There's a very important word there 'can' be inhumane. What Nathan Foster correctly identifies is, like any bullet, a non-lead projectile requires a certain velocity to expand.
For where that velocity is met they are humane, where the velocity is not met they may fail to fully expand and therefore may result in slower less humane kills. This is not unique to non-lead.
As someone who has used both non-lead and lead I can say from my experience where a non-lead bullet is used within its performance envelope it will produce very quick and humane kills, hence why I (out of personal choice) will go for non-lead.
Out of one of my personal rifles I know that I can expect the bullet to expand reliably out to ~300M, which given the non-dialable scope and lack of graduated reticule is more than far enough. I am very aware any shots taken beyond that given the .308 trajectory and the rifle setup would be irresponsible, regardless of shooter ability and the incredible accuracy of the rifle.
On one of my other rifles the bullet will reliably expand out to ~450M, which even with the dialable scope and set up of the rifle is beyond what I would consider an ethical range for standard shots, regardless of shooter ability, simply down to the magnitude of factors that can affect the path of the bullet at that range, hence I am not limited by my bullets performance envelope here either.
Both examples are using very safe estimates for what the bullets performance envelope is, hence a very high degree of confidence in both of these bullets and their performance at their designated ranges.
With regards to shot reaction, I am concerned when I shoot a deer and it does not have a 'bang flop' reaction. This, while in part down to shot placement, is also a testament to how well the bullets will work.
I for one will certainly not be worried when they remove lead as an option for deer stalking, however it does concern me how resistant to change we are as a community. This change is going to come about some way or other, that much is already very clear. We would do ourselves a massive favour if we are seen to be reasonable and to be open and looking for progress, rather than digging our heels in and burying our heads in the sand. If you take one thing from this post, I would urge you to make an effort to try and be open to progressing, get some non-lead ammunition, chronograph it and verify its performance envelope, then go and try it. You may surprise yourself with what you find.
Apologies for what may seem a bit of a lecture.
Kind regards,
Ben
PS. I have a great deal of respect for Nathan Foster and all he does, I have read all of his books cover to cover multiple times and think he can make some very interesting and valid points, however it is worth bearing in mind his use for bullets vs what we may use them for in this country, very few of us shoot anywhere near as far as he does (on live game certainly) and those who do are accepting a massive amount of risk which we all know comes with that type of practice, for anyone interested there are a few non-lead bullets being produced by very specialised people for that application, however having had no experience of them I cannot and will not comment on these. For practice like this there is an ethical argument that comes far before we reach the 'will the bullet perform' dilemma regardless of lead or non-lead.
,
my bad I forgot ....
