Lead poisoning

[PredatorSlayer]

Saying the same thing over and over does tend to paint someone as a "fan boy" or "hater" and credibility for those posts is very low among other members.

You guys can keep going round and round but no value to your argument is being added.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

You might as well just close the thread. If Steve and his hammer goons have infiltrated the forum, it will be good practice for the future.

 

[realunlucky]

You might as well just close the thread. If Steve and his hammer goons have infiltrated the forum, it will be good practice for the future.

I'd like to believe the Rokslide community is intelligent enough to decipher fact from fiction.

When I use the forums, while all opinions are considered valuable, some will always feel more vetted and wiegh more into my decision making process. Might just be me though.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Loo.wii]

I’m not gonna speculate on the long term plans of environmentalists.

I won’t say there isn’t a a group that wants to ban hunting as a whole.

But for everyone who says lead isn’t an issue, try eating lead contaminated stuff for a few years and see how you turn out.

 

[Gargoyle]

You might as well just close the thread. If Steve and his hammer goons have infiltrated the forum, it will be good practice for the future.

That is classic "silence the opposition". If you are unable to qualify or even quantify your statements/position, might I suggest using more effective argumentation, like leaving out name calling, grandiose inflammatory statements, and only providing one anecdotal example.

 

[ButterBean]

That is classic "silence the opposition". If you are unable to qualify or even quantify your statements/position, might I suggest using more effective argumentation, like leaving out name calling, grandiose inflammatory statements, and only providing one anecdotal example.

ShoNuff

 

[woods89]

But for everyone who says lead isn’t an issue, try eating lead contaminated stuff for a few years and see how you turn out.

There's an awful lot of us on here who have been eating wild game shot with lead core bullets, which is the issue at hand, since we were young, with no apparent ill effects.

On the raptor front, one thing that bothers me is that one side of this issue is taking an individual impact view versus a population impact view. I do realize that in certain very specific subsets there may be population impacts, but by and large, raptors seem to be thriving. Wildlife management in this country is built on prioritizing population issues over individual impacts, and the whole rationale of hunting fits into that. If we as hunters are going to start viewing wildlife issues on the level of individual animals, then we are going to have a hard time defending what we do, as hunting itself has some messy impacts on individual animals.

 

[Gargoyle]

@PredatorSlayer

I'm gonna run the numbers in a hypothetical based on what you said. "Enough BC inflation to miss an elk at 500yds:

Cartridge 308 WIN shooting 137gr HH with website G1 BC estimated .335 - 3000fps MV

Same cartridge & numbers, just drop G1 BC to .250 because of wild estimation.

An elk chest height averages 34.65" according to bowhunting.net. Call it 37" for simple math. Divide that area by 2 because of a center mass hold. That gives 18.5" above and below the kill zone.

According to Federal Premium Ballistics Calculator (available free online)
@ G1 BC of .335 - If you pull the trigger at an elk that is 500yds one would have to account for 51.6" of drop.
@G1 BC of .250 - you must account for 63.3" of drop. That is an 11.7" difference.

So you pull the trigger on an elk at 500yds using the drop data for the inflated BC of .335 and it turns out it was really .250 G1 BC, you will still hit the elk in the vital area. Really there is 6.8" above the bottom of the kill zone.

One would need a BC of .225 to miss the zone. .335 down to .225 is .110 of error. Are you saying the BC estimates listed on the Hammer site are that far inflated?

 

[Formidilosus]

On the raptor front, one thing that bothers me is that one side of this issue is taking an individual impact view versus a population impact view. I do realize that in certain very specific subsets there may be population impacts, but by and large, raptors seem to be thriving. Wildlife management in this country is built on prioritizing population issues over individual impacts, and the whole rationale of hunting fits into that. If we as hunters are going to start viewing wildlife issues on the level of individual animals, then we are going to have a hard time defending what we do, as hunting itself has some messy impacts on individual animals.

This exactly. The entire lead and raptor thing is bad faith- that’s why people intuitively have a problem with it. It’s fine to “help or save raptors”. Ok, but you ignore the things that are killing raptors in large numbers and go after ammunition. 100% there is a huge push with all of this to limit ammo for everything- not just lead. There are multiple research “studies” being done right now, not just the one posted in this thread, to show that copper is toxic and needs to be regulated. Again- it’s bad faith.

@PredatorSlayer

I'm gonna run the numbers in a hypothetical based on what you said. "Enough BC inflation to miss an elk at 500yds:

Cartridge 308 WIN shooting 137gr HH with website G1 BC estimated .335 - 3000fps MV

Same cartridge & numbers, just drop G1 BC to .250 because of wild estimation.

An elk chest height averages 34.65" according to bowhunting.net. Call it 37" for simple math. Divide that area by 2 because of a center mass hold. That gives 18.5" above and below the kill zone.

According to Federal Premium Ballistics Calculator (available free online)
@ G1 BC of .335 - If you pull the trigger at an elk that is 500yds one would have to account for 51.6" of drop.
@G1 BC of .250 - you must account for 63.3" of drop. That is an 11.7" difference.

So you pull the trigger on an elk at 500yds using the drop data for the inflated BC of .335 and it turns out it was really .250 G1 BC, you will till hit the elk in the vital area. Really there is 6.8" above the bottom of the kill zone.

One would need a BC of .225 to miss the zone. .335 down to .225 is .110 of error. Are you saying the BC estimates listed on the Hammer site are that far inflated?

Have you ever killed and measured an elk? They average between 32” and 36” at the tallest portion of chest, around 9” of that is the spinous process, another 3” the spine, and the bottom of the chest is about 3-4” of tissue before entering the chest cavity. Add that up, and you get around a 20” target.

 

[Gargoyle]

This exactly. The entire lead and raptor thing is bad faith- that’s why people intuitively have a problem with it. It’s fine to “help or save raptors”. Ok, but you ignore the things that are killing raptors in large numbers and go after ammunition. 100% there is a huge push with all of this to limit ammo for everything- not just lead. There are multiple research “studies” being done right now, not just the one posted in this thread, to show that copper is toxic and needs to be regulated. Again- it’s bad faith.








Have you ever killed and measured an elk? They average between 32” and 36” at the tallest portion of chest, around 9” of that is the spinous process, another 3” the spine, and the bottom of the chest is about 3-4” of tissue before entering the chest cavity. Add that up, and you get around a 20” target.

View attachment 551398

We can screw around with the size of that box, but he did say "miss" an elk at 500yds.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

We can screw around with the size of that box, but he did say "miss" an elk at 500yds.

You asked, I shared. . 12” at 500 yards is material. That increases exponentially the further out you go.

At least I have experience with them…never again though. While I haven’t personally shot them into gel, others have and posted about it online. Sometimes they open, sometimes they don’t. Unless they have been deleted to protect Hammer, there are threads out there with pics showing how they penciled through and failed to expand on game.

My biggest issue is with their anti lead propaganda (been going on for years) which does nothing to benefit the hunting community, that and Steve and trying to market monos with crappy BCs to the long range hunting crowd and ultimately significantly overstating BCs. He is the only bullet manufacturer out there who makes excuses for their inaccuracies and can’t get them right.

 

[Formidilosus]

We can screw around with the size of that box, but he did say "miss" an elk at 500yds.

You are segueing semantics and trying to prove a point. With a base look at his statement, nearly every person would logically conclude he is talking about a vital hit. Using your “miss an elk” view of it, he could hit it in the hoof and be good.

The reality is the Hammer BC’s are inflated enough that it matters. There is no reason for them to be, it’s not that hard anymore to get consistent, correct BC data on bullets. An Oehler System 89 is not expensive and there is no excuse for a bullet manufacture to not at least have and use that. The only logical reason that it is not done, and the general “push” that it doesn’t matter is because the BC’s are legitimately inflated and the BC’s are low- both of which will hurt sales.

 

[Gargoyle]

I

You are segueing semantics and trying to prove a point. With a base look at his statement, nearly every person would logically conclude he is talking about a vital hit. Using your “miss an elk” view of it, he could hit it in the hoof and be good.

I found the average elk chest size and let the numbers run. l just laugh when I get accused of something by someone who did it first. You put the box on a picture, added the vital conditions, and then purport the ability to read the OPs mind. Then you accuse me of mincing minutia. I find it funny you want to get deep in the weeds with me, but not someone admitting bias and unable to support his argument with anything of merit.

Oh, never mind. I see you have the Hammer hate peanut gallery supporting you. Birds of a feather, eh? LOL

The reality is the Hammer BC’s are inflated enough that it matters.

How much? What is the variance? "Elks, parachutes, Steve is a liar"?

 

[Formidilosus]

I

I found the average elk chest size and let the numbers run. l just laugh when I get accused of something by someone who did it first. You put the box on a picture, added the vital conditions, and then purport the ability to read the OPs mind. Then you accuse me of mincing minutia. I find it funny you want to get deep in the weeds with me, but not someone admitting bias and unable to support his argument with anything of merit.

I am not the person that cares about emotion or bias. I am correcting what you stated. Bias or not, what PredatorSlayer stated about the BC error being enough to cause issues at 500 yards on an elk is correct.

Oh, never mind. I see you have the Hammer hate peanut gallery supporting you. Birds of a feather, eh? LOL

Don’t use fallacies and immaturity here, I’m not doing it with you. Doing so only furthers the view people have of Hammer bullets and those who use/push them. I am stating facts, not I like/I think/I feel.

How much? What is the variance?

On most of the Hammers I’ve seen measured there has been a .04-.06 G1 BC difference.

"Elks, parachutes, Steve is a liar"?

Again, stop being immature. I have no bias, nor do I care about Steve, Hammer bullets, or anything else to do with this on a personal level. Hammer bullet BC’s are incorrect enough that it is problem. There is no excuse for.

 

[Gargoyle]

You asked, I shared. . 12” at 500 yards is material. That increases exponentially the further out you go.

Is it 12" though? That was worst case, egregious inflation of BC. Maybe the BC of .335 is right. How about you run the BC calcs of what you are shooting so we can be more science than pure conjecture.

 

[Bubblehide]

Is it 12" though? That was worst case, egregious inflation of BC. Maybe the BC of .335 is right. How about you run the BC calcs of what you are shooting so we can be more science than pure conjecture.

You got measurements in the post above yours.

 

[Gargoyle]

Don’t use fallacies and immaturity here with me, I’m not doing it with you. I am stating facts, not I like/I think/I feel.

Oakley Silly Doakley!

On most of the Hammers I’ve seen through a Doppler or Oehler there has been a .04-.06 G1 BC difference.

OK. .04-.06 G1 difference. I used .110! So, using your numbers .06 in fact, I find a difference of 7" drop from Hammer estimated BC. That fits inside your blue box still....That is quite a far cry from missing an elk with Hammer's inflated BCs.

 

[Gargoyle]

You got measurements in the post above yours.

Ah yes, I grabbed those and was composing my post while you were pointing out those facts,

 

[Mike Islander]

I’m not gonna speculate on the long term plans of environmentalists.

I won’t say there isn’t a a group that wants to ban hunting as a whole.

But for everyone who says lead isn’t an issue, try eating lead contaminated stuff for a few years and see how you turn out.

Oakley Silly Doakley!

OK. .04-.06 G1 difference. I used .110! So, using your numbers .06 in fact, I find a difference of 7" drop from Hammer estimated BC. That fits inside your blue box still....That is quite a far cry from missing an elk with Hammer's inflated BCs.

Oakley Silly Doakley!

 

[Bubblehide]

Ah yes, I grabbed those and was composing my post while you were pointing out those facts,

I'm glad the facts caught up to you,

 

[xsn10s]

You are segueing semantics and trying to prove a point. With a base look at his statement, nearly every person would logically conclude he is talking about a vital hit. Using your “miss an elk” view of it, he could hit it in the hoof and be good.

The reality is the Hammer BC’s are inflated enough that it matters. There is no reason for them to be, it’s not that hard anymore to get consistent, correct BC data on bullets. An Oehler System 89 is not expensive and there is no excuse for a bullet manufacture to not at least have and use that. The only logical reason that it is not done, and the general “push” that it doesn’t matter is because the BC’s are legitimately inflated and the BC’s are low- both of which will hurt sales.

Could use Oehler System 85 to check pressures on their loads at the same time.