Santa Hog approves!

You know, for all this politicized discussion of the lead ammo issue, I almost missed another (and entirely relevant at this time of year) aspect of the discussion.  Every hunter can use a little more ammo, and this could be the perfect opportunity to get a little lead-free stuff and try it out.  Stuff a box of bullets in that stocking, or wrap it up and set it under the tree, and someone will have a big smile on Christmas morning.

“But,” you may ask, “which ammo should I give?”

The first answer I would offer is, “which ammo is the hunter using now?”

With centerfire rifles, it’s important to understand that all ammo doesn’t perform the same.  Even when you’re shooting the same bullet weight, different brands and bullet materials can have a significant effect on your accuracy.  To make it even more confusing, ammo that shoots great in one rifle may not shoot well at all in another rifle.  So if your hunter is already really happy with a particular cartridge, then it’s usually best not to change things up.

But say your hunter is shooting lead ammo and wants to try non-lead… or if you’d like your hunter to switch… what do you do?  The ideal solution is to buy a selection of different brands and bullet weights so that the hunter can try them out to see what shoots best.  This can be a pricey proposition, but heck… it’s Christmas!  Besides, this is what it takes to make the best decision about a new cartridge.

So what are the options?

If you’ve followed the Hog Blog for a while, you’ll know that I’ve been partial to the Winchester/Nosler ETip for my 30-06.  This is my go-to, hunt everything rifle and I’ve found the 180gr bullet works like a charm on everything from ground squirrels (OK, it’s a little much for ground squirrels, but it’s accurate enough to whack them neatly) to big boars.  For the deer hunter, I’ve shot axis deer, blackbuck, and blacktail deer and found the bullet performs nicely every time.  It delivers good terminal performance, and in my opinion (based purely on my own experience), it has an edge over the Barnes TSX on the thin-skinned game.

I’ve also recommended the ETip to several people who have asked for suggestions, and the concensus is quite positive.  It’s a really good option for hunters whose rifles don’t seem to like the Barnes bullets (for example, Kat’s  Browning A-bolt .270 simply won’t shoot them well at all… something I hear a lot from .270 owners).

That’s not all to knock the Barnes, by the way.  Barnes has made a premium copper bullet for more than two decades now, and they keep finding ways to make it better.  These are the only non-lead option currently available for my .325wsm, and I have shot a bunch of hogs with them, as well as a pretty hefty oryx.  They work as advertised, and my handloaded rounds for the .325 are about as accurate as anything you could ask for.   There are factory-loaded options from several manufacturers, including Federal, Black Hills, Cor-Bon, and now directly from Barnes in their new Vor-TX loads.

The thing about the Barnes is that they probably offer the widest selection of calibers and bullet weights of any non-lead bullet manufacturer.  While the rest of the industry is still catching up, Barnes has covered the market from centerfire rifles to handguns to muzzleloader bullets.  If your hunter shoots something that is a little less common, this is probably the option you’ll have to look at.  Fortunately, they’re great bullets and they do perform very well in most implementations.

I’ve used the ETips and Barnes TSX bullets pretty extensively, and my recommendations are informed by my own experience, as well as the experiences of hunters I’ve accompanied in the field (both as a guide and as a companion).  I’ve also receieved a fair body of feedback from other hunters in regards to their own experiences, positive and a few negative.  There are a couple of other quality options that you might look at as well.

I’ve had a little pile of the Hornady GMX bullets loaded up for that finicky .270, but I haven’t had the opportunity to hunt with them, or to shoot them much.  They do seem to be fairly accurate, but the rifle I was testing them in, a Remington 710, simply isn’t up to the challenge.  I need to load them in Kat’s Browning at some point and get a better idea of how they perform.  I also need to hunt with them a bit, and see how they perform on game.  I’ve heard a lot of good and a little bad about this bullet, but as always, I prefer to base my recommendations (or vice versa) on my own, first-hand experience.  Hornady also offers the NTX bullet for varmint hunters who need more significant expansion.

A bullet I’ve had some experience with, but still want to experience on game, is the new Winchester Power-Core 95/5.  I had a chance to experiment a bit with this cartridge earlier in the summer, but I had several complications, including a bad batch of ammo that had to be returned to Winchester.  They sent several new boxes, but I simply haven’t had the chance to get out and hunt with them.  The Power Core is Winchester’s effort to provide a more economical lead-free alternative.  One of the biggest complaints about lead-free ammo is the high cost, with some magnum or non-standard calibers running as high as $65 to $80 a box.  Even the common calibers, such as 30-06 and .270 can cost $45 or more for a box of 20.  The Power Core ammo runs from about $25 to $40 a box.

Finally, for hunters using the .308, Winchester’s new Razorback is the first round specifically designed for hog hunting.  I got to experience this round first hand down in Georgia back in October, and it definitely appeared to work as advertised.  I’d prefer to have a little more experience with this round before I give it any sort of glowing recommendation, but my biggest concern was less to do with the bullet performance, and more to do with the choice of caliber and bullet size.  However, what I did see convinced me that the bullet design is sound, and I think it would serve well for most big game animals… not just hogs.  For example, in a heftier caliber (30-06 or .300) this bullet should perform very well on elk.

As you can see, there are a lot of options.  If your hunter has never tried lead-free ammo, and you have the wherewithal, load that stocking up with a little of everything.  After it’s all gone, and a favorite is selected, make sure and drop us a note here at the blog to let us know what worked, and what didn’t.  It’ll give me something to write about next Christmas.

My lead ammunition alerts have been pretty steady over the past couple of weeks, despite the fact that I haven’t really posted up any new bits for the Lead Ban Chronicles.  Most of what I’ve been seeing has been editorials and letters from concerned citizens, largely deriding the hunting community for failing to switch to lead-free ammo, and for killing the “majestic” eagles.  When I can, I usually try to reply to the columns and letters in the comments sections, addressing misconceptions and myths as best I can.  What I’m not going to do is link back to every one of them via the blog.

However, this piece I just received today is a little different.  The Jackson Hole News and Guide ran a piece about recent findings that show elevated blood/lead levels in grizzly bears around the Greater Yellowstone area.  There’s been an awful lot of speculation about the impact of lead bullet fragments and shot on scavenging mammals, but as best I can tell no one has really been able to tie a direct correlation.  According to this article, the most current research also fails to connect the dots, or even to establish that the lead levels in these animals (the research focused on wolves, mountain lions, and grizzly bears) are even harmful.

The grizzly bears surveyed did show a higher level of lead in their blood, but none of the evidence pointed to hunters or lead ammo as the cause.  Unlike the eagles surveyed that seemed to show a higher lead level during the hunting season, the bears showed that the increase began when they left hibernation, and gradually increased until they returned to their dens for winter.  Examinations of scat did not reveal lead bullet fragments or other evidence of lead bullets or shot.

There’s a much lengthier discussion of the study and the findings in the article, if you’d like to read it.   What gets me though, is the logical contortions the researchers go through to make sure that, even though the link between ammo and the lead in the bears’ blood is tenuous at best, the reader is left with the impression that lead bullets are still “bad.”

The study doesn’t confirm a link between the lead in bears’ blood and bullet fragments from gut piles, but it doesn’t rule out a link either, said Tom Rogers, the lead author of the study and a former graduate student at the University of Montana. A larger study might have different results, he said.

“Within the limits of the scope of our research, we didn’t find a link,” Rogers said. “But that doesn’t mean that there is no link.”

Regardless, lead poisoning from bullet fragments probably isn’t an issue in terms of the level of exposure or its prevalence in the population, Rogers said.

So, it’s not a problem but it could be a problem even though it isn’t a problem.  Oh brother…

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?

This just in…

Sorry, I couldn’t help that.  But it really is… just in my Inbox, anyway.

Just got this piece from the Daily News (Tehama County, CA) regarding a decision to prohibit lead ammunition for all hunting at the Dye Creek Preserve.  The Preserve has been managed for the past 20 years or so by the Nature Conservancy, along with Multiple Use Managers.  In keeping with the general anti-lead trend across the country, the Nature Conservancy has decided that they’ll adopt the same lead-free requirements use by the National Wildlife Refuges.

The gist of the article is:

Beginning in February 2012 all hunters will be required to use non-lead ammunition on the Preserve, consistent with the same requirements applied at National Wildlife Refuges.

Eliminating the use of leaded ammunition will help to reduce the amount of lead in our environment, and it will as a result improve the health of the entire food-chain including us who harvest from Dye Creek Preserve, said Andrea Craig, The Nature Conservancy’s Preserve Manager.

I’m not sure what this means for pig and deer hunters at the Preserve, as the National Wildlife Refuges don’t require lead-free ammo for big game.  They do, however, encourage big game hunters to use lead-free ammunition.  I’m assuming from the context of the article (I haven’t spoken to anyone directly at this time), that the ban will also apply to big game, even though that’s not really consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge program at all.

At any rate, like Tejon Ranch, Dye Creek is privately owned and (I was recently informed that Dye Creek is, technically, a State-owned property) managed, so they can set whatever rules they choose.  It’s up to the customers and potential customers to decide if they want to play by those rules or not.

Back in early October, some of you may remember I went down to Georgia to do some night hunting for hogs with the guys from JagerPro.  We were trying out Winchester Ammunition’s new lead-free offering, the Razorback XT.  On the hunt we were using the 150gr. .308 Winchester in semi-auto AR-style rifles and some pretty impressive thermal imaging scopes.  But you can read all about that on the original post, or at the JagerPro website.

Anyway, on that trip I was only able to take one hog, but he was a whopper!  At 276 lbs., this boar would have proven to be a trial for any bullet.  From a little over 215 yards (when the shooting started), we hit him at least three times in the body and knocked him down twice before putting him down for good with a shot through the head.  Thank goodness for semi-automatic rifles and low recoil!

One of the bullets had quarted in from the rear, passing through the thoracic cavity and lodging in the large bone of the front leg.  That’s pretty serious penetration, and most bullets (especially lead) would have blown up on impact with the big bone.  Well, in the mail yesterday I received the spent bullet from this boar.  Check it out below.  That’s pretty danged good, especially for such a light bullet.  I haven’t weighed it, but I’d be willing to bet it’s pretty close to the original 150 grains.

During the hunt, and even afterward, there were a lot of discussions about the need for a heavier bullet, and maybe putting it in something a little heftier, like a 30-06 or .300 Win Mag.  For my own part, if I were designing something for hog hunters, I would have looked for something like a 180gr 30-06 over the .308.  But in retrospect, it’s hard to knock the performance of these “little” bullets.

It seems like it’s been a while since I last posted about the lead ammo ban. I think the last significant post was back at the beginning of October, when I wrote about the failure of the Center for Biological Diversity to get traction in their suits against the EPA and the BLM.  For those who haven’t been keeping up, the suit against the EPA was to force the agency to ban all lead bullet components, despite the fact that the EPA is specifically prohibited from doing so.  The suit against the BLM was intended to force the BLM to institute lead ammo bans in lands they manage in Arizona.

So have things calmed down in regards to lead ammunition? Did the CBD run off, tucking its collective tail between its legs?

Hardly.  The campaign against lead ammo is definitely ongoing, although right now it is primarily a propaganda effort.  It’s a subtle program of misinformation, largely designed to turn the opinions of those who are ignorant about guns and hunting through myth and misinformation.  The results are turning up in the editorial pages of newspapers across the country, like this one from Cleveland.  (I posted a rebuttal to this in the comments, by the way, and after appearing that evening it disappeared by morning.  Technical glitch?  I’m not sure.)

The campaign centers on a few key points, all of which seem logical to readers who don’t know any better.   First of all, there’s the repeated myth that lead-free ammo is widely available.  The truth is that SOME lead free ammo is available, particularly shotshells.  Even for common calibers, supply is still very limited (as evidenced by a quick look at store shelves and online back-orders).  The truth is that lead-free options are very limited, particularly for hunters who don’t shoot the top three calibers (6mm, 7mm, .30).

Because most people don’t understand the difference between shot and bullets, they’re also easily misled because of the apparent availability of lead-free shotshells.  To their reasoning, if you can make steel shot, you can make steel bullets.  Right?  And technically, you could.  But because these bullets would be armor-piercing, they’d be prohibited by federal law.  Even if they were legal, though, they’d be awful for hunting and result in many wounded and lost animals due the total lack of expansion.

Because lead has certain unique properties, and because gun making technology has evolved around the use of lead bullets for centuries, the idea that it’s a simple switch to other metals is badly flawed.  The explanations get pretty technical, and I won’t try to make them here.  If you’re really interested, ask in the comments and I can try to direct you to some of the relevant information.

Another perpetuated myth is in the implication that lead bullets and shot are wiping out non-target birds and animals.  I can’t argue that some raptors and scavenger birds aren’t dying from ingesting lead, but the simple truth is that these deaths are statistically insignificant.  The populations are doing just fine.  That sounds cold-hearted to some people, but if we’re talking about laws to ban behaviors we need to focus on cold fact, not emotion.

Of course I don’t want to be the one whose bullet fragments poisoned an eagle, but the truth is that I’m not hurting the eagle population if that happens.  The bigger truth is that I, as an educated hunter, can weigh the facts against my personal ethics, and then make the decision to switch to lead-free (if there’s a lead-free option for my hunting gun) or not.

And finally, there’s the ongoing suggestion that eating game killed with lead ammo is harmful to humans.  While I would never judge anyone for erring on the side of caution, the evidence to the contrary is pretty compelling.  There’s just no indication that lead ammo in game presents any serious toxicity danger.  With some basic precautions, that nominal risk can be reduced even further.  But if you seriously feel like the risk is more than you want to accept, then make the choice to switch to lead-free ammo.

Catch the recurrent theme here?

The switch to lead-free ammo should be an individual, educated decision and based on the facts that are available.  The alternatives are not “widely available”, but some options are available if you’re willing to do what it takes to switch.  In many cases, it’s going to cost a lot more than what you were shooting.  For some hunters, it will involve replacing your hunting rifle or handgun.  But if you believe it’s the right thing to do and you can afford it, then the cost should be a minor consideration.

But for a lot of hunters the benefits of switching do not justify the costs.  Based on what we know right now about the impacts of lead ammo on wildlife and the environment, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.  I mean, think about it.  How many unnecessary things do we do in our daily lives that have negative impacts on the environment?  How many modern conveniences do we use every day that take a deadly toll on wildlife?  Not just hunters, but all of us…

I’m not saying, “it’s OK because everyone else does it.”  It’s just that there needs to be some perspective here.    I’d really love to see some of that perspective showing up on these editorial pages in response to the faulty claims and ignorant arguments.  At the very least, I’d like to see more calls for individual choice and action, like this one from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.  Hunters, if this issue is important to you (and it should be), you’ve got to speak up and challenge the misinformation with facts.  It doesn’t require a lot of effort or time.

It really is up to you.

Here’s a quick shot for anyone who’s got a second to reply…

What do you think about a new round that’s specifically designed for hog hunters and depredation?  It’s built around a specially designed, lead-free bullet that will provide serious expansion and penetration at the same time.  It also uses a special powder blend to reduce muzzle-flash for night time depredation shooting.

I realize that most of you regular readers are recreational hunters (as opposed to dep hunters), but I’m still curious about your take.  Is this something you could see a use for?  Those of you who use premium bullets, would you consider this one?

Personally, I’m sort of ambivalent.  I think it’s really cool that hog hunting has become so prevalent that a major manufacturer thinks it’s worth the effort and cost to develop a round specifically for swine killers.  On the other hand, this status comes as the direct result of the spread of a destructive species that’s costing states and private landowners a lot of money.

As far as the ammo itself, I can’t say more yet.  I haven’t even held one in my grubby mitts.  However, next week I’ll have the opportunity to try this new round in real, field conditions on real hogs, and learn a lot more about the marketing plan behind it as well.  I will let you know a lot more about this thing next week.

The Center for Biological Diversity has been pretty steadfast in its assault on lead ammunition, but they’ve had a couple of setbacks lately. 

After having their plea to the EPA to ban lead ammo components and fishing tackle rejected by that organization, the organization filed suit to force the issue. According to a press release on the CBD’s website, the federal judge hearing the suit ruled in September that the court does not have the jurisdiction to hear this case because it was not filed within the statute of limitations to challenge the EPA decision.

In order to avoid the misleading haze of propaganda you’ll encounter on the CBD website, let me recap in simple terms. 

In August of 2010, the CBD petitioned the EPA to ban lead bullets and shot (as well as all lead fishing tackle).  They did not petition to ban only hunting ammunition, and the ban was not intended to apply only in areas where there may be demonstrable harm caused by lead (e.g. condor habitat).  They petitioned to ban all lead ammo everywhere.  This would have included ammunition used by hunters, target shooters, military and law enforcement, and even home defense. 

The EPA rejected the petition, stating clearly that federal law directly prohibits the agency from regulating ammunition or ammunition components.  They couldn’t ban lead ammo if they wanted to.  The ban on fishing tackle was considered more thoroughly, and then (in November 2010) it was also rejected because there was no scientific evidence to support the need for an all-out ban. 

The CBD (and associated organizations) filed suit immediately, of course. Unfortunately for them, they did not file within 60 days of the initial rejection.  For this reason, the court rejected that portion of the lawsuit.  The court will, however, continue to look at the suit to ban lead fishing tackle.  I hope common sense prevails here as well.

I’m sure the CBD and their associated cronies will appeal the ruling in one way or another, and will continue to push their ill-conceived campaign against lead ammunition. 

In the meantime, the organization has returned their focus to Arizona.  A few years back, they tried to get Arizona to enact a lead ban similar to California’s condor regulations.  They hit a brick wall there, however, because the AZ constitution protects hunters a little more thoroughly.  In order to effect such a significant change to the law, the state would have had to literally revise their consitution.  That wasn’t going to happen. 

The thing is, AZ has a really good and effective voluntary program and solid education.  Hunters in the condor range are given some key education, and then allowed to make the choice to switch.  Added incentive is provided through free, non-lead ammunition for those who want to switch.  For those who choose to use lead (for some hunters it’s not a choice… there is no lead-free ammo available for them), AZ offers various programs such as the gutpile lottery.  If the hunters bring out their gutpiles, instead of leaving them in the field for the scavengers, they’re entered into a drawing for prizes. 

The organizations then attempted an end-around on the issue by assailing the Bureau of Land Management.  Since BLM land is federally managed, they are under different rule-making guidelines.  Sensing a weak-link, the CBD and Co. went after the land management planners.  They claimed that, by allowing hunters to use lead ammunition, the BLM was failing in its charge to adequately protect the wildlife and habitat in their domain. 

A federal judge hearing this case, in conjunction with a wider argument against grazing and off-road vehicle use in the National Monument lands, threw out the arguments last week.  After reviewing the facts and the arguments, the judge ruled that the BLM was definitely performing their duties and fulfilled its obligations to protect the wild lands and the wildlife that ranges there. 

The case is likely to find its way into the 9th Circuit Court in the very near future.

Thanks to Tony Canales for the heads-up on the Tucson case.

One of the blogs I read almost daily (except on weekends) is the Gun Nuts blog from Field and Stream.  The blog features a trade-off between Dave Petzal on rifles, and Phil Bourjailly on shotguns.  They generally keep this division, although there’s an occasional cross-over and then handguns fall into the middle somewhere… but that’s neither here nor there.

I enjoy the blog because the writing is excellent (and Petzal is a hilariously curmudgeonly writer), and because the information is generally fresh and valid.  From time to time it gets a little more technical than I care for, but I read it anyway… the writing is that good.  They don’t spend a lot of time rehashing press releases or writing short blurbs with a link to another site’s story (which is essentially what I’m about to do… d’oh!).

At any rate, the reason this comes up today is because yesterday (Tuesday), Bourjailly did another piece on non-toxic shotshells.  In this case, he was looking at the Hevi-Shot ammo for small-bore shotguns (28ga. and .410).  It’s a tiny, niche market, but for those who do enjoy shooting the smaller stuff, I thought the info was pretty good and worth a read.  If you fall into that group, I strongly recommend giving it a read.

This topic and review is also relevant because bird hunting seasons are pretty much upon us.  Early teal season swept the southern states, and resident goose seasons are open in many places.  The first dove seasons are a month old and even closed in some places.  Upland birds are open or opening across the country as well, with October already rustling the curtains in the wings.  And with these seasons come new restrictions on the use of lead ammunition… a challenge many hunters haven’t had to face before.  It’s great to find information from reputable sources, like Bourjailly, and to hear the first-hand reports.

Personally, I can’t offer a lot of perspective on the topic because I am still using lead on the rare occasion that I hunt upland birds and doves.  This isn’t likely to change in the near future, as I’ve probably got two cases of ammo to work through before I worry about restocking.  I’ll make the decision to switch or not when that time comes.

I also hunt waterfowl so seldom these days that I can’t offer a ton of info there, either.  I do have nothing but good stuff to say about Bismuth, which is what I shoot mostly from my old side-by-side (Hevi-Shot is too hard for the old barrels), but it is expensive.  If I hunted waterfowl as much as I used to, I’m pretty sure I’d have to stick with steel… simply from a fiscal perspective.

Anyway, check out Bourjailly’s post.  Good stuff, Maynard.

As I’ve said before, I have still not really taken the opportunity to use steel shot for anything other than waterfowl.  However, with an increased call for lead-free shot in many states, and as laws are enacted requiring lead-free shot in wildlife areas, waterways, and other sensitive environments, I really need to give it a go.  If for nothing else, it should answer some questions for me personally, and of course I’ll share my experience here on the blog as well.

In the meantime, Phil Bourjaily from Field and Stream took some steel shot into the dove fields last week, and he’s posted up about his experience over at the Field and Stream Gun Nuts blog.  It’s sparked an interesting discussion, and I thought some of you readers may find it enjoyable to check it out.