What does this mean for the civilian ammunition market
- Thread starter ronm4c
- Start date
Increase cost for ammo as the next step will be for them to ban the importation of lead ammo.
Next it will be changes to laws for producing gunpowder and tightening of the noose for target shooting.
These types of law do not really affect hunters who are shooting 100 or less rounds a year, it targeted toward reducing target shooters.
Next it will be changes to laws for producing gunpowder and tightening of the noose for target shooting.
These types of law do not really affect hunters who are shooting 100 or less rounds a year, it targeted toward reducing target shooters.
Doesn't really matter if it's for a good cause or not we all know where this is going
After trying to take away guns from the americans he found a better way... keep your guns but you will have to shoot gold with them soon so same result
Last edited:
I usually do the same, but for MSNCB, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBC, CTV, Global...
As for the closure of the lead plant - it means nothing for us. Bullets and ammo manufacturer don't use new production lead for ammo, they use recycled lead from pretty much every industry that produces it as recycled goods. Why in %^#$@ would they pay top premium price for new lead when recycled lead will do exactly the same at a fraction of the cost.
Without a constant supply of new lead into the marketplace, reclaimed lead becomes scarcer and more expensive in a short period of time.
Especially seeing that most sources of recycled lead are now becoming banned or replaced with cheaper materials. They will run out in a few years or its starts to become expensive.
Dont forget the anti's agenda is not to ban all firearms and ammo in the next one or two years but to have banned it within 10-20 years etc.
Thats why they constantly chip away on all fronts to make it day by day harder to be a shooter till enough people have given up and they can implement a ban.
The thing of it is, what you stated is common sense. And common sense is just not known in the environmental agencies.
They have gone absolutely over board on every regulation they have made.
Maybe lead based paint shouldn't have been used on baby cribs, but that was no reason for banning lead based paint, period.
Regarding lead in motor fuels, they had (have) a lot of records of lead levels in blood of people, especially children, who lived near highways. Twenty years after lead was removed from gasoline, I saw the results of tests made of children currently living near highways. The results of the tests showed there was basically no reduction in lead levels, of children living by the highways now, than there was in the children living by the highways when lead was in motor fuels.
