If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Ecologist)   There's an increasingly nasty fight going on between the NRA and ecologists concerned about spent lead shot in the environment. In today's update, angry ecologists tell NRA to FOAD and take their lawyers with them   (theecologist.org) divider line 79
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1940 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Jul 2014 at 3:02 PM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-11 11:15:38 AM  
Go go fighting ecologists!
 
2014-07-11 11:17:48 AM  
Most hunters I know care about the environment. They spend a bunch of time in it and wouldn't be hunters without it.
 
2014-07-11 11:19:46 AM  
Less lead in the environment sounds like it would always be a good idea.
 
2014-07-11 11:33:55 AM  
If only there were a group of people who had a vested interest in maintaining the environment. Feeling a sense of stewardship towards it. Preserving it for future generations. Wanting to not waste it.

I can't come up with the right word.
 
2014-07-11 11:52:01 AM  
Do condors hang around firing ranges hoping for a tasty unjacketed bullet snack?
 
2014-07-11 11:55:19 AM  

nekom: Less lead in the environment sounds like it would always be a good idea.


the second amendment says otherwise.  checkmate libtardo.
 
2014-07-11 12:03:09 PM  

nekom: Less lead in the environment sounds like it would always be a good idea.


Therefore, we should take lead out of the environment by mining it and forming it into bullets!
 
2014-07-11 12:04:52 PM  

Superrad: Do condors hang around firing ranges hoping for a tasty unjacketed bullet snack?


Heh, no.

What they do is eat the carcasses of dead animals, some of which have been shot, and they also eat the "gut piles" of animals shot by hunters.  Both of which can contain lead from the ammunition used to kill or wound those animals.

Interestingly enough, California has had a ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting in condor areas for 6 years now.
 
2014-07-11 12:08:56 PM  

dittybopper: Interestingly enough, California has had a ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting in condor areas for 6 years now.


Depleted uranium ammunition still good to go?
 
2014-07-11 12:32:20 PM  

incendi: dittybopper: Interestingly enough, California has had a ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting in condor areas for 6 years now.

Depleted uranium ammunition still good to go?


Nice!
 
2014-07-11 12:55:43 PM  

doublesecretprobation: nekom: Less lead in the environment sounds like it would always be a good idea.

the second amendment says otherwise.  checkmate libtardo.


Ah yes, but some of that lead could wind up in my house, and since it might be from the military, that's a violation of MY third amendment right.  Chessmate, conservatives!
 
2014-07-11 01:05:26 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: incendi: dittybopper: Interestingly enough, California has had a ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting in condor areas for 6 years now.

Depleted uranium ammunition still good to go?

Nice!


Heh.  I like the little jab at "Shotgun Joe" Biden.
 
2014-07-11 01:23:32 PM  

dittybopper: Tr0mBoNe: incendi: dittybopper: Interestingly enough, California has had a ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting in condor areas for 6 years now.

Depleted uranium ammunition still good to go?

Nice!

Heh.  I like the little jab at "Shotgun Joe" Biden.


But seriously it's all for jokes. Saying it's just for jokes absolves us of all legal responsibility.
 
2014-07-11 01:56:01 PM  
Interesting article here:
http://www.nps.gov/pinn/naturescience/leadinfo.htm

Oddly enough, using pure lead bullets in muzzleloaders would solve this problem.

Sound paradoxical?

Well, pure lead at typical muzzleloader velocities doesn't fragment.  It simply deforms while retaining nearly all of its mass.

The problem comes in when you "harden" the lead by adding tin or other metals to make a lead alloy in order to shoot it at higher velocities.  It becomes more brittle and likely to fragment at those higher impact velocities.

However, as I pointed out, California has had a ban on the use of lead hunting bullets in condor areas for 6 years as of a few days ago (went into effect July 1st, 2008).  We should have some evidence of how effective it is in reducing lead levels in California Condors by now.
 
2014-07-11 02:27:37 PM  
I should put 2 and 2 together here:  The article I linked to seems to say that lead fragments from spent bullets are the biggest part of the problem.

If you use dead soft pure lead at lower velocities, such that it merely deforms instead of fragmenting into itty-bitty pieces, that would almost certainly take care of the vast majority of the problem.

The problem would be convincing hunters to stop worshiping at the altar of velocity.  Big, heavy, slow bullets are just as effective as smaller, lighter, faster ones.
 
2014-07-11 02:33:40 PM  

dittybopper: The problem would be convincing hunters to stop worshiping at the altar of velocity.  Big, heavy, slow bullets are just as effective as smaller, lighter, faster ones.


That still boils down to "convincing hunters to change", which will be a challenge pretty much no matter what you put after it.
 
2014-07-11 03:01:51 PM  

dittybopper: I should put 2 and 2 together here:  The article I linked to seems to say that lead fragments from spent bullets are the biggest part of the problem.

If you use dead soft pure lead at lower velocities, such that it merely deforms instead of fragmenting into itty-bitty pieces, that would almost certainly take care of the vast majority of the problem.

The problem would be convincing hunters to stop worshiping at the altar of velocity.  Big, heavy, slow bullets are just as effective as smaller, lighter, faster ones.


There are a bunch of bird species with big gizzards that hold stones for digestion and the lead shot can accumulate there. All lead should be banned. There are safer alternatives out there.

Or just grow up and switch to bow hunting.
 
2014-07-11 03:04:14 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: Or just grow up and switch to bow hunting.


Not you specifically, sir.
 
Xai
2014-07-11 03:06:12 PM  
why don't you just use steel shot or something, i mean that was the whole argument for allowing full auto 'hunting' rifles, wasn't it?
 
2014-07-11 03:07:50 PM  
That was beautiful
 
2014-07-11 03:09:35 PM  
My company developed the lead free bullets the Army uses, so I'm getting a kick out of this thread.
 
2014-07-11 03:13:26 PM  
On a related note, isn't the EPA prevented from regulating the lead of bullets?
 
2014-07-11 03:18:45 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: Or just grow up and switch to bow hunting.


I propose true hunters should hunt like our ancestors, through persistence hunting (i.e. chasing an animal until it falls down from exhaustion).
 
2014-07-11 03:18:45 PM  

dittybopper: Big, heavy, slow bullets are just as effective as smaller, lighter, faster ones.


Not for extended ranges as the ballistics are not comparable.  Hunting in the wooded areas of the midwest or eastern US, velocity is not that important.  Hunting the prairie or wide open expanses of the West, velocity is very important.
 
2014-07-11 03:19:57 PM  

incendi: dittybopper: The problem would be convincing hunters to stop worshiping at the altar of velocity.  Big, heavy, slow bullets are just as effective as smaller, lighter, faster ones.

That still boils down to "convincing hunters to change", which will be a challenge pretty much no matter what you put after it.


Didn't you hear?  They were *FORCED* to change by law 6 years ago.

Schwarzenegger Approves Historic Condor Protection Bill
Requires Non-lead Ammunition for Big-game Hunting in Condor Habitat

Right now that only applies to big game hunting in condor habitat, but in 2019, *ALL* hunting ammunition in the entire state will have to be lead-free:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/lead-free/

That also applies to traditional muzzleloaders, which normally would use round lead balls or conical bullets.

You can get "round ball" ammo that is lead free:

http://www.tomboboutdoors.com/index.php/products/itx-muzzle-loading

But it's expensive as all hell:   $11.99 for a package of 10 .54 caliber balls.  I can buy a 20 round box of .30-30 Winchester for that.

For comparison, I just molded 262 .535" lead round balls a couple weeks ago for my flintlock.  I used just under 10 lbs of lead.   My father and I bought 40 lbs of it and it cost us $100 from Rotometals.com (free shipping!), so my rough cost for 10 bullets would be:

(((10/40)*100)/262)*10 = $0.95 for 10 bullets, or about 9.5 cents per bullet.

But it's actually lower than that, on average, because I should be able to get (7000/230)  = 304 bullets out of 10 lbs of lead.  There is still a chunk of lead in the bottom of the pot that I couldn't get up with my dipper, but over time it would average out to about that.

As I've pointed out, however, bullets like that aren't the problem because they don't blow apart like modern lead core jacketed ammo, which leaves small, easy to ingest fragments.  They stay together, so much so that my father actually periodically digs the muzzleloader bullets out of the hill he uses as a backstop and re-molds them.
 
2014-07-11 03:20:42 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: Or just grow up and switch to bow hunting.


I have little wimpy arms and what is this?
 
2014-07-11 03:20:49 PM  
Okay, so I got "right wing organization uses astroturfing to create fictionalized debate"

Is there some deeper message here?
 
2014-07-11 03:21:33 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: Tr0mBoNe: Or just grow up and switch to bow hunting.

Not you specifically, sir.


Awww jebus now you did it.   You have been around long enough to know not to mention paleo hunting to that man.  Now we will get inundated with picture after picture of his hand scraped and formed bow.
 
2014-07-11 03:21:57 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: Tr0mBoNe: Or just grow up and switch to bow hunting.

Not you specifically, sir.


Heh, you know I was going to have to whip out the bow pictures, right?
 
2014-07-11 03:23:16 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: All lead should be banned.


In some circumstances, yes.  That is why is has been banned from being used for waterfowl and for hunting inside sensitive Birds of Prey/Scavenger areas. However, lead in many other places has pretty much no to very little impact on the environment.  Lead is also one of the best ballistic materials as it is cheap and dense (increases the ballistic coefficient of the bullets).
 
2014-07-11 03:27:03 PM  

HeadLever: dittybopper: Big, heavy, slow bullets are just as effective as smaller, lighter, faster ones.

Not for extended ranges as the ballistics are not comparable.  Hunting in the wooded areas of the midwest or eastern US, velocity is not that important.  Hunting the prairie or wide open expanses of the West, velocity is very important.


Not true.  *RANGE ESTIMATION* then becomes important.

Increased velocity is just a way to increase the permissible amount of estimated range error*.  There is nothing more inherently accurate about a smaller, lighter, faster bullet.   It just allows you to have a larger amount of error in your range estimation, because it shoots "flatter", than a bigger, slower, heavier bullet that has a higher trajectory.


*Also windage, which we are ignoring for the purposes of this conversation.
 
2014-07-11 03:29:43 PM  

dittybopper: HeadLever: dittybopper: Big, heavy, slow bullets are just as effective as smaller, lighter, faster ones.

Not for extended ranges as the ballistics are not comparable.  Hunting in the wooded areas of the midwest or eastern US, velocity is not that important.  Hunting the prairie or wide open expanses of the West, velocity is very important.

Not true.  *RANGE ESTIMATION* then becomes important.

Increased velocity is just a way to increase the permissible amount of estimated range error*.  There is nothing more inherently accurate about a smaller, lighter, faster bullet.   It just allows you to have a larger amount of error in your range estimation, because it shoots "flatter", than a bigger, slower, heavier bullet that has a higher trajectory.


*Also windage, which we are ignoring for the purposes of this conversation.


So not true if you neglect the two most important factors in distance shooting.....  go on.
 
2014-07-11 03:32:59 PM  
That's why I only hunt with depleted uranium.
 
2014-07-11 03:34:24 PM  

dittybopper: http://www.nps.gov/pinn/naturescience/leadinfo.htm


Ok that's what I was looking for. I'm a numbers guy and "59% of ground venison" and "34% of ground venison" is pretty worrying.

Just "lead is bad" from a wildlife group doesn't tell me anything, I already know it's like retardation with a blasting cap glued to it and I don't especially want to use lead for anything. But I had been under the impression that lead didn't really matter except at ranges, where you've got 100 customers plunking down a ton of lead into the ground every day.
 
2014-07-11 03:35:11 PM  

HeadLever: Tr0mBoNe: All lead should be banned.

In some circumstances, yes.  That is why is has been banned from being used for waterfowl and for hunting inside sensitive Birds of Prey/Scavenger areas. However, lead in many other places has pretty much no to very little impact on the environment.  Lead is also one of the best ballistic materials as it is cheap and dense (increases the ballistic coefficient of the bullets).


I don't think any real conservationist type of hunter has a problem with requiring lead-free shot for waterfowl, or even the use of lead-free bullets for hunting in areas where the California Condor lives.   Certainly I don't have a problem with banning lead-cored centerfire ammo for that sort of thing.

The problem is, as I pointed out, that not all lead ammo is the same.  Dead soft lead bullets out of traditional muzzleloaders doesn't fragment, it deforms, and because of that, it doesn't pose anywhere near the threat of being accidentally ingested by a condor or other scavenger.

I do have a problem with banning all lead ammo for all purposes, though.  Because that sounds like an attempt to make it more expensive to shoot.
 
2014-07-11 03:43:04 PM  

Saiga410: dittybopper: HeadLever: dittybopper: Big, heavy, slow bullets are just as effective as smaller, lighter, faster ones.

Not for extended ranges as the ballistics are not comparable.  Hunting in the wooded areas of the midwest or eastern US, velocity is not that important.  Hunting the prairie or wide open expanses of the West, velocity is very important.

Not true.  *RANGE ESTIMATION* then becomes important.

Increased velocity is just a way to increase the permissible amount of estimated range error*.  There is nothing more inherently accurate about a smaller, lighter, faster bullet.   It just allows you to have a larger amount of error in your range estimation, because it shoots "flatter", than a bigger, slower, heavier bullet that has a higher trajectory.


*Also windage, which we are ignoring for the purposes of this conversation.

So not true if you neglect the two most important factors in distance shooting.....  go on.


I thought I was only neglecting one, though I mentioned it.  What is the second?
 
2014-07-11 03:46:48 PM  

dittybopper: Not true.  *RANGE ESTIMATION* then becomes important.


But only that can get you so far.  The lower the velocity, the larger impact wind variances will have on the trajectory.  Plus, for longer distances, the drop from supersonic to subsonic creates all sorts of flight distortions that cannot be accurately projected.

Windage, (which you are ignoring) can be a huge factor and is the main reason high velocity/high BC bullets are used for benchrest and tactical matches.
 
2014-07-11 03:50:59 PM  

dittybopper: I don't think any real conservationist type of hunter has a problem with requiring lead-free shot for waterfowl, or even the use of lead-free bullets for hunting in areas where the California Condor lives.   Certainly I don't have a problem with banning lead-cored centerfire ammo for that sort of thing.

The problem is, as I pointed out, that not all lead ammo is the same.  Dead soft lead bullets out of traditional muzzleloaders doesn't fragment, it deforms, and because of that, it doesn't pose anywhere near the threat of being accidentally ingested by a condor or other scavenger.

I do have a problem with banning all lead ammo for all purposes, though.  Because that sounds like an attempt to make it more expensive to shoot.


I agree pretty much 100% here.  There are reasons to limit lead bullets in certain places.  One of my favorite pastimes is shooting varmints and this can be a huge problem as raptors and scavengers often flock to the sound of gunfire over the 'rat patches'.  Most bullet manufactures now make a lead free bullet for nearly all varmint-sized calibers, mostly to cater to California.  However, many hunters that I know shoot them outside these zones as well
 
2014-07-11 03:53:41 PM  
Fill 'em so full of lead they could use their dicks for pencils to write stern letters.
 
2014-07-11 03:53:47 PM  

dittybopper: Didn't you hear?  They were *FORCED* to change by law 6 years ago.


Oh, calm down. Your idea would also *force* them to change, just in a different manner. Pretty much everyone's resistant to change. If they mandated that all Linux users switch to Windows, they'd piss and moan about it. Your suggestion is tantamount to "Why not Mac instead? It's still kinda Linux!" You're still asking people to change. There's no way around it if you actually want to achieve a result. That pretty much goes for anything, I wasn't trying to imply that hunters are especially stubborn, just people in general are. You could incentivise it in different ways, but ultimately, if you want people to stop using the cheap, effective ammunition for reasons that don't directly impact them, you're gonna have to force them with laws.


Unless I've misread you, and your argument was they should've carved out exemptions for the types you claim are not harmful in the same way (which I don't personally know if they are or not, and am not sufficiently invested in the topic to do the research to really find out), in which case, disregard all that other stuff I wrote, that doesn't seem unreasonable. But there's no just asking nicely for everyone to switch to muzzleloading soft lead and expecting that to actually change behaviors.
 
2014-07-11 03:54:56 PM  

HeadLever: dittybopper: Not true.  *RANGE ESTIMATION* then becomes important.

But only that can get you so far.  The lower the velocity, the larger impact wind variances will have on the trajectory.  Plus, for longer distances, the drop from supersonic to subsonic creates all sorts of flight distortions that cannot be accurately projected.

Windage, (which you are ignoring) can be a huge factor and is the main reason high velocity/high BC bullets are used for benchrest and tactical matches.


Yes, I know.

Long ogive boat-tails aren't unknown to me.  In fact, I've got a few low drag .308 bullets hanging around here somewhere that I had intended to use to make some .30'06 Springfield target ammo, but just never got around to it because I was bit by the muzzleloader bug.

Having said that, people used to shoot 1,000 yard matches with barely supersonic bullets, and a big heavy bullet doesn't have as many problems in the trans-sonic region as a smaller, lighter bullet.

/220 grain Sierra MatchKings
 
2014-07-11 03:56:50 PM  

incendi: Unless I've misread you, and your argument was they should've carved out exemptions for the types you claim are not harmful in the same way (


Which judging by your posts while I was typing up my screed, seems to be the case.

dittybopper: I do have a problem with banning all lead ammo for all purposes, though.  Because that sounds like an attempt to make it more expensive to shoot.


Given the locale, this may very well be a completely valid suspicion.
 
2014-07-11 03:59:06 PM  

incendi: Unless I've misread you, and your argument was they should've carved out exemptions for the types you claim are not harmful in the same way (which I don't personally know if they are or not, and am not sufficiently invested in the topic to do the research to really find out), in which case, disregard all that other stuff I wrote, that doesn't seem unreasonable. But there's no just asking nicely for everyone to switch to muzzleloading soft lead and expecting that to actually change behaviors.


That's pretty much what I was saying.

I also thought you hadn't heard that lead hunting ammo was banned for big game hunting in those areas years ago, and that it would be banned for *ALL* hunting, in all of California, in the near future.
 
2014-07-11 03:59:36 PM  

dittybopper: I don't think any real conservationist type of hunter has a problem with requiring lead-free shot for waterfowl, or even the use of lead-free bullets for hunting in areas where the California Condor lives. Certainly I don't have a problem with banning lead-cored centerfire ammo for that sort of thing.

The problem is, as I pointed out, that not all lead ammo is the same. Dead soft lead bullets out of traditional muzzleloaders doesn't fragment, it deforms, and because of that, it doesn't pose anywhere near the threat of being accidentally ingested by a condor or other scavenger.

I do have a problem with banning all lead ammo for all purposes, though. Because that sounds like an attempt to make it more expensive to shoot.


Well said.
 
2014-07-11 03:59:51 PM  
Its my constitutional rights to destroy the environment!
 
2014-07-11 04:01:13 PM  

dittybopper: Yes, I know.


Then you know the advantages of high velocity as well :)

You are right that slow and large can be just as (or even moreso) effective for certain circumstances.

/20 caliber Sierra BlitzKings
//flies like a paper plate when it drops through the transonic region
 
2014-07-11 04:01:22 PM  

RexTalionis: Tr0mBoNe: Or just grow up and switch to bow hunting.

I propose true hunters should hunt like our ancestors, through persistence hunting (i.e. chasing an animal until it falls down from exhaustion).


The batteries on their Hoverounds won't last that long...

/kidding
//no beef with REAL hunters
///the NRA sucks
 
2014-07-11 04:03:36 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Its my constitutional rights to destroy the environment!


Mother earth gave us lead in the first place.  We are just giving it back to her one bullet at a time.
 
2014-07-11 04:03:49 PM  
This is a rather stupid fight, as hunters often tend to be conservationists. In fact, that's how the entire conservation movement started.

I just dislike the NRA on a personal level because they have outright banned (effectively) the use of federal funds for studies that involve gun violence. Such studies would likely have prevented thousands of deaths, most of them suicides. The data and science is still available and, rather than debate the topic here and waste time, id just encourage anyone who disagrees to study the suicide rates and fatality rates when guns are used. The expert opinion, of people who have devoted their lives to this complicated subject, is unequivical.

Having an opinion is fine, but banning science is not.
 
2014-07-11 04:04:00 PM  

tinyarena: That was beautiful


'nough said
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report