Lead Control - The New Face of Gun Control

[Rhandhali]

A bunch of news articles have been popping up lately on the dangers of lead from shooting. These were spurred by a special project of the Seattle Times, a publication that has been historically vehemently anti-gun rights, on a handful of cases of range workers being exposed to lead dust from indoor ranges. Needless to say the article lays guns as the only possible source of lead poisoning in this country despite the fact that the CDC's own pages on lead exposure barely mention firearms at all. Lead paint in houses, despite having been banned in the 70s is still far and away the major source of occupational and incidental lead exposure. Lead exposure through shooting and even casting one's own bullets is the smallest of radar blips compared to lead paint and lead containing batteries. This hasn't stopped some states from outright banning lead ammunition for hunting, as California plans to do by 2018. Other forms of lead regulation, such as banning lead wheelweights commonly used in home-cast bullets, have been proposed in other states.

It's starting to look like regulating lead by stirring hysteria about it's toxicity (while ignoring the true causes of lead poisoning) is shaping up to be yet another front from which anti-constitutional crusaders will attempt to strip us of our rights. Alternatives to lead projectiles, namely solid copper bullets, are vastly more expensive and would only serve to put a substantial burden on shooters, pricing many of them out of the range.

 

[US Infidel]

Due to "EPA" regulation, no more lead smelting plants in the US.

 

[olivs260]

It's a non-issue. The Seattle Times is not going to get laws on lead bullets changed. California is just crazy and will continue to do crazy things.

Also, the smelting plant scare has been repeatedly shot down over the past couple of years. Even Glenn Beck's website said it's not an issue. Lead used in ammunition is recycled, not primary.

 

[Rhandhali]

As if it didn't suck enough for the people in Washington state after the initiative 594 "universal background checks" that turns you into a felon if you allow someone else to so much as touch your gun without doing a NICS check goes into effect today it looks like new initiatives for lead testing measures at gun ranges are already in the works. No doubt these are intended to make it as difficult as possible to operate a range and will be aimed at shutting as many ranges down as possible. I figured something like this would be hot on the heels of 594 after the Seattle Times wasted so much ink on the issue.

 

[Jack]

I can only speak for myself, but I certainly wouldn't want to work at an indoor range, especially one with poor ventilation. I also wear gloves and a mask when sorting brass. As it relates to hunting in California, I think the point is that people are leaving behind guts with lead projectiles and animals are getting into those guts. I don't see non lead ammo as anywhere near as big of an issue as almost any other regulation on firearms.

 

[DBMJR1]

If I am not mistaken:

The lead that is released by some primers is of concern in indoor ranges with poor ventilation. It's not the bullets that present the hazard.

 

[Jack]

If I am not mistaken:

The lead that is released by some primers is of concern in indoor ranges with poor ventilation. It's not the bullets that present the hazard.

This is partly why I use caution when handling a lot of brass.

 

[Rhandhali]

I can only speak for myself, but I certainly wouldn't want to work at an indoor range, especially one with poor ventilation. I also wear gloves and a mask when sorting brass. As it relates to hunting in California, I think the point is that people are leaving behind guts with lead projectiles and animals are getting into those guts. I don't see non lead ammo as anywhere near as big of an issue as almost any other regulation on firearms.

I'm all about having standards for indoor ranges, but something tells me that the lawyers working with Moms Demand Action and the Center for Gun Responsibility will have the best interest of gun owners at heart when they put forth their next round of ballot initiatives.

I've done a bit of research and it appears that as far as lead exposure to wildlife is concerned you get the same decrease in exposure using nonfragmenting lead bullets as you do with copper or other non-lead based projectiles. It's fragmentation and dispersal of lead in the tissues that's an issue; a bullet that remains intact doesn't pose a significant exposure risk to wildlife or humans. The Minnesota DNR did a study that showed a similar decrease in lead contamination when using non-fragmenting bullets like the Winchester XP as compared to pure copper projectiles.

Looking at ammunition prices it appears that there is a significant but not insurmountable cost-per-round increase over non-fragmenting lead bullets versus non-lead bullets. A quick search showed about a 50% price increase between ammunition loaded with a Hornady Interlock non-fragmenting lead bullet (about $20/box), and ammunition with Barnes triple-shock copper/lead-free ammunition (35/box). I'm not sure if it's worth the price increase for such a tiny decrease in lead contamination which. I haven't hunted in a few years but I went through maybe a whole box of ammunition in a season, including sighting in so I don't see a significant economic burden there.