Yeti GOBOX Collection

Switching to non-lead ammo / Hunt Talk Radio EP 087

N

nhn2a

Active member
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
333
I just finished listening to Randy's Hunt Talk Radio EP 087: Non-lead Ammo & Hunting with Raptors (Hawking). I've been pondering switching to a non-lead bullet for some time especially when I find the occasional fragment in my meat which makes me worry about my boys more so than myself. I know its a rather small amount relatively but I cant help but think how much is small enough as they asked in the episode especially since i have a 1 year old and a 7 year old who are eating the meat I harvest. After listening to this episode, its really got me leaning towards going ahead and making the switch to a non-lead bullet when I run out of my current ammo just for the piece of mind and also now the ecological impact that I never even considered.

On the episode it even sounded like Randy and Marcus were a little surprised and questioning the value of switching themselves (although Im not trying to put words in their mouth). If Randy or Marcus are reading this, do you have any intentions of making the switch from a traditional lead bullet to a non-lead either completely or temporarily based on where you're hunting in certain areas? How about anyone else reading this?

I noticed most of the big names seem to make a non-lead bullet although they are a little more expensive. As Randy always says, the ammunition is the cheapest part of my hunt so even a large increase in price of ammo wont effect my hunt budget much relatively speaking. Just curious about everyone's thoughts. Forgive me if this has been discussed before but I searched the threads and except for a few light discussions on the performance of lead bullets I didn't see much in depth discussion.
 
i have made the switch a few years ago to non-lead bullets, only because after testing various loads in my X-bolt. I found that the Barnes bullets shot the best. After a bear hunt in fall of 2016, i decided to switch all my rifles to non- lead loads. they all shot better and the performance on game is unquestionable. The non-lead bullets might be a healthier choice for the environment, but that was not the reason for me to switch. Performance on game was the sole reason.
 
The CDC did a study in North Dakota in 2008-2009. The took over 700 blood lead samples from folks that ate game shot with lead bullets and folks that didn't eat any. The difference was miniscule and all results were below the 10 mg/dl recommended cutoff for childern. Interestingly, folks that have never hunted or eaten wild game but live in an urban environment (cities) had higher lead levels than folks that eat lead-shot game in rural environments.
Metal lead is much different than lead oxides. The lead oxides (like in paint) are easily absorbed by the human body. Metallic lead is not. There are any number of veterans running around with lead shrapnel in there bodies that are not suffering elevated blood levels. Why? Because the human body can't digest metallic metals, just oxides. The metallic lead passes through the human disgestive tract to fast. Swallow a sinker? Don't panic, it'll richocet around the toilet the next day.

Now the mechanism for digestion of birds is different than humans, it relies on the birds crop and small rocks to grind the food up. While picking up rocks, they often pick up lead pellets that get ground up with the food so birds get long-term (lifetime) constant exposure to microscopic lead particles that leads to lead poisoning. Waterfowl, especially.

The ban on lead sho

t for birds is legit.

The ban on lead for big game because it'll hurt humans is not.

There's no study that I'm aware of, but I'd bet that folks that used to eat lead-shot waterfowl, but not big game, probably had slightly elevated blood leads.

Here's the study...it's pretty involved but page 9 is pretty good. The mean (average) blood lead of the ND particpants was below the national average.

https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008 CDC ND_Final_TripReport_5NOV08.pdf
 
I'm from CA and have been forced to use lead free since 2006. I hunt the condor zone. My 30-06 ammo went from $18 to $54 a box. My shotgun slugs are $3 per shell.

I tried reloading for Barnes and went thru $500 worth of bullets trying to get my rifle to shoot accurately and finally just retired the rifle and bought a new one. Fortunately, it shoot e-tips very well.

My experience has been that either your rifle loves lead-free or it doesn't.

As CA began to spread the lead-ban, it became increasingly difficult to find lead-free anything on the shelf. I went 6 years where I couldn't find a box of e-tips in any store, only internet orders. NSSF says that CA used up almost all of the national production of lead-free.

Next July, the entire state will be lead-free for taking of wildlife. Imagine what that's going to the national supply? Availability and price?

Oh and they banned internet purchases of ammo here. Oh joy.
 
ltdann said:
The CDC did a study in North Dakota in 2008-2009. The took over 700 blood lead samples from folks that ate game shot with lead bullets and folks that didn't eat any. The difference was miniscule and all results were below the 10 mg/dl recommended cutoff for childern. Interestingly, folks that have never hunted or eaten wild game but live in an urban environment (cities) had higher lead levels than folks that eat lead-shot game in rural environments.
Metal lead is much different than lead oxides. The lead oxides (like in paint) are easily absorbed by the human body. Metallic lead is not. There are any number of veterans running around with lead shrapnel in there bodies that are not suffering elevated blood levels. Why? Because the human body can't digest metallic metals, just oxides. The metallic lead passes through the human disgestive tract to fast. Swallow a sinker? Don't panic, it'll richocet around the toilet the next day.

Now the mechanism for digestion of birds is different than humans, it relies on the birds crop and small rocks to grind the food up. While picking up rocks, they often pick up lead pellets that get ground up with the food so birds get long-term (lifetime) constant exposure to microscopic lead particles that leads to lead poisoning. Waterfowl, especially.

The ban on lead sho

t for birds is legit.

The ban on lead for big game because it'll hurt humans is not.

There's no study that I'm aware of, but I'd bet that folks that used to eat lead-shot waterfowl, but not big game, probably had slightly elevated blood leads.

Here's the study...it's pretty involved but page 9 is pretty good. The mean (average) blood lead of the ND particpants was below the national average.

https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008 CDC ND_Final_TripReport_5NOV08.pdf
Click to expand...

When talking about lead in blood, we must also talk about lead in bone. The ND study provides some commentary on it, but the study did not take it into further consideration. The conclusion of the study is strictly focused on lead blood levels which lead has a half life of 30days. The study mentions recent consumption was a significant factor.

Most lead in adults is stored in the bones, and the concentration of lead increases with
age. In comparison with 8 mg in children <16 years of age, the body burden of lead is estimated
at approximately 200 mg in adults 60–70 years of age (ATSDR 2007; Barry 1975). Lead
released from bone storage can therefore contribute to PbB (ATSDR 2007; O’Flaherty et al.
1982).
Click to expand...


Other lead exposure studies (not ammunition related) have identified the need to look at both blood and bone measurements together.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247510/

In contrast with blood lead, bone lead makes up more than 95% of the adult body burden. The lead in more compacted cortical bones, such as the tibia, is less available for mobilization, because this type of bone is less prone to turnover than spongier trabecular bones, such as the patella. Yet, as people age, bone loss often does take place, so lead that has long been held in bone is released to soft tissue and can find its way to the kidneys. Thus, bone lead may be a better marker for studying the chronic toxicity of accumulated exposure and lead burden.
Click to expand...

Finally, the CDC notes that there is no safe level of exposure for children.

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/default.htm
 
ltdann said:
Interestingly, folks that have never hunted or eaten wild game but live in an urban environment (cities) had higher lead levels than folks that eat lead-shot game in rural environments.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm not a scientist, but I have a hard time believing that lead bullets are that high up on the list of either environmemtal pollutants or human health threats. Try to stop driving if you care that much about the environment. No safe levels! They just came out with a meta study demonstrating that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. Now that one hurts! How about the obesity epidemic?

Further lead bullets are not all or nothing. You can get bullets that greatly reduce lead shedding without going non lead.

I know a family member and a family friend that had a failure to expand with a nontox from close range.

All in all, if you want to use nontox bullets then do it. I hear they penetrate great. As far as lead you might want to be safe and why not. But stop trying to convince everyone else in the world they need to do the same. The logic just ain't there.
 
I'm all about folks making informed decisions. I firmly believe folks need to do their own research and make their decision's based on facts and their own situations.

That said, the Dr. William Cornatzer (dermatologist) that kicked of the North Dakota studies with his x-rays, used those same x-rays to start the lead-ban in CA and tried in in AZ, Wisconsin, Minnesota and several other states. Did I also mention that he is/was a member of the Peregrine Falcon Fund? While they do excellent work with raptors, I'm immediately suspcious of orginzations that try and impact hunters. Once you get the entire back story, it's really hard not believe that there's some kind of ulterior motive at work.

Personally, I believe that if you eat a couple of deer a year, you're getting less lead exposure than if you're living in a house built prior to 1970. The lead exposure from the paint is enough to show up in blood.

Make a personal choice, but never, ever, let your government make the decision for you. That's what happened in CA and it's a nightmare. They went for the ammo, then the wheel weights and then they went for the fishing weights. Now a box of lead-free .22 LR cost $11.
 
Back to the OP

I, too, am thinking about making the switch. My biggest issue is that I really like the way my gun shoots Federal Trophy Bonded and the way they perform on game.
 
The biggest challenge in shooting lead-free is availability. Everyone know that you need to see what your firearm likes. There's not much variety in the lead-free market. You've got Barnes, Nosler e-tips and I think Hornady makes a round.

Barnes was originally developed for Africa where penetration is king. They never seemed to get away from that with thier all copper round. My experience is that they blow through deer sized game and I've not had alot of luck with them. When I used Barnes slugs in my 11-87, I've had many fail to open experiences. Others love Barnes.

The e-tip is made with gilding metal, not extruded copper. They're accurate and I've never had a failure to perform. The few I've recovered were mushroomed nicely. I reload them and the bullet is longer (as are all the lead-free) and seem to peform best with higher velocities.

Boy I really miss Nosler partions. Those were the WWF of knock-down bullets.
 
Man, I just have this belief that the lead ammo concerns are significantly overstated. I grew up eating doves and quail my granddaddy, dad, and uncles shot; I remember it being very common to be chewing along and find that I was working on a piece of shot. We were just told to spit it out, no different than if we got got a piece of bone in the bite, but I'm sure I ingested some of it. Also, I was taught when rigging up a fishing line with a split-shot sinker to put it on the line and bite it closed - I'm sure I've done this no less than about 100K times. I really don't know much about lead poisoning, but I figure I'd know if I ever had it.

I've considered going to non-lead bullets, but that's mainly because there are some ranches around where I live that allow hunting on a limited basis, damage hunts and whatnot, but they only allow lead-free ammo. Those are usually controlled very tightly - you have to sit on this hay bale or stand and only shoot into that field, don't leave until after dark so as not to bother the other hunters, etc. Generally not the kind of thing I'm real interested in, but I figure at some point I'll at least work up some loads for one of my rifles using X bullets or something, just so I can have the option.
 
I switched from Nozler partitions to Barnes TTSX years ago and never looked back

For sheep and caribou 130 grain TTSX hand loads for my .270 with IMR 4350

For moose/bears 180 grain TTSX hand loads for my 300 H & H with IMR 4831

As far as hand loading, 0.050" off the lands for both calibers and sub MOA 5-shot groups off the bench.
 
There has been discussion about declaring the Columbia River a "condor zone" as well.

I laid in a supply of Nosler E-Tips in 257" and 308" just in case, since that's where I live and usually hunt. Wouldn't put it past someone to rush through some regulation ending our use of lead-core bullets to hunt the area.

I don't mind the steel shot much. Do a fair bit of upland game bird hunting, mostly chukar & pheasant. The steel swats 'em down well.

But.... I really don't want to give up my Nosler Partitions, Ballistic Tips & Accubonds... They've worked so well for me over the years and I have a pretty good supply of them on hand. More than I'll ever end up using in the game fields.

I have used Barnes TSX bullets, with mixed results. I understand the tipped version expands faster, which was one of my complaints with the earlier version, at least in .257" caliber.

I don't want to switch away from my lead-core hunting bullets, but am prepared to do so if necessary.

Regards, Guy
 
There's not much variety in the lead-free market. You've got Barnes, Nosler e-tips and I think Hornady makes a round.
Click to expand...

I've used Barnes TSX for many years, with outstanding and reliable results. That said, and my apologies to Big Fin as I know Nosler is a sponsor, but I doubt I will ever order another bullet other than Hammers. I truly think if your gun won't shoot Hammers, you should just sell it.

The owner is a great guy, and is more than willing to spend time on the phone discussing the best bullet for your application and likely loads that will work well. In addition, he doesn't feed you any marketing bullshit. I appreciate that.
 
I'm not too worried about lead in my food, because I'm careful what I eat. However, to me, the bigger issue is the impact lead from bullets/shot has on scavengers. They eat everything, including the lead. Consider switching to lead free not for yourself, but to help the critters in the wild.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Big Fin
Excluding Hunting/Hunters from Wildlife Management - Episode 1 of 4
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
5K
Dougfirtree
Dougfirtree
B
To protect eagles, hunters and conservationists rebuild old alliances (non-lead ammo)
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
6K
Hunter4Life78
Hunter4Life78
Mtrimble
Fixing Western Hunting
12 13 14
Replies
268
Views
8K
Mtn Dawg
M
Adamhuntingstuff
2023 Deer hunting Recap (MT, KY, IN)
Replies
9
Views
449
SFC B
SFC B
G
Non-Resident Hunting: A Canadian Perspective
Replies
13
Views
2K
Desk Pop
Desk Pop
MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,057
Messages
1,945,269
Members
34,995
Latest member
Infraredice

Share this page

Back
Top