Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
100% i am in the front and bang club!
The more you think about shot placement the more chance there is to balls it up!
.284 non lead bullet/load recommendations
- Thread starter Farmerjoe
- Start date
The more you think about shot placement the more chance there is to balls it up!
True, although at least plastic is inert, aluminium is toxic, as is copper!
Can’t win…
Well they are what they are, entirely up to individuals if they want to use them.
Yep, which I will, they are great bullets.
My point was more that they are banning lead because it is toxic but it has simply been replaced with other toxic alternatives!
This is an argument that is wheeled out ad nauseum as if conclusive proof that the status quo ante should be retained.
It is misleading at best.
In certain cases Copper can indeed be toxic. It is also essential to life, as without it your body would not produce red blood cells nor form collagen.
The same cannot be said of lead.
Irrelevant
Neither fragment into dust which permeates through the wound channel
The goal is to remove the metal from the Carcase as easily as possible
If it passes through great.
If it is found in a lump that represents 25% of original mass, also fine.
The waste in processing is dramatically reduced
The risk of ingesting a known poison is also dramatically reduced
I’m more thinking of some fragment gets missed and goes through a mincer, which still is very possible.
Is enough known about aluminium yet to know that it won’t break up on entry?
We probably won’t know until people start recovering tips and weighing them with accurate scales
Last edited:
Better ban lead primers then
One assumes, in the fullness of time, they very well might.
The "lead issue", to give it a name, is being very badly misrepresented as an "all or nothing" issue. No recognition is being given to best endeavours.
Calm down dear!
I started the post saying I would continue using the bullets!!
This Segway was ultimately in response to a comment about plastic tips being environmentally unfriendly. I was simply pointing out that at least from a food safety point of view they are inert, unlike copper and aluminium which are both known toxins!
And I was simply pointing out that the blanket statement "copper and aluminium are both known toxins" is misrepresentation by omission.
Both elements can indeed be toxic in certain forms and concentrations. However, aluminium is used in cookware and copper is essential to life, without it you would die.
Caffeine is a known toxin.
Nicotine is one of the most toxic naturally occuring substances.
Your missus's cosmetics contain Phthalates, guess what? Toxic.
Stain resistant fabrics, flame retardants, non-stick cookware all contain PFC's. Yup...toxic.
Without qualification the statement that something is a "known toxin" is misleading. By way of example the statement "oxygen is toxic" is factually correct in certain circumstances, for the vast majority of the human population it has zero relevance, and indeed may be met with incredulity. In my line of work, where we are placing two men on the seabed at depths of up to 300m, it is very relevant indeed.
Right, but, reread the post, I was comparing them to plastic which isn’t toxic or at least is less known to be so!
Jump down off your high horse and take it in the spirit it was written. You seemed to have missed the part of the post where I said “Can’t win” i.e. whatever material is used there is always an argument against it. So plastic - bad for the environment, copper - toxic to plants including trees and humans in certain concentrations, aluminium -toxic to humans and potentially connected with Alzheimer’s (I got rid of aluminium cooking pans a long time ago) lead - basically the anti Christ……
I’m not an idiot and can remember enough A-level chemistry & biology to understand some elements and compounds are needed at certain levels and if those levels are exceeded they can be toxic.
Like I said, Can’t win!
Last edited:
Whilst freely acknowledging that the arguments are not yours I was merely highlighting that many (but not all) of the justifications wheeled out by lead-bullet proponents are informal logical fallacies.
Okay
big ears
Well-Known Member
Not mine or my fellow stalkers experience on red and roe with Fox bullets. A lot of runners with no blood trail. 6.5 & .243 calibres.
Other brands have been fine (yew tree and Barnes)
It’s about finding what works for you and then sticking with it.
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
The only endeavours behind this "lead free/non-toxic" drive, is profit in the short term for the short-sighted, and politics in the long term for the anti's who want to eliminate recreational shooting.
It's been done (lead free primers) and it failed:
Russia and China Created Body Armor to Stop American Bullets. Can the Army’s Latest Rifle Change the Game?
The Army universally recognizes that its current 5.56mm bullet can’t defeat Russian body armor, and it’s easily out-ranged by the latest Russian small arms, experts tell us.
www.popularmechanics.com
I'm quick to complain about cost, but when you have to buy an electrically powered rifle, whose ammunition is 'primed' with mini resistors, loaded with non-carcinogenic powder and the most Gucci of lathe turned solids, it will really cost... £100 per box of 20 rounds will be cheap!
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
The only endeavours behind this "lead free/non-toxic" drive, is profit in the short term for the short-sighted, and politics in the long term for the anti's who want to eliminate recreational shooting.
It's been done (lead free primers) and it failed:
Russia and China Created Body Armor to Stop American Bullets. Can the Army’s Latest Rifle Change the Game?
The Army universally recognizes that its current 5.56mm bullet can’t defeat Russian body armor, and it’s easily out-ranged by the latest Russian small arms, experts tell us.
View attachment 262790
I'm quick to complain about cost, but when you have to buy an electrically powered rifle, whose ammunition is 'primed' with mini resistors, loaded with non-carcinogenic powder and the most Gucci of lathe turned solids, it will really cost... £100 per box of 20 rounds will be cheap!
£5 a pop really is no issue, by the time all that horlicks becomes the fashion I certainly will not be worrying about it.
Shoot a roe get £30 for it at the dealers that 1/3 of your next box paid for!
Just saying!
Heavens forbid someone enjoys shooting their rifle and wants to practise or confirm thier zero, check drops out to 300m and beyond...
Easily shoot 100 rounds through my rifles in one session... at least .22LR is still affordable, for now...
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
this is where you and i maybe differ, i dont shoot for fun, punch paper or gongs, my rifle is there to do a job.Heavens forbid someone enjoys shooting their rifle and wants to practise or confirm thier zero, check drops out to 300m and beyond...
Easily shoot 100 rounds through my rifles in one session... at least .22LR is still affordable, for now...
3 shots to zero and on with the job.
We have to be prepared for the inevitable cost increases!
At over £5 a pop I’ll putter a bit, but as long as the carcasses still covers the ammunition, I’ll keep going.
Similar threads
