Lead Ban Chronicles – The CA Ban Extends!

Hey Michael, the thing is you can still buy all the lead ammo you want, even in the heart of condor country. They just don’t want you to shoot it… apparently not at anything.

You’re right that economics is a huge driver, but the fact is that the animal rights/welfare organizations have the State over a barrel with the threat of lawsuits, which is why the State is making stupid, unenforceable laws like this one. It’s cheaper to make concessions and pass unenforceable regulations than it is to fight the lawsuit in court… even if the suit is winnable (which I believe it would be).

The only valid counterattack, as I’ve mentioned before, is for the sportsmen of CA to get organized to push for some sort of litigation to roll these regulations back. Unfortunately, the NRA and a couple of other organizations have already decided there are not enough legal grounds to challenge the State, so they’re apparently not interested in pursuing the issue. I’m definitely no legal expert, so I can’t really argue with their reasoning.

Personally, I would think we could somehow utilize the stipulation in the F&G Commission rules that new regulations must be weighed against any undue hardship they would place on hunters… and the absolute lack of non-lead rimfire ammunition (except CCI .22mag ammo), and the very limited (and expensive) options for many centerfire calibers would be sufficient. I think it’s every bit as solid as the grounds used by the self-proclaimed condor saviors.

Problem is, this kind of thing takes money, and the organizations that have that money (NRA-ILA, California Hunting Heritage Foundation, etc.) apparently aren’t willing to pony up because they don’t see the value.

The spin-off from this, of course, is that organizations like the Peregrine Fund and HSUS have seen that they can push this down our throats here in CA, and are now on a campaign to roll a lead ammo ban across the country. Maybe California has missed its chance to form a bulwark against this tide, but if the battle isn’t joined somewhere and soon, the momentum will be unstoppable. It’s only a matter of time before someone can gather enough plaintiffs to file suit against the state and federal governments charging that lead ammo endangers their health and well-being, based on the current debacle in North Dakota.

Hey Josh, I think that you’d generally be right about the economy of scale, except that things are a little topsy turvy out there right now.

Bullet components are getting a little scarce, and as a result, the price on even basic lead ammo is streaking upward. Copper is already astronomically expensive, and there’s no change in sight. With the demand for raw materials overseas matching or outstripping supply, and the ability of overseas buyers to outbid domestic markets… well, it doesn’t look good for US hunters.

Right now, it’s difficult for non-lead ammo suppliers just to meet current demand since the CA regs went into effect. If that demand goes nationwide, the strain will be unprecedented. This is made worse by the fact that there simply aren’t that many alternatives to lead that provide the ballistic properties needed for accurate and effective bullets. I’m not sure, but I believe that between Lapua and Barnes, the copper bullet patents are pretty well locked up. Gilding metal, such as that used by Nosler for the ETip bullets seems to be a good alternative, but I’m not sure how many variations you’ll be able to find on that, or what the patent issues may be. There are a ton of frangible offerings, but those aren’t well suited for most hunting applications… and, in fact, aren’t even legal for big game here in CA.

So yeah, in the theoretical vacuum, the increased market would eventually drive the price down (and it may yet), but with current conditions, it’s most likely that the price will increase as availability staggers.

Welcome aboard, Jeff!

While the lead ban movement predates Obama by several years, I do agree that this new administration is going to give the anti-lead folks a lot more leverage than they’d have had otherwise. With Tom Daschle in the Health and Human Services role, arguments against lead ammo based on the North Dakota fiasco will likely have a willing ear. That’s doesn’t bode well for a sensible approach to managing lead, but I guess time will tell.

As far as the big bullet manufacturers, I’ve spoken to most of them on this topic every year for the past five. At first, the “big three” were taking a wait and see approach. The smaller makers were mostly in denial that any such ban could happen. Nosler was the only “small” bullet maker to indicate that they were looking into “some ideas”.

A few years later, with the CA ban looming, the big makers were taking it much more seriously. Federal had already made their bed with Barnes. Winchester had just partnered with Nosler. Remington was “looking at a solution” and later partnered with Lapua. Most of the smaller bullet makers were taking things a little more seriously, but because it was “just California”, they couldn’t justify the costs to change up production and do the necessary R&D to develop their own non-lead bullet. Nosler wasn’t quite ready to release the ETip, and were actually very secretive about it… only telling me again that they were “working on some ideas”.

This year I’ll be back at their booths, asking the same questions again. While I’m hoping to hear some positive news (more available calibers, more factory loadings, etc.), I expect that I’ll find pretty much the same picture as last year. I predict that when I ask them about the North Dakota lead-in-venison debacle and the possible national fallout, many of them will pooh-pooh the likelihood of a national ban, just as they once did the CA ban.

As sportsmen and consumers, it’s up to us to push for a sensible solution and a strategic position BEFORE the uproar for a lead ban deafens those who might listen to our case. We should be putting pressure on the manufacturers to consider the future and provide LEAD-SAFE ammunition options.

“Lead safe”, by the way, is a term I’d suggest we all get familiar with and use it to counter “lead free”. There are several bullet types out there that leave minimal lead traces in meat, and Minnesota’s own bullet testing experiments support that argument. While some, like the premium bonded bullets, are still more expensive than the old-school soft points, they do offer an alternative to the purely lead-free ammo. These bonded bullets are also easier to make and available from more manufacturers and in more calibers and loadings.

If nothing else, lead-safe represents a compromise position between no ban and an all-out ban on lead bullets. But more importantly, it would represent a willingness on the part of sportsmen to address a growing environmental health concern, as well as to address the personal health concerns of many within our community… it’s a way to remove the majority of lead residue from game animals without completely removing lead from our ammunition. It’s the first step in a sensible, phased approach to removing lead from our ammo.

Otherwise, sportsmen in the rest of the country will soon find themselves in the same position as California hunters… jumping in to fight after the battle has already been lost.

Kevin, I wish they would have made some common-sense allowances for “antique” or non-standard firearms and calibers. At least for your 45-70 you can load the Barnes flat-nose bullets, or you can buy them factory-loaded by Cor-Bon. Options for many less common calibers are even shorter, though.

As far as “tooling up”, my standard Lee press manages just fine with both the Barnes and ETip bullets. No changes required, except to adjust the recipes.

Frangibles are not legal in CA for big game, not that you’d be hunting grizzly bears in CA anyway. There are some frangibles that are really awesome for varmints/predators, though. I’ve used one brand, Extreme Shock, on exotics down in TX, and they were really impressive… a little too destructive for a meat hunter like me, but extraordinarily effective, even on marginal hits.

Ahh, I’m afraid I don’t have much experience with making my own bullets. However, I can tell you that most of the CA approved ammo is made either of ductile copper (Barnes, Remington, Lapua) or of gilding metal (Nosler, Hornady). The powdered stuff is generally for frangibles, which are not legal for big game in CA.

I have no idea what it takes to mold or press copper or gilding metal (although if I understand correctly, gilding metal is a lot like tin when you’re working it), so you may be right.

As far as the condor… well, there’s a lot more there than I can even begin to address in this response. In short, there really is SOME evidence that lead ammo may be a factor in SOME condor deaths. No hard proof, and I honestly doubt that it’s nearly as significant as electrocution by powerline, ingestion of garbage from the roadside and old homesteads, and miscellaneous toxins. But the bottom line is, the connection between lead ammo and condor mortality is plausible… not solid, but plausible… and that’s enough for the condor protectors and the environmental activists to latch onto. It makes the public take notice. If we can’t prove it ISN’T true, then as far as the voting public is concerned, it IS true.

I won’t say there’s not an anti-gun element to the current discussion. However, let me be absolutely clear that the source or driver doesn’t matter at this point. The cards are on the table. We have to do more than point fingers if we want to find a productive solution.