Latest article on lead micro and nano particles in deer and grouse

[Woodenbeam]

The medical view of lead, is that no level of lead is safe.

Even more scary statements now

Ah apologies, thought that said:
No level of life is safe

As it’s only lead ya on about I’ll go back to what I was doing

 

[GlennUK]

Ok so let’s see how many deer have you shot with lead vs copper ? Also you mentioned shotgun and airgun shooting I’m assuming you’ve eaten lead shot game then ?

Ok lets so whether you understand that all ammunition/rifle combinations will have limitations on how much energy is available at the point of impact at any given range.

Do you need to have killed tens, hundred, thousands of deer to appreciate this fact?

 

[GlennUK]

It depends on the situation and the cartridge, it might be as little as 100m for some cartridges. It is certainly a significant factor well below 500m.

The Nosler box sitting in front of me gives various energies at the point of impact out to 600yards. It is clear that the energy falls off, no disputing that.

That will be the same for both lead and copper ammunition.

If the energy required cannot be delivered at the range the shooter is shooting, is it the ammunitions fault or the shooters?

The energy required is a function of the target being shot, this box delivers sufficient energy at 500m for muntjac much less for Red.

So when someone says that copper is a problem for shooting deer at long range, what is it they mean?

 

[Chris Richardson]

Ok lets so whether you understand that all ammunition/rifle combinations will have limitations on how much energy is available at the point of impact at any given range.

Do you need to have killed tens, hundred, thousands of deer to appreciate this fact?

I cant help but notice you didnt answer either of my questions ...... how many deer have you shot with lead and how many have you shot with copper to be able to make the comparison ? And have you eaten lead shot game before ?

must try harder

 

[GlennUK]

I cant help but notice you didnt answer either of my questions ...... how many deer have you shot with lead and how many have you shot with copper to be able to make the comparison ? And have you eaten lead shot game before ?

must try harder

The reason i have not answered them is they have nothing to do with the questions at hand.

I made the observation that a deer shot with copper in the right place (assuming that the round penetrated the chest cavity see post #100) that it would kill it.

Then someone decided that copper is a problem over long ranges without specifying what they meant in terms of quarry or distance.

Being a novice stalker in no way changes the physics/physiology issues of shooting.

Happy to accept the different combinations of rounds/rifles gives rise to differences in energy available at the point of impact, but that is the same for lead and copper. Accepting that the specific numbers will change based on the factors the go to make that up.

You notice things which are unimportant as you appear from here to seek to dismiss the points being made because i haven't been stalking for long and haven't killed many deer.

The challenges of shot placement, ammunition/rifle/gun selection are not unique to stalking. If any one is not appropriate then a kill cannot be certain whatever the quarry.

 

[Heym SR20]

The Nosler box sitting in front of me gives various energies at the point of impact out to 600yards. It is clear that the energy falls off, no disputing that.

That will be the same for both lead and copper ammunition.

If the energy required cannot be delivered at the range the shooter is shooting, is it the ammunitions fault or the shooters?

The energy required is a function of the target being shot, this box delivers sufficient energy at 500m for muntjac much less for Red.

So when someone says that copper is a problem for shooting deer at long range, what is it they mean?

I suspect it is down to his inability to actually stalk into deer means that his trying to shoot them all at 500m plus.

At that point your energy and just plain accuracy probably means you ability to kill cleanly is very much deminished.

However there has been plenty of testing of copper bullets and their wound channels at the sorts of impact velocities you get out at 500m. Provided they hit the vitals they will cleanly. Much much more of a challenge is actually hitting the vitals, and whilst range is easy enough, reading the wind is much more difficult. Perhaps he is a superb shot at 500m but I suspect his failings are in his shooting ability rather than the bullets used.

 

[Chris Richardson]

The reason i have not answered them is they have nothing to do with the questions at hand.

I made the observation that a deer shot with copper in the right place (assuming that the round penetrated the chest cavity see post #100) that it would kill it.

Then someone decided that copper is a problem over long ranges without specifying what they meant in terms of quarry or distance.

Being a novice stalker in no way changes the physics/physiology issues of shooting.

Happy to accept the different combinations of rounds/rifles gives rise to differences in energy available at the point of impact, but that is the same for lead and copper. Accepting that the specific numbers will change based on the factors the go to make that up.

You notice things which are unimportant as you appear from here to seek to dismiss the points being made because i haven't been stalking for long and haven't killed many deer.

The challenges of shot placement, ammunition/rifle/gun selection are not unique to stalking. If any one is not appropriate then a kill cannot be certain whatever the quarry.

Ok let’s try again what is your experience of lead on deer versus copper ? And have you ever eaten lead shot game? You’d make a very good politician with your avoidance of questions and waffle

As an aside you mentioned airgun hunting too did you use lead pellets in them ?

 

[tackb]

copper is not as good as lead when used as a like for like projectile , i'm fairly sure we will agree on that ?

so, how much less effectiveness must we tolerate before it's too much ?

as an aside i went duck shooting at the weekend , i was using steel shot cartridges and wasn't having a lot of success , so for the evening flight i changed to the tungsten matrix i had with me , same weight of shot and same pellet size and had a lot more success - not scientific i know but certainly gives you pause for thought?

 

[Spear Chucker]

If a bullet penetrates the chest cavity and hits the heart/lungs does it matter if it is made from lead or copper from the animals perspective?

I'm curious as I have only shot deer at relatively close quarters with copper and it seems pretty devastating when put in the right spot, I'm trying to workout why if the bullet hits the actual target (i.e. the HL as opposed to just hitting the animal) that the damage to the vial organs/arteries will not result in a clean kill.

Is there a reason why at 'long distances' a copper bullet hitting the animal in the right spot would not result in such damage?

I am not a long distance shooter, most of my shots are below 120yds, occasionally out to 250. I am told (still on lead, so I have not seen it myself) that consistent expansion and therefore damage can be a problem further down-range. People I regularly compare notes with speak of quarry running further than they are comfortable with, when shot at longer ranges using copper. Nothing wrong with shot placement. There is a consensus that we were using lead for one good reason...it worked consistently when used correctly. Enforcing the use of copper is no different to appointing / promoting people to run companies because of their skin colour. What really matters is whether they are effective in the role, regardless of their physical attributes. That lead is now adjudged by people (who ought to know better) to be the ballistic equivalent of a white, privately educated English man completely overlooks the core point. That must always be effectiveness at achieving quick, clean kills in the broadest range of scenarios we are likely to encounter. But the shooting representatives (that seemingly represent nothing but their own views and interests, as far as I can see) know better, apparently.
You may have more experience than I do. My personal preference would be that we be treated like grown-ups and allowed the choice.

 

[Chris Richardson]

No reply how odd

 

[GlennUK]

No reply how odd

Not odd at all, as i said prior you focus on things which have no relevance to the matters at hand.

 

[Spear Chucker]

I won’t have the copper is inhumane, the way they’re loaded is inhumane because 95% of them are going too fast and they’re too light, because the modern day stalker is too bone Idol to work his bullet drops out!

If you use a heavier bullet and slow it down, it still works absolutely fine

Now, there is wisdom for you. I always reckoned that long shots were often taken by men who had too little field craft to get close enough. Similar point I suspect. I still prefer lead though, but if you have made copper work for you, there is hope. :)

 

[Spear Chucker]

It is not mandatory that one has to ingest lead. I certainly don't.
In fact despite having a lead water pipe and lead flashing I'd say my work environment and the smoke from passive smoking others tobacco habits is of more concern, despite the science on lead that you all seem to conduct acts of worship to.

If you don't want to use lead then don't.
I do, so leave me be and stop pushing leftie socialistic tendencies upon me.

Bravo! Most Excellently Said.

 

[Chris Richardson]

No reply how odd

Not odd at all, as i said prior you focus on things which have no relevance to the matters at hand.

so still wont answer how you can make the comparison of the effectiveness of copper vs lead ? still wont answer if youve eaten lead shot game or why a year ago you were happy to feed it to your family ? thought not thank you

 

[Apthorpe]

The Nosler box sitting in front of me gives various energies at the point of impact out to 600yards. It is clear that the energy falls off, no disputing that.

I don't know what cartridge you use, but Nosler's own website data for the cartridge I use and for .308 shows that the copper bullet is beyond its effective range well before 600 yards.

That will be the same for both lead and copper ammunition.

No, it isn't. Lead bullets expand at lower velocities, they have better ballistics and are more accurate at range because of that.

If the energy required cannot be delivered at the range the shooter is shooting, is it the ammunitions fault or the shooters?

It doesn't matter, but I tend to think it's the shooter's fault for believing that copper bullets are equivalent to lead bullets. Or maybe it's the ammunition's fault for being inferior. It just doesn't perform.

The energy required is a function of the target being shot, this box delivers sufficient energy at 500m for muntjac much less for Red.

It probably doesn't and I don't recommend you try it. You are presuming, erroneously, that the energy of the copper bullet would be transferred to the muntjac. However, copper bullets are less effective at transferring the energy because they are harder and hold together more. You are much more likely to wound the animal. (BTW This is one of the arguments used in favour of copper ammunition)

So when someone says that copper is a problem for shooting deer at long range, what is it they mean?

You've already had this explained to you. It would be more constructive if you could explain which bits you didn't understand about the inferior ballistics.

 

[Demetrius]

The 13 essential minerals for human health:

13 Essential Minerals

Essential minerals are a class of nutrients that are vital for maintaining the body’s health. They are inorganic components that play a multitude of functional roles in human cells both physiologically and biochemically. The 13 essential minerals include calcium, sodium, potassium, chloride...

www.medicinenet.com

In the appropriate amounts, that is.......any of them can kill you if you have too much.

D

 

[Apthorpe]

I suspect it is down to his inability to actually stalk into deer means that his trying to shoot them all at 500m plus.

Like most of your opinions, very, very wide of the mark.

At that point your energy and just plain accuracy probably means you ability to kill cleanly is very much deminished.

However there has been plenty of testing of copper bullets and their wound channels at the sorts of impact velocities you get out at 500m. Provided they hit the vitals they will cleanly.

Several of the manufacturers' data do not support that rather spurious assertion. I'd suggest 300m as a more practical limit.

Much much more of a challenge is actually hitting the vitals, and whilst range is easy enough, reading the wind is much more difficult. Perhaps he is a superb shot at 500m but I suspect his failings are in his shooting ability rather than the bullets used.

Indeed, not least because I use lead bullets.

 

[Chris Richardson]

I don't know what cartridge you use, but Nosler's own website data for the cartridge I use and for .308 shows that the copper bullet is beyond its effective range well before 600 yards.

No, it isn't. Lead bullets expand at lower velocities, they have better ballistics and are more accurate at range because of that.

It doesn't matter, but I tend to think it's the shooter's fault for believing that copper bullets are equivalent to lead bullets. Or maybe it's the ammunition's fault for being inferior. It just doesn't perform.

It probably doesn't and I don't recommend you try it. You are presuming, erroneously, that the energy of the copper bullet would be transferred to the muntjac. However, copper bullets are less effective at transferring the energy because they are harder and hold together more. You are much more likely to wound the animal. (BTW This is one of the arguments used in favour of copper ammunition)

You've already had this explained to you. It would be more constructive if you could explain which bits you didn't understand about the inferior ballistics.

Good luck getting a reply

 

[Apthorpe]

Good luck getting a reply

I don't care if he replies. I'd be entirely happy to see less spurious disinformation from anti-lead zealots of any type on here. He is, at least, better informed now.

 

[Norfolk Deer Search]

Now, there is wisdom for you. I always reckoned that long shots were often taken by men who had too little field craft to get close enough. Similar point I suspect. I still prefer lead though, but if you have made copper work for you, there is hope. :)

I spent best part of 15 years shooting copper in 6.5x55 and 270 it works and works bloody well

You get the right bullet weight, going the right speed you’ll get a very dead deer with very little damage