Barnes bullets supporting lead ammunition bans!

[JDHasty]

Here's my point, they blatantly push their bullets as superior to all others but gloss over their short comings. They are advocating their concept of their bullets as superior in all things.

Pretty much what all companies do, it's called marketing. If Barnes is really pushing for lead bans, I'd like to know, but I think it's important to stay realistic at the same time.

It is one thing to push your product.  It is quite another to be working int he shadows to implement legislation that cripples your competitors.  I know that a lot of companies are engaged in doing just that, and it is not the point I am making that this behavior is unique.  The point I was making is that this happened and it influences my decision on where to spend my money to this day.

25-30 YEARS AGO!!!

You bet!  I used to use Barnes 348 Cal 250 Gr Originals.  The Woodleigh equivalent suits my needs just fine.  I shoot Nosler Partitions at big game from my bolt guns (they work just fine) and Sierra, Nosler & Spear have never let me down when it comes to varmint bullets.   

Actually the Woodleigh is a superior bullet in 348, I would have never known that though if Barnes had not given me reason to shop elsewhere for 348 bullets.  There was another guy (big into moose hunting) who shot Barnes 250 gr 308 caliber bullets.  He stopped using those too after what he had on hand was gone. 

[Buzz2401]

I have been using Barnes for over 15 years and will continue.  They flat out produce in the application that I use them at.

[theleo]

We shoot a lot of different bullets, but in the right applications we've had great success with Barnes bullets so I am glad to support them. I would like to confirm that Barnes is actively doing this. It's one thing to watch ammo bans happen and not be opposed if it benefits your sales, it's a much different thing to purposefully advocate for the elimination of all lead ammo to benefit your bottom line when the cost factor will actually damage the overall shooting industry. I certainly want to hear more and agree with jackelope in wanting to know if they are still advocating for lead ammo bans!

My understanding is that how the company has acted is not to actively support bans but to show non hunters why a lead ban does not mean the end of hunting. The condor issue in California is still not fixed, condors are still getting lead poisoning. How did all copper bullets "work" for that?

Bearpaw, if I followed your logic it'd also be alright to watch my neighbors house robbed and vandalize in hopes that I could buy their property when they have enough and move somewhere else.

 

[dscubame]

For all of those tossing Barnes bullets on principal please send them my way!!   

[WoodlandShooter]

YEah, if anyone has some LRX in 338...send them to me!!!


oh and as for the lack of lead, I might have use for some tungsten core bullets!!!

[bearpaw]

We shoot a lot of different bullets, but in the right applications we've had great success with Barnes bullets so I am glad to support them. I would like to confirm that Barnes is actively doing this. It's one thing to watch ammo bans happen and not be opposed if it benefits your sales, it's a much different thing to purposefully advocate for the elimination of all lead ammo to benefit your bottom line when the cost factor will actually damage the overall shooting industry. I certainly want to hear more and agree with jackelope in wanting to know if they are still advocating for lead ammo bans!

My understanding is that how the company has acted is not to actively support bans but to show non hunters why a lead ban does not mean the end of hunting. The condor issue in California is still not fixed, condors are still getting lead poisoning. How did all copper bullets "work" for that?

Bearpaw, if I followed your logic it'd also be alright to watch my neighbors house robbed and vandalize in hopes that I could buy their property when they have enough and move somewhere else.

That's a far cry from what I said. 
I do get tired of seeing companies unfairly trashed. Unless Barnes is actively promoting lead ammo bans I will continue to use them. Show me the proof that is their current position and I will gladly quit buying Barnes bullets! Otherwise this whole topic seems unfair to Barnes!

[jackelope]

We shoot a lot of different bullets, but in the right applications we've had great success with Barnes bullets so I am glad to support them. I would like to confirm that Barnes is actively doing this. It's one thing to watch ammo bans happen and not be opposed if it benefits your sales, it's a much different thing to purposefully advocate for the elimination of all lead ammo to benefit your bottom line when the cost factor will actually damage the overall shooting industry. I certainly want to hear more and agree with jackelope in wanting to know if they are still advocating for lead ammo bans!

My understanding is that how the company has acted is not to actively support bans but to show non hunters why a lead ban does not mean the end of hunting. The condor issue in California is still not fixed, condors are still getting lead poisoning. How did all copper bullets "work" for that?

Bearpaw, if I followed your logic it'd also be alright to watch my neighbors house robbed and vandalize in hopes that I could buy their property when they have enough and move somewhere else.

That's a far cry from what I said. 
I do get tired of seeing companies unfairly trashed. Unless Barnes is actively promoting lead ammo bans I will continue to use them. Show me the proof that is their current position and I will gladly quit buying Barnes bullets! Otherwise this whole topic seems unfair to Barnes!

That's my angle too. Show me something current. Otherwise...I'm not drinking the cool aid.

[JDHasty]

What set me off originally was that Barnes showed up at a forum that had absolutely NOTHING to do with big game hunting bullets and was transparently coordinating with various advocacy groups and "alphabet Agencies" who were actively seeking to expand the regulations banning lead way beyond the non-toxic shot regulation that was being expanded and to include solid bullets in future regulations.  I shared that in a post and others ask me about that experience and I have shared my observations and thoughts.   

That alone was enough to put me off Barnes Bullets for good and for all time.  I have no personal experience with any thing more current and especially no contemporary experience w/Barnes Bullets what so ever.  But I do not need anything more than what I have shared to know that that decision is the correct decision for me.   

[theleo]

I'll eat a little crow on this, apparently it was a former employee. As I remember it being billed he was there to represent the fire arm industry side of things.

https://ortws.wordpress.com/tag/lead/
This workshop will provide Pacific Northwest hunters and wildlife professionals with an interactive forum to learn about and discuss the effects of lead ingestion on wildlife in Oregon, the ballistics of non-lead ammunition, and ways to reduce lead’s impact on wildlife. Panel discussions will provide participants with opportunities to share their experiences and contribute ideas towards a strategy to reduce the availability of lead from ammunition to wildlife in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. Topics include:
•Overview of lead and wildlife issues in other states
•Current field research in Oregon
•Hunter opinions, attitudes, and experiences
•Ballistics and effectiveness of non-lead ammunition
•Engaging hunters to help solve the problem

Agenda

9:00 am to 12:00 pm: Morning Session: Overview of wildlife exposure to lead from ammunition, challenges of changing to non-lead ammunition and performance of non-lead ammunition

9:00 – 9:05 Teri Dresler, Oregon Zoo
Welcome and introductions

9:05 – 9:10 Oregon Chapter of the Wildlife Society
Opening Remarks, introduction to morning session

9:10 – 9:35 Chris Parish, Peregrine Fund
Overview and personal experience of research and voluntary outreach in Arizona. Why should sportsmen engage in this issue?

9:35 – 10:00 Dana Sanchez, Oregon State University
Oregon hunter survey results

10:00 – 10:25 Eric Pederson, ballistician and firearms expert (formerly Barnes Bullets)
Ballistics of non-lead bullets

[dscubame]

For those that PM'd me for my address to send those bullets to I have responded. 

Overwhelming response and thank you. 

For those who still need my address just PM me, I am now accepting overflow that I will be forwarding to JDHasty.  Thanks.

[Bob33]

I cannot say anything about what they are doing today.

Then why did you? "Supporting" is a present tense.

[Wacenturion]

We shoot a lot of different bullets, but in the right applications we've had great success with Barnes bullets so I am glad to support them. I would like to confirm that Barnes is actively doing this. It's one thing to watch ammo bans happen and not be opposed if it benefits your sales, it's a much different thing to purposefully advocate for the elimination of all lead ammo to benefit your bottom line when the cost factor will actually damage the overall shooting industry. I certainly want to hear more and agree with jackelope in wanting to know if they are still advocating for lead ammo bans!

My understanding is that how the company has acted is not to actively support bans but to show non hunters why a lead ban does not mean the end of hunting. The condor issue in California is still not fixed, condors are still getting lead poisoning. How did all copper bullets "work" for that?

Bearpaw, if I followed your logic it'd also be alright to watch my neighbors house robbed and vandalize in hopes that I could buy their property when they have enough and move somewhere else.

That's a far cry from what I said. 
I do get tired of seeing companies unfairly trashed. Unless Barnes is actively promoting lead ammo bans I will continue to use them. Show me the proof that is their current position and I will gladly quit buying Barnes bullets! Otherwise this whole topic seems unfair to Barnes!

Agree........

[JDHasty]

I cannot say anything about what they are doing today.

Then why did you? "Supporting" is a present tense.

I have laid out what I witnessed.  Period.  I have said that this event was enough for me to make  a decision that I would not do business with them in the future.  I haven't and I am comfortable that that was the correct decision for me.  This is the second time I have stated my position on this issue and my position is pretty clear and what I claim i based that decision on is unambiguous. 

If you want to set up a straw man, knock yourself out.  Set up a whole field of straw men and then run around like a pyromaniac in a field of straw men burning them down and what have you accomplished?  Nothing. 

What I have stated is: My experience a long time ago is what I based my decision on, I am still comfortable with that decision.   

[RadSav]

Sorry, took me a while to get through all my old industry news briefs to verify what I had thought I remembered.  Wanted to be somewhat accurate before I posted a response in what had become a heated debate.

I get the impression that all this anger is over actions by the Brooks management and commissioned sales reps prior to 2010.  Is this correct? 

If so it is a moot point now as the Brooks family no longer owns the company.  They sold to The Freedom Group (ROC-Remington Outdoor Company) in 2010.  If your issue is with The Freedom Group you might need to add REMINGTON, BUSHMASTER, REMINGTON MILITARY, MARLIN FIREARMS, H&R 1871, DAKOTA ARMS, TAPCO, DPMS / Panther Arms, PARKER GUNMAKERS, ADVANCED ARMAMENT, PARA USA and MOUNTAIN KHAKIS to your list of companies you are going to boycott.  Same ownership - operations overseen by the same people.

So I think it is safe to say that if you do not have an objection to Remington Outdoors or a hatred toward their products we can call this issue a Non-Issue at this point in time.  But, if you do happen to have evidence that ROC, Inc. is actively trying to legislate lead core bullets out of the market place I would certainly love to here the details with links if possible.  I have no problem boycotting companies that are not our friends as sportsmen and stewards of our hunting traditions.  However, I am one that really needs to have undeniable facts that current ownership and/or management is actually doing what is rumored on the internet before I will support such action.

[Buzz2401]

Way to drop facts to ruin a perfectly good debate thread.