On a gun range, there is a concentrated accumulation of lead. Thus, there are procedures to safely deal with it. In hunting, there is most likely only a few shots fired per animal taken, spread across innumerable square miles. There is no way the lead used in hunting could have even a slightly measurable impact.
leif52pickup On the range the procedure is "just let is stay there", because that's what it does. The impact in hunting is easily measured for those that eat what's been shot. The choices are eat lead, discard lots of meat around the wound channel or don't use lead. (Not that I'm convinced tin is perfectly safe to eat either.) I don't think lead should be totally banned, because sometimes it's better.
Ubbe Fr It won't stay there forever. Lead is worth a LOT of money. It will eventually be dug out by a reclamation company. Our local sportsmans club had many years worth of lead. A company came in (at no charge to us) and processed the range. They even cut us a check in the end.
Well done video, but at 1:34, when they mention "Taxes", they should specifically mention the extra 11% collected for the Pittman-Robertson Act.Over half a BILLION dollars in 2013 alone! This is separate from, and over and above the state sales tax.
StraightShootingTalk Thanks for the feedback! We felt the details behind the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 would be better explained in a stand alone video. This video will be based on our infographic "How Wildlife is Thriving Because of Guns and Hunting," which can be viewed here: visual.ly/how-wildlife-thriving-because-guns-hunting. Stay tuned!
You left out a HUGE component of the anti-gunners & anti-hunters strategy in going after lead containing ammunition: If they have any success at banning ammunition with lead, then ammunition producers will have to try different component to replace the lead with. HOWEVER, when they start experimenting with alternatives they are likely to run afoul of something we have seen very recently: Ammunition that is made of anything other than the traditional component, ie lead, brass, etc. will run the risk of being deemed as ARMOUR PIERCING! Then we are left with no ammunition available to us at all effectively banning both ammunition and, as a result, GUNS TOO!
DocLarsen44 There's not much need for experimentation as tin bullets are pretty well established and that's apparently not AP, because it already is on sale in USA. Or are you thinking of something more dense so you can replicate lead performance? Even a tungsten matrix would have to be made soft as lead, so not much risk of that either.
Ubbe Fr There are many alternatives here already. I've pretty much switched over to loading solid copper bullets (Barnes TTSX) in all my big game hunting rounds. They've been around for years. I get better performance and less fouling. Price is comparable to any other premium bullet
***** Did you forget about the expense? We already know that the anti-hunting groups are looking at other metals to ban. The gun prohibitionists are counting on their propaganda, to scare the dumb masses, into helping them solve this manufactured "crisis."
Ubbe Fr That would still be pointed to as an environmental problem by the anti-gun extremists. They want their false lead argument to win so that they can use it for every other metal. In fact the panacea of tungsten ammunition was abandoned by the US Army already because of environmental concerns.
Gunalizer Yes, you are of course correct. Their agenda is to stop all hunting and ban all guns. They have time on their side and are willing to slowly chip away until there is nothing left
Hopefully this turns out like the vehicle emissions standards cali has in place. hopefully the rest of the country looks at this and says "ok, california. good for you. you do your own thing" and all the other states just continue as normal.
Let us not forget that Obummer closed down the last lead smelting plant in the US which was a deliberate point to begin to eliminate ammunition under the guise of "saving the environment".
Is there an advantage of using Lead vs something less, well, nasty? I'm not too concerned about it, but if there is another possible solution that we can slowly move over to, why not? Lead is a big part of why I don't go to indoor ranges, you can't trust them to be well maintained enough to be healthy environments.
well, we have to use lead most of the time due to the ATF's definition of an armor piercing bullet. I think solid brass projectiles have a "sporting" exemption. I'm not sure.
I have been hunting for most my life and I also make my own ammunition so I am happy to share some of what I know about lead. Please not that I am in no ways the end all be all expert here. There are several reasons lead is used in bullets. From an economic standpoint lead is cheaper which is one major reason. From a ballistic standpoint, lead is more dense than copper. Because of this for a copper bullet to reach the same weight as a lead bullet, it must be made longer which can cause reliability problems in certain instances. It is for this reason that many bullets on the market today that people think are copper are actually copper coated bullets with lead cores. Finally, as we saw when lead was banned in waterfowl hunting, some older firearms cannot handle the increased hardness of non lead projectiles. This can create a situation where the firearm barrel is damaged or worse the shooter is injured.
MordeaniisChaos It's dense AND soft. And much cheaper than the obvious alternative gold. Tin works pretty well, and you can see it's available in USA too, but with lighter bullets you can't use the "same" calibre for the same performance. Tin is probably not 100% safe to eat either, but I know people who use it or copper/brass since it's not as clearly harmful for their childrens' brains. Lead is clearly preferrable in some cases, so total ban isn't a good idea.
Well they have already ban the picking up of wheels weights at places where they mount and balance tires and then some are using aluminum weights instead and the government has closed the only lead sweltering plant in the USA and then if Calfornia works then they can mandate it in the other states with pen and phone you know PERIOD
I thought California already had banned lead ammo in some areas. What do we know about how hunting changed there instead of just asking what people would do if it was banned where they hunt? A total ban makes no sense. It's been discussed in other countries for a long time, but ususally doesn't happen because lead is clearly better in many cases. In Norway the lead shot hunting ban was recently reversed. However, some hunters don't want lead anyway and if you count in that you need to discard less meat around the wound channel increased ammo cost isn't something which makes it obviously unfeasable for economic reasons. I'm more concerned that non-lead in a certain calibre is less efficient than a heavier bullet would be which means what used to be approved for one size game may no longer be.
Jim Schmitt The lead band on migratory birds started in the mid 80's. Since then I have crippled more ducks and geese then I have killed as the steel bounces off many of them. Good for the birds? I don't think so.
i don't see the problem really. if traditional ammo is banned the alternative ammo (steel I'm guessing) would just become as easy to acquire as lead ammo is now. i already use steel 5.56 for my ar-15, it works completely fine and is very cheap.
When that happens who then will stop or slow down the rabies wild animals transfer? The lack of Raccoon hunters has caused an out break of this virus in Ohio already. They can't keep taxing people when no money can be had!
So much for freedom in Ontario Canada thay are trying to make a new law for to stop peaple from drinking coffee,give your kids trouble,eating,talking to passengers while drive??how can thay do that we are not free we have not bin free and it will get worse if we let it. If peaple dont like something then thay should move somewhere that thay can live like thay want not change how everyone else lives.
You know, this sounds just like the arguments against lead-free shot for waterfowl many years ago. Everybody said that you couldn't kill anything with it, and that the price would be through the roof. Piles of ducks, geese, and even a turkey have shown me that lead-free works. They called that anti-hunting, too. It didn't stop anyone I knew. We all hunted whenever we could. And the silly statement that animals killed with lead ammo pose no threat to humans is misleading to the point of a lie. Animals that eat shot (doves, ducks, geese, turkeys, pigeons, etc.) are a threat, as the lead accumulates in their systems. That led from those animals poisons human brains. So, that is just a fancy lie. The video states that 95% of ammo is lead-based. I'm sure that's true. But they imply that 95% of ammo would be banned. No, it would be banned for hunting, not target or competition. Say you're a deer hunter. A really successful one. You hunt every open season and you get six or eight deer in a season. Freezer's full. How many bullets did it take to sight in your rifle and kill half a dozen deer? A couple of boxes? Hell, gas and snacks will cost you more than that. So, the 36% who said they'd quit hunting were answering a badly misleading question when the pollster called them during dinner. They're telling me that a price increase in hunting ammo... even double... would keep them from hunting? Not if they're actually hunters, no. I've enjoyed several of the NSSF videos to sharpen shooting skills, but this is just hysterical bullshit. They should be ashamed.
NSSF, I just lost faith in anything you put forward. The free world (as bill whittle calls it) doesn't subscribe to the edicts of ca. Compare the differences between 1 state and 49 and I might care to listen. Sadly disappointed in this posting. How about we go back to your mission which is to teach.
Thank you for your clarification and I stand corrected. My knowledge of a number of issues has been "enlightened". How are you faring in a non "Hostile" Jade Helm state?
On a gun range, there is a concentrated accumulation of lead. Thus, there are procedures to safely deal with it.
In hunting, there is most likely only a few shots fired per animal taken, spread across innumerable square miles. There is no way the lead used in hunting could have even a slightly measurable impact.
leif52pickup On the range the procedure is "just let is stay there", because that's what it does.
The impact in hunting is easily measured for those that eat what's been shot. The choices are eat lead, discard lots of meat around the wound channel or don't use lead. (Not that I'm convinced tin is perfectly safe to eat either.)
I don't think lead should be totally banned, because sometimes it's better.
Ubbe Fr It won't stay there forever. Lead is worth a LOT of money. It will eventually be dug out by a reclamation company. Our local sportsmans club had many years worth of lead. A company came in (at no charge to us) and processed the range. They even cut us a check in the end.
This ban made the news in Sweden too, and someone commented that the world's lead mines will be exhausted in 20 years.
I would love to see the source to that study stating 36% of hunters would hunt less or stop hunting
Well done video, but at 1:34, when they mention "Taxes", they should specifically mention the extra 11% collected for the Pittman-Robertson Act.Over half a BILLION dollars in 2013 alone!
This is separate from, and over and above the state sales tax.
StraightShootingTalk Thanks for the feedback! We felt the details behind the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 would be better explained in a stand alone video. This video will be based on our infographic "How Wildlife is Thriving Because of Guns and Hunting," which can be viewed here: visual.ly/how-wildlife-thriving-because-guns-hunting. Stay tuned!
You left out a HUGE component of the anti-gunners & anti-hunters strategy in going after lead containing ammunition: If they have any success at banning ammunition with lead, then ammunition producers will have to try different component to replace the lead with. HOWEVER, when they start experimenting with alternatives they are likely to run afoul of something we have seen very recently: Ammunition that is made of anything other than the traditional component, ie lead, brass, etc. will run the risk of being deemed as ARMOUR PIERCING! Then we are left with no ammunition available to us at all effectively banning both ammunition and, as a result, GUNS TOO!
DocLarsen44 There's not much need for experimentation as tin bullets are pretty well established and that's apparently not AP, because it already is on sale in USA.
Or are you thinking of something more dense so you can replicate lead performance? Even a tungsten matrix would have to be made soft as lead, so not much risk of that either.
Ubbe Fr There are many alternatives here already. I've pretty much switched over to loading solid copper bullets (Barnes TTSX) in all my big game hunting rounds. They've been around for years. I get better performance and less fouling. Price is comparable to any other premium bullet
***** Did you forget about the expense? We already know that the anti-hunting groups are looking at other metals to ban. The gun prohibitionists are counting on their propaganda, to scare the dumb masses, into helping them solve this manufactured "crisis."
Ubbe Fr That would still be pointed to as an environmental problem by the anti-gun extremists. They want their false lead argument to win so that they can use it for every other metal. In fact the panacea of tungsten ammunition was abandoned by the US Army already because of environmental concerns.
Gunalizer Yes, you are of course correct. Their agenda is to stop all hunting and ban all guns. They have time on their side and are willing to slowly chip away until there is nothing left
Hopefully this turns out like the vehicle emissions standards cali has in place. hopefully the rest of the country looks at this and says "ok, california. good for you. you do your own thing" and all the other states just continue as normal.
Just another reason why I will never live in CA.
I travel all the time in my RV and the last place I will go is to CA.
Clear and cut. Make non conventional ammo too expensive for the average enthusiast. Gun control by supply side market control.
Let us not forget that Obummer closed down the last lead smelting plant in the US which was a deliberate point to begin to eliminate ammunition under the guise of "saving the environment".
Is there an advantage of using Lead vs something less, well, nasty? I'm not too concerned about it, but if there is another possible solution that we can slowly move over to, why not? Lead is a big part of why I don't go to indoor ranges, you can't trust them to be well maintained enough to be healthy environments.
well, we have to use lead most of the time due to the ATF's definition of an armor piercing bullet. I think solid brass projectiles have a "sporting" exemption. I'm not sure.
I have been hunting for most my life and I also make my own ammunition so I am happy to share some of what I know about lead. Please not that I am in no ways the end all be all expert here. There are several reasons lead is used in bullets. From an economic standpoint lead is cheaper which is one major reason. From a ballistic standpoint, lead is more dense than copper. Because of this for a copper bullet to reach the same weight as a lead bullet, it must be made longer which can cause reliability problems in certain instances. It is for this reason that many bullets on the market today that people think are copper are actually copper coated bullets with lead cores. Finally, as we saw when lead was banned in waterfowl hunting, some older firearms cannot handle the increased hardness of non lead projectiles. This can create a situation where the firearm barrel is damaged or worse the shooter is injured.
MordeaniisChaos It's dense AND soft. And much cheaper than the obvious alternative gold.
Tin works pretty well, and you can see it's available in USA too, but with lighter bullets you can't use the "same" calibre for the same performance. Tin is probably not 100% safe to eat either, but I know people who use it or copper/brass since it's not as clearly harmful for their childrens' brains.
Lead is clearly preferrable in some cases, so total ban isn't a good idea.
Lead is mined from the ground what’s wrong with returning it to same
Well they have already ban the picking up of wheels weights at places where they mount and balance tires and then some are using aluminum weights instead and the government has closed the only lead sweltering plant in the USA and then if Calfornia works then they can mandate it in the other states with pen and phone you know PERIOD
I thought California already had banned lead ammo in some areas. What do we know about how hunting changed there instead of just asking what people would do if it was banned where they hunt?
A total ban makes no sense. It's been discussed in other countries for a long time, but ususally doesn't happen because lead is clearly better in many cases.
In Norway the lead shot hunting ban was recently reversed.
However, some hunters don't want lead anyway and if you count in that you need to discard less meat around the wound channel increased ammo cost isn't something which makes it obviously unfeasable for economic reasons.
I'm more concerned that non-lead in a certain calibre is less efficient than a heavier bullet would be which means what used to be approved for one size game may no longer be.
G.Rustan N Lead ban on migratory birds for as long as I can remember
Jim Schmitt The lead band on migratory birds started in the mid 80's. Since then I have crippled more ducks and geese then I have killed as the steel bounces off many of them. Good for the birds? I don't think so.
dang condors. just got all my all copper barnes.
i don't see the problem really. if traditional ammo is banned the alternative ammo (steel I'm guessing) would just become as easy to acquire as lead ammo is now. i already use steel 5.56 for my ar-15, it works completely fine and is very cheap.
Banning lead ammunition is not anti hunting it is just to keep lead out of water or were the animals we hunt for can get lead poisoning
When that happens who then will stop or slow down the rabies wild animals transfer? The lack of Raccoon hunters has caused an out break of this virus in Ohio already. They can't keep taxing people when no money can be had!
Kind of over over threw it on the on the end there fella. Have you looked at .22 prices on Gunbroker lately?
So much for freedom in Ontario Canada thay are trying to make a new law for to stop peaple from drinking coffee,give your kids trouble,eating,talking to passengers while drive??how can thay do that we are not free we have not bin free and it will get worse if we let it. If peaple dont like something then thay should move somewhere that thay can live like thay want not change how everyone else lives.
Im hoping all guns and ammo get finally banned
Sounds like California is getting the results they want.
You know, this sounds just like the arguments against lead-free shot for waterfowl many years ago. Everybody said that you couldn't kill anything with it, and that the price would be through the roof. Piles of ducks, geese, and even a turkey have shown me that lead-free works. They called that anti-hunting, too. It didn't stop anyone I knew. We all hunted whenever we could.
And the silly statement that animals killed with lead ammo pose no threat to humans is misleading to the point of a lie. Animals that eat shot (doves, ducks, geese, turkeys, pigeons, etc.) are a threat, as the lead accumulates in their systems. That led from those animals poisons human brains. So, that is just a fancy lie.
The video states that 95% of ammo is lead-based. I'm sure that's true. But they imply that 95% of ammo would be banned. No, it would be banned for hunting, not target or competition. Say you're a deer hunter. A really successful one. You hunt every open season and you get six or eight deer in a season. Freezer's full. How many bullets did it take to sight in your rifle and kill half a dozen deer? A couple of boxes? Hell, gas and snacks will cost you more than that. So, the 36% who said they'd quit hunting were answering a badly misleading question when the pollster called them during dinner. They're telling me that a price increase in hunting ammo... even double... would keep them from hunting? Not if they're actually hunters, no.
I've enjoyed several of the NSSF videos to sharpen shooting skills, but this is just hysterical bullshit. They should be ashamed.
This is merica well make our own if need be
NSSF, I just lost faith in anything you put forward.
The free world (as bill whittle calls it) doesn't subscribe to the edicts of ca.
Compare the differences between 1 state and 49 and I might care to listen.
Sadly disappointed in this posting.
How about we go back to your mission which is to teach.
Thank you for your clarification and I stand corrected. My knowledge of a number of issues has been "enlightened". How are you faring in a non "Hostile" Jade Helm state?
Typical tree huggin' California hippies. LEAVE MY GUNS AND AMMO THE FUCK ALONE !!!!