Most U.S. gun owners use lead-based ammunition and primers, and nearly half don’t engage in any post-shooting hygiene behaviors such as changing their clothes or showering, a study found.
Currently there is a push for hunters to switch to all copper bullets. The bullet technology has gotten good enough that solid copper bullets can be designed in a way to consistently petal and create big wound channels. They’re obviously more expensive so I stick with lead for the range and practice.
At the learn to hunt deer class I went to they reviewed a study that showed that lead bullets fragment and shed when they hit the target. The study shot a hog cadaver (iirc), and noted that when they scanned the result they found lead up to 16" away from the impact point and that it was probably even further but their scanner was limited to scanning just that size. The class then demonstrated shooting an all copper bullet at a series of water jugs in a bullet trap to show how it petals.
All that to say, this is a current topic in the hunting community and people are switching away from lead. More and more manufacturers are making copper core bullets and they’re coming down in price. If you’re interested Barnes is the go to manufacturer for these right now.
Edit: Also bird shot moved away from lead a long time ago. It’s not even legal to use it anymore.
In 1991, the US Fish and Wildlife Service launched a nationwide ban on lead shot for waterfowl hunting to reduce the number of lead shot falling into waterbodies. Since the inception of dove hunting in Wisconsin in 2003, the DNR has prohibited the use of lead shot for hunting mourning doves on state-managed lands.
In my mind I just equated that with being banned all together. Who wants to study the law just to find out when they can use toxic shot?
I’m using lead free ammo since last year and I’m content with the results.
Many conservative, mostly older hunters claim that the killing power is inferior. But in my experience, even with a lead-free deformable bullet, the killing power is still perfectly adequate, even for smaller game. Killing power depends largely on the point of impact, so if the animal runs a long way, it’s the hunter’s fault, not the ammunition’s.
Lead is very dense, so a bullet the same size delivers more force. Steel was an early alternative, and in addition to being less dense, it also tends not to deform into a mushroom shape during impact like lead and copper do. So a steel bullet can penetrate cleanly through a target leaving a narrower path and have a slower penetration and exit velocity, all combining to do less damage.
The density benefit is the same reason some high end rounds use tungsten and even depleted uranium. Heavier bullets of the same size fly straighter and hit harder.
Steel and copper also tend to cause more barrel wear than lead. Probably tungsten does too, but I don’t have experience with it, let alone depleted uranium, lol.
The force difference would be absolutely miniscule. The energy comes from the powder, not the bullet material. Denser cores increase penetration by concentrating the force, not magically delivering more force.
Kinetic energy from a projectile is equal to the mass of the projectile times the square of the velocity, but air resistance saps velocity off quite rapidly and independently of the mass. So a heavy projectile will deliver more kinetic energy to a target than a lighter one with the same initial velocity.
A lighter projectile can be driven faster by the same charge of propellant, but air resistance increases with the cube of the velocity so delivering more energy through increased velocity is a losing game. You can decrease air resistance by decreasing the cross section of the projectile, but that requires dense materials like lead.
tldr: the difference is absolutely not minuscule. There’s a reason why bullets are made of dense materials.
The force difference for rounds made to similar WOULD be miniscule, because they’d be made to be similar. OFC you cannot cheat physics. I’m not trying to defend bullets made of fucking feathers here…
Of course it isn’t an energy multiplier. The energy carried as the bullet leaves the barrel will be very very close to the same. The energy it carries will be lost more quickly to air resistance with a less dense round though. Especially since the same powder behind less mass, means more speed, means more air resistance. How much that matters depends on a lot of factors, but it can certainly be enough to matter.
You’re correct, but also completely wrong at the same time. Yes, you can have a lighter bullet that is faster that carries the same kinetic energy. It might even hold its energy longer if it’s more aerodynamic. Where you are wrong is the ability to transfer that energy. A full metal jacket would pass clean through the target without transferring most of its energy into the target. A lead bullet that deforms is going to dump a lot more energy into the target. That’s why you have hollow points and other bullets that are designed to petal and fragment on impact. For hunting the goal is a bullet that does pass all the way through creating two wounds to bleed out and cutting as large of a wound channel as possible. Which is different than say self defense where you want a bullet that dumps all of its energy as fast as possible so you don’t over penetrate and hit your neighbor.
I guess all of that falls in line with the force being concentrated. It just really isn’t related to density as much as you’re implying. Unless I misunderstood what you’re saying.
That’s literally the opposite of what I have said in this thread. I’ve repeatedly said copper is just as effective with the only downside being that it is more expensive. Why don’t you calm down and actually read what was said instead of reacting defensively.
rofl if you continue to fail to understand how lead isn’t the only viable option, you’re only proving how pathetic and ignorant YOU care to be on the topic. Pathetic. Genuinely, your view is ignorance manifest.
You’re defending using literal biotoxins as projectiles. You are a vile piece of shit who would readily violate many treaties of the past. You are a fucking loser who fails to understand the problems of certain technological advancement. You are a braindead stone sitting in the stream of the past.
Yes and no. I think the reasoning behind this often has to do with how the projectile behaves after striking the target. Generally speaking, a distinction is made between deformation-type and fragmentation-type projectiles, and, if I understand the arguments correctly, it’s assumed that lead-free projectiles don’t fragment as effectively or, in the case of deformation-type projectiles, don’t mushroom as well as lead-based ones do.
I don’t know if there was any truth to that when lead-free ammunition was first developed, but today that’s definitely no longer the case, and that argument is therefore invalid.
The deformation is exactly it. That’s why I’m that class I went to they demoed out. The copper bullet perfectly petaled the way it was supposed to into a star like pattern. That would leave a serious wound channel to bleed out of.
That technical level of discussion is all totally BS as far as politics is concerned. If your target can be harmed and isn’t armored, almost any kind of bullet will harm them. If they’re armored properly, nothing civilians get access to is going to harm them.
If you’re defending from an intruder, do you think they’ll be stopped faster by six bullets that fragment into five pieces each, or six bullets that fragment into three pieces each? Or maybe your (royal your: the people who seriously whine about all gun regulation) dumb ass is just splitting hairs after six shots…
FYI, a significant amount of lead exposure from shooting isn’t really from the bullets but from the primers which contain lead compounds.
The lead in the bullet is going downrange, and is often jacketed in something like copper, you’re not gonna come in contact with a whole lot of lead from handling most ammo, and there’s absolutely some amount of fragmentation and fouling and such happening, but lead from the bullet isn’t exactly getting sprayed all around.
But the primer absolutely does vaporize a bunch of lead compounds and you can inhale those fumes and particles settle on your clothes and such. Lead free primers are out there, but they’re not very common, and a lot of people find them to be more unreliable.
Now lead exposure from the actual projectiles isn’t zero, and there’s no real safe level of lead exposure, so don’t get complacent about that either, but in the grand scheme it’s often not the biggest issue
I did not know that about the primers. I’ll be more considerate about washing up after range time. I always made sure to wash my hands after the range and after cleaning the firearms. I never really thought about the particulates on the clothing. Thanks for the info.
I tried switching to nontoxic primers but holy cow they’re expensive and hard to find in the calibers I need. The industry could care if it wanted to, I just don’t think it does.
Lead from the bullet does actually come out of the barrel in a particularly impressive plume of particulate matter that you then breathe in. It’s caused by friction with the barrel and cuts from the rifling, but it’s very effectively reduced by using jacketed bullets. Just FYI.
Yeah, I probably could have made that a little more clear on that, I did mention jacketed bullets help mitigate your lead exposure, and that it’s not necessary 0 exposure from the projectile, but probably could have given a little more details on that
In my defense though, I don’t think I’ve actually even seen unjacketed ammo in person since I was in boy scouts shooting the cheapest bulk .22 ammo known to man at the summer camp shooting range. I’d almost have to go out of my way to find unjacketed ammo around me these days, even most cheap bulk .22 I see is jacketed now.
It’s definitely out there for some rounds though, and of course reloaders.
Closest I’ve seen in some time is softpoint .45-70 my friend has for his lever gun, and now that I’m thinking about that I’m curious how that stacks up against FMJ as far as lead exposure, since presumably that exposed lead soft point probably shouldn’t really be engaging with the rifling or sides of the barrel.
Good discussion! Most ammo is jacketed these days, but if you ever shoot any non-jacketed ammo you’ll get lead coming out of the barrel for a long time afterwards. Even after pretty thorough cleaning.
The stuff on .22 bullets is plating, not jacketing, and doesn’t really cut down on the lead plume at all. It’s nowhere near as thick as the depth of the rifling. Shooting .22 is like huffing lead plume, with a side of dirty primer and powder smoke. It’s so good for plinking though.
“… but lead from the bullet isn’t exactly getting sprayed all around.”
no, just the bullets themselves get sprayed around everywhere. Regardless of what removing lead from bullets would mean for humans, it would be great for the environment either way.
You can 1000% still get lead birdshot and it is 100% legal to use in most states, with the exceptions being for a statewide ban in California, and waterfowl where it is illegal to use nationwide.
Currently there is a push for hunters to switch to all copper bullets. The bullet technology has gotten good enough that solid copper bullets can be designed in a way to consistently petal and create big wound channels. They’re obviously more expensive so I stick with lead for the range and practice.
At the learn to hunt deer class I went to they reviewed a study that showed that lead bullets fragment and shed when they hit the target. The study shot a hog cadaver (iirc), and noted that when they scanned the result they found lead up to 16" away from the impact point and that it was probably even further but their scanner was limited to scanning just that size. The class then demonstrated shooting an all copper bullet at a series of water jugs in a bullet trap to show how it petals.
All that to say, this is a current topic in the hunting community and people are switching away from lead. More and more manufacturers are making copper core bullets and they’re coming down in price. If you’re interested Barnes is the go to manufacturer for these right now.
Edit: Also bird shot moved away from lead a long time ago. It’s not even legal to use it anymore.
Edit 2: Turns out lead bird shot isn’t illegal to use, it’s only outright banned for water fowl hunting. https://www.fws.gov/story/2022-04/nontoxic-shot-regulations-hunting-waterfowl-and-coots-us. You should also check your local laws, here in Wisconsin it’s also banned for mourning dove hunting.
In my mind I just equated that with being banned all together. Who wants to study the law just to find out when they can use toxic shot?
I’m using lead free ammo since last year and I’m content with the results. Many conservative, mostly older hunters claim that the killing power is inferior. But in my experience, even with a lead-free deformable bullet, the killing power is still perfectly adequate, even for smaller game. Killing power depends largely on the point of impact, so if the animal runs a long way, it’s the hunter’s fault, not the ammunition’s.
I’ve always been confused by the killing power argument.
A sufficiently high velocity impact to the correct location kills regardless of the material in question typically.
So as long as the material does not cause fov to go to absolute shit or something then functionally it shouldn’t matter.
Lead is very dense, so a bullet the same size delivers more force. Steel was an early alternative, and in addition to being less dense, it also tends not to deform into a mushroom shape during impact like lead and copper do. So a steel bullet can penetrate cleanly through a target leaving a narrower path and have a slower penetration and exit velocity, all combining to do less damage.
The density benefit is the same reason some high end rounds use tungsten and even depleted uranium. Heavier bullets of the same size fly straighter and hit harder.
Steel and copper also tend to cause more barrel wear than lead. Probably tungsten does too, but I don’t have experience with it, let alone depleted uranium, lol.
It’s still worth switching away from lead though.
The force difference would be absolutely miniscule. The energy comes from the powder, not the bullet material. Denser cores increase penetration by concentrating the force, not magically delivering more force.
Kinetic energy from a projectile is equal to the mass of the projectile times the square of the velocity, but air resistance saps velocity off quite rapidly and independently of the mass. So a heavy projectile will deliver more kinetic energy to a target than a lighter one with the same initial velocity.
A lighter projectile can be driven faster by the same charge of propellant, but air resistance increases with the cube of the velocity so delivering more energy through increased velocity is a losing game. You can decrease air resistance by decreasing the cross section of the projectile, but that requires dense materials like lead.
tldr: the difference is absolutely not minuscule. There’s a reason why bullets are made of dense materials.
The force difference for rounds made to similar WOULD be miniscule, because they’d be made to be similar. OFC you cannot cheat physics. I’m not trying to defend bullets made of fucking feathers here…
Of course it isn’t an energy multiplier. The energy carried as the bullet leaves the barrel will be very very close to the same. The energy it carries will be lost more quickly to air resistance with a less dense round though. Especially since the same powder behind less mass, means more speed, means more air resistance. How much that matters depends on a lot of factors, but it can certainly be enough to matter.
Unless you’re a sniper working from 100+ yards, you do not need to care about the energy delivery difference air resistance would make.
Even then, it’s more about bullet drop and far less about suddenly losing lethality.
You’re correct, but also completely wrong at the same time. Yes, you can have a lighter bullet that is faster that carries the same kinetic energy. It might even hold its energy longer if it’s more aerodynamic. Where you are wrong is the ability to transfer that energy. A full metal jacket would pass clean through the target without transferring most of its energy into the target. A lead bullet that deforms is going to dump a lot more energy into the target. That’s why you have hollow points and other bullets that are designed to petal and fragment on impact. For hunting the goal is a bullet that does pass all the way through creating two wounds to bleed out and cutting as large of a wound channel as possible. Which is different than say self defense where you want a bullet that dumps all of its energy as fast as possible so you don’t over penetrate and hit your neighbor.
I guess all of that falls in line with the force being concentrated. It just really isn’t related to density as much as you’re implying. Unless I misunderstood what you’re saying.
This isn’t a discussion of lead vs some stupid-ass strawman you all imagine. This is about lead vs literally anything possible.
If you think copper or other heavy-ish metal bullets could never compete with lead, even on spread and delivered damage, then you are just stupid.
What strawman did I present? Go ahead, find one.
That’s literally the opposite of what I have said in this thread. I’ve repeatedly said copper is just as effective with the only downside being that it is more expensive. Why don’t you calm down and actually read what was said instead of reacting defensively.
rofl if you continue to fail to understand how lead isn’t the only viable option, you’re only proving how pathetic and ignorant YOU care to be on the topic. Pathetic. Genuinely, your view is ignorance manifest.
You’re defending using literal biotoxins as projectiles. You are a vile piece of shit who would readily violate many treaties of the past. You are a fucking loser who fails to understand the problems of certain technological advancement. You are a braindead stone sitting in the stream of the past.
Yes and no. I think the reasoning behind this often has to do with how the projectile behaves after striking the target. Generally speaking, a distinction is made between deformation-type and fragmentation-type projectiles, and, if I understand the arguments correctly, it’s assumed that lead-free projectiles don’t fragment as effectively or, in the case of deformation-type projectiles, don’t mushroom as well as lead-based ones do. I don’t know if there was any truth to that when lead-free ammunition was first developed, but today that’s definitely no longer the case, and that argument is therefore invalid.
The deformation is exactly it. That’s why I’m that class I went to they demoed out. The copper bullet perfectly petaled the way it was supposed to into a star like pattern. That would leave a serious wound channel to bleed out of.
That technical level of discussion is all totally BS as far as politics is concerned. If your target can be harmed and isn’t armored, almost any kind of bullet will harm them. If they’re armored properly, nothing civilians get access to is going to harm them.
If you’re defending from an intruder, do you think they’ll be stopped faster by six bullets that fragment into five pieces each, or six bullets that fragment into three pieces each? Or maybe your (royal your: the people who seriously whine about all gun regulation) dumb ass is just splitting hairs after six shots…
FYI, a significant amount of lead exposure from shooting isn’t really from the bullets but from the primers which contain lead compounds.
The lead in the bullet is going downrange, and is often jacketed in something like copper, you’re not gonna come in contact with a whole lot of lead from handling most ammo, and there’s absolutely some amount of fragmentation and fouling and such happening, but lead from the bullet isn’t exactly getting sprayed all around.
But the primer absolutely does vaporize a bunch of lead compounds and you can inhale those fumes and particles settle on your clothes and such. Lead free primers are out there, but they’re not very common, and a lot of people find them to be more unreliable.
Now lead exposure from the actual projectiles isn’t zero, and there’s no real safe level of lead exposure, so don’t get complacent about that either, but in the grand scheme it’s often not the biggest issue
I did not know that about the primers. I’ll be more considerate about washing up after range time. I always made sure to wash my hands after the range and after cleaning the firearms. I never really thought about the particulates on the clothing. Thanks for the info.
This right here is the truth.
I tried switching to nontoxic primers but holy cow they’re expensive and hard to find in the calibers I need. The industry could care if it wanted to, I just don’t think it does.
Lead from the bullet does actually come out of the barrel in a particularly impressive plume of particulate matter that you then breathe in. It’s caused by friction with the barrel and cuts from the rifling, but it’s very effectively reduced by using jacketed bullets. Just FYI.
Yeah, I probably could have made that a little more clear on that, I did mention jacketed bullets help mitigate your lead exposure, and that it’s not necessary 0 exposure from the projectile, but probably could have given a little more details on that
In my defense though, I don’t think I’ve actually even seen unjacketed ammo in person since I was in boy scouts shooting the cheapest bulk .22 ammo known to man at the summer camp shooting range. I’d almost have to go out of my way to find unjacketed ammo around me these days, even most cheap bulk .22 I see is jacketed now.
It’s definitely out there for some rounds though, and of course reloaders.
Closest I’ve seen in some time is softpoint .45-70 my friend has for his lever gun, and now that I’m thinking about that I’m curious how that stacks up against FMJ as far as lead exposure, since presumably that exposed lead soft point probably shouldn’t really be engaging with the rifling or sides of the barrel.
Good discussion! Most ammo is jacketed these days, but if you ever shoot any non-jacketed ammo you’ll get lead coming out of the barrel for a long time afterwards. Even after pretty thorough cleaning.
The stuff on .22 bullets is plating, not jacketing, and doesn’t really cut down on the lead plume at all. It’s nowhere near as thick as the depth of the rifling. Shooting .22 is like huffing lead plume, with a side of dirty primer and powder smoke. It’s so good for plinking though.
“… but lead from the bullet isn’t exactly getting sprayed all around.”
no, just the bullets themselves get sprayed around everywhere. Regardless of what removing lead from bullets would mean for humans, it would be great for the environment either way.
Lead ammunition is harmful to predator and scavenger species.
You can 1000% still get lead birdshot and it is 100% legal to use in most states, with the exceptions being for a statewide ban in California, and waterfowl where it is illegal to use nationwide.
Edit: Spelling
Dang, I guess you’re right. What I was thinking of is the ban on hunting water fowl with lead shot
https://www.fws.gov/story/2022-04/nontoxic-shot-regulations-hunting-waterfowl-and-coots-us
Man I love when someone admits they were wrong and doesn’t double down. I like you.
I had no idea. This is neat info.