Lead Ban Chronicles – Going Lead Free, One Family’s Story

Home > Lead Ban Chronicles – Going Lead Free, One Family’s Story

The lead ammo issue is still seeing a good bit of press lately, particularly in the editorial pages. In some cases, I’m starting to see a trend toward more reasonable calls for voluntarily switching. I like that, for the most part, because it puts the decision where it really should be… on the individual.

Or, I guess it could be on the whole family, as is the case with the Nolls in Alma, WI. According to this article in the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Sentinel Journal, the Noll family made the decision this year to only allow lead-free ammo on the family farm.

Before the season, Noll sent an email to his siblings, cousins, nieces, nephews and assorted others who annually assemble for the gun deer hunt at the farm.

Its message was simple.

“We decided all our crew would use copper bullets,” Noll said. “It’s pretty much a no-brainer.”

For Noll, the “no-brainer” was based on the possibility that lead fragments in the meat present even the slightest health risk to his family. The article explains that while the CDC research showed a nominal possibility of health risk, that was enough for him. I can’t fault that sort of thinking at all, even if I don’t personally come to the same conclusion.

The thing is, Noll did the research, held that up to his personal values, and made an educated decision. That’s something I’ve been calling on hunters to do all along. Look at the real data (not the propaganda or newspaper reports), consider your position, and make a choice. You can change your mind later if the choice isn’t working for you, or if your values change.

What I liked the most in this piece was Noll’s concluding statement:

“I don’t think copper bullets should be required by law,” Noll said. “But as an option, it’s something hunters should definitely check out.”

I couldn’t agree more. Check it out. If it feels right, do it.

If not, then don’t. It won’t mean the end of the world. Lead ammunition use is not an environmental catastrophe. You’re not going to wipe out the eagles by continuing to hunt with lead, and the risks to your own health (and that of your family) are extremely minimal. Will you be judged by others? Sure, and harshly by some. But at least you’re informed and acting according to your own moral compass.

In the big picture, this is, and should be, a personal choice of about the same consequence as choosing between a hybrid and a SUV… or giving them both up and embracing public transit. We all know which should be the ideal, but which one best balances your personal needs and wants against the environmental consequences?

Reply

neil h

Posted November 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Interesting post as always Phillip.

I made the switch recently, partly because I have a lot of feelers out for hunting land in the “Condor Zone” and I wanted to be sighted in and ready, but partly because I had two pigs not have the bullet pass through with the ammo my rifle liked best. I’d also had a few pretty explosive shots though bone with my last deer, and I’d rather not worry about fragmentation. I’d heard good things about some of the all copper slugs and they’re as accurate as any round I’ve shot out of my rifle. Hopefully I’ll get my first chance to try them out tomorrow if I get off work early enough..

I absolutely agree that the key here is giving folks the right to migrate when they’re ready. I don’t ever drive without a seat belt, but that doesn’t mean I support a law forcing me to wear one.
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted November 29, 2011 at 6:34 AM
  
  It is a good choice, Neil. If the ammo works for you (some rifles are picky), and if the cost and availability aren’t hindering you, it’s an excellent option.
  
  As far as copper shotgun slugs, I’m getting mixed reviews. I think the key there, and with muzzleloaders, is to keep the range within reason… inside 100 yards. Most of the failures I’ve read or heard about happened at 150 yards or more, which is (in my opinion anyway) too far to be shooting those big, slow projectiles.
Reply

neil

Posted November 29, 2011 at 7:22 AM

Oh, slugs. Actually lazy writing on my part. I meant bullets. I’m a native westerner, so shotguns aren’t even on the radar for big game, but obviously that’s not true for much of the country.

You bring up a good point though. It seems like “lead free” would present a problem for shotguns, no? Or does the fact that they’re such a large diameter reduce the need for expansion anyway? I’m not that familiar with the dynamics of a slug gun, but obviously a move away from lead force the issue. How well, or not do lead free slugs work? Are sabots the way to go?
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted November 29, 2011 at 8:37 AM
  
  Traditional shotgun slugs work primarily by delivering a big thump of energy and making big holes. They don’t generally expand that much, and they don’t usually fragment (one reason that lead shotgun slugs are relatively “lead safe”).
  
  Modern, sabot slugs are designed for much higher velocities and often use smaller diameter projectiles. These tend to upset a little bit more, but still rely primarily on their size and energy to get the job done. This is why I think the long-range slug guns are a bad idea. You can obtain the accuracy, and I’ve seen that first hand, but the terminal performance is degraded to the point that all but a perfectly placed shot will result in a long tracking job… or worse, a wounded and lost animal. This is the same with lead-free options, and I believe it’s the source of the complaints I’ve heard from hunters who have used the lead-free slugs.
  
  Every hunter who has complained about the performance of lead-free slugs (wounding, lost game, no blood trail), has also told me that the shots have been taken outside of what I consider optimal range for a slug gun… often at or beyond 150 yards. In my opinion, folks need to stop listening to the marketing hype and the TV ads, and stop trying to make their slug gun into a centerfire rifle. Of course my opinion doesn’t mean a heck of a lot in the big picture.
Reply

Tony C

Posted November 29, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Dear Neil H,
Folks need to remember that there have been two tracks in the ban-ammunition movement here regarding big game hunting- The Mandatory Ban and the Voluntary Ban.

The Voluntary Ban is in place in portions of Northern Arizona, for example.

The voluntary ban in AZ was enacted as part of AZ Game and Fish’s desire to not have hunters and shooters react adversely in response to AZGFD’s participation in the condor 10 (j) program. Arizona spends anywhere from
$ 90,000 to $ 150,000 a year to subsidize 1-2 boxes of ammunition per successful tag applicant for those hunters hunting the AZ Strip zones. Cost problems may limit that in the future, given the status of budgets among the various states.

Copper ammunition may pass some of 50 CFR 20.134-type requirements, but fails in other requirements related to Federal and State regulations under the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Increased use of copper only ammunition will likely pose Best Management Practice problems for shooting ranges where locals are shifting significantly over to the various copper products.

The Mandatory Ban here in California was imposed by law, but where at the time a second track was being followed by environmental activists trying to force a regulatory ban by threat of litigation back in 2007. At the time, the primary focus of the environmental groups in California was coercion, not persuasion and comity.

The primary focus of these groups, like CBD, Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon and American Bird Conservancy, are the mandatory bans. They apparently have little faith in the efficacy of voluntary efforts and cooperation among hunters and shooters.

The problem is, the mandatory ban under AB 821 is currently failing.

Any result in policy where people are allowed to freely choose lead ammunition over copper (for affordability reasons), or copper over lead ammunition (personal choice), would likely be welcome by all the major stakeholders that I can think of.

Any result in policy that would lead to an attempt to install a mandatory ban of lead ammunition nationwide or state by state would be most vigorously opposed by many of the hunting and shooting stakeholders.

As long as the choice is freely made, and no one is shut out of hunting or shooting due to regulatory burdens and undue costs, I would be content.
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted November 29, 2011 at 12:31 PM
  
  Good points, Tony…
  
  Here’s an honest question, though.
  
  Copper (gilding metal) bullets are made of the same material currently used for the metal jackets on most modern, centerfire ammunition, and has been used extensively for over 60 years. Have there been reported issues with environmental contamination due to the copper? Why would it be any different if shooters began shooting bullets completely made of copper, especially given that these bullets tend not to fragment?
  - Reply
    
    tonyc
    
    Posted November 30, 2011 at 8:27 AM
    
    Phillip,
    Yes, copper can be a metal of concern in water, effluent and soils, depending upon concentrations found. That includes shooting range cleanups and operating maintenance at military and civilian shooting ranges across the country.
    
    Copper is also a metal of concern in Calleguas Creek and the Magu Lagoon Superfund site in Ventura County, among other sites nationally. Other major cities in the US test for copper levels in effluent as well, and have to deal with excess levels when over national standards.
    
    Copper has also been banned for use in the phenolic material for brake pads in Washington state and in California. The hypothesis is that the copper particles used in the phenolic are being abraded off and thus deposited on roads and gutters for contamination of runoff.
    
    Copper added to hull paint is also listed as a problem. That use is for biocide effect in controlling barnacles and other critters from bonding to boat hulls. New restrictions on use of hull paint containing copper have just been enacted, if memory serves. New formulations may require reductions in the use of copper content by as much as 95%.
    
    Copper is a known toxin in riparian conditions as well, and can adversely affect ESA plant and invertebrate species in such locations that are adjacent to roads, aircraft operations, and some manufacturing.
    
    Copper toxicity is considered instrumental in the mortality of at least 3 condors in California alone that we know of in the program since re-release in 1992. The ones I seem to remember are copper toxicity events since 2000. Liver concentrations in those cases are in the 150 – 250 ppm range wet weight in the livers necropsied down at SDWAP.
    
    2 more condors in Arizona were reportedly dead due to copper, related to ingestion of pennies thrown “wishing well” style at the Grand Canyon. Supposedly Grand Canyon NP has a program to police up the pennies now.
    
    We introduced an email from Jim Petterson to the CA F & G Commission, where he wrote to the rest of the condor team regarding copper toxicity as well. In March 2007, he was asking the condor team as to whether they should begin dosing studies on copper after the lead ammunition ban was in place.
    
    The problem with shooting copper in my mind crosses a number of factors, including safety in close shooting situations, the environmental footprint issue of copper in firearms maintenance, and the potential impacts on firing range management.
    
    The potential for expanding copper solids, like some Barnes bullets, over-penetrating in close-quarters shooting is greater than traditional lead bullets, in my mind. Over-penetration is always a concern in all shooting situations, but in brush hunting and in high density areas the idea of an expanding solid exiting the game under certain conditions is higher. These can pose an increased hazard to other hunters and persons within certain distances, perhaps with thinner-boned animals such as deer.
    
    That may mean that depredation hunters in suburban and rural areas, such as what you have noted in Monterey County, may want to consider going to large-but-slow shotgun slugs like what you mentioned being used. This, of course, would still require enhanced caution as to the backstop, given the inertias involved.
    
    Cleaning copper galling in bores will require more ammonia based solvents being used by shooters and hunters. I have changed over to aqueous cleaners for years now, and the thought of increasing my solvent use again is not an alluring one.
    
    Current BMP exceptions for firing ranges are related to lead recycling being acceptable. Copper jacketing is a different story. In my mind, revisions to TSCA, Clean Water Act, RCRA and CERCLA are needed to accommodate any increased copper use should hunters start shifting over to more copper/gilding metal use. To avoid more TSCA lawsuits like what was just narrowly avoided with the CBD/ABC petition, hunters and shooters will likely have to get behind revisions to the above noted laws.
    
    Otherwise, to quote Elmer Fudd, “…No more buhwhets…”.
    
    DOD is likely going to find the same problems with their new M855 “enhanced performance” bullet as well. After “blowing it” with sintered tungsten cores, and finding that bismuth cores don’t work either, they have gone to solid copper cores behind a steel “arrowhead” penetrator as the new “green” bullet. This bullet is being publicized by American Bird Conservancy for it’s environmental acceptability.
    
    Unfortunately, the copper will be a shooting range issue and the steel penetrater may be problematic from a fire hazard standpoint in California and other bases with ESA issues. Civilians in California aren’t generally permitted to shoot steel core or steel tipped ammo.
    - Reply
      
      Phillip Loughlin
      
      Posted December 1, 2011 at 6:50 AM
      
      Thanks, Tony.
      
      So it sounds like (and I haven’t dug into research on this so bear with me) the concerns about copper are pretty much the same as with lead. The primary problems are with copper dust (brake pads), precipitate (airports), or in solution (hull paint) rather than with metallic form such as bullets or bullet jackets. In order for large, metallic copper such as bullets to enter the ecosystem, the soil or water must meet very specific chemical properties (acidity). From what I have read, incidences of lead or copper leaching into groundwater from shooting ranges are extremely rare. The risks appear to be largely hypothetical.
      
      What I do know about are the concerns about “overpenetration”. Copper does not corner the market on that, as many bullets from cast lead to bonded, lead-core projectiles pass through as well. Some are designed specifically for the ability to pass through even the toughest game. The debate about bullets passing through vs. staying in the animal has raged for years, but the bottom line is that any bullet presents a “safety hazard” if you’re unaware of your backstop. Copper is not unique in this. It’s basic hunter safety.
      
      Centerfire rifles are not good choices for shooting in areas of dense development or populations. They never have been. This is why we have areas designated shotgun/muzzleloader/archery only. Depredation hunters in developed areas should be aware of the risks, and should take appropriate cautions (not saying they all do, but they should). This includes using small caliber rifles (much suburban depredation is actually done with rimfire rifles), using frangible ammunition, or restricting themselves to archery tackle.
      
      The copper fouling issue is largely related to the older ammunition designs. While it does still occur, it’s not nearly as bad as it once was. The bore cleaners for copper can be stronger than some of the low-impact cleaners available for lead, but I don’t think there’s an honest argument there. That’s the same kind of stretch the hard-core environmentalists would attempt to leverage, but not many reasonable folks on either side of the discussion will give it much traction.
      
      As far as what the military is doing, that’s largely irrelevant to the civilian hunting/shooting discussion. Steel core bullets are unfit for hunting purposes, and are largely illegal for civilian use because of their ability to penetrate body armor. The “cop killer” bullet regulations have been a roadblock for the development of non-lead ammo, by the way, especially for handgun ammunition. Barnes has had to bend over backward to create lead-free handgun bullets (note the huge hollow-point in most lead-free handgun bullets). Most of the other manufacturers are producing frangibles for handguns and rimfire shooters. Frangibles are also much better for home defense shooters than hunting bullets because they don’t “overpenetrate”.
      
      Frangible bullets, by the way, are not good choices for hunters because of the possibility of cratering (blowing up on the surface, causing massive superficial and non-fatal wounds) and because they do extensive meat damage. For this reason, they’re illegal for big game hunting in some states, including California.
      
      I do think it’s valuable for hunters to be aware of these arguments against copper, and to know that they may be brought to the fore at some later date. But from what I know so far, the arguments are no more valid than most of the arguments against lead bullets. It’s more of the same.
Reply

TonyC

Posted December 1, 2011 at 8:02 AM

Dear Phillip,
A few observations:

1) Regulators are “chasing” copper roofing and siding for long term erosion of copper in runoff and environmental impact. Given the oxidation issue, large “chunks” of copper in the environment (copper bullets and copper bullet fragments) are going to have to be evaluated by regulators to be a potential hazard environmentally. I agree that the environmentalists are going overboard in the risk analysis issue, but if BLM and USFS don’t take copper deposition into account, NEPA and APA problems may arise. That is why I think hunters and shooters need to work on Clean Water Act, ESA, CERCLA, RCRA, and SARA reform related to ammunition and hunting and shooting uses.

2) The steel core/”armor piercing” issue is related to handgun ammunition, as far as a ban is concerned. A number of other states do not have the same steel ammunition rifle restrictions that California has. That being said, American Bird Conservancy is touting the M855A EPR bullet as an “environmentally friendly” projectile, despite the steel and solid copper core issues. The public needs to be apprised of the differences, and the limitations for civilians regarding military ammunition.

3) Remember, Barnes needs about 500-550 ppm lead alloyed into their copper projectiles for machining purposes. Thats 400-450 ppm more than the CPSIA standards for lead content permissible for children’s products. And that’s 490 ppm more than what Dr. Robert Risebrough testified to the CA F & G Commission as to the Condor Recovery Team’s recommendations for lead content in projectiles in the condor’s range in December 2007.

4) The copper fouling issue is one of perspective. For those who shoot a box per year in a hunting rifle, copper fouling is only a long-term problem. But for varminters, and among target shooters and competitive shooters, copper bullet-related fouling as an issue is going to show up much sooner. In those cases related to large volume shooting, cleaning issues are going to be relevant.
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted December 1, 2011 at 10:50 AM
  
  Thanks, Tony. Your level of involvement and knowledge in this issue is a heck of a lot deeper than most of us will ever get to, so you bring a perspective that is completely valid for this conversation. With that in mind…
  
  I can’t take your first point to task. I think hunters and fishermen should absolutely be informed about how these environmental regulations will impact our sport, and this is an excellent area for the organizations that support us to work with government agencies. The unfortunate truth is that most hunters and fishermen are never going to get to this level of personal involvement or education (most will never even realize it’s an issue in the first place). I’ve said for years that hunters and fishermen should be getting involved in some of the environmental organizations in order to make sure our voices and our needs are recognized, but there’s too much distrust there on both sides. That’s a different problem for a different conversation.
  
  To point number two: I think most hunters are aware that steel core ammo (like FMJ) is not a viable option for most hunting applications because it does not expand. I seriously doubt any reputable ammunition company will market it as such, regardless of what the American Bird Conservancy would like to promote. The risk of using steel core in high fire danger areas is also pretty well documented and awareness campaigns are underway. This stuff isn’t new. I definitely support a continuing and even upgraded effort to spread the word. Would love to see/hear something coming from the NSSF and NRA regarding this issue.
  
  Not sure how we got to point three in this line of discussion. If Barnes and other lead-free manufacturers are meeting the legal requirements for the acceptable lead levels, and if we are largely in agreement that lead isn’t an appreciable threat to other species (only the condor is at issue), then this isn’t particularly relevant is it? Is the lead or the copper the issue here?
  
  Finally, copper fouling isn’t just a perspective issue, and it’s not new. It’s one of the complaints that some shooters/hunters have had about copper ammo for ages… before the lead ban ever reared it’s head. It’s not going to go away as long as copper components touch the barrel of the gun. The manufacturers (Barnes, Nosler, Hornady, etc.) have been working on improvements to mitigate the problem, and in my experience they’ve done a good job.But it does require more regular cleaning. Honestly, the only people who should have significant problems with copper fouling, using current copper ammunition, are those who don’t clean their guns regularly in the first place. That is just about the poorest justification someone can offer for not using copper ammo. It just doesn’t fly.
  
  This really gets us back to the conversations we’ve had on this topic before, Tony, and I don’t really want to rehash them because this is really just my opinion. I’m willing to accept that I could be wrong. But the bottom line for me is that I’m just not seeing the benefits of this strategy of calling out the flaws of copper as a way to defend lead. At best, it just obfuscates an already confusing issue. At worst, it’s destined to blow up in our faces by promoting the argument that there is NO environmentally safe ammunition and that hunters who want to continue to use it simply don’t care about the environment.
Reply

TonyC

Posted December 2, 2011 at 7:44 AM

Dear Phillip,

1) If hunters and shooters do not take the opportunity to become more broadly educated on the regulatory processes, and be willing to add their voices on a the scale you suggest, there won’t be hunting and shooting as we know it.

That is, of course, my personal opinion. That’s just the way things “roll” in the modern political system.

Nowadays, either hunters and shooters get involved, or they get screwed.

2) You note above:

“…This really gets us back to the conversations we’ve had on this topic before, Tony, and I don’t really want to rehash them because this is really just my opinion. I’m willing to accept that I could be wrong. But the bottom line for me is that I’m just not seeing the benefits of this strategy of calling out the flaws of copper as a way to defend lead. At best, it just obfuscates an already confusing issue. At worst, it’s destined to blow up in our faces by promoting the argument that there is NO environmentally safe ammunition and that hunters who want to continue to use it simply don’t care about the environment…”

I am not sure, but it sounds like you have misunderstood my motivations and efforts over the past few years.

The ammunition ban folks are trying to ban ALL projectile and ammunition materials incrementally.

“Environmental concerns” are just a means to an end, especially post-Heller and post-McDonald.

They don’t want to ban just lead now, and leave us copper in perpetuity.

They have already started the process to ban copper, and acceding to lead ammunition bans now strengthens the process and rationale for copper ammunition bans sooner, rather than later.

It’s the same with tungsten. And after that it will be steel and bismuth.

They want to ban it all. That’s my opinion, given the trend line I see.

This methodology of banning products by regulation is not new, it’s happened before.

If you are familiar with fuels, then you know that tetraethyl lead was banned (save aviation fuels) without a complete understanding of the effects of the replacements. The first lead substitute, MTBE is now banned from fuels due to ground water contamination issues and regulations.

Also, emerging data on corn ethanol production is not just related to ground contamination, but is also highlighting farm runoff and other production related impacts on the environment. In the US, corn ethanol is headed the same way as MTBE in the long run unless current regulations are changed.

Put it this way- can you tell me what ammunition material that is currently available would be guaranteed NOT to be banned by current or future regulation? If such a material exists, and is affordable so that those of limited means are not deprived of their Second Amendment rights due to high costs, I am not aware of it.

The problem is not the material. The problem is the regulations, and the how and why they are enacted.

My point is that what is needed is an informed defense by hunters and shooters of all ammunition and projectile materials, not just lead over copper or copper over lead.
Reply

Augustus Engebretson

Posted January 23, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Not so fun fact: I have never seen an episode of this show, but after watching the clip above, I am now downloading the first season. Is it weird to be sad about a cancellation that has yet to affect me?

Lead Ban Chronicles – Going Lead Free, One Family’s Story

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Blogroll

Fish and Game Contacts

General

Outdoor Industry and Media

Outdoor News

Outfitters I've Used

Web Forums

Archives
Categories