going lead free

i work with lead everyday... im not gonna lie and say im not worried about my future health.... but the last thing on my list would be a bullet fragment or vapor trail lol..
if you get to the point of lead poisoning from shooting a single bullet in too many big game animals, i would say your life is pretty complete anyways..
sugar is probably worse for you
 
Sorry, New Camper that is complete BS. I have studied avian nutrition and toxicology and veterinary physiology, and let me assure you the science behind the ban on lead shot for waterfowl hunting is very well established and proven in many, many carefully controlled and documented case studies. To say otherwise is simply untrue. The concern of lead poisoning in humans as a result of people ingesting lead fragments along with game meat is less certain, and I am one who feels the risk to human health is minimal because of the few fragments actually ingested, and because of the nature of the human digestive system as compared to a birds gizzard. But the risk is certainly not zero.

When writing that, the differences between a birds and our own digestive system did occupy my mind: specifically the gizzard did leave me with the question hence saying "still unproven" rather than "total rubbish". The percentage of affected in fowl population is still unknown and of those which have actually ingested lead and are studied, certainly would provide evidence... either way I'm interested to hear what more you have to say. I always remain leary as it has been fashionable to trash hunters and gun owners for decades.
 
The difference between bird and human is that the gizzard is designed to use pebbles ( or just as easily use lead pellets/fragments ) instead of teeth to grind their food. And they have highly acidic conditions in which the grinding takes place. The 'grit" stays in the gizzard for many days. From an article published in the Alaska Dept of Wildlife: "The grinding action of the gizzard which breaks down food items is aided by the abrasive action of grit. Grit can be retained in the gizzard for several weeks and not passed to the intestine with the partially digested food. Lead resembles grit and may also be retained in the gizzard for two to three weeks." A lead pellet would stay in humans stomach for a few hours, and in the entire gut for no more than a day or two. Birds aren't so lucky. Their absorption of lead ingested is many many times higher than mammals ingesting the same relative amount because of how their digestive system works. And another unfortunate fact is that all toxins are dependent on dose / body size. Birds are small and light. They are at a disadvantage compared to most mammals in that way too. The ducks and geese species most affected are those who regularly eat items off the bottom of ponds. It is certainly true that the numbers of birds killed form lead poising is an estimate, but it is not a guess. It is quite easy to prove in a lab that one big lead pellet (BB) will kill a duck, or a two or three small ones (#6 ) If you find a duck with lead pellets in its gizzard, it was almost surely a doomed bird.
A quick search on google showed the following articles, and there are many many more:
From the Houston Chronicle: Prior to and immediately after the ban on the use of lead shot, studies that examined the gizzards of ducks wintering in Texas showed about 15 percent of all ducks had ingested at least one lead pellet, with some species having ingestion rates as high as 20 percent or more. Annually through most of the 20th century, an estimated 2 to 3 percent of North American's duck population - as many as 1 million to 3 million ducks a year - died from the effects of ingesting spent lead shot.
Recent studies conducted on the Texas coastal prairies and marshes indicate that while ducks continue ingesting spent shot pellets at generally the same rate they did before the lead ban, most of those pellets are steel (soft iron) and other non-toxic metals now used in waterfowl shotshells. Some recent studies of wintering ducks in Texas have found as few as 1 percent or fewer, depending on the species, had lead shot in their gizzards. ( my note: this lead is mostly left over from pre- ban years, it doesn't just " go away" but stays on the bottom of marshes until sediments build up enough to hide it from the birds)
and here's some data from a scientific journal in Britain: In the UK, long term wildfowl disease surveillance between 2000 and 2010 found lead poisoning to be responsible for 8% of all deaths41. A total of 73,750 wildfowl are estimated to die annually in the UK because they are poisoned by ingested lead shot. This represents about 3.1% of the wintering wildfowl population in the UK dying annually because of lead poisoning from ingested shot42. Waterfowl species vary considerably in their exposure to ingested shot because of differences in diet, foraging behaviour and habitat. The equivalent calculations to those used to calculate UK additional mortality for all wildfowl give considerably higher annual mortality rates caused by lead shot ingestion for the two wintering duck species with the highest prevalence of ingested shot. For common pochard (Aythya ferina) the estimated annual mortality rate from ingested lead is 7.6% and for northern pintail (Anas acuta) the annual rate is 11.7%43. Populations of both of these species have declined markedly in the UK in recent decades, and to a greater extent than other duck species with lower exposure to ingested lead44.
 
All the worry about trace lead particles will take more time off your life than any amount of lead exposure. But thanks for boosting yet another narrative for the nanny state.

This guy gets it. All the lead bullet paranoid folks please feel free to post a list of your fallen comrades. You know, those that you've lost due to eating big game shot with lead bullets. Please.....
 
The difference between bird and human is that the gizzard is designed to use pebbles ( or just as easily use lead pellets/fragments ) instead of teeth to grind their food. And they have highly acidic conditions in which the grinding takes place. The 'grit" stays in the gizzard for many days. From an article published in the Alaska Dept of Wildlife: "The grinding action of the gizzard which breaks down food items is aided by the abrasive action of grit. Grit can be retained in the gizzard for several weeks and not passed to the intestine with the partially digested food. Lead resembles grit and may also be retained in the gizzard for two to three weeks." A lead pellet would stay in humans stomach for a few hours, and in the entire gut for no more than a day or two. Birds aren't so lucky. Their absorption of lead ingested is many many times higher than mammals ingesting the same relative amount because of how their digestive system works. And another unfortunate fact is that all toxins are dependent on dose / body size. Birds are small and light. They are at a disadvantage compared to most mammals in that way too. The ducks and geese species most affected are those who regularly eat items off the bottom of ponds. It is certainly true that the numbers of birds killed form lead poising is an estimate, but it is not a guess. It is quite easy to prove in a lab that one big lead pellet (BB) will kill a duck, or a two or three small ones (#6 ) If you find a duck with lead pellets in its gizzard, it was almost surely a doomed bird.
A quick search on google showed the following articles, and there are many many more:
From the Houston Chronicle: Prior to and immediately after the ban on the use of lead shot, studies that examined the gizzards of ducks wintering in Texas showed about 15 percent of all ducks had ingested at least one lead pellet, with some species having ingestion rates as high as 20 percent or more. Annually through most of the 20th century, an estimated 2 to 3 percent of North American's duck population - as many as 1 million to 3 million ducks a year - died from the effects of ingesting spent lead shot.
Recent studies conducted on the Texas coastal prairies and marshes indicate that while ducks continue ingesting spent shot pellets at generally the same rate they did before the lead ban, most of those pellets are steel (soft iron) and other non-toxic metals now used in waterfowl shotshells. Some recent studies of wintering ducks in Texas have found as few as 1 percent or fewer, depending on the species, had lead shot in their gizzards. ( my note: this lead is mostly left over from pre- ban years, it doesn't just " go away" but stays on the bottom of marshes until sediments build up enough to hide it from the birds)
and here's some data from a scientific journal in Britain: In the UK, long term wildfowl disease surveillance between 2000 and 2010 found lead poisoning to be responsible for 8% of all deaths41. A total of 73,750 wildfowl are estimated to die annually in the UK because they are poisoned by ingested lead shot. This represents about 3.1% of the wintering wildfowl population in the UK dying annually because of lead poisoning from ingested shot42. Waterfowl species vary considerably in their exposure to ingested shot because of differences in diet, foraging behaviour and habitat. The equivalent calculations to those used to calculate UK additional mortality for all wildfowl give considerably higher annual mortality rates caused by lead shot ingestion for the two wintering duck species with the highest prevalence of ingested shot. For common pochard (Aythya ferina) the estimated annual mortality rate from ingested lead is 7.6% and for northern pintail (Anas acuta) the annual rate is 11.7%43. Populations of both of these species have declined markedly in the UK in recent decades, and to a greater extent than other duck species with lower exposure to ingested lead44.

Good, educated post Longwalker, and thank you for it.
 
All the worry about trace lead particles will take more time off your life than any amount of lead exposure.

Any amount? You sure? That seems like bad science, bad math, or perhaps both.

If you don't use lead, there's no worry. So by your logic, no worrying + no lead = longest life possible. Looks like no lead still makes more sense.

I went lead free a few years ago for hunting. Even if the science was dubious (it's not), why take the risk when it's absolutely not required with excellent alternatives available?

I love you "nanny-state" guys; always chucking #### at the government but go running to them like everyone else when the world gets rough.
 
I've never worried about lead in the critters on the table except for a pellet I missed when cleaning a goose, damn they can be hard on teeth. A steel pellet will be just as hurtful on the old teeth. Never had a problem with lead pellets as a kid either. Don't shoot at indoor ranges so that is a non issue for myself, the only time I had concerns about lead was casting bullets and I sold all my equipment to a brother in law. I get the reason for lead shot ban for waterfowl although in my area very few birds are shot over water, don't see the need for lead bullet ban. Gun clubs have gone the other way and banned steel bullets and now tv personalities don't like rubber bullets. Oh well my younger friends call me a grumpy old man so what do I know.
 
This discussion has made me curious and challenged my own assumptions. So I was doing some research on the current state of the science around lead bullets and game meat for human consumption. This article has made me re-think my long held opinion that my health is at almost zero risk from the tiny bit of lead that I consume with game meat. It's not a quick or easy read, but is very well done and informative. It lists references and methodology for every statistic cited, and I found it well worth the time to read. You will need some formal training in science to get the full benefit of the information contained in this review, but any curious member of the public should be able to learn a lot and understand the issues better. It has made me realize that the risk of lead in game meat is real, the risk is mostly measurable, and that the likely effects on health are more than zero but not a crisis. Each person is free to choose how they react to this information, but I am personally moving towards more caution.
link: https://rdcu.be/b4JkN
Green, R.E., Pain, D.J. Risks to human health from ammunition-derived lead in Europe. Ambio 48, 954–968 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01194-x Published in 2019.
 
I switched to all copper bullets for my muzzleloader. Shooting Barnes 290gr TEZ, 77gr (weighed) BH209 and CCI209M primer. Harvested my first White Tailed deer this fall and couldn’t believe the performance. I won’t lie the deer was shot at 53 yards broadside and went down a few short yards away. I was drawn for a Moose as well so my charges are loaded on the heavier side. My buddy used my muzzleloader with the same bullet and his was DRT. I switched to them because I got a good deal on 350 bullets at the time.
 
Those of us who have had to live with sucking in exhaust fumes from leaded gas will find lead from hunting bullets insignificant. There are a lot of other, more prevalent, toxins to worry about. Only caveat would be if you have small children in your household.
 
Just like asbestos and smoking we’ll always have push back from folks unconcerned and with stories about Uncle Joe Blow who smoked til he was 97 and didn’t retire from the asbestos mine til 90 years of age. Whenever I meet those folks I look at their physical state and assess if I want to look like them at their age, the answer is more often than not, no. Seldom do life and health choices leaning towards the side of caution turn out poorly, whether that’s avoiding excess sugar, physical inactivity, excess alcohol, or lead. Something like lead in game meat is one of the easiest to avoid, as GMXs and CEBs sure shoot better than artificial sweeteners taste. ;)

For some reason, these opinions make some folks feel threatened and personally attacked.
 
with the covid thing going on ive been talking a lot with my european friends about driven hunts and bullets . when discussing bullets there are regulations going in place for lead free ammo due to lead poisoning. they explained to me that not only there is poison from lead bits in the meat but also when the bullets go in there is a lead vapour trail that get into the animal..Our familly eats a lot of game and i have young daughters so am thinking of the switch to lead free.there a lot of great bullets available and looks like the price has been going down.any truth to this, i remember big slow bullets you could eat right to the hole.. ive seen some bulletvideos that show how much lead gets dumped into an animal through xrays into balistic gell and its crazy on utube lead bullet fragmintation data .im definatly going to make the switch..

There is nothing wrong being proactive or preventative. If your fearful that lead may be unhealthy to you and your family, then proceed to use non-leaded bullets. On a personal note, both my parents are 84 years old, I'm 63, we consumed lead shot duck and upland birds all of our lives, along with copper jacket bullets for big game. I can't recall of any person suffering from lead poisoning regarding lead-shot or bullets, however the main reason lead-shot was banned from waterfowl hunting, is because raptor birds were dying from consuming lead-shot waterfowl.
 
The difference between bird and human is that the gizzard is designed to use pebbles ( or just as easily use lead pellets/fragments ) instead of teeth to grind their food. And they have highly acidic conditions in which the grinding takes place. The 'grit" stays in the gizzard for many days. From an article published in the Alaska Dept of Wildlife: "The grinding action of the gizzard which breaks down food items is aided by the abrasive action of grit. Grit can be retained in the gizzard for several weeks and not passed to the intestine with the partially digested food. Lead resembles grit and may also be retained in the gizzard for two to three weeks." A lead pellet would stay in humans stomach for a few hours, and in the entire gut for no more than a day or two. Birds aren't so lucky. Their absorption of lead ingested is many many times higher than mammals ingesting the same relative amount because of how their digestive system works. And another unfortunate fact is that all toxins are dependent on dose / body size. Birds are small and light. They are at a disadvantage compared to most mammals in that way too. The ducks and geese species most affected are those who regularly eat items off the bottom of ponds. It is certainly true that the numbers of birds killed form lead poising is an estimate, but it is not a guess. It is quite easy to prove in a lab that one big lead pellet (BB) will kill a duck, or a two or three small ones (#6 ) If you find a duck with lead pellets in its gizzard, it was almost surely a doomed bird.
A quick search on google showed the following articles, and there are many many more:
From the Houston Chronicle: Prior to and immediately after the ban on the use of lead shot, studies that examined the gizzards of ducks wintering in Texas showed about 15 percent of all ducks had ingested at least one lead pellet, with some species having ingestion rates as high as 20 percent or more. Annually through most of the 20th century, an estimated 2 to 3 percent of North American's duck population - as many as 1 million to 3 million ducks a year - died from the effects of ingesting spent lead shot.
Recent studies conducted on the Texas coastal prairies and marshes indicate that while ducks continue ingesting spent shot pellets at generally the same rate they did before the lead ban, most of those pellets are steel (soft iron) and other non-toxic metals now used in waterfowl shotshells. Some recent studies of wintering ducks in Texas have found as few as 1 percent or fewer, depending on the species, had lead shot in their gizzards. ( my note: this lead is mostly left over from pre- ban years, it doesn't just " go away" but stays on the bottom of marshes until sediments build up enough to hide it from the birds)
and here's some data from a scientific journal in Britain: In the UK, long term wildfowl disease surveillance between 2000 and 2010 found lead poisoning to be responsible for 8% of all deaths41. A total of 73,750 wildfowl are estimated to die annually in the UK because they are poisoned by ingested lead shot. This represents about 3.1% of the wintering wildfowl population in the UK dying annually because of lead poisoning from ingested shot42. Waterfowl species vary considerably in their exposure to ingested shot because of differences in diet, foraging behaviour and habitat. The equivalent calculations to those used to calculate UK additional mortality for all wildfowl give considerably higher annual mortality rates caused by lead shot ingestion for the two wintering duck species with the highest prevalence of ingested shot. For common pochard (Aythya ferina) the estimated annual mortality rate from ingested lead is 7.6% and for northern pintail (Anas acuta) the annual rate is 11.7%43. Populations of both of these species have declined markedly in the UK in recent decades, and to a greater extent than other duck species with lower exposure to ingested lead44.

This discussion has made me curious and challenged my own assumptions. So I was doing some research on the current state of the science around lead bullets and game meat for human consumption. This article has made me re-think my long held opinion that my health is at almost zero risk from the tiny bit of lead that I consume with game meat. It's not a quick or easy read, but is very well done and informative. It lists references and methodology for every statistic cited, and I found it well worth the time to read. You will need some formal training in science to get the full benefit of the information contained in this review, but any curious member of the public should be able to learn a lot and understand the issues better. It has made me realize that the risk of lead in game meat is real, the risk is mostly measurable, and that the likely effects on health are more than zero but not a crisis. Each person is free to choose how they react to this information, but I am personally moving towards more caution.
link: https://rdcu.be/b4JkN
Green, R.E., Pain, D.J. Risks to human health from ammunition-derived lead in Europe. Ambio 48, 954–968 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01194-x Published in 2019.

Thank you for your contribution! Its always nice to hear from someone who relies on science rather than conjecture and anecdotes.

Just like asbestos and smoking we’ll always have push back from folks unconcerned and with stories about Uncle Joe Blow who smoked til he was 97 and didn’t retire from the asbestos mine til 90 years of age. Whenever I meet those folks I look at their physical state and assess if I want to look like them at their age, the answer is more often than not, no. Seldom do life and health choices leaning towards the side of caution turn out poorly, whether that’s avoiding excess sugar, physical inactivity, excess alcohol, or lead. Something like lead in game meat is one of the easiest to avoid, as GMXs and CEBs sure shoot better than artificial sweeteners taste. ;)

For some reason, these opinions make some folks feel threatened and personally attacked.

Thats the CGN way. If it goes against your personal beliefs, its wrong, regardless of how much evidence there is to refute your view.
 
For some reason, these opinions make some folks feel threatened and personally attacked.

Because at some point the government is going to step in and mandate non-toxic. All this cheerleading for lead free makes those with a reasonable scepticism of the lead/no-lead debate feel like they're being painted into a corner. Much like how AR owners feel like they've been thrown under the bus by the "fudds".

Dogleg has more experience than probably every member in this thread combined. He feels the mono's are less terminally effective than lead, and I tend to trust his opinion. Mono's are also much more expensive, which becomes a bar to practice and a financial deterrent to those just getting into the sport. Mono's also work best at speed, which means a lot of older cartridges, and the beautiful classic rifles chambered in them, are going to become less effective, or put aside altogether.

Weighing the pros and cons, I will take the superior terminal effectiveness of lead and run the very slight risk, in my opinion, of lead poisoning.
 
Appreciate the opinion and reasoned discussion. I know Dogleg and have hunted with him here, and your damn right nobody here has seen more big game shot. As mentioned above I am however personally concerned with lead and went through the unpleasant effects lead poisoning when young, from carrying pellets in my mouth daily without knowing better shooting pigeons in volume on the commercial farm. With that experience in mind, I still shoot plenty of lead core for load development, .22, target practice, and grizzly defence. For anything my kids or I will eat, it’s lead free, and I haven’t lost an animal to a lead free bullet. In fact I’ve noticed very little to no difference, right down to reduced loads and slower impacts in many, many head of game. I even load them in a special driving band / low swaging option for the only load I use from my H&H Royal .375 or my .275, so I really don’t feel our classics are at risk of extinction.

I think fear of talking about the risks of lead for worry of legislation is akin to not tying in the grounds in electrical outlets, because it acknowledges there is some risk inherent with electricity. There is a glut of substances in the home and hardware store we probably should not mix with food, and discussing them and letting others decide is prudent, not stupid.
 
If you're so dead against lead bullets, why did you buy my 4 cavity Saeco .378 bullet mould ?


I think fear of talking about the risks of lead for worry of legislation is akin to not tying in the grounds in electrical outlets, because it acknowledges there is some risk inherent with electricity. There is a glut of substances in the home and hardware store we probably should not mix with food, and discussing them and letting others decide is prudent, not stupid.[/QUOTE]
 
Because at some point the government is going to step in and mandate non-toxic. All this cheerleading for lead free makes those with a reasonable scepticism of the lead/no-lead debate feel like they're being painted into a corner. Much like how AR owners feel like they've been thrown under the bus by the "fudds".

Dogleg has more experience than probably every member in this thread combined. He feels the mono's are less terminally effective than lead, and I tend to trust his opinion. Mono's are also much more expensive, which becomes a bar to practice and a financial deterrent to those just getting into the sport. Mono's also work best at speed, which means a lot of older cartridges, and the beautiful classic rifles chambered in them, are going to become less effective, or put aside altogether.

Weighing the pros and cons, I will take the superior terminal effectiveness of lead and run the very slight risk, in my opinion, of lead poisoning.

While that is a reasonable risk to perceive, I feel like the current government has already shown us that if they want to ban lead bullets they will do so regardless of our opinions on the matter. They just need to figure out how it will win them votes.

California has already banned lead ammo for hunting. I don't see it on the horizon anywhere else, but in California they were having issues with endangered condors eatting gut piles and dying (or so its claimed, which I personally have no reason to refute such claims). I know some sources claim lead was the number one killer of the birds.
 
Last edited:
My experience with lead.

I'm not a hunter but shoot a lot, probably 500 rounds/week as a safe estimate. I watched a popular youtuber discuss his caution for lead, especially with a pregnant wife and soon to be born developing human in their house whom could be exposed via cross contamination. My fiance and I aren't there yet but we want kids and of course I want the best for them. I get my bloodwork done bi-annually to look for things that my family all seem to have problems with and I brought up lead with my doctor. We tested for it and it came back low and healthy. I explained my pewpew concerns (he's a cool doc, thinks my hobby is neat) an he suggested from his experience that everyone handles heavy metals differently. Some people can show signs of poisoning from small amounts and it takes them months to get those levels down post exposure. Others can have high tolerances and fast clearing rates. Bottom line for me is I can handle it well but I don't know about the people around me so to minimize their exposure the I wash my hands with de-leading soap once done at the range, all my range gear and clothing stay separate in my gun room. No hugs and kisses until I get my gear off and change. Most of my shooting is 9mm and when I start to replenish my stock I'll be switching to lead free ammo (federal syntech).

Just my $0.02
 
If you're so dead against lead bullets, why did you buy my 4 cavity Saeco .378 bullet mould ?

For the reason you cut out of the quote, which is below. ;) You raise a fair point though, in that I haven’t cast a bullet in nearly a decade which is right when I started having kids, and am personally done with casting. Again, unfortunately people seem to see this as all or nothing, no middle ground, and some form or attack when one says they prefer hunting lead free. I support it obviously, and wish you the best.

With that experience in mind, I still shoot plenty of lead core for load development, .22, target practice, and grizzly defence. For anything my kids or I will eat, it’s lead free, and I haven’t lost an animal to a lead free bullet.
 
Because at some point the government is going to step in and mandate non-toxic. All this cheerleading for lead free makes those with a reasonable scepticism of the lead/no-lead debate feel like they're being painted into a corner. Much like how AR owners feel like they've been thrown under the bus by the "fudds".

Dogleg has more experience than probably every member in this thread combined. He feels the mono's are less terminally effective than lead, and I tend to trust his opinion. Mono's are also much more expensive, which becomes a bar to practice and a financial deterrent to those just getting into the sport. Mono's also work best at speed, which means a lot of older cartridges, and the beautiful classic rifles chambered in them, are going to become less effective, or put aside altogether.

Weighing the pros and cons, I will take the superior terminal effectiveness of lead and run the very slight risk, in my opinion, of lead poisoning.

Yes, the government may in future move to ban lead ammunition but it certainly won’t be because some are already using lead free. It will be either based on the science involved, or with the current crew, to try and win votes. The science is sound and there are large differences in effect between external contact and ingestion of lead.

Quantify “less terminally effective”. Unlike studies on lead exposure, ballistic studies largely turn up inconsistent or inconclusive results. Has Dogleg shot more game than I have, certainly, but that’s largely irrelevant. Dead is dead. I would suggest that if someone isn’t comfortable using a copper solid for a given task, they shouldn’t be comfortable using a lead equivalent either. When I bought E-tips this year they were less expensive than both Accubonds and Partitions.

You certainly have a point about older rifles and, to be honest, that is an angle I hadn’t considered.
 
Back
Top Bottom