Just when you thought the new gun bill was our greatest threat.......

Status
Not open for further replies.
Craig0ry said:
And Lastly and most importantly if you have a proper shot placement you should rarely ever be ingesting any lead from your harvested game, I don't know anyone who uses the bullet shocked meat around the entrance or exit wound of the animal, and typically where you kill zone is your not usually using that section as is.
Click to expand...

I thought the same, then did some research. Apparently a significant fraction of big-game meat shows some degree of lead contamination.
 
TT1900 said:
I'm not advocating lead contamination is the sole or even largest environmental source. It is however one we can easily control, so why should we not?
Click to expand...

Because banning lead ammo would kill target shooting sports, which by numbers is at least as large as the hunting community, and definitely spends more on ammo.

Spending 4 dollars more to shoot a deer is trivial. Spending $3000 for a case of ammo is not.
 
drift1122 said:
I don't think its a terrible idea to use non lead projectiles.
Click to expand...

Much like a van isn't a terrible choice for mobility, I would still rather drive a truck, even if the mileage is slightly worse, and forcing me to drive a van is still using force to elicit the desired action.

For hunting, I would for sure not mind paying the extra $$$ for a few lead free rounds.

For the range?

These people are complaining that a massive infill of land that is constantly having the lead recovered for re use is damaging to this extent are spreading misinformation on purpose to generate outrage to get ranges closed, and ammo made prohibitively expensive.

No one "needs" more then 50 rounds anyways... why do you even have a semi auto... /s
 
Last edited:
I'm not advocating to ban lead but I feel alternatives can be manufactured at a reasonable price for future shooters if we start research now and try something different.


easysauce said:
Much like a van isn't a terrible choice for mobility, I would still rather drive a truck, even if the mileage is slightly worse, and forcing me to drive a van is still using force to elicit the desired action.

For hunting, I would for sure not mind paying the extra $$$ for a few lead free rounds.

For the range?

These people are complaining that a massive infill of land that is constantly having the lead recovered for re use is damaging to this extent are spreading misinformation on purpose to generate outrage to get ranges closed, and ammo made prohibitively expensive.

No one "needs" more then 50 rounds anyways... why do you even have a semi auto... /s
Click to expand...
 
IBM said:
Because banning lead ammo would kill target shooting sports, which by numbers is at least as large as the hunting community, and definitely spends more on ammo.

Spending 4 dollars more to shoot a deer is trivial. Spending $3000 for a case of ammo is not.
Click to expand...

Banning lead ammo wasn’t my proposal, nor do I think it is required. Restricting lead ammo use to designated ranges where it can be cleaned up was; not an issue for target shooters as they are already on approved ranges. Talk to management at any indoor range, clays range, or serious rifle range; they all have remediation plans. The pistol ranges and clays courses I frequent take the issue quite seriously. The problem is shooting lead at locations where it will never be cleaned up; hunting, varminting, gravel pit plinking, etc. If we fix it ourselves others won’t need to get involved.
 
so this is leading up to the announcement that Trudeau is going to give us shooters a subsidy when we buy non-lead ammo, right?
 
How many tonnes of oil and gas is spilled per year because of inadaquate transport/transfer via train transfers, boat/ship transfers, pipeline transfers? All for government benefit. Not to mention all the morons doing oil changes over storm drains, using floor dry on oil in industry anr putting it in the land fill and....government...Well, it all comes from the ground so F$%! It. Just put it back into the ground and stop #####ing. Except the government. That is an actual man made product. What are we doing to control that?
 
TT1900 said:
Still cheaper than paying for a handicapped child, so still a good idea while hunting, indoors, or shooting on uncontrolled land.

Anyone who doubts the harmful effects of lead exposure, particularly in children, needs to do some reading and improve their education. While I don’t think a full ban on lead ammo is called for I don’t see the harm in trying to reduce its use. If the industry and community can do so voluntarily it will look better on us.

On approved ranges with proper controls and remediation plans, and with adequate filtration and ventilation if indoors, lead poses minimal risk. Harvesting game and firing into uncontrolled land with lead is irresponsible when in many cases alternatives are available. So the cost to get a deer just went from $1.50 to $4.50; by no means a deal breaker and as demand and supply increase for non-toxic the price will drop.

Casting also poses minimal risk when proper precautions are taken but I’ve seen several set-ups without. You don’t need a P3 Lab, but doing so in a non-vented basement or garage is not the smartest choice.

At the end of the day it comes down to responsible use. I fully intend to teach my children how to shoot and hunt when they’re old enough. I also intend to teach them environmental responsibility and the risks involved with the materials we use. I think the change away from lead for hunting is long overdue; after all, shotgun hunting without lead seems to be working just fine and there was a crowd that resisted that as well.
Click to expand...

I was, for a good portion of my life a plumber, and I'm old and I'm fine, I call bull####. Go shoot at a big oak tree in the forest with steel shot and see what happens, I hope yore wearing eye protection, upland game and waterfowl hunting are two different things. You obviously know little or nothing about hunting if you believe all shotgun hunting is done with non toxic shot.
 
Potato boy said:
I was, for a good portion of my life a plumber, and I'm old and I'm fine, I call bull####. Go shoot at a big oak tree in the forest with steel shot and see what happens, I hope yore wearing eye protection, upland game and waterfowl hunting are two different things. You obviously know little or nothing about hunting if you believe all shotgun hunting is done with non toxic shot.
Click to expand...

Glad to see a plumber giving himself a clean bill of health. Only thing that could make me happier is watching my local McD’s server designing local bridges, though since he’s an immigrant he may actually be qualified to do so.....

Bismuth and Tungsten are also non-toxic. Several people I shoot with use one or the other on pheasants and grouse. In Southern Saskatchewan trees don’t really factor so much, though we certainly do wear eye protection. Some of us are so progressive we even use ear protection! I know.....crazy.

I don’t believe all shotgun hunting is done with non-toxic shot, but I believe it easily could be.
 
Ingots said:
There are a lot of government lovers here.
Click to expand...

I just can’t help myself. I suppose all the time I spent in the evil liberal education system corrupted my otherwise pure mind and soul. I just can’t think for myself anymore.

In Ontario, before every graduate level class, they put up Justin Trudeau’s image and ask students to swear an oath of allegiance to the Liberal Party. I hear it was so successful in conditioning students that the program is now being expanded into Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.
 
Lead comes from the environment, and lead returns to the environment. I'm all for using a less toxic material, but the game they play will be added costs.
 
So many worthwhile comments, I can't quote all of you. My two cents:

5200 tonnes x 2209 lbs/tonne x 7000 gn/lb = 80,407,600 grains
80,407,600 gn / 2.1M licensees = average expenditure of 38,290 gn/licensee

.22LR 40gn = 957 rounds
.223 55gn = 696 rds
.30 150gn = 255 rds
9mm 124gn = 309 rds
.45 230gn = 166 rds


I know if you shoot any pistol discipline regularly it's no problem to expend 300 rounds in a weekend match. I managed that just taking my club level holster course.

Before doing the math, I would have said that I was less active than the average licensee, but maybe that's not the case. Certainly I'm less active than a lot of you here. I don't get the guns out nearly as much as I'd like to, but still managed to expend 500 rds each of .22LR and .45acp last year, without even trying.

Most new shooters are going to try .22LR first. If all my guns were .22s then I'd go through 1000 rds with no problem at all. Given this, I conclude that this campaign subtly targets new shooters- the very people that we are depending on to grow our ranks. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but regrettably the numbers appear to back me up.
 
Thank you for sharing the comments and info, Guys. I used some of it in my article on this subject.
 
TT1900 said:
Banning lead ammo wasn’t my proposal, nor do I think it is required. Restricting lead ammo use to designated ranges where it can be cleaned up was; not an issue for target shooters as they are already on approved ranges. Talk to management at any indoor range, clays range, or serious rifle range; they all have remediation plans. The pistol ranges and clays courses I frequent take the issue quite seriously. The problem is shooting lead at locations where it will never be cleaned up; hunting, varminting, gravel pit plinking, etc. If we fix it ourselves others won’t need to get involved.
Click to expand...

to all your posts Laugh2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom