from game meat. In order to do so a researcher would have to intentionally try and give a group lead poisoning while excluding a control group.

And they'd have to control for environmental exposure, like was suggested in your linked article most exposure comes from deteriorating lead paint.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 

Campaignhat

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2022
Messages
17
Lead for decades has been directly linked to mental retardation, to name just one consequence. As such, there is plenty of medical research exhibiting that anyone with elevated "blood concentration" of lead, will be exhibiting a significant decline in mental abilities. So in short, what you stated makes no sense at all. Where are these research citings?
In addition to my other reply, here is another good secondary source which links to many independent research studies; https://www.ehn.org/amp/lead-ammunition-in-meat-2645108170
The full-fledged, peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles can be read in their entirety by using the links provided, if you’re interested. Some people will have their mind already made up and no amount of scientific research will change that—it’s human nature. To be fair, again, I’m not over-reaching by saying that elevated lead levels in blood will result in diagnosable medical complications. But since the CDC says that no amount of lead in blood is safe, I’ll hedge my bets by switching over to copper just to be safe. But to each their own, I suppose. Whether it matters or not, I do have a Masters Degree in Biology and my own research has been published several times, so I do know my way around science and research. This isn’t me just being a blowhard with no evidence to back it up.
 

Campaignhat

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2022
Messages
17
That isn't a research study, it is an article. You won't find any studies on humans.

There hasn't been a single study on humans and Ingesting lead from game meat. In order to do so a researcher would have to intentionally try and give a group lead poisoning while excluding a control group.

And they'd have to control for environmental exposure, like was suggested in your linked article most exposure comes from deteriorating lead paint.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 

Campaignhat

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2022
Messages
17
That isn't a research study, it is an article. You won't find any studies on humans.

There hasn't been a single study on humans and Ingesting lead from game meat. In order to do so a researcher would have to intentionally try and give a group lead poisoning while excluding a control group.

And they'd have to control for environmental exposure, like was suggested in your linked article most exposure comes from deteriorating lead paint.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
This is a secondary source which cites primary sources that have done independent research studies on this topic. You can find the original studies by using the information from the secondary source that I linked. It is also perfectly acceptable in science to do these types of comparison studies. They do not have to feed people lead. They can find people who are already eating it and compare to people who aren’t, while controlling for as many variables as possible. In fact, all medical studies are done this way, to varying degrees, because no two people are true replicates, so there’s always outside factors that could affect conclusions. So there’s always a chance conclusions could be wrong. But that’s life and that’s why we use statistics and careful experimental design.
 
Top