As part of a conflict management course at Utah State University, I have begun studying the proposed ban of Lead bullets for hunting here in Utah.
-What are the major concerns with switching to a copper bullet?
-How do you feel about the government placing further restrictions on ammunition?
-If prices were comparable, and accuracy comparable, would you be willing to switch?

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Question:
What is the price difference between a box of lead and copper bullets?

Choices:
Barnes and Win- $7.50
Could be up to $20

 

Hello and welcome to AR.
In California we have been under a lead bullet ban in part of the state for a number of years and this will go statewide in a few years. Here it was done under the guise of saving the California condor with bogus "scientific" evidence that the condors were eating carrion shot with lead bullets and dying of lead poisoning. The "studies" were trumped up evidence in an attempt to restrict firearms usage.
The only difference I have experienced with using non-lead bullets is that they are somewhat more expensive than standard cup and core designs. Since I don't use factory ammo and shoot common calibers (223,270,308,375) availability has generally been sufficient.
Accuracy and terminal performance has been as good or better than standard bullets.

My greatest concern is finding lead shards/flecks in the game I shoot. Any lead bullet will leave residual particles in and around the tissue where it was shot. Bullet design and makeup tends to determine how much is deposited. I have small children, so I try to mitigate the exposure to them. Regardless of species, I use steel shot for all bird hunting purposes. For big game, I tend to use bonded bullets/mono-metals. It really depends on the caliber and gun that I shoot that makes this determination. Some of the rifles that I hunt with just don't shoot Barnes bullets well, so I use a Accubond or Scirocco instead. I would like to stress that this is a personal choice for me and not something I impose on anyone else. There are thousands of hunters that harvest big game with cup and core bullets, and that is perfectly fine. Its just not my cup of tea.

I reload my own ammo, so the bonded vs. mono-metal price difference is not really a factor. Those that don't reload will suffer the most from any gov. legislation. Regardless of what factor is drives our legislators to push a lead ban through, I wont support the cause. Prices for ammunition and hunting already to high. I think that such legislation would only hinder new/existing hunters to the sport.

When the decision was made to phase out lead, by 2019 (i believe) how did hunters respond? I am originally from CA but I am not involved in the hunting community. Was there an opportunity to avoid litigations? Was there any effort made to establish some sort of self-regulating procedures at a local "zone" level? That you hear of? In Utah the issue of Condor and predation bird contamination is localized in the southern part of the state, northern AZ where condors make nests in the high cliffs. I would suspect less backlash (and less regulations on gun owners and hunters) if the issue was restricted to just the areas of habitation and migration/hunting areas. Was this an option in CA?

quote:

Originally posted by thecanadian:
My greatest concern is finding lead shards/flecks in the game I shoot. Any lead bullet will leave residual particles in and around the tissue where it was shot... I have small children, so I try to mitigate the exposure to them...

I reload my own ammo, so the bonded vs. mono-metal price difference is not really a factor...

Do you use copper bullets? Copper seems to be the most heavily publicized, however I can't find any information on reloading copper bullets , is this intentional to increase sales (Barnes) or is it impossible to reload the copper bullet? With how much we know about the dangerous lead found in other products (paint) why do you feel it has taken so long to find an alternative to killing the animals we eat??

quote:

Originally posted by usustuden:
Do you use copper bullets? Copper seems to be the most heavily publicized, however I can't find any information on reloading copper bullets , is this intentional to increase sales (Barnes) or is it impossible to reload the copper bullet? With how much we know about the dangerous lead found in other products (paint) why do you feel it has taken so long to find an alternative to killing the animals we eat??

I believe the dangers of lead to be overstated. Look around you, how many people do you know that are ill from eating or being exposed to lead? I wouldn't say its not hazardous, but it certainly doesn't compare to cars, drugs, booze etc,.....

Sportsmen have many good and in some cases better alternatives to lead ammo. Non toxic shotgun ammunition could be argued to be better than the old lead and the non toxic bullets for hunting certainly performs better in many cases than anything lead.

There are volumes of books, and other print media regarding non toxic ammunition, its use and reloading. The modern sportsman has no real reason to be handicapped by lead restrictions.

Personally, I reload Barnes non toxic bullets and buy Federal brand factory produced shotgun ammunition and I seem to take more game today than I ever did with lead ammo.

usu,

the issue for hunters is the specific gravity differential between lead and most other metals, and the ductility/displacement/extrusion problem.

Lead is very dense, read "heavy" for its size. Barnes Bullets, in Mona, UT, builds non-lead bullets in most hunting calibers. For the length VS weight they can be 10% or more longer to obtain a certain weight. Projectiles require a certain rate of twist to stabilize a given projectile (bullet) based primarily on length. Simply put, the longer a bullet is the faster you have to spin it to stabilize it. A new rifle may have a faster twist rate than its equivalent of forty years ago to cope with the mono-metal composition. The mono-metal projectile may or may not stabilize in older firearms.
A second issue, pertaining to length, is that the mono-metal bullet, loaded to maximum length to fit in a magazine rifle (ie bolt actions) will likely protrude deeply into the case body, thereby decreasing the space available for powder. Less powder = less velocity, which decreases the Muzzle Energy (ME) of the loaded round of ammunition. The result could well be increased wounding of game.

You are opening Pandora's Box.

Good Luck,

Rich

I Agree that the problems with lead in ammunition has been totally overblown. I have lived in this "Condor" zone all of my life and spend every day outside and have never seen one. Also have been hunting quail that entire time with lead shot and occasionally run across some shot when I am eating them and am still on this side of the grass.
Even though there has been an over 99% compliance with the no lead bullets by hunters, the lead in condors continues to climb because it was never from lead bullets but other sources. The condors that have been found dead had things like bottle caps in their stomachs so who do you suppose we can blame for that?
I have never heard of a definitive scientific study that could prove lead bullets had anything to do with condors dying. Nevertheless, I have complied with the laws and have had excellent results handloading Barnes and Nosler E tip. Haven't tried the Hornady GMX but heard they work well also.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by usustuden:
Do you use copper bullets? Copper seems to be the most heavily publicized, however I can't find any information on reloading copper bullets , is this intentional to increase sales (Barnes) or is it impossible to reload the copper bullet? With how much we know about the dangerous lead found in other products (paint) why do you feel it has taken so long to find an alternative to killing the animals we eat??

I believe the dangers of lead to be overstated. Look around you, how many people do you know that are ill from eating or being exposed to lead? I wouldn't say its not hazardous, but it certainly doesn't compare to cars, drugs, booze etc,.....

Sportsmen have many good and in some cases better alternatives to lead ammo. Non toxic shotgun ammunition could be argued to be better than the old lead and the non toxic bullets for hunting certainly performs better in many cases than anything lead.

There are volumes of books, and other print media regarding non toxic ammunition, its use and reloading. The modern sportsman has no real reason to be handicapped by lead restrictions.

Personally, I reload Barnes non toxic bullets and buy Federal brand factory produced shotgun ammunition and I seem to take more game today than I ever did with lead ammo.

There was a CDC study of lead in venison meat in North Dakota and the effects it has on humans who consumed the meat throughout three different counties in North Dakota. The results showed a clear increase in harmful lead levels, however none of the participants tested showed levels that exceeded the allowed CDC limit. They found that children that had eaten the venison were much more susceptible to the increased levels in the body. That is as far as the human exposure to lead bullets studies have gone, I believe.
So will it become an ethical issue? If the non-toxic bullet performs just as well as a lead bullet, then why needlessly endanger non-target wildlife question?? It seems important to avoid further regulation, but at the same time the research on impacts seems to be discarded as bogus by some in the hunting community (another ploy to further regulate). So how can we resolve the issue without government regulation?

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
usu,

the issue for hunters is the specific gravity differential between lead and most other metals, and the ductility/displacement/extrusion problem.

Lead is very dense, read "heavy" for its size. Barnes Bullets, in Mona, UT, builds non-lead bullets in most hunting calibers. For the length VS weight they can be 10% or more longer to obtain a certain weight. Projectiles require a certain rate of twist to stabilize a given projectile (bullet) based primarily on length. Simply put, the longer a bullet is the faster you have to spin it to stabilize it. A new rifle may have a faster twist rate than its equivalent of forty years ago to cope with the mono-metal composition. The mono-metal projectile may or may not stabilize in older firearms.
A second issue, pertaining to length, is that the mono-metal bullet, loaded to maximum length to fit in a magazine rifle (ie bolt actions) will likely protrude deeply into the case body, thereby decreasing the space available for powder. Less powder = less velocity, which decreases the Muzzle Energy (ME) of the loaded round of ammunition. The result could well be increased wounding of game.

You are opening Pandora's Box.

Good Luck,

Rich

I have read about the issues revolving around using the new non-toxic bullets in older rifles, but it was not clear as to why it would be an issue, so thank you Rich for clearing this up. It seems like the transition could be an expensive one for those who have maintained older equipment that functions as well as any new rifle might. Interesting point. Barnes, and other shooters who have used non-toxic bullets claim that the shooting experience is the same if not better. At what point will the chance of decreased velocity become a critical issue? At what distance would it become noticeable? And has anyone found this to be an issue in the newer non-toxics??

quote:

Originally posted by usustuden:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by usustuden:
Do you use copper bullets? Copper seems to be the most heavily publicized, however I can't find any information on reloading copper bullets , is this intentional to increase sales (Barnes) or is it impossible to reload the copper bullet? With how much we know about the dangerous lead found in other products (paint) why do you feel it has taken so long to find an alternative to killing the animals we eat??

I believe the dangers of lead to be overstated. Look around you, how many people do you know that are ill from eating or being exposed to lead? I wouldn't say its not hazardous, but it certainly doesn't compare to cars, drugs, booze etc,.....

Sportsmen have many good and in some cases better alternatives to lead ammo. Non toxic shotgun ammunition could be argued to be better than the old lead and the non toxic bullets for hunting certainly performs better in many cases than anything lead.

There are volumes of books, and other print media regarding non toxic ammunition, its use and reloading. The modern sportsman has no real reason to be handicapped by lead restrictions.

Personally, I reload Barnes non toxic bullets and buy Federal brand factory produced shotgun ammunition and I seem to take more game today than I ever did with lead ammo.

There was a CDC study of lead in venison meat in North Dakota and the effects it has on humans who consumed the meat throughout three different counties in North Dakota. The results showed a clear increase in harmful lead levels, however none of the participants tested showed levels that exceeded the allowed CDC limit. They found that children that had eaten the venison were much more susceptible to the increased levels in the body. That is as far as the human exposure to lead bullets studies have gone, I believe.
So will it become an ethical issue? If the non-toxic bullet performs just as well as a lead bullet, then why needlessly endanger non-target wildlife question?? It seems important to avoid further regulation, but at the same time the research on impacts seems to be discarded as bogus by some in the hunting community (another ploy to further regulate). So how can we resolve the issue without government regulation?

I believe the CDC study you reference was proven to have taken the sample only from meat around the wound track and and containing lead fragments. The CDC has continually proven to have an agenda where guns and hunting are concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by Blacktailer:

quote:

Originally posted by usustuden:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by usustuden:
Do you use copper bullets? Copper seems to be the most heavily publicized, however I can't find any information on reloading copper bullets , is this intentional to increase sales (Barnes) or is it impossible to reload the copper bullet? With how much we know about the dangerous lead found in other products (paint) why do you feel it has taken so long to find an alternative to killing the animals we eat??

I believe the dangers of lead to be overstated. Look around you, how many people do you know that are ill from eating or being exposed to lead? I wouldn't say its not hazardous, but it certainly doesn't compare to cars, drugs, booze etc,.....

Sportsmen have many good and in some cases better alternatives to lead ammo. Non toxic shotgun ammunition could be argued to be better than the old lead and the non toxic bullets for hunting certainly performs better in many cases than anything lead.

There are volumes of books, and other print media regarding non toxic ammunition, its use and reloading. The modern sportsman has no real reason to be handicapped by lead restrictions.

Personally, I reload Barnes non toxic bullets and buy Federal brand factory produced shotgun ammunition and I seem to take more game today than I ever did with lead ammo.

There was a CDC study of lead in venison meat in North Dakota and the effects it has on humans who consumed the meat throughout three different counties in North Dakota. The results showed a clear increase in harmful lead levels, however none of the participants tested showed levels that exceeded the allowed CDC limit. They found that children that had eaten the venison were much more susceptible to the increased levels in the body. That is as far as the human exposure to lead bullets studies have gone, I believe.
So will it become an ethical issue? If the non-toxic bullet performs just as well as a lead bullet, then why needlessly endanger non-target wildlife question?? It seems important to avoid further regulation, but at the same time the research on impacts seems to be discarded as bogus by some in the hunting community (another ploy to further regulate). So how can we resolve the issue without government regulation?

I believe the CDC study you reference was proven to have taken the sample only from meat around the wound track and and containing lead fragments. The CDC has continually proven to have an agenda where guns and hunting are concerned.

Why does the CDC have an agenda against hunting and guns?

The CDC is a politically controlled agency. The follow the congressional/presidential lead on matters of gun control. Even they had to admit that guns are used by the general public in the prevention of crime than they are used by criminals to injure others.

The problem is that every "green" organization in the USA and most of the liberal organizations want to ban hunting and guns because they are evil killing devices.

Ingested lead from game shot by lead bullets has never been a problem that resulted in harm in humans that rise above the level of many other common things, cars, Pools, sidewalks, etc.
The rest is just the continuing war on liberty, through a war on Guns, through a war on ammo.
If one can't clearly see that today, one is not looking.
I am glad that usustuden came looking here. I hope he/she has their eyes open. We really need young people to awaken to the loss of liberty. They say that the young cherish freedom and liberty. It is time for them to prove it. Time is short.

The "greatest" generation, and their predecessor generation, were exposed to lead levels that would make the EPA faint and they managed to survive and thrive. Lead paint, lead toys, etc etc. All of the great scientists were so exposed, including Einstein, Fermi, etc. They managed to overcome it somehow......

BTW one of the biggest problems with lethality of lead vs copper bullets is in pistols or other slower moving bullets. At lower velocities, copper just won't deform like lead and the wound tracks are not as quickly lethal.

quote:

Originally posted by usustuden:
There was a CDC study of lead in venison meat in North Dakota and the effects it has on humans who consumed the meat throughout three different counties in North Dakota. The results showed a clear increase in harmful lead levels, however none of the participants tested showed levels that exceeded the allowed CDC limit. They found that children that had eaten the venison were much more susceptible to the increased levels in the body. That is as far as the human exposure to lead bullets studies have gone, I believe.
So will it become an ethical issue? If the non-toxic bullet performs just as well as a lead bullet, then why needlessly endanger non-target wildlife question?? It seems important to avoid further regulation, but at the same time the research on impacts seems to be discarded as bogus by some in the hunting community (another ploy to further regulate). So how can we resolve the issue without government regulation?

Like I said, look around you, who do you know suffering from lead? You've got several friends and aquaintances as do we all that have been damaged by alcohol in one way or another and yet the feds are worried about the paint.

Ethical issue? You'll be hard pressed to get the fellows in the field, i.e., sportsmen to agree that lead ammunition needlessly endanger non target wildlife. If the California Condor is to be saved bullets aren't the issue, habitat loss is. Maybe climate change

Waterfowlers were at the forefront of the non toxic ammo issue as restrictions on duck hunting shotgun shells began in the 1980's. Today, duck hunters have little reason to wistfully remember lead shot. Modern non toxic shotgun ammo works well and so sportsmen have no need to even consider endangering non target wildlife.

In AK, non toxic big game hunting bullets are preferred I believe because their performance is superior to lead bullets. Were lead to be outlawed in AK, a) I'd be annoyed because I don't believe it to be as pressing and issue as say, "War on Drugs", "War on Terror", potholes in the highway, etc,... b) there's nobody out here to check our compliance, and c) like I said earlier, I already use and prefer the non toxic.

The condor's habitat was lost before it was reintroduced.
From what I've read the lead poisoning these condor are suffering from is collected from the trash they're munching upon in dumps and landfills located throughout the range they inhabit.
Condors are an extremely expensive boondoggle and if left on their own they'd be extinct once again in the USA in a very short time.

When the public and apparently a very few hunters get so concerned about what you shoot an animal with, then it's not going to be very much longer until you can't shoot them at all.

This is a sport that too much "civilization" will absolutely put an end to.

And btw, I and countless other local hunters, who I know personally and their families, have over these many decades been eating "lead wound channels" left and right and nobody's the slightest sick from it. And that includes biting into and spitting out lead shot for several decades that we took thousands of ducks and geese with and are still now taking thousands of quail with (mostly pen raised) and tens of thousands of wild doves with.

To put a finer point on it, it's ALL a load of nonsense.

Wise up, band together and start opposing this whole program, or its YOUR guns and hunting that are going to be EXTINCT.

One of the more forgotten parts of the Condor Conservation were the findings of the original Condor Studies and Lead. It was back in the late 60's and 70's and the main culprit was found to be Leaded Gas and the associated pollution.

The use of lead-free bullets is really just about trying to ban hunting. It also shows how remarkable man & hunters are when faced with adversity. Instead of just griping about it, the Hunting industry came up with better and better lead free bullets. Adversity drives development. Which in turn have lead to improvements in hunting in general.

Yes, the ban is bogus. But let's not forget that the ban also improved things. Lead free optics are lighter...more durable and now better than before. Lead free gas helped push the development of better lubricants (*Lead was used as a lubricant in fuel) - this was also leveraged in the hunting industry with better protectants. Steel shot in waterfowling gave way to tungsten and bismuth - and it's hard to argue that tungsten and bismuth aren't improvements.

All of this have improved our ability to harvest lean, magnificent dark red venison that has lived its life without preservatives, without hormones, and without cages.

Ban the lead, fine. Just remember that we Hunters are a resourceful bunch. We will find ways to improve our traditions and we will succeed.

Interesting...nobody wants to ban lead sinkers for fishing...

Oh perhaps there is an agenda, ya think

quote:

Interesting...nobody wants to ban lead sinkers for fishing...

I may be wrong, but I think you might want to check that out just a little! But a few states have had discussions about banning lead sinkers, and they are banned in the U.K and parts of Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Interesting...nobody wants to ban lead sinkers for fishing...

I may be wrong, but I think you might want to check that out just a little! But a few states have had discussions about banning lead sinkers, and they are banned in the U.K and parts of Canada.

Definitely banned in California as are lead wheelweights.

I still use cup and core bullets out of Lora's .257 Robert's and my .38-55, cast lead bullets in my .44 Marlin and copper-plated lead in my .351 Win.SL.

In everything else I use either Barnes "X" or Barnes TSX bullets, simply because I like the performance they give. Never have worried about "Lead Residue (?)" in game meat, animals or birds. I started hunting in 1967, when people were not concerned about such things.

It amazes me in this day and time with all the scares and concerns about stuff, how ANY of us above the age of 50, lived this damn long.

quote:

Originally posted by rnovi:
banning lead sinkers.......

Definitely banned in California as are lead wheelweights.

Any link to info on that? The wheelweights are old news but I moved from Ca about a year ago and lead sinkers were still in the stores then.

Rnovi, I checked the CDF&G website and there is no mention of this..... Where did you get your info?

Used to run around with pellet gun and lead pellets under my lower lips and shooting sparrows and starlings
EPA would probably hang my parents on nearest tree
Somehow still made it thru college and still kicking

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by rnovi:
banning lead sinkers.......

Definitely banned in California as are lead wheelweights.

Any link to info on that? The wheelweights are old news but I moved from Ca about a year ago and lead sinkers were still in the stores then.

Rnovi, I checked the CDF&G website and there is no mention of this..... Where did you get your info?

I used to manage a Big 5 Sporting Goods some 15 years ago. We had a major recall on lead back then and had to replace them all with artificial alloy weights. I had to send back over 1,000# of lead…I'm glad I was a young man when I loaded up those boxes.

Times may have changed…but back then Lead was replaced universally.

I think that there are several issues with the nontoxic alternatives that some people are probably not too aware of.

As many have mentioned, price is a big issue. In big game hunting, its not nearly so prevalent as in others. Big game hunting, ideally you are going to shoot very little. Maybe only once even on a very successful trip.

The various nontoxic big game bullets do work pretty well on game, although I would add that there is a hidden cost there- I just rebarrelled a very expensive hunting rifle that normally should have never needed it (a .416 Rigby) in my lifetime. The manufacturer said that the barrel was all but smooth bored at that point, and noted that I had been shooting monometal bullets in it. That put the costs of shooting that rifle up $3000 over a 7 year span. They said that it is not that unusual to have this happen with extensive use of the monometal bullets.

While it might not matter if you only occasionally shoot them, a regular diet of them will wear out guns quicker, and if something like this is put in place, it is a slippery slope before all ammunition needs to be nontoxic.

I also note that the studies that have been done on lead exposure from big game were not considered conclusive. Lead is a very inert metal, and unless it has reacted in some way, it remains inert. Look at the number of people who have bullets left in them, and they have never shown an increase in blood lead from them.

As to other uses, I know of no one who is pleased with the nontoxic alternatives for small game bullets, which are probably the largest source of ammunition use. The ubiquitous .22 rimfire is pretty ineffective with the nontoxic alternatives available.

As to birds, while the nontoxic ammo has made long strides, it still is no where near as effective as lead shot ammo loaded to similar specifications. I have shot both upland and waterfowl relatively recently with both. (the waterfowl were in areas that do not have our laws) and the newer nontoxics are much better than they were (and in fairness, better than really poor lead loads) but the latest versions of high speed lead shells are dramatically more effective than any of the nontoxic equivelents. By effective, I mean percentages of hits, and speed of mortality of game. The latest generation tungsten loads do hit and drop game effectively at ranges not seen since lead shot was used, but most of the birds still require wringing a neck to kill them whereas the lead shot seems to just kill them, probably due to its ductility. Coincidentally, they are an order of magnitude more expensive than standard lead shot premium shells.

When I read the Pautuxtent studies that lead to the mandate of nontoxic shot I was shocked at the "corrections" that they made due to presumptive loss of ill birds that they could not find.

Similarly, we have indulged in an experiment with the nontoxic mandates for waterfowl. While numbers are better than they have been for some time, I don't think the restrictions are the cause of that. It looks like bird numbers have improved solely due to habitat preservation and improvement. In the meantime, we have driven large numbers of hunters out of waterfowl hunting.

I have no doubt that condors and other raptors have elevated lead levels in them, but as others suggest, I doubt it is due to lead from hunting that is causing the problem. I would be more inclined to believe it is from lead batteries in landfills where they scavenge and dusting their feathers in dry areas that have lead residue from the old leaded automotive fuels (which are still around- you just can't get them for on road use.)

So, in brief, the effectiveness of nontoxic ammunition is somewhat overstated, there are hidden costs in nontoxics that people don't think of when they compare costs, there are no viable alternatives for a substantial portion of use, and no one has proven that the lead from hunting ammunition is the cause of raptor morbidity or mortality.

As such, I feel that banning lead from hunting is a "feel good" attempt at dealing with an issue that is of questionable overall effect.

I suspect we will have a bigger positive impact on raptor populations by banning wind farms and solar fields than lead hunting ammo, but that is just not politically acceptable to say (look up the recent allowance of permissible kills of Bald Eagles by windmill generators...)

Here is my take:

Copper cored (Barnes TSX) do not perform as well as "lead" bullets. Now here is my scientific reasoning....

I used them on safari for 17 days, on multiple sized plains game. One, literally exploded on impacted. Others did not "mushroom" at all.

I sent pic's to Barnes and they finally agreed that I must have "received a bad lot". Well, I am surely not convinced of their performance.

Now, having said that, I did have a few of them perform great.

Its my opinion and nothing more. All I have to go on is experience.

As far as I am concerned, this lead ban is one more "proposed" Californina law that they can keep. I surely hope they keep it in their own state.

There is an exhibit at the San Diego Zoo showing items found in the stomach of a condor. It had bottle caps, nails, nuts, bolts, and a bunch of other small metal objects. It did not have bullets though. There is an added exhibit that has bullets in it showing the contrasting monolithic bullet and a lead core bullet, but this was added after the regulations (a poor exhibit BTW as it has no cutaways of the bullets so all the bullets look the same, i.e. copper).

The basic take away I got from it is that condors are attracted to shiny objects and eat them. A garbage dump or a campground is way more dangerous than a bullet that got stuck in a gut pile. As it has been said before, it's just a gun-control movement which uses the condor as a front to push their agenda.

usu,

a significant percentage of the (generally) Liberal/Democratic population believe that this country needs to make a paradigm shift away from the "blood sports". It is based on two somewhat connected beliefs.

One is that modern man no longer has any
legitimate reason to hunt for subsistence.

The second is a notion that people are basically moral/good, but that "evil things" cause them to engage in illegal/deadly activities. The occasional mass shootings being the primary issue.

ie, the shootings are merely a case of "acting out" by citizens, not an actual evil human being.

The humorous allegory often seen on bumper stickers is "If guns are responsible for killings, then spoons are responsible for making Rosie O'Donnell fat..."

It is a difficult reality for many that there is actually a worldwide battle between Good and Evil taking place. Far easier to demonize a tool, than face that reality. To accept that, one would needs have to remove evil people from society; either by incarceration, or execution.

Rich

usustudent, the North Dakota study was, to the best of my recollection, also found to be a hoax. The good dentist that took x-rays of the meat in question was then found to have planted the lead fragments for the x-ray. The entire lead "debate", in my opinion, is a hoax with no bearing on hunting. The CDC studies that covered lead paint indicated that the children in question were hungry, bordering on mal-nutrition, as I recall, and were eating the paint off the walls by the handful, not a bit here and there. But that is a memory from the 60s.

Are there alternatives, sure. Should there be, sure. Someone will find a way to put a bismuth core in a bullet someday. There is just no credible scientific evidence for the forced changes we are seeing.

BTW, your question is flawed, "If prices were comparable, and accuracy comparable, would you be willing to switch?" If that is true, with the present data, why would one switch? But the costs are not similar.