Funny thing about non-toxic shot....

[pianoman9701]

I haven't asked for anyone to be banned, so I don't know your point there. As far as his disagreeing with me is concerned, I have no problem with debate. I do, however have a problem with someone making the statement that steel is just as good as lead for killing birds, which he has stated. That indicates to me that he's never shot either. You said a &*&(*& shot is a &*&*&^*& shot. I agree wholeheartedly.  But even a good shot with steel can see a bird fly away crippled when it would've definitely died with lead. Have I changed my hunting for waterfowl to accommodate ethical shooting with Steel? Certainly. Is there any scientific evidence that eliminating steel shot for upland shooting will noticeably impact the environment? None that I know. I truly believe that anti-lead shot for upland game is a frivolous exercise that will accomplish only getting rid of lead shot, not any great environmental benefit.

[pianoman9701]

And JLS, you don't need to list your contributions to conservation. I believe you. I mentioned mine to give credibility to my stand and to show that some hunters are environmentalists and all hunters contribute to conservation. I also think it's important for us to call on the mat organizations like DOW, PETA, and HSUS for claiming to be all about wildlife, but never raise a hand to actually help them.

[JLS]

Bigshooter asked for him to be banned.

I'm not trying to change your mind.  I am a staunch advocate for bear baiting, spring bear hunting, hound hunting, and night hunting for coyotes.  However, I'm not a staunch advocate for the use of lead shot for bird hunting.  I also believe that not using it will have a positive environmental benefit without a great impact on hunter success.

[Shoffy]

Yep- go eat some.  Lots of things come from the environment that are bad.  BTW- I have a few gallons of motor oil that i need rid of, do you mind if I come spread it around your yard? 

Lead mined from the earth and lead spread across the surface of the earth are different things.

What does pouring motor oil in my yard have anything to do with lead shot landing on desert sage bush ground?? That's not even in the same ballpark of what we are talking about here. You can't even compare the toxicity of oil to lead. That like comparing smoking tobacco with drinking alcohol. One damages your lungs the other your liver. How can you compare that?? I simply said lead is a natural substance from the earth. Just like oil is. If you said let me shoot a box of 12ga #7-1/2 lead shot in your back yard, I'd say sure.
The point I think the couple guys are trying to make here is if lead is outlawed, need not to worry because you can use steel or expensive alternative shot. My problem with that still is the cost. It's just one more thing to turn hunting so expensive it's only something rich people can do. Pheasant hunting has already turned into something of that nature.
One guy said "After $1000 to go hunt roosters in SD, $100 a box of shells isn't that bad".
Hey man, Can I go along with you this fall?? I'll only shoot steel 

[pianoman9701]

I've seen no evidence that using lead for other than waterfowl has any negative impact. Show me one verifiable study that contradicts me and I'll consider changing my view. But, just thinking that it might isn't good enough for me. Why should I have to change to ammo that's twice as expensive and half as effective when there's no evidence that would help anything?

 I don't buy it until science is involved. And then, the science needs to be unbiased.

And, I understand using non-toxic shot for upland birds in small release areas, but in the forests? No way.

[Wenatcheejay]

PETA and the HSUS are definitely not environmentalists.

I would call them animal rights groups.

Their agenda has nothing to do with clean air and water.

bobcat for what it is worth I agree. But the term "environmentalist" is used by everyone. So I tried to show how words matter.

http://blog.peta.org.uk/tag/environment/  (I can provide dozens of examples)

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/environment/

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2009/08/river_of_waste_081109.html

You did state "their agenda" which I believe you are right. But the words they use "environmentalism" is why I made my comment. Everyone uses it but few work without an agenda. I perfer conservation and I defined what I meant.

[Special T]

Piano,

Here's my beef.  Someone offers a differing opinion, and he's labeled a tree hugger and is asked to be banned.  You show me one time in this thread that Stilly was disrespectful?  If you folks don't want to argue then don't. 

I think it's more than a little disingenious though, to question if someone qualifies as a "legitimate hunter", whatever that may be, because they don't agree with someone.  I think a lot of folks on here are complete hacks, but you don't find me calling them tree-huggers, rednecks, whatever.

The simple fact of this thread is that steel shot kills upland birds just fine.  I've used it, been there done that got the shirt.

A *censored*ty shot is a *censored*ty shot, regardless of whether you're using steel or lead. 

Yes, I am an environmentalist.  I do plenty for hunting and fishing, and what I do I'll keep to myself.  I could care less what PETA, DOW, and HSUS do.  But I would hope that all of us care at least a little bit about what we are doing to the environment and try to find ways to lessen that impact.  If using steel is one of them so be it.

Anytime you post something that is contradiction to the the rest of people you will be critizised... If you don't like it then i can only recomend 2 things. 1 don't post or 2 have some good facts to back your argument. If you don't realize its harder to "sell" someone an idea that they currently disagree with then your not being realistic... 

Most people here don't care what you "feel" unless you have some good facts and reasoning to back it up.

[Curly]

I've seen no evidence that using lead for other than waterfowl has any negative impact. Show me one verifiable study that contradicts me and I'll consider changing my view. But, just thinking that it might isn't good enough for me. Why should I have to change to ammo that's twice as expensive and half as effective when there's no evidence that would help anything?

 I don't buy it until science is involved. And then, the science needs to be unbiased.

And, I understand using non-toxic shot for upland birds in small release areas, but in the forests? No way.

   That is exactly my view as well.

[wraithen]

Sorry I missed three pages. Uncle Sam has me on a reversed schedule. Can we get back to the topic at hand? I was pretty pleased everyone was staying on topic and polite. I was enjoying the discussion.

Stilly, I get where you're coming from. The reason I took to your words so quickly is I'm getting tired of people buying into the compromise on issues trend. Just because someone makes it an issue does not mean they get any bit of what they want. The ban of lead for all shot appears to be starting. After shot, will they go after bullets or fishing tackle first? I'm not sure I could afford to fish much if they went after fishing and I don't want to lose that just because someone wants to feel good about compromise or because maybe lead fishing tackle could somehow be affecting catfish that get force fed it for ten years.

If they go after bullets life will change. There is absolutely nothing like lead in regards to ballistics. It is a metal hard enough (especially when jacketed,) to survive the trip through the barrel and atmosphere and yet soft enough to deform and give a superb amount of it's energy to it's target. Yes they have all copper bullets that work marginally but not anywhere nearly as well as lead. The same is true if lead is in the shape if little balls too which is why it is a truly better ballistic material than steel. Steel passes right through when lead would transfer much more energy into the target. With this in mind it is possible to have a good killing shot with lead that turns into a slow death or a maiming with steel. This is a valid argument. These projectiles do a lot of damage, but more trauma is generated if the round gives more energy to the target. Thus, lead kills better. Every time. If this were not true then man would have used something better than lead a long time ago to kill each other. Guns are always designed to kill, the anti's want them to stop being used for that purpose. They need to lose.

[JLS]

Special T,

I never said someone should expect others to blindly accept their argument without facts.  I did say it is ridiculous to label them and ask for them to be banned because they offered a viewpoint contrary to the masses.

My personal experiences show me that the wounding loss argument is rather overblown, but that is anecdotal data, not empirical. 


Wraithen,

Copper bullets work just fine.

[pianoman9701]

Special T,

I never said someone should expect others to blindly accept their argument without facts.  I did say it is ridiculous to label them and ask for them to be banned because they offered a viewpoint contrary to the masses.

My personal experiences show me that the wounding loss argument is rather overblown, but that is anecdotal data, not empirical. 


Wraithen,

Copper bullets work just fine.

They may work just fine (I'm not sure what you mean by just fine, though), but they're nowhere near as good as lead for producing energy on impact, comparing same calibers. In addition, the cost of copper is through the roof compared to lead. And, there's an added expense because much more heat is required to melt copper than lead, thus requiring different machinery or technique.

As far as wounding is concerned, the shot patterning of lead is far more concentrated than steel. Steel bounces off each other and the pattern spreads immediately on leaving the muzzle, much more than lead. Lead doesn't bounce as much and it flattens against other lead pellets, allowing the pattern to remain tight for a far greater distance. This definitely affects the kill/wound or cripple ratio when shooting from the same distance. Again, why should i limit my killing power for something that'll have no negative environmental impact? I shouldn't.

[JLS]

Don't.  I never said you should.  I stated my anecdotal experiences to support my stance, and I can certainly agree to disagree.

The energy on impact argument is ridiculous though, when you consider that a bullet puts a hole in vital organs.  I have shot a pile of Barnes X bullets that have resulted in one shot kills, including elk with a .243.

[Special T]

JLS, maybe I should say it more harsh/plainly... Maybe you should have thicker skin.. I disagree with many arguments on here, but i am more receptive to people's arguments when they are not derailed by a little name calling...

“You raise your voice when you should reinforce your argument.”
― Samuel Johnson


I try not to name call, but when some one says something i don't like about me, I try to address them with facts. Let them look stupid, no need to join the fray. 

[pianoman9701]

Don't.  I never said you should.  I stated my anecdotal experiences to support my stance, and I can certainly agree to disagree.

The energy on impact argument is ridiculous though, when you consider that a bullet puts a hole in vital organs.  I have shot a pile of Barnes X bullets that have resulted in one shot kills, including elk with a .243.

Yes, and people have killed moose with a .22. That doesn't mean you should. You should inflict a maximum amount of damage to ensure a quick, humane kill. Only lead expands 2-3 times its size on impact. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. You can choose to ignore that fact, but that doesn't make it go away. Copper is a poor substitute for lead of the same caliber. To argue differently is to ignore ballistics.

[AWS]

Rich Guy, that'a a joke, but I have my priorities.  I hunt, My life is hunting or preparing for the next season.  I live on my SS and what I saved and invested for 30yrs of Truck driving and warehouse work.   I don't smoke go to restraunts, stay in motels, go on cruises, hire quides, go to movies, or waste my money on anything but bird and coyote hunting with an occasional deer hunt with my family. 

Because I know what lead can do to people and game I choose to hunt with non toxics, and because of that I support the lead ban.

There is no gun in my cabinet that is so sacred that I would stop hunting because I couldn't shoot lead in it.  The past couple of years I've been trading off some of my stuff that will lose alot of value when lead is banned and it will happen.  I'm also learning about non toxics and am finding that in some of my old timers that 7/8 oz loads kill just as well a 1 1/4 oz loads and I can stretch a pound of Non Toxic(Nice Shot and ITX) a lot farther to keep the costs down.  I buy upland #5 steel(kent) by the case for quail and use #7 steel target loads(winchester) on doves.

Lately I've been working with Lead Free bullets for coyote hunting and they are working very good in my 6mm, this summer I will be working with them in 224.   The prices on them are almost the same as lead bullets.  I have found a good load for my 250 Sav with 75gr X bullets I picked up when Barnes closed them out for the TSX.  They should last me the rest of my life.  Big game bullets are are insignificant cost you only need one or two a season.  Target shooting on a range I use lead and can't see the need for nontaoxics there as all that can be reclaimed(mined)