Interesting......

[Lyfter1013]

In America science is only valid when your in agreement with the results and its sufficiently convenient.

I don’t think many here are arguing that ingesting of lead is bad for the body. My issue is this isn’t having a negative enough of an impact for the switch to be made. Would switching to lead lower the number of raptors dying, yea probably but is that number substantial? I don’t think so. If you go back to the link I posted a couple pages back lead poisoning doesn’t even show up as a measurable percentage of deaths to Golden Eagles.

To add to that I would be willing to bet you that if everyone switched to lead free we would lose a lot more deer and elk to people not being able to find the animals wounded compared to
How Many raptors die from lead poisoning.. I talked to a couple of California game wardens about how the switch was going a few years ago before the statewide ban fully went into place and they both stated that in the areas where the initial lead ban was put in place they had more issues with guys wounding and never finding there wounded game than ever before. Mind you that is on small California Blacktail how do you think that will translate to elk and big mule deer in other states. Copper ammo has come a long way but it still does not do as much internal damage or leave the same blood trails as lead.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don’t understand, let’s quit using lead because it’s shitty for the environment so that they don’t ban it because it’s shitty for the environment. Lol. Ok Got it.


Ca is already trying to ban lead at shooting ranges, so goes Ca so goes the rest of the country.

Holsters for Beginners - 2A Cops

If you are new to the world of handguns, you might have some questions about holsters. As a guy who has carried a gun for more than 20 years, both concealed and open, I get asked for holster advice quite often. Generally speaking, a holster serves three main purposes: 1) it keeps the gun available …

2acops.com

Plenty of alternatives for fishing weights. yawn..

I think it’s possible that the subject is more complex than just me choosing to shoot copper and posting my proverbial black square (strange how that issue disappeared without change) on facespaceagram.

Will switching to shooting copper change the overall population of raptors or other species in a positive manner within the ecosystem? Or will it just mean we don’t find poisoned x on the landscape but the carrying capacity for each species x remains the same? Will hunters switching to lead increase the population of predators and how will that effect other species (also possibly endangered) like stephens kangaroo rat etc? Will I need to worry about small children being carried away from the grocery store parking lot by a golden eagle because they depleted their normal food source?Raptors in general seem to be doing well outside a select few. What are the economic effects of switching from lead to other? Approx 10 billion bullets are made a year, where will the increase in copper or x mineral come from and how does that effect the environment? It’s not like people are excited to have a new copper mine in their back yard. Is there alternative solutions to contamination? Can hunters be required to bury guy piles when using lead? Can they be required to remove animals whole amd then dispose of the remains in a safer manner? Can we create technology to ensure lead dues not enter processed game meat (x ray/metal detection)etc? Are there studies to confirm other species/the environment aren’t effected by copper or the potential increase in copper use or production? Are there any studies testing the lead blood levels in children and adults where the majority of meals are wild game meat harvested with a rifle (think remote villages/AK etc.) how do they compare to the non game consuming general population?

it’s estimated We’ve flung between 50-100 trillion lead bullets across this landscape called earth, rather it be at man or beast or targets. Like nearly all mans activities im sure they have had some effect on the environment and our own well being. But here we are in 2020 trying to understand the relevance of the choices of our past, I think it’s just as important to make wiser choices in the future. Does that mean we shoot copper? Or is there a even better alternative?

so I ask ? Why copper and why not laser beams? If I’m gonna make a switch from the most deadly bullet for game known to Man (the 168 Berger vld)! Than I want a laser gun at minimum!

Christ! Just a bunch of cranky old bastards figuring out how to pull another Mineral from the ground, destroy the earth , for a new projectile... yaaaaawn!

LASER BEAMS DAMMIT.. 2020, y’all saving the planet and you don’t even have laser guns yet.. god I hope the aliens hurry up and get here.. straighten your arses out.

I like the cut of your jib, cocaine man.

 

[Sytes]

In America science is only valid when your in agreement with the results and its sufficiently convenient.

Tribal politics have diluted the meaning of, "science" as... objective and not defined as neutral. It's become one side versus the other - Science paid via the highest Lobbyist dinero. Lobbyist who have their grease ready for the palms of the politicians willing to press their agenda.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Tribal politics have diluted the meaning of, "science" as... objective and not defined as neutral. It's become one side versus the other - Science paid via the highest Lobbyist dinero. Lobbyist who have their grease ready for the palms of the politicians willing to press their agenda.

I once paid a scientist $49 to write a report for me that claimed lobbyists I didn't like had cooties.

Totally worth it and peer reviewed!

 

[kwyeewyk]

This turd ain't circling, it's rising!

 

[Elkmagnet]

I don’t understand, let’s quit using lead because it’s shitty for the environment so that they don’t ban it because it’s shitty for the environment. Lol. Ok Got it.

I don't know if this was your intent but you captured your ability to understand nuance in one paragraph.

 

[refuseresist]

I don’t think many here are arguing that ingesting of lead is bad for the body. My issue is this isn’t having a negative enough of an impact for the switch to be made. Would switching to lead lower the number of raptors dying, yea probably but is that number substantial? I don’t think so. If you go back to the link I posted a couple pages back lead poisoning doesn’t even show up as a measurable percentage of deaths to Golden Eagles.

To add to that I would be willing to bet you that if everyone switched to lead free we would lose a lot more deer and elk to people not being able to find the animals wounded compared to
How Many raptors die from lead poisoning.. I talked to a couple of California game wardens about how the switch was going a few years ago before the statewide ban fully went into place and they both stated that in the areas where the initial lead ban was put in place they had more issues with guys wounding and never finding there wounded game than ever before. Mind you that is on small California Blacktail how do you think that will translate to elk and big mule deer in other states. Copper ammo has come a long way but it still does not do as much internal damage or leave the same blood trails as lead.

you're making assumptions and assertions but on what data is any of this based?

 

[El Jason]

This turd ain't circling, it's rising!

I have a clogged toilet story that is quite amazing. I may have to share it at the rate things are digressing.

 

[Brian in Montana]

 

[Elkmagnet]

.

To add to that I would be willing to bet you that if everyone switched to lead free we would lose a lot more deer and elk to people not being able to find the animals wounded compared to
How Many raptors die from lead poisoning.. I talked to a couple of California game wardens about how the switch was going a few years ago before the statewide ban fully went into place and they both stated that in the areas where the initial lead ban was put in place they had more issues with guys wounding and never finding there wounded game than ever before. Mind you that is on small California Blacktail how do you think that will translate to elk and big mule deer in other states. Copper ammo has come a long way but it still does not do as much internal damage or leave the same blood trails as lead.

As someone who has seen a lot of animals shot with monos I disagree.

 

[Sytes]

I once paid a scientist $49 to write a report for me that claimed lobbyists I didn't like had cooties.

Totally worth it and peer reviewed!

Sugar lobbyists paid more than $49 buckaroonies…

 

[Trial153]

I don’t think many here are arguing that ingesting of lead is bad for the body. My issue is this isn’t having a negative enough of an impact for the switch to be made. Would switching to lead lower the number of raptors dying, yea probably but is that number substantial? I don’t think so. If you go back to the link I posted a couple pages back lead poisoning doesn’t even show up as a measurable percentage of deaths to Golden Eagles.

To add to that I would be willing to bet you that if everyone switched to lead free we would lose a lot more deer and elk to people not being able to find the animals wounded compared to
How Many raptors die from lead poisoning.. I talked to a couple of California game wardens about how the switch was going a few years ago before the statewide ban fully went into place and they both stated that in the areas where the initial lead ban was put in place they had more issues with guys wounding and never finding there wounded game than ever before. Mind you that is on small California Blacktail how do you think that will translate to elk and big mule deer in other states. Copper ammo has come a long way but it still does not do as much internal damage or leave the same blood trails as lead.

Well I pretty-much disagree with everything your wrote. But thats okay.

 

[mtmiller]

 

[Deleted member 16014]

This is probably a waste of bandwidth and it's too long, but another perspective to consider.

I shoot mostly lead despite being an ecosystem scientist, and am at least competent as one. I believe there are effects on birds of prey at varied spatiotemporal scales and potential health concerns for people.

P1: There are nearly infinite things I can do every day to lessen my impact on the environment as a whole, wildlife included. I can recycle, drive a more fuel efficient vehicle, drive less, look closely at where my clothing is sourced, live in a smaller home, buy less electronic gadgets, turn off light switches, unplug unused chargers, never use disposable utensils and plates, don't use plastic bags, hunt with copper bullets and it goes on. There are truly a limited number of measure I can gear up for before I just don't care anymore. Some of you are probably better humans than I am and get energized by each one of those things when you do them; but at some point I have other things to worry about, and copper bullets just aren't that high on the list. Same goes for my health: I could never drink alcohol again, exercise every day, give up caffeine, quit eating any sugar, eat only organic vegetables, take all the right vitamins, sleep more, watch less TV, floss more, wash raspberries before I eat them, ensure there is zero lead residue in my meat, etc. It's a balance of priorities and choices.

P2: I have several barrels worth of bullets on hand that I've proven to myself to be effective at killing animals at ranges short and long, and are also a joy to shoot long range on steel. On average they outperform copper ballistically by quite a bit. There is room for technology to close the gap to a great extent, or maybe entirely some day. When I invest days/bullets/powder/barrel life into being proficient with a bullet I don't want to shoot a different bullet when I go hunting. I learn how they slip the wind, how consistent they are at distance, and over time how they've performed on game. That's worth a lot to me.

I could develop copper hunting loads for all of my family's rifles in addition to what I've already cooked up, and mostly use lead at the range and on steel. I am doing that for my kids .243 right now in fact. What I don't like is the assumption that somebody else knows how much value P2 has for me, and why can't I stop being an ignorant, backwards sportsman. To be clear that's not the tone of most posters here, but it's the vibe I get at trade shows/wildlife events and the movement in general. If you deliver information to people like they're lesser, they won't care if you're right.

My point is there is something between "copper only" and "stubborn rednecks who hate science". In order for me to move to copper for all my hunting rifles I will need to see the performance on paper and game for myself, so that I'm comfortable saying I'm 100% as effective with that configuration. That might happen in two years or ten or never, we will see. Priorities and choices.

 

[mtmuley]

This is probably a waste of bandwidth and it's too long, but another perspective to consider.

I shoot mostly lead despite being an ecosystem scientist, and am at least competent as one. I believe there are effects on birds of prey at varied spatiotemporal scales and potential health concerns for people.

P1: There are nearly infinite things I can do every day to lessen my impact on the environment as a whole, wildlife included. I can recycle, drive a more fuel efficient vehicle, drive less, look closely at where my clothing is sourced, live in a smaller home, buy less electronic gadgets, turn off light switches, unplug unused chargers, never use disposable utensils and plates, don't use plastic bags, hunt with copper bullets and it goes on. There are truly a limited number of measure I can gear up for before I just don't care anymore. Some of you are probably better humans than I am and get energized by each one of those things when you do them; but at some point I have other things to worry about, and copper bullets just aren't that high on the list. Same goes for my health: I could never drink alcohol again, exercise every day, give up caffeine, quit eating any sugar, eat only organic vegetables, take all the right vitamins, sleep more, watch less TV, floss more, wash raspberries before I eat them, ensure there is zero lead residue in my meat, etc. It's a balance of priorities and choices.

P2: I have several barrels worth of bullets on hand that I've proven to myself to be effective at killing animals at ranges short and long, and are also a joy to shoot long range on steel. On average they outperform copper ballistically by quite a bit. There is room for technology to close the gap to a great extent, or maybe entirely some day. When I invest days/bullets/powder/barrel life into being proficient with a bullet I don't want to shoot a different bullet when I go hunting. I learn how they slip the wind, how consistent they are at distance, and over time how they've performed on game. That's worth a lot to me.

I could develop copper hunting loads for all of my family's rifles in addition to what I've already cooked up, and mostly use lead at the range and on steel. I am doing that for my kids .243 right now in fact. What I don't like is the assumption that somebody else knows how much value P2 has for me, and why can't I stop being an ignorant, backwards sportsman. To be clear that's not the tone of most posters here, but it's the vibe I get at trade shows/wildlife events and the movement in general. If you deliver information to people like they're lesser, they won't care if you're right.

My point is there is something between "copper only" and "stubborn rednecks who hate science". In order for me to move to copper for all my hunting rifles I will need to see the performance on paper and game for myself, so that I'm comfortable saying I'm 100% as effective with that configuration. That might happen in two years or ten or never, we will see. Priorities and choices.

Watch out Snowy. You aren't in alignment. Great post. mtmuley

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

This turd ain't circling, it's rising!

I think the water is over flowing already

 

[Elkmagnet]

This is probably a waste of bandwidth and it's too long, but another perspective to consider.

I shoot mostly lead despite being an ecosystem scientist, and am at least competent as one. I believe there are effects on birds of prey at varied spatiotemporal scales and potential health concerns for people.

P1: There are nearly infinite things I can do every day to lessen my impact on the environment as a whole, wildlife included. I can recycle, drive a more fuel efficient vehicle, drive less, look closely at where my clothing is sourced, live in a smaller home, buy less electronic gadgets, turn off light switches, unplug unused chargers, never use disposable utensils and plates, don't use plastic bags, hunt with copper bullets and it goes on. There are truly a limited number of measure I can gear up for before I just don't care anymore. Some of you are probably better humans than I am and get energized by each one of those things when you do them; but at some point I have other things to worry about, and copper bullets just aren't that high on the list. Same goes for my health: I could never drink alcohol again, exercise every day, give up caffeine, quit eating any sugar, eat only organic vegetables, take all the right vitamins, sleep more, watch less TV, floss more, wash raspberries before I eat them, ensure there is zero lead residue in my meat, etc. It's a balance of priorities and choices.

P2: I have several barrels worth of bullets on hand that I've proven to myself to be effective at killing animals at ranges short and long, and are also a joy to shoot long range on steel. On average they outperform copper ballistically by quite a bit. There is room for technology to close the gap to a great extent, or maybe entirely some day. When I invest days/bullets/powder/barrel life into being proficient with a bullet I don't want to shoot a different bullet when I go hunting. I learn how they slip the wind, how consistent they are at distance, and over time how they've performed on game. That's worth a lot to me.

I could develop copper hunting loads for all of my family's rifles in addition to what I've already cooked up, and mostly use lead at the range and on steel. I am doing that for my kids .243 right now in fact. What I don't like is the assumption that somebody else knows how much value P2 has for me, and why can't I stop being an ignorant, backwards sportsman. To be clear that's not the tone of most posters here, but it's the vibe I get at trade shows/wildlife events and the movement in general. If you deliver information to people like they're lesser, they won't care if you're right.

My point is there is something between "copper only" and "stubborn rednecks who hate science". In order for me to move to copper for all my hunting rifles I will need to see the performance on paper and game for myself, so that I'm comfortable saying I'm 100% as effective with that configuration. That might happen in two years or ten or never, we will see. Priorities and choices.

Good post with good perspective. The health aspects might get revised as your health deteriorates with age. Kind of like how people start wearing hearing protection after the start having problems.
How do you feel about the potential for a lead ban?
Do you feel like its
Non-existent?
Existing but imminent despite hunters efforts to reduce impacts.
Just don't care?

 

[longbow51]

Whie you're at it: https://soyummy.com/lead-foods/

 

[Irrelevant]

This is probably a waste of bandwidth and it's too long, but another perspective to consider.

I shoot mostly lead despite being an ecosystem scientist, and am at least competent as one. I believe there are effects on birds of prey at varied spatiotemporal scales and potential health concerns for people.

P1: There are nearly infinite things I can do every day to lessen my impact on the environment as a whole, wildlife included. I can recycle, drive a more fuel efficient vehicle, drive less, look closely at where my clothing is sourced, live in a smaller home, buy less electronic gadgets, turn off light switches, unplug unused chargers, never use disposable utensils and plates, don't use plastic bags, hunt with copper bullets and it goes on. There are truly a limited number of measure I can gear up for before I just don't care anymore. Some of you are probably better humans than I am and get energized by each one of those things when you do them; but at some point I have other things to worry about, and copper bullets just aren't that high on the list. Same goes for my health: I could never drink alcohol again, exercise every day, give up caffeine, quit eating any sugar, eat only organic vegetables, take all the right vitamins, sleep more, watch less TV, floss more, wash raspberries before I eat them, ensure there is zero lead residue in my meat, etc. It's a balance of priorities and choices.

P2: I have several barrels worth of bullets on hand that I've proven to myself to be effective at killing animals at ranges short and long, and are also a joy to shoot long range on steel. On average they outperform copper ballistically by quite a bit. There is room for technology to close the gap to a great extent, or maybe entirely some day. When I invest days/bullets/powder/barrel life into being proficient with a bullet I don't want to shoot a different bullet when I go hunting. I learn how they slip the wind, how consistent they are at distance, and over time how they've performed on game. That's worth a lot to me.

I could develop copper hunting loads for all of my family's rifles in addition to what I've already cooked up, and mostly use lead at the range and on steel. I am doing that for my kids .243 right now in fact. What I don't like is the assumption that somebody else knows how much value P2 has for me, and why can't I stop being an ignorant, backwards sportsman. To be clear that's not the tone of most posters here, but it's the vibe I get at trade shows/wildlife events and the movement in general. If you deliver information to people like they're lesser, they won't care if you're right.

My point is there is something between "copper only" and "stubborn rednecks who hate science". In order for me to move to copper for all my hunting rifles I will need to see the performance on paper and game for myself, so that I'm comfortable saying I'm 100% as effective with that configuration. That might happen in two years or ten or never, we will see. Priorities and choices.

That is a great rebuttal.

With regard to your #1 point, I agree, but I also think we all try to improve, bit by bit, step by step, relapses included, striving to do so is part of human experience. For me switching to copper was closer to switching to an engineering tape measure when doing home improvements than improving my flossing frequency (or heaven forbid my beer consumption). Once I made the switch, and sorted out some early confusion, there was zero additional effort.

Towards point #2. How much of your success to you attribute to or equipment, bullets included, versus your skill? The internet perception is that you'd still be lethal on big muley bucks with a slingshot.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Dang, 14 pages already. I might as well add my irrelevent opinion since I've been watching this thread like an eagle (although maybe one with a bit of lead poisoning).

Snowy's first point pretty much sums up my position for the most part. I know lead is bad for critters and humans, but it's hard to get all wound up about the chance of eating microscopic pieces of lead in my meat when you never hear about people getting lead poisoning from doing so, or even having health issues later in life that are directly linked to the consumption of leaded meat, especially when I swing by McDonalds for an egg mcmuffin on my way out of town to go hunting. Probably some ignorance on my part, I'll admit it.

But on the other hand, for my style of hunting and shooting, switching to monos would not be a big deal at all. Rather easy and cheap actually. I could go either way. However, the more my brother gives me crap for using leaded bullets the more I don't want to switch, haha.