11 Replies to “Giving up lead ammo – an American hunter writes…”

  1. The sensible approach why have our government and hunters not adopted the same approach? Lead affected decision making skills perhaps?

  2. Hmm…Bittel’s article makes it quite clear that his opposition to the use of lead ammunition is not shared by many of his fellow shooters in the US. He describes a long list of hunting organisations (and some wildlife organisations!) who immediately issued press release congratulating Secretary Ryan Zinke for rescinding the ban on use of lead ammo over federal lands. Representatives of American shooters adopt a similar bloody minded approach to the issue as their British counterparts (one organisation Bitell contacted gave concern about ‘government over-reach’ as their reason for disliking the ban) and the same level of denial of the problems of lead ammunition.
    I guess his article is not really so different to John Swift writing on your blog in favour of banning lead ammunition. Sadly, both Bittel and Swift are currently minority voices in the shooting communities of their respective sides of the Atlantic. Hopefully that will change.

  4. Good to hear the views from across the pond, but one thing bugs me. He’s a science writer and has only just realised that this discussion has been taking place since the ’70s? Come on.
    Still, much better than not saying it. Funny how our two governments react in the same way. Protection of rights at all costs……..the right to poison our land, our kids, our future.
    Morons!

  5. It is tempting to think of the farming, hunting, shooting, and fishing lobby as rejecting bans on leadshot as resistance for resistance sake. The old “not one step back or they’ll all be upon us” mindset. And to some degree it is, especially in the farming lobby (and it creates something of a self-fulfilling prophecy there), but one thing we have to realize is that one of things the high end driven shooting lobby sells is the chance to handle and shoot Victorian firearms, a touch of class with an antique six figure shotgun, and those old guns can be damaged with lead replacement shot. It might be possible to educate ans soft soap some of the lobby, like farmers, if we can convince them the idea of giving up lead comes from within their own ranks, but it will be impossible to use rationality to win over the driven grouse and pheasant industry because it is yet another harmful thing essential to their business model. Money today wins out over health problems tomorrow.

    The Driven Grouse Lobby is literally prioritising their antique weapons over the health of the environment and the people who eat game birds. Not such a hazard to many of the movers and shakers because they leave their kills in a pit or to be used as poison bait though.

    When someone from the farming, hunting, shooting, and fishing lobby gets on their high horse, maybe point out that they are fine with lead because they like their guns more than consumers.

  7. As someone who shoots a few deer each year on the family croft on Skye, as soon as I learned about the impact of lead on scavengers I switched to copper bullets (especially as whenever a deer was shot, among the hoodies and ravens there would usually be an Eagle or two (goldie or white tailed) suddenly appearing). Not had any issues with it, though is currently 3x the price of lead (not that that bothers me or that I shoot anywhere near enough for that to be an issue). Beyond cost or being seen as ‘yet another attack on shooting’ as some would see it, I can’t see why shooting groups wouldn’t be behind this. Seems like a huge own goal for shooting in a PR sense. I was also under the impression that the higher end shotgun shells (bismuth etc) could be used with non steel-proofed guns. And if you can afford to use a vintage gun on a driven grouse Moor, a few extra pounds for high end cartridges won’t break the bank.

    1. And if you can afford to use a vintage gun on a driven grouse Moor, a few extra pounds for high end cartridges won’t break the bank.
      You’d think, but the rich are always willing to spend a pound to save a penny.

  8. I think it comes down to a few issues for those into shooting sports. Lethality, safety, application and cost.

    For shotguns nothing carries the same energy transfer qualities as lead or the ability to be used in older firearms. Apart that is from bismuth, there is no etc. Bismuth is the only like for like replacement for lead. Sadly its cost is many multiples of lead even if it were to be produced in large scale and so will never be acceptable to the bulk of the shooting community.

    Steel shot as the only other option causes far more wounding than lead and is less humane. I know many on this blog will scoff at the notion that people who take part in shooting sports would care but I assure you they do. Steel is also more prone to ricoochet and so less safe to use.

    On the bullet side copper is a potential substitute although again it presents greater risks of ricochet and is less humane as it transfers less energy than lead lwading to many deer bleeding to death.

    For shotguns if bismuth price was close to lead I believe lead would be dropped immediately.

    1. These are indeed the issues that perplex many of my shooting friends but they are misplaced.

      I shoot with “an older firearm” and use bismuth. Yes, it is more expensive but that is a minor element of the day’s cost and well worth it for doing the right thing. I also have a modern o/u shotgun and have no hesitation using steel. It works just as well as lead up to ranges beyond which no responsible shot should be shooting; so, as with any load, good range judgement is important.

      So long as you observe basic principles – e.g. larger shot size and care with range judgement – steel does NOT cause “far more wounding”. I have found that applies from shooting snipe to geese. To back this up there is much careful research, from both field and controlled studies, that shows this to be true.

      There has also been much investigation into ricochet – both scientific testing under controlled conditions, as well as review of many years’ (decades) of accident and insurance claim data in the field – and no such risk found, whatsoever. A dangerous shot with steel (or copper bullet) is a dangerous shot with lead.

      There are no insurmountable barriers to progressive change, preventing the shooting community if they are so minded from doing the right thing and reaping considerable benefits. But it will take a progressive attitude and a bit more thought than is currently evident.

      It will happen eventually!

  9. Richard,

    “Steel shot as the only other option causes far more wounding than lead and is less humane.”

    This is simply not true.

    I was once a coastal wildfowler. (I gave up wildfowling and shoot no longer.) Before lead shot became illegal to use on Scottish foreshores I carried out my own tests. That is I used lead shot, steel shot, bismith shot, Tungsten Matrix and others. I recorded ducks shot, killed instantly, wounded and retrieved. Distance bird shot at (A Leica rangefinder used) distance bird traveled before it fell and whether it was dead or wounded.

    I also carried out hundreds of pattern tests and penetration tests. I also had tested at a ballistic laboratory shotgun cartridges of my own design, mainly steel shot. All were effective and all were safe.

    I used non lead shot on the foreshore before it became illegal in Scotland to do so and both myself and wildfowling friends adopted non-lead alternatives with the knowledge that our non-lead shot gun cartridges was equally lethal in killing wildfowl but unlike lead there would be no danger of spent shot causing poisoning to wildfowl.

    Alleged richochet is a red herring – shooting flying birds in the sky – there is nothing to richochet off.

    With regard to deer shooting with non lead bullets -professional stalking friends at both the Forestry Commission and RSPB use non-lead bullets and they are as lethal as lead. A bullet in the neck or the heart is a dead deer.

    In an ideal world only non-lead shot and bullets would be available for sale and lead shot and bullets would be consigned to history.

Comments are closed.