A discussion on the Parker Collectors site claims that phone calls and e-mails to the folks who make Bismuth shot indicate they have ceased production as of April 30th. Can anybody confirm or add info? If this turns out to be true I would expect prices on existing stock to soar.

Bismuth web page

Wait till they open and ask them if they are out of business yet and is this the janitor your talking to?

Read for yourself:

http://www.parkergun.org/forums/forum1/3815.html

OH well, looks like you rich boys will have to kick in a little more for the heavy shot. I see it as low as 3.50 per shot. Heck just wait for them to land by your string of decks and get'em with your .22.

I could go on and on for pages about this lead shot BS lie that has set in the minds of the gullible public.

Lord, I hate a lying government!

This is what comes of Administrative law that has been forced down our throats for over 100 years in America.

Thank you, all of you lowest form of scum pond life, Lawyers.

"lowest form of scum pond life, Lawyers."

Once again, what possible good to come from dropping casual but vicious insults directed toward other readers of this Forum? Who are likely here just to enjoy, learn, and possibly contribute? A Forum this is SUPPOSE TO BE ABOUT GUNS?

Bob Peterson, founder of Peterson Publishing, part owner of Bismuth Cartridge and the bismuth shot patents, died this spring. With bismuth prices through the roof I suspect sales were down and the accountants that are overseeing his estate didn't like the ROI that they were getting.

This is an opportunity for all you backyard shot makers to set up for bismuth shot production. There is data from Australia that outlines how and all you have to do is buy a 20K lb. container of bismuth powder to get a fair discount. Anyone want to accept the liability for the commercial loading of shells?

OK then learn this about this sport we love. The treason that has been put upon America's people comes at the hands of the self appointed ruling class called lawyers.

Did you vote to ban lead shot? Did anybody vote to ban lead shot?

Where is the hue and cry of foul from the good Lawyers about this Administrative law crap? Don't hear any, why? The reason is clear, the plague set upon this once free people comes from the lawyer class that plagues us to line their pockets. It is that simple.

Contributions from the lawyer class, I await the moment!

Could we kindly stay on topic. I might be a new guy but I know what thread jacking is. I want to know more about the situation with Bismuth shot not debate the pros and cons of lawyers. Lead shot is banned from waterfowling right or wrong, get over it. Bismuth shot availability is important to classic double gun owners.

Yes, lead shot is banned from waterfowl shooting. I will live with it, but I will not get over it, just like I live with the fact a lot of other freedoms have been taken away from me in the past 60 years; but I will NEVER get over losing them. If they take all your guns away, you WILL live with it, but if you can get over it, you may as well give up now and avoid the hassle later.

Al, we don't vote on every single law - but I would agree with any law to ban lead shot in waterfowl hunting. And you know that I shoot only old guns that cannot handle steel.

The lead shot problem was real and there is a lot of good data to support it. I've posted more than once on the data that supports it.

If Bi shot is gone, that's a serious blow to me.

We have lost a lot of freedoms, lead-shot waterfowling, the use of DDT, and a few more come to mind as things we are better off without.

Al, no sign of the postman yet

Brent

I continued to be dismayed by the idea that we are to believe that waterfowl are walking and diving to ingest lead shot. The numbers wounded and die because of the Steel Shot etc are far greater than the mytical number that would become ill from Lead shot. Even a Duck would know the difference between Rice,Wheat and seeds and a lead pellet. How the beaurarat got it through is still a mystery to me.

Damn! I thought prices for BI were already through the roof. Who is the world's largest supplier of this element?

We'll just have to make bismuth, as suggested, and from many posts here from our Australian and Texan members it's not beyond a collective effort to provide enough shot for ourselves and our buddies. I can't cook but I bet I can make bismuth.

King, I'm willing and able to help but we are miles apart. Prehaps we could have an event somewhere where we gather to make shot and tell lies. There are already people making lead shot. how difficult could it be to adapt the equipment to Bi. David

I just called the Bismuth No-Tox company and spoke to a gentleman working there. Bismuth shot production ceased several months ago. Due to the death of the owner the company is now for sale. According to the person I spoke with they expected the company to be sold and business to resume as usual. He mentioned there were offers on the table. I did get the sense from further discussion that continued operations are not definite and hinge upon a successful sale. The heirs of the estate are not interested in running this business. In further discussion he informed me they own the patent for Bismuth shot so unless someone buys those rights production of Bismuth shot becomes in my opinion unlikely. Overall the person I talked to was optimistic but the future of Bismuth shot has not been finalized.

Better than that, David. When I got notice here minutes ago I spoke to a Canadian company and entrepreuner anticipating bismuth production before the year's end. This board could provide technical help, if needed, i.e. additives for hardness, experience with making it.

I don't know the history of bismuth but somehow I think the shot-making notion started in Canada, picked up by American entrepreuners. the bismuth was mined here and shipped to U.S. and returned to Canada as finished product. And maybe not; let's see where it goes.

Whatever, we don't have to sweat it. If there's demand and a dollar to be made entrepreuners will erect a ladder to heaven.

I agree with King and hope we're right. If the demand is there, the free market will provide a solution. It would sure be nice, though, if it was a less expensive one. TT

Would that be the same free market that brought us $700 toilet seats and current medical costs? Or the one that brings us $500 computers? I hope the latter, but I'm not so optimistic.

Brent

Brent, I hope you know I have nothing but respect for you and your knowledge. I would in no way dispute that the data you have seen you believe to be true.

I should get off my duff and write this up and submit what I have learned over the past 34 years on this subject.

For starters data outside of this issue stands in direct dispute of what has been applied to the public about the problem.

A major university was told that they would loose all Federal funding and State funding if they published a government sponsored report that strongly disputed the Agency reports. I have this on first hand eye witness account by one of the project researchers of this two year project.

This project was conducted in the area of Northern California in the area that the government made these claims.

I get so dog mad about this subject because I know the lies and I know who and why this crap happened.

This has been classic Administrative law at work. Did you know the last hold out that refused to comply with the feds did not give in until 2001. They gave in only due to peer pressure and lies and government grants. I fought this tooth and nails with these guys, who to this day feel betrayed by their own people.

Did it not seem strange to anyone that the lead toxicity went down with the occurrence of another event?

The removal of lead from gasoline in California went hand in glove with the lead shot. Yet the toxicity reportedly fell in waterfowl. One might ask what happen to the lead that was already in the water? Was the state of California's water ways the first and largest super fund clean-up site? Did this happen under the cover of darkness?

Anybody ever look at existing data and research on water and lead in contact with each other?

Lots of data from outside disciplines on this issue, that had no interest in waterfowl, in direct contradiction to government findings.

I will add, done before and after this lie got out.

I'm done, I don't care if you who read this care or not.

Please prove me wrong! Al

The lead in the water is still there - in the sediments and largely not an issue as it becomes buried under more sediments. It's not lead in the water, it's lead in the ducks and a constant rain of lead into wetlands was pretty effective at poisoning them. Once the lead rain stopped the problem has largely abated. I posted a link on this topic a while back to estimates of how many birds this is saving us so that hunters can hunt them. Find the link and read for yourself.

And just to cut off the normal follow up howls of dispute, there are many many many studies, not one, that finds that lead was a major problem in wetlands.

As for the one study in CA, I don't know what you are talking about or how it applies to this. Shit happens. So, somewhere out there is one study that has some ugly baggage. Does that discredit all science for all time?

I don't know much about leaded gas issues, but it's not the same issue as lead shot. I know a little bit about the latter, enough not to confuse the two.

For those that care, the topic of lead shot has been hashed many many times. You can search out those threads easily. The facts haven't changed.

Brent

With the rising cost of metals including lead I can not imagine what a bag of Bismuth shot would sell for.

I expect that with the number of people running little "shot stills" these days, some enterpising sole will start making Bi shot to serve the old gun nitch but it will alway be expensive.

We are in a world market and 1/4 of that market lives in China seeking a better life.

I recently purchased a new SxS so I could hunt ducks with modern ammo, simply because I did not mess with reloading anything but lead for my old Damascus barrels. Bi reloads were my second choice.

RPr

I see mention here of “making your own” Bizmuth shot. Does anyone have any expanded information on this such as the alloy mixture etc?

Having seen first hand the results of the EPA mandate for MTBE (how they mandated it in spite of the warning that it would poison the Water Supply, and increase smog in most areas), the Asbestos hysteria and shake down racket. Not to mention the DDT over reaction. I naturally distrust mandates of the FEDGOV, and harbored serious doubts about the harmfulness of Lead Shot to Waterfowl.

So a few years back I had an opportunity to meet with a gentleman who had collected the samples of Ducks back in the ‘70s, that had ingested lead shot. I ask him if it had any merit. He told me that it did, the lead levels in the Ducks, with lead shot in them was in general too high, and harming the ducks, as well as anything that ate them.

But, and this is a big butt, the ducks contained small shot - 7 ½ s mostly, and a few 6s – nothing larger. He speculated that the ducks didn’t eat the larger shot, spit it out, or perhaps it was heavy enough to sink. So why small lead shot was not banned for water fowl, instead of banning all lead shot? Well who knows? I sure don’t .

I hope they get Bismuth back up and running soon....I also hope that some posters in this thread recover from the brain damage they have sufferd from lead.

I posted this in another thread, but this is probably a better place for it. There is a place on the net called huntersbismuth.com that sells ingots and also prepared shot, I'm not sure if there still in business, but it might be worth a try.

What about sea ducks, and the depth of the water they're shot in.
Can they reach the pellets?

If there is any good news about bismuth it's that most of it comes from China, followed by Mexico and Peru.

The process is a patented process and means if one were to use that process to make shot for sale, well you got trouble.

Looks like, from a casual search that it's got a 3% tin added to the bismuth.

From my reading it looks a little more complicated than just running it out your Littleton shotmaker into some antifreeze.

None of these for home use shotmakers, make shot in sizes that have much interest for a guy shooting waterfowl. The guy that owns the rights to littleton shotmaker claims that it's possible to make #5 and #6's. that's with lead of course. But when you pin him down he will tell you it's been done but only under special circumstances.

Of course one wonders if the drippers made for lead will work the same with bismuth, as they do with lead.

Lots of questions. It looks like the owner of the process is ASARCO.

Lowell: it looks like the story has changed from the original (surprise) it's not picking it up and injecting it like they told us it was for years. Now it's from getting shot by it. Well that I can believe. Remember when they got rid of 50-50 solder for the use of solder joints in copper water pipes? Now I guess it's cause they were worried about us getting shot by it.

Anyone know if tungsten plastic is still available? It might have been called tungsten matrix. It was also supposed to be compatilble with older guns.

If you want to play stupid, I guess anyone can make an argument out of imagination and make believe. What a crock of BS. Al you know better than that.

If you read up on lead poisoning, lead in waterfowl, and just a few other details it wouldn't be hard to educate yourself a few times over.

Brent

If you want to play stupid, I guess anyone can make an argument out of imagination and make believe. What a crock of BS. Al you know better than that.

If you read up on lead poisoning, lead in waterfowl, and just a few other details it wouldn't be hard to educate yourself a few times over.

Brent
[/quote]

Ok Brent, I can see that this has digressed to the point of the name calling. Thank you for your insight. Al

Kent still makes their Tungsten Matrix, which is safe to use in older guns. However, that stuff has some serious velocity and chamber pressures may be brutal. I haven't found tungsten matrix as a reloading component but I have found Bismuth. Last time I bought Bismuth to reload with was at Cabelas the price was $72 for 7 lbs of it.
I'll tell you guys I've had enough. I went out and purchased a single barrel 10 gauge from New England Arms and just use that for waterfowl. If I was a better shot I would have purchased Ruger's sweet little 28 gauge but whatever
All the best

Al,

If you are going to continue to blurt out claims like that, what do you expect? You DO know better. Do you expect everyone that has even the slightest knowledge of the issues to just roll over and concede the field whenever you disagree?

I have a Littelton shot maker and we have made up to #6 shot. The process is very touchy. The lead works great, it seems to flow much better. We currently buy Bismuth with 5% tin in 100 lb lots, for about $8.00/lb. Last time I purchased this amount was 2 years ago.

When re-loading we try to only use the bismuth on the .410, 28ga, and 20 ga. More shells for the $$$$$.

I do know that they started trying to ban lead shot in the early 1900's...I guess they should've read the reports AL read.

Our Aussie posters and one down in Texas gave us a fair amount of information about making Bismuth shot last year or the year before. I tried to make some in #5 shot size as this was my personal favorite in lead for many years. I had very mixed results, but did get some decent shot out of the attempt. Maybe 20% was what I wanted and the rest needed more work, if you know what I mean. With more experience it should be possible to produce enough decent shot to supply all one persons needs fairly easily. After all what are we trying to make 25-50 pound a year?

I started out with a Littleton shotmaker that I bought used.
I had trouble getting the right temperature, the nozzle hole needed to be altered, my first attempt to use anti freeze was not a good one. Others use diesel or even soap I understand. I tried several different combos of Bismuth and Tin. Pure Bismuth was fairly brittle. Tin made it more workable. It is all trial and error type stuff. Not rocket science or brain surgery. If several groups tried to make it and shared information then it would be a cake walk.

My "failures" were often a teardrop shape or just several different sizes of pellets. Just to see how they would pattern I loaded a few shells with the teardrop shot and patterned them. They patterned well and I suspect that the duck would never have know they were rejected pellets. I was afraid to load them in a progressive loader because they could bridge in the tube and not load properly.

I have only one real problem with the Bismuth patent. How or why on Earth did they get a patent for a process that is not that unique or even original? I suspect it was just a case of a patent office worker with no concept of the application that was before them and they just granted it.

Treblig, are you sure Kent matrix is high velocity and high-pressure? I'm using 2 1/2 12 ga one ounce at 6500 and 1 1/16 at 7500.

I believe it started digressing to the point of name calling with "Thank you, all of you lowest form of scum pond life, Lawyers."

Someones got to keep the pond clean for the rest of the bottom feeders.

I expect nothing of the sort, your assumptions are, that I have read none of the available literature on the subject. Does this mean I would have been overwhelmed by the science? Or perhaps stood in awe of the authors credentials?

It is not possible to have read any of this material and found holes in the science?

I do indeed find it suspect anytime pressure is put on individual liberty to conform to peer pressure. Why is coercion held in high regard when used to pressure people to conform.

You totally misunderstand my position in regards to you, whether you believe me or not. For that matter weather anyone believes me. I do not care. Believe what ever you wish, this is one of the few freedoms fascism still plays lip service to (but rejects).

Recoil Rob: Sir or Madame, I have no knowledge of who you are nor do I know what your occupation is or may be.

My statement from above was only directed in general to the self appointed ruling class that delights in inflicting pain on the American public with their many deceits.

I hold a few former lawyers in the highest regard for fighting against their lying former brethren, that they watched their clients suffer under. It is a shame the mass media in America does not look more closely at all these self appointed members of the ruling class as they did to that legal wizard that was disbarred this past week.

However you are correct in regards to it being personnel, but only if you are among the members of the self appointed ruling class that does not care to grant your victims plenary rights of due process, in less than general jurisdiction venues.

If you were to choose what part would you have us believe ?

I would not choose for anybody to believe any part of what I've written.

At best, I'm only a witness to what I have lived. My reading has been broad on a number of subjects that has lead me to my conclusions.

I do find it appropriate to follow this simple rule, first among others.

"Prove all things, hold fast to that which is true"

Duck hunters make good fall-guys, you uplanders just wait your turn!
Time will be, when your favorite little vintage 28ga quail gun is house bound.
The things they've pumped into our water, makes you wonder about the pounds of shot in the wet lands.
Duck hunters were the quick fix - for all bad things.

Al, if you don't care whether you are believed then carry on and expect the responses that you have received. If you find holes in the science, let's see them aired out in detail. So far, I hear you claiming holes or more like conspiracy, but no evidience is offered. Just your opinion.

I posted a number of papers on this issue in earlier discussions of this topic. Maybe you could pick those out and deal with them for starters.

Brent

Here is the patent (# 5513689) that they own:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=9TkiAAAAEBAJ&dq=bismuth+shot

There were 75 inventors. Bismuth Cartridge, L.L.C is the assignee. The patent seems to center on producing consistent size shot. After the drop, they place the bismuth shot into a tumbler with steel balls to break up the bismuth.

Here is a later patent (# 5540749) that claims to make spherical Bismuth shot. The key seems to be dropping the hot bismuth shot into an anti-freeze type liquid.:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=ol0hAAAAEBAJ&dq=bismuth+shot
This one is owned by: Asarco Incorporated

There are earlier patents for making lead shot. Including some interesting stuff filed and owned by Inland Steel in the late '70's.

Pete

KYJ - I'd think teardrop shot would be ideal as that is a very aerodynamic shape for subsonic flight. No reason I can think of it wouldn't pattern well. It might respond a bit differently to choke constriction than does spherical shot. I doubt it would bridge any more than spherical in the drop tube or in the choke entrance. Could you make it consistently? Anyone know of other experiments with teardrop shot?

King B not sure at all what Kent’s chamber pressures are but I'd rather err on the side of caution especially with chamber pressures. With Bismuth I could reload so I would always know approximately what the chamber pressure is. However, with Kent, they do not sell their tungsten matrix as a reloading component so I could never tell what the inside of that shell is doing in the chamber. That in itself is enough to be cautious when shooting older guns!!!
All the best

I have read all the posts so far and agree with many of the things Al has said. I, too, am one who does not believe everything that has been said regarding the hazards of lead to waterfowl. Furthermore, I also believe that this non-toxic "movement" is a government / politically instigated "bandwagon" that the ammunition manufacturers have jumped on with great enthusiasm. Shotgun shells were, in the distant past, priced quite reasonably. But, when the government mandate for non-toxic shot came out, wow!!!! Suddenly,the price of those new shells was five to ten times more than their lead predecessors!! I understand that in this day and age the consumer pays for everything new so no company has to spend any money to develop something new. But, we have been hearing for years now that "prices will come down on Bismuth, etc, now that their are more people making no-tox alternatives and the start-up costs have already been paid." Anybody beleive this?? I think the ammunition manufacturers have set the ridiculous prices on their no-tox ammunition at these levels for one reason - because they can - and they have a federal mandate to back them up. Okay, those are my opinions, and quite frankly I don't care how many share them or discount them. But now, I have a question to the allies of no-tox and absurdly priced ammo who have expressed their opinions and loyalties here. I don't necessarily believe it, but I have stopped arguing that waterfowl "may" ingest lead by diving to the bottom of a pond in search of food, hence, the restriction on using lead over or around bodies of water. However, I hunt in an area for upland game where lead shot can be used, and which waterfowl (sandhill cranes) are in abundance. I can shoot my limit of pheasant with lead shot with a sandhill crane or a goose sitting right beside them, but even with a waterfowl stamp, I cannot shoot the crane or goose unless I switch to non-toxic shot. ??????? Am I to believe that waterfowl are the ONLY winged creatures stupid enough to eat lead pellets when their upland cousins are not? Also, according to the game warden I asked this question of, I cannot even shoot a goose or crane that flies over the lead-allowed land. Do these apparently stupid creatures have the ability to snag fast moving pellets in mid-flight. Far fetched? I don't think so. Purely political with no sane basis - you betcha!!! Defenders of this one? Step forward!!!

Perry, if you don't like the science, pull it out and debate it.

The laws regarding lead vs. nontoxic revolve around nonmigratory vs. migratory game birds. The latter is regulated by the federal govt. and the former by the state. Hence different regulations. Of course, pheasants can and do ingest lead with sorry effects. But states don't want to outlaw it as this is a relatively rare problem for birds strung out over much more real estate. Not always so for waterfowl.

FWIW, SOME federally purchased public hunting lands require nontox for hunting of even upland game. Because it's federally purchased land.

In the meantime, debate the science, not your politics.

Brent

Debate, Brent? I am not debating anything here. Re-read my post and you will (or perhaps you will not) see that I am stating my opinions. For the many years I have participated in this bulletin board, I don't recall ever seeing the notice that it was a scientific forum. It has science, opinions, politics, and other topics, so your advice to me to debate science and not politics, well, I will just leave my feelings on your advice without comment. I do want to thank you for the instruction on migratory vs. non-migratory birds and state vs. federal wildlife law enforcement. Gosh, after hunting for 50 years that little tid bit of information sure came as a surprise!!! By the way, aren't doves categorized as "migratory" birds and thus controlled by federal wildlife laws. Before you go to any great length to answer that one Brent, let me just say that I really already know the answer to the question. Incidentally, your rhetoric on migratory, non, and state/fed, etc. failed to address the question I posed. As has been stated earlier, the issue over non-toxic versus lead originated with and centered on "wetlands" didn't it - not the governing body to enforce the wildlife laws. Therefore, I ask it again. If I can shoot an upland bird with lead legally in a given location, why can I not shoot waterfowl flying over or walking around the area legally with the same lead shot. Does a dead bird know what did him in? Let me re-state my question in a different fashion rather than have you again educate me on the different law enforcement bodies. Does it make any sense for the situation I describe above to exist? I was already provided an answer from the game warden to whom I posed the same question. He said he agreed with my reasoning, but "that's just the way the law reads." That I understand. I am only offering my opinion on what I believe to be a ridiculous difference in wording of laws and regulations. And I still think the ammunition manufacturers are "preying" upon sportsmen who are victimized by this ruling. Well, everyone except the "writers" who get to shoot all the free high-priced ammunition they want to as long as they will praise its virtues in sporting publications. (Oh! I am also aware that upland birds hunted on federal lands require non-toxic shot. Just a little tid bit I have picked up in my years of involvement with hunting and the shooting sports) Thanks Brent.

So if "Science" demostrates ingestion of Lead is harmful, why not just ban all lead ?

Sorry Perry, I overestimated you.

My mistake.

Brent

Brent, I'm still looking for your science ol'chap?
...and please don't cite something from California!
Hair brain science and hair brained politics go hand in hand.
There's a science for every cause you know.
Banning lead shot was fuzzy science with a cause.
Lets clean-up the earth, give big business a pass and nail the poor duck hunter.
Thats it!

keep looking Lowell, you remember those threads I'm sure....

Brent

Brent: you should have some idea as to the title and time frame of your posts? I've spent a lot of time looking myself.

Here is one http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...=true#Post16871
Lowell, of course, is just doing his best Joe Brennan impersonation - he posted quite a few times on this particular thread. Disingenuiness is so unattractive.

There are other threads as well.

Brent

And, once you are done with that one article - take on the literature. Science does not draw conclusions from single publications. Here is a smattering for you to get started on. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=lead+waterfowl&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

Brent

You flatter yourself Brent. You don't know enough about me, who I am or what I do, to form any sort of educated estimate or even a wild guess. But, as to the mistake to which you admit - apology accepted. Keep up the good scientific work and/or research on lead shot though. Perhaps you can even save the California Condor - oh wait. That flawed research and outright lies regarding lead and their imminent extinction, I believe, was already exposed for the political ploy that it was. If it makes you happy to believe that all the furor over lead shot and waterfowl is pure science with no politics directed against the shooting sports, well, my "estimate" of you tells me that nothing will change your mind. Have a good day Brent.

By the way, since we have nothing but "numbers of deaths due to lead" from the scientific- and the anti-hunting community, has anyone ever actually seen pictoral evidence of this such as fields and wetlands strewn with dead ducks and geese with no puncture holes. Just a thought.

OK what have any of you waterfowl hunters done with the info regarding the situation with Bismuth No-Tox ceasing production? I went out and purchased both loaded shells and loose shoot that gives me between a 4 to 5 year supply for upcoming waterfowl seasons, the last order arriving by UPS tonight. I am hoping by the time I run out the company/patent rights will be sold and the shot will be readily available again.

There's voodoo science for everything under the sun Brent.
Wack science goes to the highest bidder, and the lead shot duck hunter(good ol'boy) was caught with his pants down.
In today's world, scarry science may need more than a nutcase and his followers for it to be law!

Again, what's wrong with the science? Common, you're the man right? Show us the REAL science. Or are you just that wall of sound - hot air and nothing more?

Brent

It isn't so much a problem with the Science, as with the misuse of Science, especially by those drunk with arrogance and power.

Start from the start, with your "science."
If the base of your argument is science for science sake Brent, you'd be wrong about 90% of the time.
The lawyers are making a killing on bad science.
You sir, have cherry picked YOUR science!
If you torture science long enought, you'll get the facts in your favor everytime.
Toss in a grant or two!

You never get the final answer in a biological system.

But, Lowell, here's the answer to your question about how far sea ducks dive for food.

The Audubon Water Bird Guide says 20 to 30 feet for some---scoters etc---but King Eider have been caught in gill nets at depths of 150 feet.

You're welcome, sir.

So, Lowell, in the end, you really cannot address what's wrong with even one specific part of the literature on this topic, let alone the entire body of it. In other words, you have got no hole cards, no ammunition, nothing. It is wrong only because you say it is.

Lowell, you are just hot air on a summer night. A posuer. A fake.

Sad Lowell. Really sad.

You guys can debate the value or need for a ban of lead shot all you want. Let us face facts. There is a ban and we have to live with it. It would take 20-40 years to "reverse" the studies already out there, if in fact lead shot is not a real problem. It is like proving a negative which is often impossible in a real study.

It took 50 years to "dis spell" the myth that spinach had as much iron as liver. This myth was started by the government in WWII to get people to accept less liver in their diet and get them to accept spinach as a substitute. Meat was rationed, liver had been seen as a good source of iron and mothers wanted iron for their kids. The government told them that spinach was just as good source of iron as liver was on a equal weight basis. They bought into the lie and it lived on for 50 years.

Personally I think lead is a problem. Heavy metals can be toxic. Long term exposure increase the risk. These are facts. What levels are a risk might be debated. But back to the point. Bismuth is a real alternative or substitute for lead and the major maker is out of production. Bummer.

Live in the real world, follow the rules, figure out what your wife will let you get buy with and have fun. Works for me.

BrentD,
You always defend the legislation that imposes the use of alternative shot.Do you have a reason for your stance?
I will probably go to my grave fighting for a reasoned, sensible,truthfull set of facts as to how toxic the ingestion of leadshot in waterfowl really is.
This may at first seem to the pro-nontox fraternity a stupid stance.BUT PLEASE SHOW ME factual statistics.Not many, hardly any, and probably you also Brent, have not actually seen a waterfowl that as died of lead ingestion.I do know that 'scientists' have force fed ducks in laboratories with lead shot to measure the effect of lead on the body tissues.Perhaps if they had carried out their research on the marsh, shooting and picking up their dead quarry we would accept their 'science' more readily.Is it scientific to maim a creature with ineffective loads that Lead would have despatched instantly?
No. It is crass stupidity that will sound the deathknell of waterfowling, along with the blithering idiots who blaze away at anything within 90 yards.

Brent, don't pray at the altar of science - it's not as holy as you think. Sounds to me, you've taken the bait and now you want to peddle it around. Kind of like the anti-crowd does!
What else do you not like about hunting?
Dazzled by science, and fooled by the politicians BrentD.

Well boys I just finished 91 pages of a report, a link to which I will post here.

I think it only fair to have all that is interested in this debate to use this report for a base from which to argue the findings.

lead report, GOV.

If we can come to an agreement with the good professor Dr.Danielson, to use this as a point of our debate, then I for one am prepaired to debate.

How say you fellows?

Notice how we battle back and forth name calling and insulting each others intelligence, this argument is not over lead its over the frustration all water fowlers are experiencing because of the alternatives to lead. And now we may lose Bismuth!!!! The only real alternative, other than Bismuth of course, to fit everyone's budget, is steel which has the ballistics of wet leaves and cannot be used in older shotguns. WE are all going to feel the pain or we can all go out and buy Ruger Red Labels!!!!
All the best

That of course is not the only way out. My memory being such as it is, I recalled that back in the 70's there was an outfit that made liners for damascus barrels that allowed one to shoot modern loads in these old barrels.

The company is long out of business. Knowing that a company that is in business to make a buck I called Briley in Texas and asked them.

I can tell you now if there was the demand they would produce.

Can you say group purchase?

Bad science, gone bad!
Times Beach, Missouri was bulldozed by the EPA Superfund, burried and put off the map forever because of a dioxin scare.
Recent science said, oh boy - we've made a big mistake. It is a green space today for family picnics, dogs and so on.
Lead shot should be revisited, unless you cling to YOUR piece of the original true cross of bad science.

I also think that this issue should be revisited. I read the report that Big Al reported on and unless I missed some pertinent points, the numbers of dead due to lead, when compared to the total population of species studied, did not seem to be that high. A greater percentage of traffic deaths occur and we are still driving cars. Perhaps a bad analogy, but I have to tell you that I am still convinced that a desire to ban hunting and/or guns has had a lot to do with the interpretation of the results of the "science." I think we could all agree - no, not all of us, let me retract that - that in this day of statistics and polls, these two items can be manipulated to "prove" any point that is needed to be proven. I look at this in a similar fashion as asbestos remediation. The elbows of water pipes are discovered in old buildings as being covered in asbestos. I say elbows, because this, according to a contractor friend of mine is usually the only place it is found - not completely covering the pipes as some have led others to believe. I know that careful workers can put on the same masks as the remediation crew and rid the building of the material in plastic bags in a matter of a few safe operations. But, with the intervention of the government -coupled with the new businesses dealing in Remediation - several days or weeks and several hundreds or thousands of dollars later, the same result is achieved. Completely sealing a building in plastic wrap to remove the asbestos - is that really necessary - or simply a way of running up the cost of the job. Call me cynical - and you will be correct. Again, just an opinion. By the way - I still buy the overpriced ammunition to enjoy my sport and perhaps if my shooting improved, I might save money!!

READ the report with great care and you will see the problems with it.

Gentlemen, you might find this link interesting...

http://www.huntersbismuth.com/pricing.html

Brent,
Lead is one of the heaviest elements. When it is shot in a swamp of mud it will most probably sink into the mud. Duck's eat water borne grass, crustaceans, and other vegetation. How are waterfowl going to ingest something that's immersed in the mud whilst in pursuit of water borne food? Furthermore, if they accidently take it into mouth why not spit it out? The idea that waterfowl are ingesting something that is not natural to them seems peculiar.

Guys we can sit here and pound Brent into the ground all day long for his stance but it ain't going to change things..... lead shot has disappeared from waterfowl hunting whether from a study that supports a reality or manufacturers a reality it doesn't matter.
All that matters is.....lead is gone and that really sucks!!!!
All the best

S-N-R, most ducks are omnivarous, filling up on anything available, vegetable and animal, all you mention and more, fishes, mussels, sea urchins etc. The superb canvasback is particularly susceptible to lead poisoning because it strains seeds and sedges out of the bottom mud and, according to Audubon, "in heavily shot-over areas 10 per cent of the ducks may carry shot in their gizzards, as many as 96 shot have been found in a single bird." Our blacks feed on seeds until ice and then blue mussels and periwinkles in shallow salt water. I shoot over more hard bottom than soft.

I was pointing out that bad business, is bad business.
The wool was pulled over the publics' eyes, and the duck hunters rolled with the punches.
At the time of the ban there were millions of gallons of toxic materials dumped into the waters by science/big business daily.
Makes you wonder about a season's worth of shot coming from the ol' fart's duck gun.
I for one, at this time was shooting 180g lead - the guys in leaky jonboats fill with 'coys, Labs and fowling pieces fouled our little blue planet! Hehehehe.
We were had.

Rick Lewis

That site has been a dead end for several years. No response to emails and as far as we can tell no on has ever seen a single easy pour round lump of Bismuth.