Lead Free Ammunition

[OXN939]

Good point, my 22 ammo is lead. However, the only thing I shoot with 22 are squirrels and grouse and I do not leave those gut piles in the field so there is no danger to wildlife from what I've seen.

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk

Also, for the "You shoot lead .22 ammo so you're a hypocrite types," .22 LR is barely even supersonic. The real danger, as far as dispersal of particulate lead is concerned, comes with centerfire rifle rounds doing several times that speed.

 

[peddler]

Badlands precision is another line.

 

[Boreal]

Hesitant to respond because of all the vitriol in some of these responses. Hell, this thread looks like it should be on ArcheryTalk with all the smack being thrown. But since the OP asked, I searched for a lead-free option for a while and settled on the Hammer Bullets Sledge Hammer. It’s their “normal range” bullet, what they call out to 500 yards. It’s not as long as the Hammer Hunter so seating issues are reduced. Same large fragment design, and it put a thumpin’ on two Afognak elk last season from a 280AI. Both took no more than 5 steps and fell. It’s more expensive than most, but worth it to me for my own reasons. I do use what lead core I have left for practice. The range does periodic lead removal efforts, so think of that what you will.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Randy Newberg]

Don't know why anybody would question studies coming out of California that cause unnecessarily burdensome regulations on hunting and shooting. "I'm from the California govt. and I'm here to help", has got to rank a notch or two lower than the standard old "I'm from the govt. and I'm here to help".

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

The guys doing the studies were from Arizona and Wyoming. They are serious hunters with degrees in wildlife sciences. They advocate for voluntary use of non-lead ammo, not the mandatory route that CA has legislated.

 

[Formidilosus]

The guys doing the studies were from Arizona and Wyoming. They are serious hunters with degrees in wildlife sciences. They advocate for voluntary use of non-lead ammo, not the mandatory route that CA has legislated.

Yes they were, however as I listened to the podcast, I continually wanted to stop and ask pointed questions. There were way too many “we think”, “it may”, “we believe”, “potential”, etc. to be comfortable with considering the groups behind lead bans, and the VERY inconclusive, if not outright false narrative and data that has come out about the whole issue. It is WAY bigger than one study, one group, and one effort, and I can’t help but say that this is one subject that you did not do your due diligence on.


Those guys seem like good people with honest intentions, however there is so much political nonsense, slanted “data”, and outright falsehoods that anyone talking about it needs to really do their homework on both sides. It would not be out of line to say that this whole subject can be equated to public land transfer..... and even the good “no lead” side is much closer to the pro transfer, than not.

 

[FLAK]

Requesting voluntary compliance is the first step.
We're already regulated to the hilt.
This is one wagon I will not get on.

 

[amassi]

Requesting voluntary compliance is the first step.
We're already regulated to the hilt.
This is one wagon I will not get on.

Good for you
Somehow voluntary doesnt stay that way for long

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Mulga]

The research in question:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/379d/91204485dcb0d947a4b388b6dec92df73e15.pdf

 

[handwerk]

I've been loading barnes TTSX's since they came out. Between the kids and I we shoot 12 rifles in 7 calibers and have had great results in both accuracy and performance.
on deer, antelope and elk. Now days TTSX's are all we hunt with.

 

[MattB]

Yes they were, however as I listened to the podcast, I continually wanted to stop and ask pointed questions. There were way too many “we think”, “it may”, “we believe”, “potential”, etc. to be comfortable with considering the groups behind lead bans, and the VERY inconclusive, if not outright false narrative and data that has come out about the whole issue. It is WAY bigger than one study, one group, and one effort, and I can’t help but say that this is one subject that you did not do your due diligence on.


Those guys seem like good people with honest intentions, however there is so much political nonsense, slanted “data”, and outright falsehoods that anyone talking about it needs to really do their homework on both sides. It would not be out of line to say that this whole subject can be equated to public land transfer..... and even the good “no lead” side is much closer to the pro transfer, than not.

What evidence do you have to the contrary?

 

[sndmn11]

We shoot, as accurately or better than the few other bullets tried, Hornady GMX simply because I wanted a bullet that was least likely to fragment. Results have been two shots at 2 mule deer and a sum of less than 20 yards of tracking.