Copper vs Lead Bullets for hunting...........

[yukonjasper]

OK, so I get the MN Conservation Volunteer magazine in the mail - I've subscribed to it since my Grandfather died may years ago and his subscription was passed along by my Grandmother - I go back and forth on their political/social agenda happens to be, but anyway, its a good source of kinda granola tree hugger type topics along with some quality environmental insights sometimes. Bottom line, the issueas are a good bathroom reader that makes their way to the hunting shack every year.

This month they had an article that discussed the problems with using Lead Bullets for Deer hunting and suggested that Copper was the way of the future. Basic premise was that Lead can fragment and when ingested by other animals cause issues. The animal they focused on was the majestic and noble Bald Eagle, who doesn't love the Eagle after all. Anyway, the copper bullet was used as an example of a non-toxic alternative (although much more expensive).

I'm seeing the writing on the wall here as I saw similar articles many many years ago with lead shot and Loons.

Are we headed the way of Lead Banned in Rifle Ammunition?

[870TC]

One step at a time. Why do you think Winchester came out with non-toxic rimfire ammo....cause they missed the boat big time on steel shot and said "never again". (Quote from Win. Rep. at shot show)

[sochr000]

I used the copper ammo when I went Elk hunting, as it was required. We were shown a video put out by the ND DNR, which showed that some Dr. x-ray scanned some packs of ground venison, and there were some sand-sized fragments of lead in most of the packages of venison. Then they showed meat shot by a copper round, no fragments.

Is it everything the Audubon people say it's cracked up to be? Nope, not in my opinion anyway.
Is it a good alternative? It can be, if you can afford it.

[river_boater]

I don't think it should be banned, but people should consider an alternative.

I've been to the Raptor Center and seen what lead does to the animals, and it isn't pretty. Keep in mind, you're eating this stuff too. How many of us scrub the hell out of our hands after a day at the range? We all know this is dangerous stuff.

For me, the cost argument is irrelevant. How many rounds do you really fire during a hunting season?

[jgalt]

Are the alternatives as effective as lead?

[river_boater]

Are the alternatives as effective as lead?

I don't know, but since a previous poster indicated he was able to take Elk using this ammunition, I'm going with yes.

[jgalt]

Are the alternatives as effective as lead?

I don't know... <snip>

Got it. Thanks for logging in today...

[sochr000]

Are the alternatives as effective as lead?

For a lot of game it is as effective. The bigger, heavier game it works best on, since it doesn't expand quite as fast. I have not yet tried it on whitetail, but it works pretty well on Elk.

The major downside to copper, is that it isn't as dense, so the round must be longer to have the same weight. This can muck with your ballistics something awful.

[Jack's My dog]

I have taken at least 4 whitetail using what Hornady calls the "Trophy copper" 20 GA 3" sabots. 2 dropped where they stood 1 ran 30 yds, the other 50 then dropped. If you catch a shoulder they are gonna make a pretty big mess, and you probably just lost a roast. The last one I dropped in its tracks, has a .5 entry and a 1.75-2 inch exit, this was at approximately 60 yds. Total disclosure these were not old swamp bucks either.... but they tasted alright.

My scope is set for the Hornady's and I practice with whatever is cheap and then go back to the hornady's one last time to check my sight in. Probably not the best for long range hunting..but my shots are always with in 75yds, and I can keep my shots well with in minute of deer with this routine.

Petzal at Field n Stream did an article on the benefits of copper, his reasons where clearly not for saving the condor .

[crbutler]

To me, monometal bullets do have their place.

I use them extensively in Africa on bigger animals.

However, there are a few downsides to them. As mentioned, they are longer than the conventional bullets. In a .416 Rigby, you have enough case capacity its no big deal, but trying to get top velocities for most cartridges will cause you to compress the powder some. Those bullets also need more velocity to expand.

I also just got a $3K bill for rebarreling my Rigby. Only 700 rounds through it. Dakota said that the bore looked like a shotgun. They also said "you are using Barnes stuff aren't you?...." I will continue to hunt dangerous game with the Barnes bullets, but given that heavy penetration is not needed for what I shoot here, I doubt I will use them for most North American stuff.

As to lead in raptors, I really doubt that lead poisoning is a leading cause of death. In any case, lead projectiles are not a major source of environmental lead pollution. The DNR has been trying to "encourage" non toxics for all hunting for a while now. Given the anti hunting drivel that comes out of some parts of that organization, I am more than a little skeptical, especially given the likelihood that once nontox only for hunting happens, all civilian ammo will be required to be nontox.

[Jack's My dog]

If you think you might try the copper rounds ,Federal has the rebate going for the copper solid slugs and I think their other "Premium rounds". 10 off 2 boxes is pretty significant.

[OldmanFCSA]

How many years have we hunters hunted with lead projectiles, decades, scores, centuries, but now we are to switch to copper which is expensive enough to severely limit most shooters of their recreational activities. The past studies have been disproven as to lead being a major concern for health of animals or humans. The antis continue their onslaught of our freedoms and the DNR does not research the data given them for the validity of the data.

That said, I will use premium construction projectiles of any material if proven to allow for quick humane kills. I use brass for target projectiles, but will not use for hunting purposes as no expansion occurs even after travelling thru bone. It has been tested and used by hunters shooting extreme ranges of 800 to 1700 yards on elk, but most recommend the Hornady Amax triple material projectile, copper lead aluminum, for the expansion and shock factor which kills.

[bensdad]

I need someone to explain how lead particulate (no matter how small) can contaminate an animal through the digestive system. Show me what part of the digestive system takes up lead, breaks it down and distributes it to cell structures. Mine can't even get through the pericarp on a kernel of corn.

The entire thing is B.S. aimed at reducing the number of hunters, forcing our sport/hobby to cost more, and vilify us categorically. Rachel Carson was the idiot responsible for this entire movement (to restrict and/or prohibit any human interaction with the environment). Her book has long-since been exposed as claptrap, and her legacy is one that critical thinkers may feel free to scoff.

[yukonjasper]

IMO Although very subtle and very insideous, I think you may be on to something. Whereas the Constitution preserves the right to bear arms through the Second Amendment, the loophole is the ammunition that goes into that "arm". If you can't ban the gun ban the bullets. an obvious overstatement because they aren't banning anything, but they can increase the costs and decrease the effectiveness as to make the approach to the sport very unappealing to upcoming generations. Strangle it into obscurity with regulation and "taxes". Already the numbers of hunters is down in many areas.

The slow, incremental approach taken by those opposed to hunting in general and firearm hunting in particular is at work here. I am not sure that all "participants" are fully aware nor are they necessarily in favor of the intended outcome, but however unwitting they may be, the direction appears to be as Bensdad has indicated. To Oldman's point, lLayers upon layers of telling the story of the damage that Lead produces - whether real or not - convinces people of the danger - even well meaning and intelligent people who wouldn't consider themselves part of an environmental PETA type organizations. The "facts" are presented in such a way as to illicit the obvious emotional reaction which supports the main goal - stopping the agreed upon target activity. By loosly linking cause and effect - understanding that very few have the time, resources or inclinaion to research on their own - you can lead people where you want them without looking extreme or unreasonable. By couching your arguments in sincere concern for "defenseless" creatures, you can make your opposition appear crazed, wreckless, dangerous and irresponsible.

We have seen it with most of the current list of social engineering attempts - most obvious and purvasive is Global Warming. I think this is a slow march to limit if not end the use of firearms. I'm not entirely sure I'm overreacting here, but it doesn't feel like there is much you can do to stop it, which proves my point.

[yukonjasper]

I'll add that one of the main issues encountered on the way to banning guns are the hunters from both sides of the aisle that understand what gun ownership is. If you reduce the population of people participating in hunting or shooting related sports, you reduce your opposition. It gets easier to marginalize the "gun nut" because that person is no longer your neighbor or your Dentist - he's the crazy, wild eyed guy screaming about the UN coming to take his guns - MNMilitia was a good characature.

I'm probably too cynical for my own good, but it gets easier to see the patterns if you watch for them.

Smoking is another good example.