doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com More about the lead controversy

More and more you see on the television how lead from all of the electronics is seeping into our water supply from ground fills, oh ammunition is made from lead, oh my, we must stop that this instant!!!! It's for our own safety and for the good of the children!!!
Sorry to say boys but we don't have a chance. And when do you recall the courts ever making a ruling based purely on scientific facts. As if the court system can read, they can't even understand a census, "Let's see now 51% is that a majority???"

Let me ask this; isn't "steel shot" more like iron than steel?

Another problem with lead, other than is potential harm to waterfowl, is that it has gone up considerably in price. I was to Gander Mountain yesterday and was shocked at the price of shotshells. $35.00 for a 25box of premium LEAD Remingtons! The 20ga slugs I bought just last fall for $2.50 per box of 5 are now $5.! Lead production was predicted, by those who follow those things, to be in full swing at this time. Lead, however, is a less common metal than steel/Iron. It appears the demand for it is not going away, unless the environmentalist shutoff China somehow. If we want to keep shooting we had better perpare for any possible future circumstance. That means keeping steel shot in the mix. Perhaps it is the only economical option for the future of hunting. I as well as anyone can read the writing on the wall. Shooting sports, especially shotgunning, are becoming a wealthy persons game. Keeping a large fraternity of shooters together for our preservation is going to be difficult. If steel shot becomes even more common place and provides a way shooters can keep shooting, that will be a good thing. I love the older guns too and I am hoping when I'm too old or too dead to use mine someone else can. To that end I offer this; I have a American Gun Company Hammer gun with steel barrels. I will see if I can't find my way clear to purchase some steel shot loads to run through this old gun. It has chokes that are open and the theory is that these should provide protection from damage. How many rounds would be required for a definative study I do not know. At current prices I could do 100 shell? What do you all think?

Best to you,
Kurt

Sounds like a noble effort - be careful!

Go for it Kurt. I want to believe today's shot cups will prevent scoring. A small scale test won't persuade me about potential for bulging from shot bridging with larger shot sizes. But consensus seems to be that shot bridging is unlikely with smaller shot, and some additional positive first-hand feedback there would be reassuring.

Subgauge - so tell me about it. I've researched a number of articles on the topic of lead and waterfowl and posted them to this list in the past. Some of the early stuff, and some of the very recent. The story hasn't changed. If anything it's become more pronouced. So, do a search. Meanwhile tell me what have you read to the contrary other than Lowell?

Back to the Daisy's, what they shot was technically "Air rifle Shot" which indeed was a .177" dia. BB shot is .180" dia. While I do believe in the early days Air rifle shot was made of lead, I will be 70 come March & what I shot as a youth was already the copper washed steel. The "Red Ryders" I shot had a port in the tube surrounding the bbl & you just poured the "BB's (Yes we called them that too) in, held a Bunch. We had no need to cary any in our mouths. There were earlier models which were single shot & have heard of boys spiting the BB's down the bbl from the muzzle. A Daisy 25 pump had a positive feed & held about 50 shots, A Red Rider was a gravity feed & you could pour that tube full, several hundred as I recall but you needed to hold the muzzle "Skyward" while levering to insure feeding.

Brent
A few years back our gun club was forced to relocate. I researched goverment documents about the impact of lead being left on the ground not just on gun clubs but other locations as well. Also they were not just specific like the ones you reference about waterfowl.
The bottom line was that unless the ground was very acid or very alakline lead stayed where it was put.
Lead is one of the most abundant elements on earth. It has not leached into anything over the millions of years here on the planet. Do you know how solubable lead is in 7.0 ph water? Lead is not salt.
The problem is that the politicians use anything they can as a wedge to make themselves richer, if that means praying on the hysterics of the public then so be it.
Remember people are smart, the public is dumb.

Brent, there are indeed a number of studies of lead and waterfowl. However, there are almost none on the impact of lead on upland game birds--and that's the direction in which the ban is heading. Whether the science concerning waterfowl is good is no longer the question. We've gone down that road. But in the process, we also bought into the fact that eagles were dying from eating shot and unrecovered birds, resulting in ingestation of lead. As I've pointed out elsewhere . . . what has happened to eagles in the interim?

It was possible to point to waterfowl or eagles, in the past, as poster birds for lead restrictions. No longer possible to point to eagles for any kind of restrictions, other than those already in place. And no evidence where upland birds are concerned.

So why expand the ban into an area where there's essentially no science?? A lot of it looks very much like over the top green, feel good stuff.

You're on target Larry. And unfortunately, making the case for no evidence of harm will probably be fruitless. The public won't bother with the facts when the easy, green, feel good path is to "err on the safe side". They'll see no important benefits to our shooting lead, and will see arguably important benefits to a lead ban.

Mark,
Much of what you said sounds fine to me. I am sure it is somewhat leachable under some conditions but I don't claim to know much about that. Lead as a waterfowl toxin, is however, quite clear.

Larry, I have not looked for lead/upland bird issues, except the condor issue which is quite real. Otherwise, I can't say. Maybe I'll look into that. No evidence is not, however, the same as no effect. I would be surprised if there is one, but I'd not say one way or the other w/o looking first.

Brent