|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,705
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,705 |
Thought you were going somewhere like that.
I could spend a lot of time explaining why I think your assertions, like most "settled" science, are questionable, if not outright bogus, but I'll simply say that if that's what you believe, then use the bullets that assuage your tender conscience and leave me the fugg out of it.
Also, you're a trolling dick for not just making your point in the first place, rather than posing a trick question before going on your rant. GFY.
What fresh Hell is this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,823
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,823 |
Please provide info for the studies you reference
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,076 |
Further there is no evidence at all that we give up anything but the possible 25 cents by switching to lead free ammo for hunting big game......and the benefits could be very large in deed.
I must say that my decision to make the switch is stranding a lot of lead core ammo that will eventually be used at the target range teaching kids and other new shooters some shooting skills and gun safety but it just makes sense to me to get with the program and start using lead free bullets for big game. That's quite different than your original question quoted below. Please stay on track with this question......simply stated....Why is there any lead in rifle bullets today?.....What function does the lead serve in today's rifle bullets? You're either trolling, as Pappy stated, or just not very good at asking a question to elicit the information you're seeking.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,189
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,189 |
Please stay on track with this question......simply stated....Why is there any lead in rifle bullets today?.....What function does the lead serve in today's rifle bullets? Because lead-core bullets do many things well, and at a reasonable cost. Is there some point you're trying to make, or is this a straight question? Yes....there is a point to be made. 1. I envision the mono-metal bullets (lead free) as premium bullets.....not to be compared to such bullets as corelokts, power points and other standard cup and cores.....and when I look at comparing the lead free bullets to other "premiums the prices are roughly equal.....and when I consider that I typically use North Forks and A-frames for high priced hunts (elk hunts can easily run well over $6,000) the (I use Barnes) mono-metals actually cost less. 2. It is well proven (no arguments here) that entrails etc. left in the field from lead cored bullets can and do kill birds of prey such as Golden eagles and ravens etc. I have to ask if this is good for the future of hunting. 3. A North Dakota study has proven higher levels of lead in the systems of humans after eating venison based foods such as sausages and folks.....we feed this stuff to our kids as well. I've read a very good many comments on forums such as this one and there is consensus that the killing ability of monometal bullets is as good as any others. Further, there are absolutely no formulas that deal with the physics of ballistics that uses density as a component....only weight (mass if you prefer). Many of today's finer bullets have quite large (comparatively) amounts of copper relative to lead (look at partitions, and more so the North Forks and Trophy bonded bullets from Federal (formerly Speer if I remember correctly) Yes, as one poster mentioned the twist rate of some and possibly all rifles would have to be faster to stabilize an equal weight of copper verses a cup and core bullet but all of my .308 caliber guns easily handle 180 grain Barnes bullets and thats all I need for hunting anything I want to hunt with a .30-06 or .300 magnum. Maybe Barnes also makes a 200 grain lead free 30 caliber bullet but I have no need of them so don't look for them. For those that cast their own bullets......well, frankly, I don't know anyone that takes cast bullets on a high priced elk hunt or plains game hunt, or for that matter, even a local deer hunt.....but I'm sure there are some, yes, lead is far easier to cast than anything I can think of. You folks have my admiration. Please be careful how you dress your game and make sure you get the same meat back from the processor when you take boned out meat to them for processing. Also please bury the entrails after field dressing to protect birds of prey. I am not sure if the potential of lead poisoning also pertains to foxes, coyotes, bobcats, and other fur bearers that might scavenge on the remains left in the field......this is in the best interest to the future of hunting as I see it. is there a point to be made?.....yup and here it is.....even if you use the traditional cup and core bullets (and they still killl deer and elk just fine) the extra cost of a lead free bullet is about a quarter.....a very small price to be paid to help safeguard the future of hunting and the health of humans that eat the venison from the hunt. (BTW I like the comment heard from Steve Hornady: "At what point in the death of the deer did the bullet fail") In my world the bullet failed when the core disconnected from the jacket.....and it's happened to me many times and that's why I went to premium bullets.....and yes I discovered it by finding in in a DEAD deer! Steve didn't miss that one at all!!! Further there is no evidence at all that we give up anything but the possible 25 cents by switching to lead free ammo for hunting big game......and the benefits could be very large in deed. I must say that my decision to make the switch is stranding a lot of lead core ammo that will eventually be used at the target range teaching kids and other new shooters some shooting skills and gun safety but it just makes sense to me to get with the program and start using lead free bullets for big game. Be your own judge folks! It seems like you are arguing for the necessity of "premium" bullets, as defined by you and your limited understanding of how bullets work and what they're "for". You are basically saying, "I'm right about this, and there is no refutation that will change my mind." Good for you. You're free to do that, all of it. Doesn't mean you are correct, just correct for you. I've taken cast bullets on very "expensive" hunts. As an aside, it is funny to me that people rate expense as a factor of money, the one resource we can literally get as much as we're willing to work for, rather than time, of which we all have a limited and rapidly dwindling supply, or perhaps health (or wear-and-tear), wherein we are all once again facing a dwindling supply. But to the cast bullets, they performed admirably on the dead animals, and that was a payment returned to me tenfold what I spent on them in care, labor, time, and money. Now that you've got it all figured out, why are you bothering to seek out contrary opinions, just so you can shoot them down? Long winter getting to you too?
I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,705
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,705 |
His "question" was just a setup so he could sit back for a bit, then start on his greenie nut-job rant. Pisses me off when these self-righteous pricks treat everyone else like we're in fuggin' kindergarten and need to be led around by the hand until we see their "light". He thought he was being so clever, but I've seen this show before.
What fresh Hell is this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,735
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,735 |
Lead bullets work very well. Many experiended with both, who aren't grinding an axe, claim cup and core bullets usually kill quicker.
They are cheaper.
I really don't need to spend 50 cents a bullet to kill a deer with a 7mm or 30 caliber.
The couple elk I have killed, thought old lead bullets were deadly also.
Parents who say they have good kids..Usually don't!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,153
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,153 |
Further, there are absolutely no formulas that deal with the physics of ballistics that uses density as a component....only weight (mass if you prefer).
It's a factor in the ballistic coefficient. Ballistic coefficient is a measured property that is affected by density as well as form factor and several other variables. I'm a fan of Barnes TTSX's for hunting but the last thing I want is for hunters themselves to give the leftists a reason to go after lead in bullets and trolling expeditions like this just give them fuel for the fire. If you don't like lead bullets then don't shoot them, but don't try to preach to the rest of us about it. Thanks to years of leftist government encroachment you can't fart in this country without getting the EPA involved now. We're our own worst enemies sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,052
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,052 |
vapodog,
I suspected that's where you were headed, but only commented on the economics of lead-cored bullets until I knew for sure.
Unlike some others here, I do believe there are concerns with lead-cored bullets, but having been researching considerably for an article assignment on lead-free bullets for over a year now, both in the field and in published studies. I'll be bringing up the same points you have, but as possibilities, not conclusions.
Have run across a lot of stuff on the North Dakota study, and it was seriously flawed, if not deliberately semi-faked. Other studies on the effect of lead-cored bullets on lead levels in hunters have been mixed; a major study in Europe found long-time hunters had LOWER lead levels than the general population. They guessed the reason involved hunters tending to be more rural than most other people, further from other, urban point-sources for lead.
There's also a "mini-study" involving my wife Eileen. Due to a medical condition, she had to have her blood thoroughly analyzed for a number of years, and the lead levels were consistently very low, despite over 90% of her meat consumption being game. However, I eventually realized that during that period, we used more and more lead-free bullets. I thought that might be a factor, but her lead levels stayed consistent during all those years. (Another factor might be that we butcher all our own game, so might trim away most areas where lead fragments would be most concentrated, especially larger fragments.)
I'd also have to note that the animals we primarily shoot with lead-free bullets are pronghorns. This is because "monolithic" bullets tend to ruin less meat, and antelope are so small we want to reduce the percentage of lost meat as much as possible--so also trim it very closely to the wound channel. As a result we're far less likely to eat lead-fragmented meat than we might with a larger animal, say an elk, where trimming away 5 pounds isn't a high percentage of the overall carcass, as it is in antelope. That said, the last two elk Eileen got were taken with Barnes TTSX's, because they do penetrate so well even in the light-recoiling cartridges she prefers since starting to become headache-sensitive to recoil about a decade ago.
Children, of course, are another matter. All the evidence suggest they're much more susceptible to lead ingestion than adults. But I haven't yet found a study on lead-levels in children who primarily eat wild big game. If you have run across such as study, I'd appreciate hearing from you, as it would help with the article.
Some of the studies on the effects of lead fragments on carrion-eaters such as eagles and raptors have also been at least somewhat biased, whether by methodology or whoever paid for the study. (I'm writing here as a wildlife biology major.) I would guess the settled science you refer to is the study done in Wyoming, where elevated levels of lead were found in ravens. They were feeding consistently on elk gut-piles
due to the Wyoming practice of winter-feeding elk in the Jackson area, which would indeed result in a higher level of lead than would occur in general hunting. Also, the study only speculated on lead-levels in eagles, but didn't list any results.
Again, if you have different information, I'd appreciate hearing about it.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,790
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,790 |
Lead = high density and malleable. Of course the absolute best would be depleted uranium, but availability is an issue.
1Minute
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,705
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,705 |
John,
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting here. So much of what gets published today as "science" is bought and paid for "research" to push somebody's notion of what's right and wrong, and isn't subject to peer review or any other validity checks. Anyone with some money to throw around can get a study done to prove whatever the Hell they want.
What you said about doing your own butchering is spot on, and not only because of lead, but hair, poop, and other stuff best not contemplated. One of the regulars on Fieldsports Britain is a hardcore falconer, with eagles, gyrfalcons, as well as the usual stuff, and he's begun talking about the possible effects of lead in offal piles on birds of prey. The state of Virginia has started recommending that hunters bury their gutpiles or use lead-free. In my limited observations here, raptors seldom feed off offal unless it's located well in the open, so gutpiles in the forest shouldn't pose much of a threat regardless. I think the biggest threat to the eagles around here is being hit by another car while dining on roadkill.
I'm always open to an honest discussion, but can't stand devious bastards.
What fresh Hell is this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,748
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,748 |
I’m no fan of having .gov tell us what to do. But if I had to choose one bullet to use it would be the TTSX. Not because I’m concerned about lead, but rather how they have performed for me on game, and how easy they have been to get to shoot well. No lead in meat is a bonus I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,193
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,193 |
I've found lead core bullets to kill faster than monos, all things considered, though the monos do penetrate well. I've only killed a limited number of critters with them though.
I have no plans nor desire to move away from lead cored bullets.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,193
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,193 |
Regardless if a guy is concerned about lead in meat or not, I truly believe going towards monos is a stepping stone for the antis to march on. Once lead bullets are banned they'll find a reason to ban copper bullets.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,725
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,725 |
Just another left leaning closet greenie, self outing himself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,800
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,800 |
Lead = high density and malleable. Of course the absolute best would be depleted uranium, but availability is an issue. Monometal bullets with properties notably superior to copper and lead would be made of platinum or gold, or alloys of these. Exterior ballistics would be much superior to copper or lead, Gold's density equals that of uranium, but platinum's is higher. Uranium has health problems, but not gold or platinum. --Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 9,709
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 9,709 |
Wouldn't that be cool if they discovered an undersea continent made of gold? Prices would plummet and we'd all be "the man with the golden gun". ![[Linked Image]](http://nerdsontherocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/TMWGGPoster.jpg)
Safe Shooting! Steve Redgwell www.303british.comGet your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. - Mark Twain Member - Professional Outdoor Media Association of Canada ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/AP39Jhm.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,735
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,735 |
Yes. Premium Bullets cost about twice as much as “standard” CNCs.
Don’t see your point. My point is that the copper bullets perform better than any cup and core I have experience with and still out penetrate premium cup and cores. I like that they always make two holes. I like that they very nearly always penetrate in a very straight line. These are performance improvements I am willing to pay for. An aside, I have not observed any tendency for a deer to run any further when I shoot them with monos. That may well be because a very high percentage of the deer I have shot with monos at ranges inside100 yards have dropped where they stood. It might just be because I am very particular about where I put bullets in deer. It might just be the data set is small enough that any effect toward increased run is masked. For instance one year I killed four that were all shoulder shots and all four dropped where they stood. Zero run. Out of less than 100 deer, four of which I would have expected to run at least some, dropping in their tracks is a result I do not necessarily believe is typical. Outliers happen. I shot a fawn with a copper .451 bullet that passed through both scapula an inch or so above the humerus joint. The only recognizable lung tissue left was about a fist size chunk of the bottom of one lung, The upper portion of the heart was gone. That one made it 50-60 yards. I don't care what you shoot 'em with, when those two pieces of tissue are all that is left in a chest full of red soup and the hole through is easily big enough that I could have run a shovel handle through you just cannot be expecting that deer to run anywhere. He just swayed back a little when it hit and then took off. My experience is that if they run, 25-30 yards is fairly typical and the longest run of any I have shot with a mono is about 70 yards on a deer with damage remarkably similar to the fawn. My numbers statistically will not mean so much since I shoot deer with a lot of different rifles in a lot of calibers. But... I shoot monos in everything and do not see enough difference between calibers with them that I would even consider hazarding a guess as to what caliber a deer was shot with if it was a mono. The holes look the same to me. I have said it before and stand by it. Today's monos are far and away the best bullets I have had to reload with since I started in 1956. That doesn't mean that the best of the premium bonded cup and cores are not better than most of what I have had in the past, nor that they are not acceptably close to the monos in performance. That said, with the monos performance at that level I see no reason whatsoever to shoot deer with anything but copper. I still shoot more cup and cores than anything else, but that's for making holes in paper and varmints. I have done my time shooting deer with bullets nowhere near this good and have no need to go back. Oh! I also settled on monos in my .357 and in my .40 S&W. I did a lot of testing, and the penetration with those 125 grain bullets is there, the low velocity expansion is there. and even with that big ass hollow point they hold together at max velocity quite nicely.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,705
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,705 |
Britt Ekland; now that was a little yummy!
What fresh Hell is this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,879
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,879 |
Miles I have not noticed anything going farther when shot with mono’s in fact with around a hundred head shot by myself and others that I’ve observed went down very quickly.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,735
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,735 |
Miles I have not noticed anything going farther when shot with mono’s in fact with around a hundred head shot by myself and others that I’ve observed went down very quickly. Yeah, Between what I have killed and what those whose rifles I solved for monos have killed, it's at just over 100. I have examined almost all of them. We have one guy who is less careful about bullet placement than I am, and he alone probably will make the average run distance go up a little since I know of three gut shot and one shot in the knee that traveled pretty far before we caught up with them. I did not keep detailed records with measurements on all the deer. Some of the group are like my son and just put them all down with zero run. I have always tended toward putting the bullet just under the skull to clip the brain stem on deer inside fifty yards, which over the years has probably averaged out to close to one out of three. Like I said above though, shooting them with 6-8 different calibers makes numbers kind of meaningless.if you accept conventional wisdom that a 30-06 will "kill 'em better" than a .223. Something I do not believe is true with a mono until you get to the margins of their effective range/velocity. Since this is the 'fire...By that I mean a .223 somewhere past 200 yards with a <60 grains mono is going to be running out of steam. A bigger round will give you another hundred yards or more in my opinion.which should show up in the wound.
|
|
|
|
|
200 members (160user, 338reddog, 35, 300jimmy, 12344mag, 2UP, 21 invisible),
1,643
guests, and
900
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,600
Posts18,454,592
Members73,908
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
