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

[TringSaint]

I would be keen to know what the effect that shot placement has on the amount of lead entering the animal’s vascular network.
I could anticipate that a H+L shot would result in a much higher dose than a head shot, given the differing amount of blood flowing through those two parts of the body.

Has anyone studied / measured this yet?

 

[Freeforester]

When the balloon gets burst, the air goes out the way; when a deer/animal gets shot, the pressure drops pretty instantaneously, so any lead or copper ‘nanoparticles’ don’t get circulated in the blood, that’s the plastic we’ve surrounded ourselves with’s particular function- no need for getting shot to get the impact.

 

[Spear Chucker]

I would be keen to know what the effect that shot placement has on the amount of lead entering the animal’s vascular network.
I could anticipate that a H+L shot would result in a much higher dose than a head shot, given the differing amount of blood flowing through those two parts of the body.

Has anyone studied / measured this yet?

Surely for a an h/l shot, there would be minimal infiltration of the vascular network as the main pump that drives it is (in theory at least) not functioning.

 

[Spear Chucker]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Ballistic coefficient in copper bullets tends to be considerably lower than their lead counterpart. With copper being lighter than lead, the bullets need to be longer to be the same weight.
A direct comparison is here -
Hornady 130g eldm - 1.31inch G70.279
Hornady 130g CX (copper) - 1.49inch, G70.246

Both 130g bullets, both with the same polymer tip, huge difference in ballistic coefficient and that subsequently translates to more drag. Add in the copper is harder naturally and you've created a bullet that will perform at a couple hundred yards but because of the 2200fps ish minimum expansion, much further past that and it will pencil through the animal.

Again, some bullets now expand down to 1800fps if not a bit lower but these bullets tend to shed petals everywhere or fragment on impact which is apparently bad for ingestion

so we are back to the business of ethics and all of the gubbins about head and neck shots at extended range. So...BASC et Al...Nice one...net effect will be increased incidence of runners and fluffed shots. Couldn't make this up. We have the answer but decide against it for no better reason than the opponents of shooting have found a way of winding one into us by declaring lead is bad for the world...inhabitants of which -in the main- never eat venison.

 

[palmer_mike]

Surely for a an h/l shot, there would be minimal infiltration of the vascular network as the main pump that drives it is (in theory at least) not functioning.

Yep you hit the nail on the head. It’s all a load of bull dust

 

[Dunwaters]

Yep you hit the nail on the head. It’s all a load of bull dust

Absolutely, all bull dust and fake news.

 

[palmer_mike]

Absolutely, it’s all bull dust and fake news.
View attachment 447289View attachment 447290View attachment 447291

Not really relevant to the OP talking about nano particles in the blood stream though is it? Also I’ve often wondered if the bullets used on the x-ray deer are fragmenting varmint type rather than hunting type?

 

[Dunwaters]

Not really relevant to the OP talking about nano particles in the blood stream though is it? Also I’ve often wondered if the bullets used on the x-ray deer are fragmenting varmint type rather than hunting type?

You can see the larger particles, the smaller ones are not as visible but still there.
Therefore it is relevant.
Look it up for yourself, it’s not hard to find evidence supporting the reason behind the proposed ban on lead projectiles from centre fire firearms for game shooting.

 

[Spear Chucker]

You can see the larger particles, the smaller ones are not as visible but still there.
Therefore it is relevant.
Look it up for yourself, it’s not hard to find evidence supporting the reason behind the proposed ban on lead projectiles from centre fire firearms for game shooting.

A fragmenting lead projectile -varmint or deer round - is still not reason to ban the known best performer. Most of the hunting / shooting fraternity have been eating game with lead in it for centuries without ill effect. Probably the combination of crud that most ordinary people eat in a diet supplemented by MacDonalds and KFC is far more harmful and in far shorter order too.
Projectiles that are too hard and which have the potential to "pencil" through a quarry species (at what might be regarded as extended but "normal" ranges in certain circumstances) just shows that the key consideration - consistently quick, humane killing of the quarry- is less important to those advocating a total ban on lead based projectiles, than saving the world one shot at a time.
The heightened probability of wounding the quarry certainly should be enough for those genuinely concerned with animal welfare, to advocate a ban on shooting in toto.

 

[Freeforester]

Not really relevant to the OP talking about nano particles in the blood stream though is it? Also I’ve often wondered if the bullets used on the x-ray deer are fragmenting varmint type rather than hunting type?

Clearly. Only a clown uses a bullet not suited to the purpose. But guess what? ….

 

[Dunwaters]

Clearly. Only a clown uses a bullet not suited to the purpose. But guess what? ….

I was responding to palmer mike, not the OP.
I couldn’t agree more with your second statement, only a fool would use lead for edible game where an alternative exists.
But guess what?

 

[Apthorpe]

Absolutely, all bull dust and fake news.
View attachment 447289View attachment 447290View attachment 447291

Good X-ray of something that is not lead contamination of food. You can clearly see this animal has not been gralloched, much less butchered. You might as well claim venison's not safe to eat because a deer's rectum contains high levels of E. Coli. Pathetic and infantile.

 

[Demetrius]

The couple who run the market stall where we buy our venison said they only buy headshot carcasses from the stalkers when I asked if the current lead media frenzy was affecting trade.
It apparently hasn't bothered their regular customers.

D.

 

[Dunwaters]

Good X-ray of something that is not lead contamination of food. You can clearly see this animal has not been gralloched, much less butchered.

How do you know that it was not x rayed and and subsequently processed?
It’s perfectly representative of many carcasses that have and continue to be in my experience. A walk through your local game processors cold room will confirm what I say.

You might as well claim venison's not safe to eat because a deer's rectum contains high levels of E. Coli.

It certainly would not be if you left the contamination there and didn’t adequately cook the meat. That’s why we take it out.
The lead stays in.

Pathetic and infantile.

That perfectly sums up many of your arguments.
For example, you constantly tout the ballistic superiority of lead, which is true, provided that ballistic superiority is all you concern yourself with. However you ignore the proven toxicity of lead and you also ignore that the alternatives to lead are proven to be perfectly adequate for harvesting game.
Your whole argument that lead is “ better “ is based on ignoring leads proven toxicity to humans and to wildlife purely because it has demonstrably better ballistic performance?
The practical ballistic advantage of lead only exists at extended ranges and ends as soon as the target is struck and becomes contaminated by lead residue .
For deer stalking, lead alternatives are good enough. They’re good enough for birds too.

 

[Demetrius]

You're evidenly not a long range target shooter.......

D.

 

[Ben_10]

Absolutely, all bull dust and fake news.
View attachment 447289View attachment 447290View attachment 447291

Sorry I’m behind on this thread. what are these images supposed to show?

 

[Apthorpe]

How do you know that it was not x rayed and and subsequently processed?
It’s perfectly representative of many carcasses that have and continue to be in my experience. A walk through your local game processors cold room will confirm what I say.

It will, but it will not change the fact that your local butcher does not sell shattered lung.

It certainly would not be if you left the contamination there and didn’t adequately cook the meat. That’s why we take it out.

Exactly.

The lead stays in.

No, it doesn't. It is removed almost completely.

That perfectly sums up many of your arguments.

QED.

For example, you constantly tout the ballistic superiority of lead, which is true, provided that ballistic superiority is all you concern yourself with.

correct

However you ignore the proven toxicity of lead

You are absolutely wrong about that.

and you also ignore that the alternatives to lead are proven to be perfectly adequate for harvesting game.

Again, completely wrong. Where they are adequate, I have never ignored that or claimed otherwise. Where they are inadequate, I have not indulged in the bull5h1t of ignoring science, common sense or reality and pretending they are adequate.

Your whole argument that lead is “ better “ is based on ignoring leads proven toxicity to humans and to wildlife purely because it has demonstrably better ballistic performance?

You are again wrong in every aspect of this sentence.

The practical ballistic advantage of lead only exists at extended ranges and ends as soon as the target is struck

Technically untrue. Thst is when the terminal ballistics start.

and becomes contaminated by lead residue

Incoherent to muddle toxicity with ballistics.

For deer stalking, lead alternatives are good enough. They’re good enough for birds too.

They are for some and they are not for others.

 

[Dunwaters]

Sorry I’m behind on this thread. what are these images supposed to show?

Lead particles dispersed from the impact site

 

[Dunwaters]

It will, but it will not change the fact that your local butcher does not sell shattered lung.

Faggots and peas anyone?
How about some haggis?

Exactly.

No, it doesn't. It is removed almost completely.

QED.

correct

You are absolutely wrong about that.

Again, completely wrong. Where they are adequate, I have never ignored that or claimed otherwise. Where they are inadequate, I have not indulged in the bull5h1t of ignoring science, common sense or reality and pretending they are adequate.

You are again wrong in every aspect of this sentence.

Technically untrue. Thst is when the terminal ballistics start.

Incoherent to muddle toxicity with ballistics.

They are for some and they are not for others.

Do me a favour and fcuk off and troll someone else for a bit, wil ya?
I’m celebrating the birth of my beautiful new granddaughter today.
I’m just not in the mood for your quasi legalistic, quasi scientific bolloxology.

 

[Chris Richardson]

Faggots and peas anyone?
How about some haggis?

Do me a favour and fcuk off and troll someone else for a bit, wil ya?
I’m celebrating the birth of my beautiful new granddaughter today.
I’m just not in the mood for your quasi legalistic, quasi scientific bolloxology.

You can always tell when someone’s winning an argument when they resort to swearing and insults , congratulations!