JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Look at the initial ban on lead ammo for hunting in California. The "experts" who said lead ammo was killing the condors NEVER allowed their data to be reviewed. They never answered questions like "Why aren't coyotes or turkey vultures dying of lead poisoning as well?" The government just accepted their conclusions without peer review and passed the laws. It is never about pollution or poisoning a bird that was well on it's way to extinction before white people ever set foot in California. It is ONLY about screwing shooters and making things harder for those who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
If it makes just 1 shooter give up the sport, its worth it to these lice.
 
Is it a BC or sectional density issue? I'm no physicist so my thinking could be way off -- snip, yep, did a search, way off. ;-)

BC includes in the calculation the SD of a bullet, so density will definitely affect BC by mathematical definition: Ballistic Coefficient SD is important for penetration as well, so a denser bullet is better at hunting, meaning fewer wounded but not dead critters.

I did try to work up a load with some Barnes copper bullets for my hunting rifle and I could never get them as accurate as the load I like using Hornaday SSTs. My best group size was at least 50% larger with the Barnes and only with the lightest powder loads -- so lower velocity, lower SD, lower penetration and worse accuracy.
You're right. SD. Sorry.
 
why not embrace the change?
Ever considered muzzle loader shooting? This would essentially eliminate this 'arm' of the shooting community. You cannot shoot brass bullets in a muzzleloader. (and please don't mention 'sabots')

This is NOT 'change' - it is nothing more than 'left handed' anti-gun legislation intended to reduce recreational shooting and hunting, gun ownership and all that goes with it.
 
Sorry, false.

Ashland gun club has just gone through legal hoops because of the neighbor whom had a mansion built next to the range. Suing for exactly that reason.

The range which has been there 50+ years. That's 50+ years of shotgun pellets, and the testing by the paddock even came back fine. Of any area which one would "feal" would be a risk, it would by a paddock.

Nope. Fine.

We've just had wet lands on the property certified safe. Again, in Ashland. Of all of the complete nutterbar communities in the entire PNW, Ashland is about the most severe granola, free range, anti-vaccine, & warped that there is.

Stream at edge of the property. Perfectly fine. Stream which the wetlands drain into.

Lawsuit tossed.

Think whatever you want, because of what you've "heard", or what your "feelings" are. However please don't recommend regulating anything because of such.

I'll use facts and science, thanks.

"The following article by Damian Mann appeared in the Mail Tribune and the Daily Tidings on March 14, 2017.

A seven-year legal showdown between the Ashland Gun & Archery Club and three of its neighbors, including the owner of Belle Fiore Winery, ended with a whimper and not with a bang.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken dismissed the lawsuit March 5 after the city of Ashland spent more than $1 million for legal fees, environmental studies and wetland mitigation efforts, even though no lead pollution was found in wetlands on the property at 555 Emigrant Creek Road."


The proposal for MANDATORY lead free ammunition is simply another work around to discriminate against the free enjoyment of the second amendment. Pure and simple.

If an individual shooting sports enthusiast can't see it is such, then that's pretty sad. BECAUSE non-shooting sports enthusiasts will buy into whatever they are being "sold". Rumor & innuendo.

I checked out the articles in your post and did some additional research on the Ashland Gun Club case you referenced, and it appears that they really have their game together when it comes to mitigating lead contamination, which is great! Their use of a funnel system to catch and collect bullets strikes me as particularly thoughtful. Your position, though, that lead contamination doesn't happen since the Ashland site showed no increase in lead levels is a non sequitur.

Below are some scientific studies regarding water / soil contamination due to, specifically, firing ranges:

Here is a Water-Resources Investigations Report conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey of land near a sportsman's club in Delaware (full PDF of the report is available in the link I provided) that shows a marked increase in lead-water levels originating from lead shot. The study's abstract lists their findings, but the full PDF of the study details the actual lead levels they found in their samples, if you're interested.

This second study (PDF Warning) conducted by the Soil and Water Science Department of the University of Florida and hosted by the CDC is also relevant. This study deals with detailing the amount of lead that accumulates in soil (which can leach into groundwater) due to abrasion of lead containing projectiles. Field sampling of a shooting range in Gainesville, Florida and the subsequent laboratory testing of those samples revealed critical levels of hazardous waste material (lead) in the soil (results can be found in section 3).

These are just a couple of examples I was able to find quickly to contribute to our discussion. With a little more time I'm sure I could find and link more if you'd like.
 
Sure link away.

Will not change my position that this is simply another method that gun grabbers are using to eliminate 2nd amendment rights.

Did you also note that Ashland Gun Club spent over $150,000 on the case alone.

AND that the bullet traps were built AFTER we proved no lead! Simply a community "feel good" measure. Again feelings trumping science and data.

So again, no lead. 50+ years of use. Over $150,000 in legal fees.

+the extra "feel good" investments in time, money & resources. Mitigating something which doesn't exist.

For a small club. Easily could have bankrupt us, which was another likely intent the gun grabbers would have been perfectly fine with.

Please do continue...
 
Sure link away.

Will not change my position that this is simply another method that gun grabbers are using to eliminate 2nd amendment rights.

Did you also note that Ashland Gun Club spent over $150,000 on the case alone.

AND that the bullet traps were built AFTER we proved no lead! Simply a community "feel good" measure. Again feelings trumping science and data.

So again, no lead. 50+ years of use. Over $150,000 in legal fees.

+the "feel good" investments in time, resources.

For a small club. Easily could have bankrupt us, which was another likely intent the gun grabbers would have been perfectly fine with.

Please do continue...

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that even with studies showing that lead contamination is a known environmental / health concern you instead believe that it is, actually, solely an attempt by "gun-grabbers" to subvert the 2nd Amendment?

Can it not be both a valid environmental concern and also an excuse used by anit-2A advocates?
 
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that even with studies showing that lead contamination is a known environmental / health concern you instead believe that it is, actually, solely an attempt by "gun-grabbers" to subvert the 2nd Amendment?

Can it not be both a valid environmental concern and also an excuse used by anit-2A advocates?
I guess that is how you define "valid environmental concern." You cite two out of state studies but neglect to show how they apply to any CA range. If they do not apply to the majority of CA ranges, there is but one conclusion. The purpose is not environmental / health concerns but restriction of 2A rights in CA.
 
I also tend to doubt any "environmental" motive behind an effort to ban not only lead ammunition, but even NON LEAD ammunition that is not on the government-approved list. Also remember that California is the state that labeled coffee as a carcinogen for awhile.
 
I guess that is how you define "valid environmental concern." You cite two out of state studies but neglect to show how they apply to any CA range. If they do not apply to the majority of CA ranges, there is but one conclusion. The purpose is not environmental / health concerns but restriction of 2A rights in CA.

There's something to be said about soil composition and the concern of lead leaching. Therefor it could be argued that the first study I linked may not have a lot of bearing when considering soil differences between California and Delaware (though I don't know, they may have similar soil compostion), but the second study I linked deals with lead depositing in soil due to abrasion when projectiles pass through soil. I have a hard time imagining that this abrasion just doesn't happen in states other than Florida, so it seems reasonable that the same problem exists in California.

I'd agree that in this case the motivation is likely skewed towards anti-gun sentiment, with environmental concerns being a distant second reason for the bill (if a true reason at all), but my position is simply that lead contamination is not only possible, but an identified problem with gun ranges in various parts of the country, possibly including California.

I will try to find some California specific studies and/or articles to see if their lead contamination concerns are something they've actually looked into or not (On a local State level), but that may have to wait until evening.
 
We should simply ban California!
Dont these arseholes know, lead is a naturally occurring substance in nature, and it causes ZERO harm to any one or anything?

All this is is another stab at gun owners plain and simple! There is no science to back up any claims of environmental harm from led, and any time some one points that out, the antis cry and scream about feelings and such, so we have to give up one more thing for nothing more then feelings! :mad::mad::mad:
 
We should simply ban California!
Dont these arseholes know, lead is a naturally occurring substance in nature, and it causes ZERO harm to any one or anything?

All this is is another stab at gun owners plain and simple! There is no science to back up any claims of environmental harm from led, and any time some one points that out, the antis cry and scream about feelings and such, so we have to give up one more thing for nothing more then feelings! :mad::mad::mad:
I suppose CO2, Methane, and Water in the air is also natural:)
 
There's something to be said about soil composition and the concern of lead leaching. Therefor it could be argued that the first study I linked may not have a lot of bearing when considering soil differences between California and Delaware (though I don't know, they may have similar soil compostion), but the second study I linked deals with lead depositing in soil due to abrasion when projectiles pass through soil. I have a hard time imagining that this abrasion just doesn't happen in states other than Florida, so it seems reasonable that the same problem exists in California.

I'd agree that in this case the motivation is likely skewed towards anti-gun sentiment, with environmental concerns being a distant second reason for the bill (if a true reason at all), but my position is simply that lead contamination is not only possible, but an identified problem with gun ranges in various parts of the country, possibly including California.

I will try to find some California specific studies and/or articles to see if their lead contamination concerns are something they've actually looked into or not (On a local State level), but that may have to wait until evening.

What you are ignoring is that the measure would also apply to indoor ranges that do not use soil to stop the bullets. And as far as leaching lead from the soil of outdoor ranges, there and other ways to mitigate the problem, far short of banning lead based bullets. Once you recognize these issues, the only rational conclusion is that the ban has only one purpose and that is to restrict the 2A rights of Californians.
 
What you are ignoring is that the measure would also apply to indoor ranges that do not use soil to stop the bullets. And as far as leaching lead from the soil of outdoor ranges, there and other ways to mitigate the problem, far short of banning lead based bullets. Once you recognize these issues, the only rational conclusion is that the ban has only one purpose and that is to restrict the 2A rights of Californians.

The increased difficulty of operation for gun ranges is definitely a valid concern with this bill, and I've already agreed that I believe California's primary motivation here is not the environment. It's pretty typical for California, being a proven and vehement anti-gun state, to jump past any other possibilities of mitigation and go straight for a ban.

A move away from lead ammunition, in my mind, still strikes me as a good idea and would have the added benefit of making mitigation efforts a needless practice. That being said, and in consideration to some of the information provided by the comments of other members in this thread, as well as yourself, I am also pretty convinced that this particular bill causes more harm (to gun rights) than good (to the environment and public health) due to the unreasonable hindrances placed upon ranges and firearms owners in the State.

One thing that alarms me, though, is the sentiment I've seen here that lead contamination either does not constitute an environmental danger or simply has no ill effects on people at all, and this is why I've spent the time trying to provide sources dealing with those issues.

I can see that my contrarian posts have brought about some derision (on my part as well), so in the spirit of being excellent to each other, and since I'm pretty terrible at identifying satire, I think it might be best if I stop here.
 
The increased difficulty of operation for gun ranges is definitely a valid concern with this bill, and I've already agreed that I believe California's primary motivation here is not the environment. It's pretty typical for California, being a proven and vehement anti-gun state, to jump past any other possibilities of mitigation and go straight for a ban.

A move away from lead ammunition, in my mind, still strikes me as a good idea and would have the added benefit of making mitigation efforts a needless practice. That being said, and in consideration to some of the information provided by the comments of other members in this thread, as well as yourself, I am also pretty convinced that this particular bill causes more harm (to gun rights) than good (to the environment and public health) due to the unreasonable hindrances placed upon ranges and firearms owners in the State.

One thing that alarms me, though, is the sentiment I've seen here that lead contamination either does not constitute an environmental danger or simply has no ill effects on people at all, and this is why I've spent the time trying to provide sources dealing with those issues.

I can see that my contrarian posts have brought about some derision (on my part as well), so in the spirit of being excellent to each other, and since I'm pretty terrible at identifying satire, I think it might be best if I stop here.
Many other states have pushed for led bans already, many have already banned led shot for waterfoweling, but this ban goes much further! Again, it's all about banning firearms one step at a time!
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top