Thanks for the lead report, John. As I suspected, there is little concern for us. Also as suspected, the small risk that does exist is magnified significantly for developing children.


Excerpts from the report:

�Children are particularly sensitive to the chronic effects of lead. Even low levels of lead exposure can affect a child�s mental and physical growth.�

�It appears that some effects, particularly changes in the levels of certain blood enzymes and in children�s neurobehavioral development, may occur at blood lead levels so low as to be essentially without a threshold.�


�No correlation was observed between the individual game meat frequency data (meals per week) and the corresponding logarithmic values of the blood lead concentrations (Pearson correlation coefficient r=0.046). Two-way ANOVA was used to uncover main and interaction effects of age and type of subject (hunters and controls) on the dependant variable blood lead. Female subjects were not
included in the ANOVA model. The independent variable age was broken up into in three categories of young, middle-aged, and older subjects (20�39, 40�59 and >60 years of age). The variable age was conceived as a control variable because age effects on blood lead levels have been described [27]. The main factors, age (p=0.47) and subjects (p=0.89) as well as the interaction of the combination (p=0.75) had no effect on the blood lead levels. Thus, there was no statistically significant difference in exposure to lead between the hunters and the controls.�

�Accordingly, the consumption of roughly 50 g game meat per day (estimated from the questionnaire) containing 0.2 μg/g lead (median from ref. [16]) amount to a lead intake of 10 μg, which corresponds to a blood lead concentration of about 8 ng/mL. It is interesting to note that the conversion factor for children is greater than for adults [11]. �

�In summary, the results in this study suggest that the uptake of lead from game meat was negligible, given that this type of food was a dietary source of high lead concentration.�







I've been 100% satisfied with the results I've had from TTSX so far. If there were some practical down-side of some sorts to using them I'd consider going back to lead. Haven't found it, though. Obviously, I see no reason to leave lead-core bullets for other applications ie; defense, target, or competition shooting or for varmint/predator hunting. I'd love to see a mono bullet with the BC of a VLD, but that isn't going to happen any time soon. Still, my little .260 seems to be enough gun for what I want it to do. I do have a couple .300 WSMs and a .300 Win if I decide I want more gun for elk. I'm running the 168 TTSX and 165 TTSX in those respectively. All three are sold sub-moa performers (unlike the ULA, which is a sub-MOA for 5 shot groups rifle, 3 shot groups is all I've attempted with the mag rifles) with the Barnes bullets.

I can't find a way to catch one of the 168s in a whitetail, though. grin




The ULA/127 LRX upon final confirmation of load:

[Linked Image]

I later finished the statement written on the target: "First four in" with "0.4something..." and # 5 opened it to 0.8"



The buck (look next to the forend tip to see the bullet bulge just under the hide):

[Linked Image]





RLTW