Lead in game?

That’s one thing they got right down here, Rory.
You can be legit with a 243 and 55 grain bullets.
Ken.

They might as well remove the .243 calibre requirement too so we can use fast .22 centrefires that can achieve 1750+ fp :)
 
They might as well remove the .243 calibre requirement too so we can use fast .22 centrefires that can achieve 1750+ fp :)
Hi, As there isn’t a min 24 cal (greener Jim) in Scotland, you could get yourself a 22 Federal Valkyrie Fusion.
Cheers,Ken.
 
I’m not against lead free ammo at all !

I’m wary of “ pandering” to the antis by making it look like we are changing because of them.
snip...
Paul

Why should the devil have all the best tunes?...cutting off your nose to spite your face? That is a really bad reason for not doing something positive for yourself!

And not getting at you, but I am anti using the word anti so liberally! I think lumping together as "Antis" a hugely diverse group of attitudes prompted by a huge number of reasons does not put one into a good position to argue your case...never is purely black and white...them or us.

I couldn't give a toss about what it looks like. Far better to evaluate the evidence and make up your own mind...You do not have to be anti anything to see something as an advantage. There appears to be a fair few stalkers contributing to this thread who think lead free is a good idea...consider it pandering to them instead if it makes you feel better! :)

snip...
I am suspicious of claims that lead free ammunition actually performs as well as lead ammunition. snip...s.

I remember reading on the Barnes Web site that he started making copper bullets, because he was dissatisfied with the bullets he was using and wanted something more effective. It was not for any environmental or legislative reason...purely performance lead. (sorry!)

snip...
If I saw ballistic gel tests that proved it outperformed lead I would switch tomorrow but these do not seem to be forthcoming and one would think manufacturers would be keen to show us if they could. snip...s.

There are some tests. I have just looked up an earlier thread we had about this and found I had listed some of those that had prompted me to explore lead free alternatives...

Why I like to leave gralloch!

This was one of the ones with ballistic tests I found which contributed to me trying Barnes TTSX.
http://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10...file/032013-jfwm-029r2-s02.pdf?code=ufws-site
These are links to some Condor research by the National Park Service which Buchan referred to in that thread.
Get the Lead Out - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service)
Scientific Studies - Pinnacles National Park (U.S. National Park Service)
typed "lead deer X-ray" into google and found the following...
http://huntingwithnonlead.org/PDFs_Main/Minnesota DNR Study on Lead in Deer and Sheep.pdf

snip...I'd reckon we bin 99.9% of the meat thats actually got micro fragments of lead in it.

I'm not saying lets all sit down and pour lead shot into our cornflakes but I would reckon you're more likely to come to harm from being out hunting in the summer sunshine with no sun cream on than you are from the lead shot in the game.

The X-ray that Buchan posted of the fragments in the neck and shoulder of a neck shot deer shows that the lead shards are definitely not just in the gralloch and bits that are thrown away... Why I like to leave gralloch!

"If you'd like evidence, go to Google Scholar and type in lead and condor, that should bring up plenty of references. I can summarise though. The Californian condor was subject to an intensive rebreeding programme that was only partially successful. The released birds were still dying and many were as a result of lead poison. The source of lead was deer remains (I think one study "typed" the lead) and a lead ban was introduced. The condors lived.
I have a CT scan of a neck shot red showing just how far fragments go. I can't get to it at present but this is the X-Ray LOw neck shot, but look closely behind the shoulder to see how far the lead has travelled."

There are also a few X-ray images in the research I linked to above well which shows the huge difference between lead particles distributed through the carcass from frangible and partitions/monometal.

I think with any of these difficult to quantify long term / cumulative effects....if there is an alternative why not take it? What is there to prove by not?

Alan
 
Last edited:
Short article in the The Times 2 supplement today ‘Venison v Beef’.

The only minus for venison was; “Venison is wild game meat, so there is a small chance that it can be contaminated by lead shot.”

Shurley shome mishtake?

Link may work unless it’s paywalled:
Venison v beef
 
Alantoo, thanks for the link to the test. Its a good article. I will need a little more convincing though. That wound channel from the lead ballistic tip was so aggressive. The bullet was doing exactly what you would want it to do on a small deer and to me it looked like the best bullet for a small deer of the lot from the test (but probably not so good on a big one). The copper bullets penetrate deep and that is because they transfer energy slower. That sounds better suited to large animals. Some of the green bullets also left rather wonky wound channels.

The article lacked the concrete data I would love to see. "We fired this copper bullet and this mushrooming lead bullet, both bullets had identical weights and were driven at as close to identical speeds as we could achieve. We then measured the wound channel cavities for straightness and volume at different depths in x number of shots and this was the data." I would also like to see a similar test of semi fragmenting lead bullet of 165grain up against its competitor with a pre fragmented tin front core of about 140 grain (I appreciate the bullets would have different velocities but I guess the answer would but to fire max loads with both). If someone could show me that kind of data that proved lead free was as good as lead at the depths of the hearts of the animals that I shoot, then why would I not switch? cost is not really significant when one fires relatively few shots at deer in a year and when health is at stake. If anyone has the data please lets have it. Its not that I don't want to convert, I just want the evidence first and if it were out there why would it not be being shouted by bullet makers when they can charge big premiums for lead free?
 
The trouble with comparing lead and copper bullets of the same weight is that this will generally favour lead due to the increased density. If you compare a 130g TTSX or Fox in 30 cal @ 3000fps with a 150g soft point in 30 cal @ 2800fps you will find more rapid energy transfer that translates to deer hitting the ground faster. So far this doe/ hind season I have shot 11 deer (5 reds) between 50 yards and 250 yards none of which have gone more than 5 steps
If you like gel tests this may interest you

The depth at which maximum energy transfer ( maximum temporary cavity diameter is formed is not very much, perhaps a few inches which should be good to dump energy in the vitals
The effect I see more often than not with the 130g TTSX is this

 
How are copper bullets on smaller species ?

Roe say?

Due to expanding slower are they “pencilling” leaving runners ?

Paul
 
How are copper bullets on smaller species ?

Roe say?

Due to expanding slower are they “pencilling” leaving runners ?

Paul

I've seen posts on here about people saying the harder monolithics can pencil on small deer. Apparently the Hornady GMX is a particularly hard bullet, but theres less issue with the TTSX which is apparently softer.

I've no experience of any monolithic bullets having never used them, but I do recall reading a few posts to this effect.
 
. Im not trying to stir things up:stir:, but I just don't see the problem, that I perceive you guys seem to have with bullet fragments? please explain?

The issue is not with the hunter, shooter, home chef. They shoot and eat what they want.
The issue is when the end product is destined for the wider food chain.
Lead is toxic. that is irrefutable. Believe who you want to believe about just how toxic but even the most basic studies show it has detrimental effects in even the smallest amounts.
No company, retailer or AGHE wants to be associated with the wholesale marketing of food with added toxins.
That's just basic common business sense.
Lead contaminated meat is biological waste, there is no pet food or fertiliser by product, its a direct cost to the processor.
Its also a massive PR and Health risk.

Add that to any organisation that leaves gralloch or carcase to feed raptors.
Lead persistence in raptors is well documented.
A solid lump of 120gr of copper or brass is not a hazard as much as 70gr of fine powdered lead when present in the carcase.


I am suspicious of claims that lead free ammunition actually performs as well as lead ammunition. If I saw ballistic gel tests that proved it outperformed lead I would switch tomorrow but these do not seem to be forthcoming and one would think manufacturers would be keen to show us if they could. Unless you are shooting big wide animals in Africa with copper bullets, lead seems to be the winner.

When it comes to terminal effect the variables are huge.
The error is to put all "lead" bullets in one category.
Not all lead bullets perform on your chosen target at the expected range or in your chosen cartridge.
We have all had a runner, stander, slow bleeder using lead bullets.
Failed to expand, failed to fully penetrate, failed to pass through, non linear pass through, ricochet, shatter/splinter on bone, pencil wounds grenade wounds.
Pencilling can happen with any bullet if matched to the wrong target size and cartridge. Go shoot a roe with a 140gr partition from a 6.5x55 and look at the volume data. The bullet is not designed for that target., even the box of norma ammo has a Moose on it. that should give you some indication of its intended target
If you haven't seen any of these, you haven't got a very large data set and probably can't comment with authority on the real world differences.
What you don't hear are people saying..." ah that bullet failed because its made of lead with a copper jacket"

African game is thicker skinned on the whole.
Penetration is a primary function.
The higher SD and harder material improves this over lead
This is not a regional anomaly solely linked to Africa.......We should all be matching out bullets to our chosen target and full penetration/pass through is proven to be the most effective at killing game.

But the slightest issue with a monolithic is immediately attributed to construction and material.
Not shot placement, or an understanding of the limitations any bullet can have at the terminal velocity experienced (high or low)

Not all lead bullets are the same and work in all scenarios - some are significantly more forgiving and flexible in application than others.
Not all non-lead bullets are the same and work in all scenarios - some are significantly more forgiving and flexible in application than others.

One of the areas I shoot is riddled with footpaths, walkers, horse riders, estate workers...
I would love to go over to non toxic but worry about somewhere north of 100 grains of copper passing through the deer and going who knows where at what velocity. We all know bullets can change direction considerably which could remove what was a good back stop. Cup and core bullets lose most of what they had prior to contact with the target or back stop.
Can someone convince me this is not an issue?



It is an issue
But to be blunt if your backstop choice is not good enough to stop a well expanded copper/brass projectile then they are not good enough to stop a copper/guilding metal jacketed lead cored bullet.
The assumption that a jacketed, lead core bullet loses most of its energy at or in the target and a monolithic one doesn't is invalid.


Lead free is coming whether you like it or not
I genuinely believe that the pressure on the outlets of our end product to remove lead will be the biggest threat to our sports.
Look at the way game dealers now treat pheasants and winged game from shoots.
Some won't accept them or pay anything for them.
You can expect a price penalty on lead shot game of any species if the path we are on continues.

Unfortunately the number of people who have experienced the poor results from either the initial designs and products available is high enough to produce a very difficult stigma to shake off.
Non Lead bullets have come a long way from the straight shanked or coated offerings we first saw
Internal design and cartridge loads have been modified to respond to initial observations.

There are a lot to choose from.
Same as lead.
Choose the right one from the Non Lead menu. They are not all applicable to your cartridge, quarry or expected range.
 
130g TTSX 308 on Roe is a bang flop between 10 and 250 yards. No issues with expansion at all. The 150g TSX is less suitable and the heavier 308 bullets are unsuitable for Roe unless very close or where bone is hit
 

Attachments

  • 2898A362-D3DB-4470-BDDD-6705E5377C1A.jpeg
    2898A362-D3DB-4470-BDDD-6705E5377C1A.jpeg
    350.7 KB · Views: 22
Any bullet may ricochet, the worst for me was the 123g Lapua Scenar but I had a fair few with the AMax as well. The TTSX and TSX have been no worse for me than anything else. I’m pretty sure the goat was a chest shot but I wasn’t there so could be wrong. The Roe I shoot do pretty much the same
I have it on good authority that the Fox bullets do something similar based on a verbal report from the FC based on over a thousand deer culled
The roe on the picture above were all shot the other week with the 130g TTSX. When the shooting finished my son said “Dad can you work up a load for my rifle with those bullets?”
 
I don't think it is going to be possible to have it both ways. Copper deforms slower and therefore releases energy slower. That is why it penetrates deeper in a narrower wound channel.

One wants the maximum energy transfer to occur at the depth of your quarry's vitals. One then wants a clean pass through to leave a good blood trail and to make it more likely that the animal will be unable to draw air into its lungs due to the chest cavity filling with air. The perfect bullet then has not got too much energy left at this point -because it gave most of it up in the animal. Monolithic copper bullets seem ideal for larger quarry, particularly when the animal is harder to penetrate. They can't therefore be as good as other bullets on smaller quarry because they may be dumping more energy on the scenery than they are dumping in the animal and particularly in the vitals.

Good shots will still be able to knock over smaller animals with bullets that are best used on bigger ones but we have all had that "thank you bullet" moment when we didn't make the best shot on a smaller animal but the bullet still dropped the animal on the spot because it dumped so much energy on the vitals that one way or another the animal just shut down. That moment is more likely to happen with a bullet that dumps more energy on your chosen quarry's vitals than its competitors.

I totally take the point about commercial interest favouring lead free. The commercial interest usually wins but from a humane point of view I do not see how monolithic copper can be ideal for a Roe. I would like to be convinced in this application by twin cored tin bullets which have the front core pre-fragmented but I have not yet seen the data.
 
I don't think it is going to be possible to have it both ways. Copper deforms slower and therefore releases energy slower. That is why it penetrates deeper in a narrower wound channel.

One wants the maximum energy transfer to occur at the depth of your quarry's vitals. One then wants a clean pass through to leave a good blood trail and to make it more likely that the animal will be unable to draw air into its lungs due to the chest cavity filling with air. The perfect bullet then has not got too much energy left at this point -because it gave most of it up in the animal. Monolithic copper bullets seem ideal for larger quarry, particularly when the animal is harder to penetrate. They can't therefore be as good as other bullets on smaller quarry because they may be dumping more energy on the scenery than they are dumping in the animal and particularly in the vitals.

Good shots will still be able to knock over smaller animals with bullets that are best used on bigger ones but we have all had that "thank you bullet" moment when we didn't make the best shot on a smaller animal but the bullet still dropped the animal on the spot because it dumped so much energy on the vitals that one way or another the animal just shut down. That moment is more likely to happen with a bullet that dumps more energy on your chosen quarry's vitals than its competitors.

I totally take the point about commercial interest favouring lead free. The commercial interest usually wins but from a humane point of view I do not see how monolithic copper can be ideal for a Roe. I would like to be convinced in this application by twin cored tin bullets which have the front core pre-fragmented but I have not yet seen the data.

My 6mm and .270 copper bullets lose the front 30%? of the bullet in roe and the rest of the bullet exits. Do you want a handful of 6mm or .270 bullets to try and see for yourself if you have one of these calibres? Copper is softer than the gilding metal jackets of jacketed bullets. Brass bullets are harder.

Not all lead free bullets are equal.
 
I don't think it is going to be possible to have it both ways. Copper deforms slower and therefore releases energy slower.

The rate of deformation for a given velocity depends on the construction of the bullet to a huge extent. Therefore you cannot say that copper bullets deform more slowly than lead core bullets. The Ballistic gel tests to me suggest otherwise. If you watch the shape of the temporary cavity the soft point bullets reach maximum diameter at a deeper penetration depth resulting in an elliptical cavity. The TTSX produces widest cavitation early on causing a teardrop shaped cavity. What I can also tell you from my own experience, not from ballistic gel or from gazing at cross section of bullets is that the 130g Barnes TTSX at a MV of 3000fps drops Roe faster and more reliably than ANY other bullet I have used,and I include the following in this list the Hornady Interlock in 150g and 165g, Speer Hotcor 150g spitzer and 180g RN, the 180g BTSP, the Nosler BT in 125 and 150g and the partition in 150 and 165g and the Sierra 150g prohunter. These are with top of heart shots over the last 20 years or so.
Make of that what you will but I would suggest trying a box is probably the best way to decide if they work or not. You also get less meat damage and don’t poison your kids!
 
Alantoo, thanks for the link to the test. Its a good article. I will need a little more convincing though. That wound channel from the lead ballistic tip was so aggressive. The bullet was doing exactly what you would want it to do on a small deer and to me it looked like the best bullet for a small deer of the lot from the test (but probably not so good on a big one). The copper bullets penetrate deep and that is because they transfer energy slower. That sounds better suited to large animals. Some of the green bullets also left rather wonky wound channels.

The article lacked the concrete data I would love to see. "We fired this copper bullet and this mushrooming lead bullet, both bullets had identical weights and were driven at as close to identical speeds as we could achieve. We then measured the wound channel cavities for straightness and volume at different depths in x number of shots and this was the data." I would also like to see a similar test of semi fragmenting lead bullet of 165grain up against its competitor with a pre fragmented tin front core of about 140 grain (I appreciate the bullets would have different velocities but I guess the answer would but to fire max loads with both). If someone could show me that kind of data that proved lead free was as good as lead at the depths of the hearts of the animals that I shoot, then why would I not switch? cost is not really significant when one fires relatively few shots at deer in a year and when health is at stake. If anyone has the data please lets have it. Its not that I don't want to convert, I just want the evidence first and if it were out there why would it not be being shouted by bullet makers when they can charge big premiums for lead free?

I applaud your need for evidence of lead free bullets effectiveness, but also can't help wonder what evidence you demanded of the effectiveness of your chosen lead bullets before you tried them for yourself`?

The point that Edinburgh rifles has made a few times; that people will look for many reasons for non bang flop with lead core bullets but cannot see past the construction material when non-lead bullets fail to deliver, is along the same lines.

Given the odd things that have happened to me with soft point bullets, the most remarkable of which was a Sako 150gr Super Hammerhead which hit the ribcage of a quartering Muntjac at 35yards and took the top of the heart off, hit the ribcage on the other side, turned 90˚ left and cut a 25mm swathe through the ribs and exited from the flank just in front of the haunch. I had chosen that ammunition pretty much on the scientific basis that Sako were a respected company and they were what the dealer had on his shelf in .308. I saw no ballistic gel tests or scientific evidence but just went by the dealers recommendation.

The nuances and non transferable effects of ballistic gel tests to a live animal rather render that as being a poor sole criteria as the deciding factor to try them I think.

I went by the simplistic notions that eating metal flakes especially lead is not a good thing, the alternative is a bullet which has high retention of material. The shock produced by a two times diameter expansion and the deeper penetration and larger exit wound by a bullet which only loses 1% or 2% of its mass, the cutting action of the sharp edges of its unfurled petals doing severe damage to tissue it contacts as opposed to the bruising from the soft mushroom of a lead bullet....as the monometal seemed to have most of the advantages and characteristics of a partition design...without the lead flakes, it did seem a logical alternative and worth an experiment or two...

I am sure there will be more evidence available to you on the internet...I found enough for me to warrant exploring the lead free options. I did work up a load for some Brenneke TUG Bleifrei, they are a steel jacketed, tin cored, partition design, but still are frangible, you just get to dine on tin rather than lead, so I have not actually used them on a table animal, I intend to make up clip to take out on HAD callouts along with the V-Max.

Alan
 
Last edited:
One thing that is overlooked when people talk about terminal effect focusing on energy transfer is cavitation.

The bullets that pass right through with some element of deformation create a pressure wave or bubble as it passes through which creates massive damage to softer internal organs which don't stretch without fracture.
The high pressure followed by reduced pressure behind the bullet can often pull soft tissue through the exit and considerable chucks of lung can often be found outside the carcase as a result.
You may have seen the star splits to liver lungs etc when gralloching,
The bullet hole is a 2-3x calibre but the splits may be 6-7" (see pic below, both the liver and lungs have huge splits in them, well outside the expected wound channel created by the hole around the bullet).

This cavitation by design is utilised in the Woodleigh Hydrostatic and Tarvas Red Moose bullets to excellent effect (both these rounds expand much less than your usual bullets)
The huge bubble may not be designed but is also present in standard expanding rounds, just watch the various floppy (non NATO) strength gel tests on YouTube.
The Block expands to double its size

 

Attachments

  • IMG_1988.JPG
    IMG_1988.JPG
    480.4 KB · Views: 15
Given that that the symptoms of lead poisoning include

Symptoms in adults can include:
How many older folks who have eaten game all their lives suffer from any of the above? I can certainly think of many who suffer all of the above and also claim that the full cooked breakfast with lots of sweet jam and butter on their toast, pink gin at lunch time and couple of glasses of wine and a few whiskies most evening have no effect either!!!
Who cares though? We all have to die of something... so why not eat and drink with moderation and enjoy life. After all, you could be hit by a bus tomorrow. :)
 
Who cares though? We all have to die of something... so why not eat and drink with moderation and enjoy life. After all, you could be hit by a bus tomorrow. :)
does that mean at every curb you say lifes a lottery and wander out?
im planning on going for fox bullets in future, if they kill well why use lead? lead doesnt worry me really but if it can be replaced and remove a negative to wild venison why not? im really not convinced it harms birds of prey as the number ave rocketed in the uk and you can bet if it was even spuriously linked we be buggered
shakey
 
Back
Top