Interior Secretary Reverses Obama’s Lead Ammo Ban

Those wanting to ban guns will cloak their agenda in any issue they think will appeal to emotion. 'If it saves one child...'. Cloaking and bonding the gun issue with the environmental arguement is such an arguement. Compared to what is released in industrial and vehicle emissions annually, the impact of lead in bullets on the environment is negligeable. Inhaled lead is far more toxic than ingested and excreted. Unless actual lead fragments are found in dead animals and compared to control groups I don't know how a causal relationship can be conclusively drawn.

http://www.naturalnews.com/045563_aviation_fuel_toxic_lead_heavy_metals_pollution.html
http://www.worldometers.info/view/toxchem/

Any arguement that inches toward their goal....

The lead banning arguement is a smokescreen for the real objective. Finding any and everything to build a composite means of vilifying guns and gun owners.

 

weird - that image doesn't even look like meat - maybe it isn't supposed to and I'm just missing something, but I think this image pretty clearly shows what I'm talking about.

http://huntingwithnonlead.org/Images/pfund-fragments-loin-steaks.jpg

 

^_- we (Americans) have been using tobacco for four centuries, how come it is only in the 20th century that tobacco started causing health problems? The obvious answer is that that is just a false premise - tobacco has caused health problems, we just didn't know about it and didn't connect the illness to the cause.

I assume the answer is similar with lead. Obviously the problems from lead bullets are a farcry from the problems of tobacco use, but I'm sure that hunters have ingested lead bullet fragments before. But we didn't always have modern toxicology reports, so the cause of death would be attributed to "fever" or something of the sort.

 

That it can not be precisely quantified. So what? We have hundreds of cases in Bald Eagles alone, how is it that the extent of the harm needs to be precisely quantified to have any merit? If someone broke your leg, and you couldn't tell how much lifetime earnings were lost down to the exact cent, does that mean your claim has "no merit"? That'd be a silly world to live in.

 

Given that tin is 1/3 less dense, bullets will have to be 1/3 longer, meaning that they won't fit in the magazines, internal or external, of hunting rifles, or they'll have to have 1/3 the weight, meaning they'll be less accurate with reduced terminal ballistics.

 

Quantified, period.

You mentioned bald eagles before, you were unable to give a number of cases and of those cases, how many derived from the consumption of lead from bullets.
I don't see where any of this has changed.

You argue there is an issue. You cannot quantify that issue. Thus, you cannot actually show the issue you claim exists, and certainly not to what extent.
Thus, you cannot show how your augment has any merit.

 

Exactly. The difference in density, and everything that derives from it, is huge.
Some of it may be offset by increased velocity, but this diminishes as range increases and bullet size decreases.
Most affected are the bullets used for hunting, meaning the increased likelihood of a messy wound rather than a clean kill.

 

"The tin based substitute apparently works well enough for hunting and other general use purposes." -Shiva_TD

This is the claim you said bears "abject falseness". As evidence, you referenced post #54, the relevant portion of which states:

you haven't shown anything. All you've done is say that tin is less dense then lead, then gone on rants about how anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know what they're talking about. Basically, your claim has "no merit". Whereas here is a study that has proven the effectiveness of lead-free alternatives.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4100882/

And still, again - no one is making you hunt on USFWS lands. You don't have a fundamental right to hunt on USFWS lands with whatever ammunition you want. How do you accept seasonal hunting restrictions but think that they have no right whatsoever to say that unreasonably toxic ammunition can't be used on lands meant for conservation?

 

^_- except I already did.

Yeah, I can't precisely quantify it, but it is silly to expect such.

OK, so once again, if someone were to break your legs, you would not be able to precisely quantify how much of your potential earnings were lost so, by your own logic, you would have no claim to recovery against someone who broke your legs. Pretty silly.

 

Correct. Tin is 35% less dense than lead; a 200gr lead bullet equates to a 130gr bullet of the same size.
How this proves the point isn't obvious to you, someone supposedly familiar with firearms?

Here's some reading on sectional density:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/sd.htm
Here's some reading on ballistic coefficient:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient

Comparing two bullets of the same diameter and volume, the lighter bullet has a lower sectional density. As such, it will bleed velocity faster, resulting in a longer ToF and less energy at the target.
Further, the less-dense bullet is less resistant to the effect of wind, both in terms of the inertia inherent in its own mass and the longer ToF -- the longer a bullet is pushed by the wind, the more affected it is by that wind.

These factors create clear, distinct and quantifiable negative effects on the ability to hit a target, as well as the terminal effect of the bullet once in the target.

I assumed you understood this stuff, direct from Firearms 201. My apologies.

 

You have not provided any quantification whatsoever of the incidental effect of the lead in spent lead bullets on wildlife.
As such, yo cannot in any way demonstrate the existence of a problem with regard to the incidental effect of the lead in spent lead bullets on wildlife.

 

Well, lead is back in.

But when it was temporarily banned by the Obama team, it was supposedly over the health of fish and game, not humans.

http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2017/01/outgoing_obama_administration.html

 

I'm well aware. The legs example was to show the logical flaw in his argument.

 

Like many such studies, the desired conclusion determined the parameters for the study. The study you mention did not test a number of performance criteria, flight stability in various wind conditions at distance, terminal ballistics at distance, accuracy, fit for purpose (long distance, dangerous game, etc), and more. Bullets have been manufactured for hundreds of years. If any material performed better than lead with reasonable cost, non of them would be using lead in design. Gold/silver would probably perform well, but then... The best tests of performance comes from hunters or those using rounds in actual shootings, something the FBI has studied. I haven't seen the FBI, or military switching to nonLead yet. Then again I'd far more trust someone testind designs to find the best performing rounds for hunting or SD use than someone trying to support a lead free bullet ban. Those interested in cartridge/bullet design are looking to get every advantage possible.

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/methods.html

Saying lead free bullets work as well as those with lead by people with a political agenda does not come from those that hunt or need a gun for self defense. Go ahead and select a round based on such a study and carry it in Alaska as a hedge against dangerous predators; we will send the shovels to scoop up the scat with your remains.

 

Double post.... using an eye pad...it happens

 

BTW, I put myself through college hunting and trapping. I know what worked and what didn't. I was always looking for the 'MAGIC' bullet for each hunting purpose and for SD...haven't found it yet. Different cartridges and bullet designs have their uses and their trade offs. My choices in Gun, cartridge, loads, bullet design for hunting have a primary objective; a clean kill. For SD, it's stopping a threat with no collateral damage in as many potential situations as possible and going home.

Below is a series of tests by someone who obviously hunts.
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/methods.html

And a series by an ammo retailer...
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests

And yet, more
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

Cartridge and bullet design has been and is continually studied by those searching for what works best for their use. To take the study you posted as truth of anything would be rejected by the Army. LE, FBI and nearly every hunter out there.

 

I remember a friend telling how he tried hunting Red Deer in Germany using an
M-1 Carbine, during WW-ll, with GI issue ball ammo, it had very poor results according to Calvin, he hit the Deer, but they were wounded and would run off after being shot.

Soft point ammunition suitable for the M-1 Carbine for hunting use, were later developed.

 

Stop the ignorance. Tin is not often used in bullets, except as a hardening agent to add to cast lead, or in .22 LR. The non-lead substitutes are primarily copper for bullets, and steel, bismuth or tungsten for shot. Lead in metallic form isn't particularly toxic. The dangerous version of lead is organic lead compounds (i.e. like the . One of the wrinkles in all of this is that bullets not made of lead have been classified as armor-piercing bullets. Basically, a lot of this is just a backdoor version of gun control, using the environment as a tool.

I don't believe that nearly enough bullets are shot at game to make banning lead bullets worthwhile. Shot is a different matter. I support the banning of lead shot in waterfowl hunting, partly because of the behavior of waterfowl, who ingest the lead pellets (like they do pebbles) to use in their gizzards to break down food.

 

Copper jacketed lead bullets are considered lead bullets for the sake of the ban that the Obama administration put in the last day in office, and that was just rescinded by Trump.

 

I would suspect evidence provided by an anti-lead website. Find a reputable source.

 

Yet the bald eagle population is skyrocketing. They were taken off the Endangered Species list about 10 years ago, and their population is still increasing. I see several different eagle families every year.

 

Right, it was one example the show that it actually is a health hazard that affects wildlife. But so what? I think people need to keep this in perspective. There are about 2.3billion acres in the U.S., and the USFWS administers about 0.15billion acres, and the areas in concern are "national wildlife refuges". If such a rule remained in place you could still hunt on private land with whatever ammunition you want, and if such a rule were amended to reflect what little *I* am defending, you wouldn't need to switch to lead-free to hunt in national wildlife refuges. That's it.

 

The objective has been to encourage states to follow on with lead bullet bans as did California using an emotional appeal.
http://govtslaves.info/california-officially-bans-hunters-from-using-lead-bullets/
Obama couldn't get anti-gun legislation through Congress so he issued an executive decree to chip away at Gun ownership by any means. His administration tried a similar move with a ban of green-tip 5.56 ammo with 855 bullets by declaring the rounds incorrectly as armor piercing. It's part of an on-going covert campaign to vilify guns, gun owners, and the GOP by incremental means, in this case, going after bullets. It's not unlike those that want to excessively tax ammo.
It was to be the foot in the door...generating a consensus among voters based on false premises and vilification of gun owners would open the door for additional covert anti-gun laws. Anti-gun groups are contually searching for the 'Magic Bullet' issue (pun intended) that will cloak their objective in voter acceptable legislation that has the collateral of impeding use of firearms or places their use out of range of the pocket books of as many as possible..
I am waiting for the study suggesting only gold bullets would be environmentally acceptable with the added benefit that people would seek the gold, to 'clean' it from the environment.
There is absurdity out there.

BTW, trying to dry up the 5.56 ammo supply by declaring green tip ammo as amor piercing cracked me up. Not only was the narrative dishonest, but entirely without an understanding of why the ammo was developed for the military to begin with... it wasn't for armor piercing characteristics, but longer range performance. What those ignorant of 5.56 ammo don't realize is that green tip ammo m855 isn't as nearly terminally effective on personal as is the standard m193 ammo. At anything under 100yards, I'd prefer m193. And, too, m855 isn't as stable in the standard twist barrels.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/622401_M855_Green_Tip_vs__Standard_FMJ.html

Most rifle ammo will penetrate body armor. If the ban for m855 ammo had been allowed to stand (foot) in the door, then, based on the arguement of the desire to prevent penetration of body armor, an arguement would have been made to ban all rifle cartridges that penetrate body armor.

Again, there is that search for the 'Magic Bullet' issue (pun intended) that will cloak anti-gun objectives in voter acceptable legislation that has the collateral of impeding use of firearms or places their use out of range of the pocket books of as many as possible.

 

I used to hunt quite a bit. A piece of bullet fragment in the meat was not uncommon.

 

Anecdotes aren't data. I've eaten plenty of venison and have never encountered a bullet fragment, but then again, I've only eaten rifle-shot deer, not shotgun-shot deer, small game or waterfowl.