Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I heard lead was suppose to be the worse rated commodity for investors a few weeks ago. Now this week I hear it is already crashed. Anybody else hear any other rumors?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,122 Posts
Not directly, but I am aware that the military will fully switch to "green" ammo by 2009. The ammo will be lead free and made with a tungsten type mixture. Production is fully underway right now.

That should crush demand somewhat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
chorizo said:
Not directly, but I am aware that the military will fully switch to "green" ammo by 2009. The ammo will be lead free and made with a tungsten type mixture. Production is fully underway right now.

That should crush demand somewhat.
Maybe so..... I guess we should stock up on light bulbs now??

Slidehammer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,722 Posts
chorizo said:
Not directly, but I am aware that the military will fully switch to "green" ammo by 2009. The ammo will be lead free and made with a tungsten type mixture. Production is fully underway right now.

That should crush demand somewhat.
Killing our enemies with environmental friendly ammo...what will the politicians come up with next?

Hunter's here in California are required to use solid copper bullets starting 1 Jan 08 to protect the California Condors. Seems that the reason for the shortage of Condors are due to them injesting lead from the animals who die from hunters bullets...and all this time, I thought it was from getting ran over eatting road kill. Save the Condor, ban cars!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,780 Posts
I don't trade commodities but looked up lead - lead futures are trading right now at 2532USD/mton, up 2.83

Yeah, sounds sort of silly shooting enemies with ecofriendly bullets, but it still is a world we have to live in and our military does a lot of practise right here in the States. Maybe that's why condors are dying! :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
smart bullets are next they will be able to inflict a wound on your advisory that will be appropriate for the level of h ow mean he really is, or maybe nationality or religion, well you get the picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
488 Posts
Maybe some of you shoot so much your invested in lead but whats the intrest? I saw on here were someone said the price of shells were going up at Walmart because of the high price of lead? I been buying shells all year at Bass Pro and a box of Remington 12Ga 2 3/4" #6 is $4.49 been $4.49 all year same price as last year to. Is that expensive to you guys for a box of 25 shells? Bass Pro sales those packs of beef jerky for $5.95 it is just a few ounces. Maybe the price is going up at Walmart because they suck! :w
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
23,336 Posts
John Pass said:
Maybe some of you shoot so much your invested in lead but whats the intrest? I saw on here were someone said the price of shells were going up at Walmart because of the high price of lead? I been buying shells all year at Bass Pro and a box of Remington 12Ga 2 3/4" #6 is $4.49 been $4.49 all year same price as last year to. Is that expensive to you guys for a box of 25 shells? Bass Pro sales those packs of beef jerky for $5.95 it is just a few ounces. Maybe the price is going up at Walmart because they suck! :w
Have you checked the price of shells, THIS WEEK??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,773 Posts
John, 2 summers ago I was buying Federal #8.5 12g for $2.39/box... Yes, $4.49 is an increase, and I think you will be looking at $5.59 right soon, if not now. I'm hearing 410 AA's for $13.00/ in some parts of the country.

bd
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
Customstox said:
There was no science involved in the condor/lead ban. It was pure Kalifornication knee jerk.
My friend, you just lost about 96% of your credibility with this silly statement. There was so much science that the pro-lead-bullet crowd was no longer able to overlobby the legislature.

See http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=125483 where you can read, in relevant part:

Kyler Hamann said:
You guys are probably right about it being a bad idea. Just to clarify, I was inquiring about target loads for clays, not hunting loads.

I emailed PA about another question and never got an answer, maybe I should call on this one.

So are you going to retire your K-80 if/when we're required to shoot steel target loads on clays?

It has been a real shocker to me how quickly lead bullets got banned here in CA (effective next year). The NRA, SCI, etc. didn't seem to care so I wonder if anyone will fight any harder to keep lead shot.

While this junk seems to always start in CA or NY... these laws seem to spread like cancer across the rest of the Country.

I get the feeling some of the ammo companies are already gearing up for this and some clubs already require steel. I really hope I didn't just break the piggy bank to buy a shotgun I won't be able to use in a few years with a bunch of $100+ obsolete Ti chokes.

Hopefully the shooting organizations we support will fight harder than the hunting groups did to keep lead in use.

Thanks,
Kyler
drsfmd said:
Kyler Hamann said:
It has been a real shocker to me how quickly lead bullets got banned here in CA (effective next year). The NRA, SCI, etc. didn't seem to care so I wonder if anyone will fight any harder to keep lead shot.
Kyler- I didn't even HEAR about that! Do you have a link or two you could share? This is definitely something we need to fight against!
MRPOWER said:
To the OP: Wow, dude. I want to call you ignorant, but that would be rude of me, so I'll just call you woefully uninformed. First of all, the ban you are referring to banned lead bullets only for the taking of big game and coyotes. Secondly, it banned it in a very limited area, specifically:

AB821 said:
within the department's deer hunting zone A South, but excluding
Santa Cruz, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and San Joaquin
Counties, areas west of Highway 101 within Santa Clara County,
and areas between Highway 5 and Highway 99 within Stanislaus,
Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties, and
within deer hunting zones D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, and D13
It also bans only centerfire lead ammo. The legislation also requires the state to provide the nonlead ammo at reduced or no cost. The Fish and Game Department is also required to notify you of the program's existence and requirements if you draw out in one of the affected areas, so there won't be any legitimate "well, I didn't know" complaints.

You're also uninformed as to the shooting industry's involvement in the legislation. Almost every conservation and sportsmans' group out there, including SAAMI, supported the legislation. Just about the only opposition came from the NRA and some local hunters' rights groups.

Frankly, there are no ballistically justifiable reasons to bemoan this mandate of nontoxic big game and coyote ammo.

And it's funny you should mention that these things spread across the country because I'm actually researching and writing an article on how to implement similar legislation in Arizona for the academic journal I work on here at school.

But it's also funny that you should mention that these things spread across the nation because that also belies yet again your apparently complete lack of understanding of the underpinnings of the whole nontox ammo mandate as passed in California.

The mandate was passed to protect the California Condor, one of the most endangered species in the world. It was known at the time the last condors were pulled out of the wild in 1987 that lead poisoning was a major impediment to their survival. After relatively successful captive breeding programs augmented the population substantially and the first reintroductions were done, it became again apparent that lead poisoning was a major issue. However, there wasn't enough hard evidence to convince those silly legislators of the benefit of a nontox ammo program. Until a couple of years ago when some breakthrough studies were done that allowed scientists to directly, precisely and exactly pinpoint the source of lead extracted from very lead-poisoned condors to rifle-killed carrion they had fed on in the field. You see, a typical .30 caliber bullet can shatter into more than 300 fragments upon impact. Even a very small fragment, if ingested by a condor, creates a very large problem. Lead affects their CNS the same way it does ours. But it sits in their guts and leaches into the bloodstream very effectively because they have no natural mechanism to pass the lead out. It's almost kinda like the waterfowl who would pick up lead pellets floating at the edges of the water to use for the grit they needed for digestion. We all know what that generated in the way of nontox ammo programs.

The law, both federal and state, not only permitting but mandating very strong action on the part of the gov't to protect and enhance endangered species (with the eventual goal of delisting them) is very well established and very clear. The recent studies provided a sufficiently clear, direct and strong causal link between lead hunting ammo and the lead poisoning problem in condors to justify to the CA legislature the passage of this bill. And of course, the guv signed it.

Now, there are some special issues confronting the state of AZ with regard to passage of similar legislation, but that's what my article deals with.

What this also means is it's not going to blow up into some nationwide conspiracy as you would seem to imply. This was extremely targeted, purpose specific legislation. That's why the bill's impact is limited to areas that are therein listed, which are recognized as areas of condor habitat. That's why, if it spreads to AZ, it won't spread any farther any time soon. Because in AZ is the only other condor population in the US.

And thinking that it will lead to a lead shot ban is not justified, either. There are only two arguments put forth by those in opposition to nontox ammo: ballistic inferiority and increased cost. For centerfire ammo, neither is a valid complaint. Nontox is not ballistically inferior, and the volume of ammo used (that would be subject to the ban) is minimal. How many rounds do you fire each year hunting?

And that's precisely why any challenge to ban lead shot would face much stronger challenges. Nontox alternatives are ballistically inferior to lead, and it's not at all uncommon for serious target shooters to fire 30,000 rounds per year between practice and competition. Some shoot much more. That's a big difference from maybe 4 or 5 shots that a hunter might take per year out of that box of 10 bullets. And you'd have to have some justifiable environmental concern. Many clubs that shoot over water have already banned lead shot. And you can't shoot lead at waterfowl.

In short, I'm a little put off by your wholesale unjustifiable hysterism. It's what I would expect from the left, not from a fellow lover of the scattergun.

And your K80 is fine with steel shot (with Mod or less choke), just like Sera said. It's just a big NO NO to steel through Ti chokes.

To drsfmd: I was writing this as you posted yours. This took a while. If you or anyone else wants more information on CA AB821, feel free to email or PM me. I can go into much more detailed explanation and analysis as well.
Kyler Hamann said:
Mr. Powers,

This may be the wrong place for this... and I'm not going to stoop to your name calling. Only the anti-gun folks win while we spend our efforts fighting each other.

You're right that I greatly oversimplified the ban. It is (FOR NOW) just the southern part of CA and you're further correct that the condor was used as the reason to get this ball rolling.

But you are also greatly underestimating my involvement in these issues. I've done 3 degrees in wildlife/ecology issues, worked with and for US Fish & Wildlife and CA DFG over the last couple decades as well as running a guided hunting service for near 20 years...

In graduate school I sat in meetings with people who planned to use the condor (and have now succeeded!!!!) as their springboard for beginning a serious shutdown on hunting.

Over the last 30 years I've been in the hunting fields of the central coast of CA up to 7 days a week, all year round. Probably averaging several days per week in every one of those years. I've been out enough to see more mountain lions, eagles, etc. in the wild than anyone I know. In college I got one of the highest grades in ornithology and went on all the field trips throughout several counties and have NEVER seen a condor in the wild. Nor have I ever found a rancher, bird watcher, etc. in our area who have EVER seen a condor in this area (my family has been in this area since the 1880's). To make a blanket law that vastly changed many of our lives for a species which only theoretically exists in this area is reprehensible.

As I mentioned, I run a guided hunting operation. Very few factory loads are readily available or even exist with these so called substitute copper bullets. This ban will have an enormous impact on big game hunting when people can't find legal rounds for their favorite hunting rifles. This in the face of roughly already losing 10% of our licensed hunters each year. There has already been a tremendous decrease in sporting hunting and I'm really concerned this ban is another nail or two in the coffin of sport hunting at least in this area.

I understand better than most how important each species is to the general ecology of a region, but the world has changed around the condor and from the data I've seen I'm not convinced this ban of lead bullets will save even one of these birds. This species evolved and thrived when the Central Valley was flooded and populated with countless herds of large animals (tule elk, deer, pronghorn and later cattle). These areas have been drained and are now farmed and are quickly headed from farmland into further development. The large numbers of ungulates that these birds needed for feed haven't existed there for around a century. For a species like this they were already reduced to a postage stamp sized habitat which has unfortunately and forevermore changed to be unfavorable to this species. Sadly they WILL NEVER RECOVER... even if we make lots of knee-jerk, ill-conceived legislation to save them. These facts don't seem to phase the various agencies that stick tax-payers around $1 Million PER BIRD to follow them around.

When this legislation was first pushed years ago my only question was, "Will we get the use of lead core bullets back after the last few condors are put into captivity?" Of course the answer is NO!!! When the last condors are put into the San Diego Wild Animal park they will be the long forgotten cause of the beginning of this general ban on introducing lead to the environment.

The only data I've seen to elude that a condor had increased blood lead levels due to "hunters bullets" was in a varmint hunting situation. A large portion of varmint hunting is done with rimfires and even a portion with shotguns. If this legislation was so easily swallowed for centerfire ammunition you are naive to think it won't quickly be written to include other forms of lead introduction into the environment. Don't think for a second that these "better for the environment" arguments won't be eventually used to pass anti-lead legislation in all areas of the free world. I'm hearing from professionals in several fields that this is the tip of the iceberg.

It greatly worries me to see you jump on so easily to this band wagon to ban lead core bullets. If you think it will stop at centerfire ammo I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. As early as the 1990's I saw first hand the push to get the use of lead banned at any cost. Lead is a popular buzzword and any legislation banning lead seems to be quickly agreed to in lock-step fashion. No one seems to care what sort of torture our whacko politicians inflict on us California "locals" but you should be worried that this one ban can be used as a wide spread precedence to "save the environment" in all areas. We are dealing with voters and politicians who are "educated" in 7 second sound bites and don't seem to be concerned that his is a relatively inert and naturally occurring substance because they are not personally affected by this particular ban.

Frankly in several rifles I had switched to Barnes copper bullets as long as a decade ago to become familiar with them. They can perform fine on game, but they are more finicky than lead core bullets, much more expensive, have different points of impact, are not readily available as factory ammunition and many rifles won't shoot them. As I mentioned, they are not and probably will not be readily available for many calibers in factory ammunition as this ban comes into effect. It will make a substantial impact on sporting hunting in this area.

Worst of all - as I understand it the way the ban in CA is currently written we have NO legal substitute bullets! Despite some opposition the law ended up being worded as requiring "lead-free" bullets. From what I've learned our current "substitutes" made from copper typically have 2-3% lead content. The various Barnes, Lost River, GS Customs, Bridgers, Nosler ETip, etc. are NOT lead free... therefore not legal if this law is strictly interpreted. This is information I've just learned so I seriously hope it's incorrect or we're completely out of luck.

In my hunting business we have one small canyon where we regularly leave the entrails and skins of the animals we take. There has been a pair of golden eagles raising a nest full of eaglets EVERY SPRING from those lead bullet killed animals for well over a decade. They check that canyon for new scraps at least once per day all year round. The golden eagle population is higher than I've ever seen. It's possible the physiology is different between condors and the other birds that strive so well on hunters "left overs" but to fall for the line that the ecology of our world is substantially better off without lead core bullets is to be duped by folks with other agendas.

You might want to do a little more research before slinging mud. As I stated at the beginning, we only serve our enemies when we expend our efforts fighting among ourselves.

Regards,
Kyler
MRPOWER said:
Considering that you have no idea how much research I may or may not have done, I suggest you refrain from suggesting that I do more. And don't you lump me in with the "save the environment" bunch. That's about dead last on my priority list, for a number of reasons. I could forward you the studies I referred to, but I don't think it would do either of us any good. I could also forward you a list of approved nontoxic bullet and ammo manufacturers, listing calibers of availability, but probably to the same result. And again, I state that due to the totality of the factual circumstances at hand, I refuse to jump on the alarmist bandwagon. Had I not done the research that I have done, I would join you and even take the reins and whip the horses even harder. And if I were you I'd be much more concerned about the impact of AB1471.

Statistics actually soundly contradict your assessment of the condor's inability to recover. The bird is actually doing quite well, aside from the lead poisoning issue. You also manifest your non-knowledge by misstating the text of the bill when you refer to "lead-free" as being the relevant terminology. The bill explicitly requires the use of "nonlead" bullets and the definition of that term is fully left up to the Commission, regulations and definition for which they are under mandate to produce by July 2008. There is one spot where it says "no lead," but taken on the whole, considering that the commission actually has a textual mandate to define "nonlead" and considering that SAAMI, the NRA and others do still wield clout there, despite your assertions to the contrary, I just flat refuse to sound the alarm. It's perfectly reasonable to include bullets with a minimal lead content (<3%, for example) on such a list.

Sorry to offend your highly studied (3 degrees and grad school, after all, as you are so quick to point out) and clearly more appropriately defined (than mine) sensibilities.

And sadly, I can't resist pointing out your greatest fallacy: that because you have never seen it (lead poisoning) or them (condors) or think it possible or likely, it must be so.

And I never said anything about subscribing to the thought that the world is substantially better off without lead core bullets. I didn't say it and don't think it. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. I do think the condor will be better off without lead core bullets in its prime foraging areas (which incidentally are protected by designations of critical habitat and area of critical environmental concern anyways, basically giving the fed the authority to do anything the state wouldn't have been willing to do). Do I think the condor is a necessary part of our ecosystem? No. Do I think it's a neat bird? Yes.

Do I think the entire concept, principle and execution of the endangered species act is basically stupid? Yes. Extinction happens. Get over it, I say. I think there is way too much money and paper wasted on the near limitless powers that gov't has to protect and reestablish endangered species to the contrary of almost any other interest. Let me say it again, lest we yet be unclear: I think it's stupid. Is it sad to lose a little biodiversity here and there with the loss of species X and Q? Yes, but it's been going on for a LOOOONNNGG time and I think man's intervention there is just one more demonstration of his disgustingly strong sense of self importance.
Or something like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,122 Posts
kingjoey said:
Yet we don't see the military running to ban DU rounds, hmm :roll:
DU rounds, contrary to the media BS and the panic mongers, have less radiation output than the dials on your compass. That is why it is called DEPLETED uranium.

Lead is being cut back on for two reasons, the amount of leaching from the ranges Stateside and the new bullets have been designed to be and are in fact a smart type of round. They are selective frangible, which means that if they hit soft tissue they rapidly expand and it they hit a hard surface they stay together and penetrate. That is a good thing if you have to shoot at people, through walls and vehicles.

Don't ask me to explain how it knows, but it has something to do with the way the molecules bind and react to shockwaves.

Something like the way a shot column responds to the gradual taper of a forcing cone vs a short taper. At least, that is how this simple Jarhead mind got around the explination.

Slidehammer: If Congress has its way, tungsten light bulbs will be a thing of the past soon also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
chorizo said:
Not directly, but I am aware that the military will fully switch to "green" ammo by 2009. The ammo will be lead free and made with a tungsten type mixture. Production is fully underway right now.

That should crush demand somewhat.
I've seen what "hevi-shot" does to turkeys out to 70 yards. It's heavier than lead and hard as steel. It was probably a tactical decision more than anything. If it does affect the cost of lead, we probably won't see the difference for a while. When lead first started to skyrocket a couple of years ago, there was a lag in the cost shotshells going up because the manufacturers typically store a large supply of lead. I hope the cost of shells goes down fast and soon!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
bel_dad said:
John, 2 summers ago I was buying Federal #8.5 12g for $2.39/box... Yes, $4.49 is an increase, and I think you will be looking at $5.59 right soon, if not now. I'm hearing 410 AA's for $13.00/ in some parts of the country.

bd
It was still 2.99 a box for Remington and 3.49 for Winchester 12 -20 gauges. Now the prices for 12-20 are 4.99 a box and 16 gauge is suddenly more expensive at 5.79 a box and 28 and 410 were 8.99 for Cheap White box Winchester ! This was during a Sale !!!
STS and AA loads for 12 gauge are 7.49 which is exactly as I remember the boxes being a year ago for 410. It's definitely high and it's forcing some to get out of competitive shooting. I don't think Shotgun Sports have an elitist attitude so I'm shocked there isn't a little concern for the common person. I may be able to afford to continue shooting but it's difficult to justify the increase in the expense of the hobby.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top