Not going to be a popular opinion in this crowd, but I support lead free bullets and shot. It's not as if the modern copper monos put us at a disadvantage. Lead is quite toxic, and even from an non-environmental standpoint isn't exactly a good thing to blast into your meat at 2,500fps. We encourage lead free bullets whenever possible.
I don't think lead is as toxic as people think I have been casting lead in one form or another for 8 years now no problems here. I have hunted with lead core/cast bullets for as long as I have been hunting and even before I hunted I ate wild game that was you guessed taken with lead core bullets.
And how old are you / how long has this been going on? I know of one gunsmith for sure who had organ failure, very likely from a lifetime of heavy metal exposure. The risk to us as humans is lower than the risk to smaller animals as well. Overall there is no question lead is harmful, we're simply balancing risk vs cost.
And how old are you / how long has this been going on? I know of one gunsmith for sure who had organ failure, very likely from a lifetime of heavy metal exposure. The risk to us as humans is lower than the risk to smaller animals as well. Overall there is no question lead is harmful, we're simply balancing risk vs cost.
Lead is highly toxic as all heavy metals are (e.g. mercury). DDT has been highly restricted for decades now, although that is in NA and other countries still allow it. It affected the bird's abilities to produce calcium so eggs were compromised. Also it affected the nervous system and was stored in the fat (dairy cattle!!!) so apex predators were very vulnerable to contamination. PCB's caused many of the problems blamed on DDT as their toxicology is similar (both are tri-chlorine compounds). Lead is not not a worry in most hunting situations given the shot area is cleaned. WW11 vets packed lead around for years but injesting it is another story.
Regarding lead for waterfowl, I believe it was banned because of the effect that lead has on water systems and not because of the fear of ingesting lead. Hence why you are allowed to shoot lead at upland game and not at at waterfowl. I personally support the banning of lead for waterfowling. Not because I want to bone my fellow hunters but because lead is very toxic and if we truly believe in conservation for future generations we must not contaminate water supplies with lead. Consider that if a group of hunters each goes to the same lake/pond and fires 1-2 shots/bird of 1oz lead shot with no one to clean it up afterwards, in a century that lake/pond will have some really elevated lead levels which have a knock on effect for the pond's eco-system. As for banning lead in bullets for big game, I am not sure that this is a truly worthwhile endeavor. The areas where lead build up will be an issue (i.e. shooting/skeet ranges) have to be remediated before they can be re-purposed and I doubt that any hunter is going to shoot enough lead in one area that it can cause problems in a favored hunting area.
yeah well I not into paying through the roof for some ammo to hunt coyotes and .22lr can only use a soft lead bullet
Antiqueguy: When you use fishing weights, you're not supposed to lose the weight - granted some will be lost not the same as shooting an ounce of lead every time into the water...

Regarding lead for waterfowl, I believe it was banned because of the effect that lead has on water systems and not because of the fear of ingesting lead. Hence why you are allowed to shoot lead at upland game and not at at waterfowl. I personally support the banning of lead for waterfowling. Not because I want to bone my fellow hunters but because lead is very toxic and if we truly believe in conservation for future generations we must not contaminate water supplies with lead. Consider that if a group of hunters each goes to the same lake/pond and fires 1-2 shots/bird of 1oz lead shot with no one to clean it up afterwards, in a century that lake/pond will have some really elevated lead levels which have a knock on effect for the pond's eco-system. As for banning lead in bullets for big game, I am not sure that this is a truly worthwhile endeavor. The areas where lead build up will be an issue (i.e. shooting/skeet ranges) have to be remediated before they can be re-purposed and I doubt that any hunter is going to shoot enough lead in one area that it can cause problems in a favored hunting area.
And how old are you / how long has this been going on? I know of one gunsmith for sure who had organ failure, very likely from a lifetime of heavy metal exposure. The risk to us as humans is lower than the risk to smaller animals as well. Overall there is no question lead is harmful, we're simply balancing risk vs cost.
It seems like people are either really ignorant or are choosing to be ignorant about lead. Yes, Galamb lead is a naturally occurring metal in nature but if I were to take high concentrations of it an introduce it into your body you will die. Google Franklin Expedition if you are interested in seeing what lead can do to you. The issue with lead and waterfowling is that you are taking something that does not exist naturally in one eco-system and introducing it in large quantities which will have a long term effect on THAT eco-system.
To hear some of the hunters on hear spouting that they don't want to pay a little bit of extra money to be a better steward is just plain selfish. How many shells do you think you will shoot at waterfowl? So to save a few bucks, you would rather destroy a future hunting spot? As we become more urbanized, there is less and less land available to hunt - we should be looking to preserve it for future use.
It seems like people are either really ignorant or are choosing to be ignorant about lead. Yes, Galamb lead is a naturally occurring metal in nature but if I were to take high concentrations of it an introduce it into your body you will die. Google Franklin Expedition if you are interested in seeing what lead can do to you. The issue with lead and waterfowling is that you are taking something that does not exist naturally in one eco-system and introducing it in large quantities which will have a long term effect on THAT eco-system.
To hear some of the hunters on hear spouting that they don't want to pay a little bit of extra money to be a better steward is just plain selfish. How many shells do you think you will shoot at waterfowl? So to save a few bucks, you would rather destroy a future hunting spot? As we become more urbanized, there is less and less land available to hunt - we should be looking to preserve it for future use.
I wonder who is ignorant. Maybe a good start would be to eliminate it from the countries that still use it in their daily gasoline like
Asia, including SE and NE Asia:
Afghanistan
Burma (official name ‘Myanmar’)
North Korea (official name ‘Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea’)
North Africa:
Algeria
Middle East:
Iraq
Yemen
Or in the US and canada which still use tons and tons of it every year in the aviation fuel or maybe we should remove every galvanized structure, guard rail etc etc that was subected to a hot dipped galvanized process and breaking down. I could go on and on for pages
Who in the big picture is ignorant. Lead bullets are like pissing in the ocean with respect to the long term effect on the enviroment
Cheers




























