The 'Lead Free' lie

Savage 110 Carbon Tactical - Unmatched Precision - Viking Arms
U

User00040

Well-Known Member
I'll start with some insight from the late Richard Lee, from his book 'Modern Reloading 2nd Edition';

Screenshot 2022-04-26 20.02.44.png

As of writing, only two primers are listed as being lead (styphnate) free, select Murom (sometimes sold under PMC branding) types and Federal's Catalyst™.

The latter is not being sold commercially and due to Russia's recent entanglements, I doubt we will see any newly manufactured Murom primers for a while yet.

I raised this issue in a previous thread: Lead Free Primers

On a personal level, I can't accept ammunition being marketed by manufacturers or retailers as being 'lead free' when there is lead still being used as a major component, and being produced in a much more reactive form (lead vapour from primer ignition), right next to the shooter's face, compared to any potential lead fragments left behind by the bullet.

If I had the time and money to do so, I'd be happy to raise this issue under the trades description act.

If lead really is such a (supposed) danger to us all and the environment that it must be immediately removed from shooting, why are we still permitted to use it for priming ammunition which releases a more reactive form of lead into the air?

As it stands, only Federal's Power Shok Copper offering can be described as being 'lead free' (assuming there are not trace amounts of lead left over from the manufacturing and packaging process).

20220425_121118.webp
 
Also note that Fiocchi makes lead free primers too, advertised as ZetaPì, but only in small pistol and small rifle form.


445SMZP_5.webp
Some cite the need for enlarged flash holes when lead free primers are used.
 
This makes an interesting talking point among shooters but I only see bad things happening if it's raised with government.

If someone goes shouting about this to government and convinces them there is some equivalence, then government has 2 choices:

1. accept that lead isn't all that bad and go back on the ban that seems to be coming (which I believe is what you're angling for); or
2. decide that they need to ban lead based primers as well.

It doesn't take much to figure out which is more likely.

In any event, I don't think there is equivalence based on the government's alleged issue with lead, being (a) entry of it into the human food chain, and (b) it entering the "environment" by lying on the ground and/or being eaten by carrion eaters. The argument, and I'm not saying I agree with it, is that these issues affect the public/wildlife at large and so aren't for the individual shooter to choose to take.

The issue (if there is one) with lead primers is for the shooter and those in close proximity only. That's far easier to distinguish as a risk for the individual to choose to take.

From the point of view of shootings continued existence, I don't see a purpose in labouring the point about lead in primers, it'll just backfire. Far better to try to limit the extent of the inevitable restrictions we will soon see.
 
Plenty idiots sitting fuelling the lead free war, whilst scoofing diet soft drinks and nibbling their high mileage imported snacks. Eco warrior f***wits.
It is unfortunate that sooner or later that your observations on lead content of primers will be used against us though. If you've sussed it, they'll latch on soon enough.
 
andyk said:
This makes an interesting talking point among shooters but I only see bad things happening if it's raised with government.

If someone goes shouting about this to government and convinces them there is some equivalence, then government has 2 choices:

1. accept that lead isn't all that bad and go back on the ban that seems to be coming (which I believe is what you're angling for); or
2. decide that they need to ban lead based primers as well.

It doesn't take much to figure out which is more likely.
Click to expand...

I would rather that #1 happens but if #2 does come to pass that will probably mean that 1- more primers will need to be produced and 2- lead based primers will be going cheap. I can live with that!
andyk said:
In any event, I don't think there is equivalence based on the government's alleged issue with lead, being (a) entry of it into the human food chain, and (b) it entering the "environment" by lying on the ground and/or being eaten by carrion eaters. The argument, and I'm not saying I agree with it, is that these issues affect the public/wildlife at large and so aren't for the individual shooter to choose to take.
Click to expand...

Firing a rifle/shotgun is (or should be!) a conscious decision, so the shooter is ultimately responsible, not any government or governing body.

andyk said:
The issue (if there is one) with lead primers is for the shooter and those in close proximity only. That's far easier to distinguish as a risk for the individual to choose to take.
Click to expand...

Hard to argue that it's OK to expose the person harvesting wild game for the (supposedly) grateful consumer who wants 'lead free' meat (have yet to see any demand for lead free game to come from outside the shooting industry...) :-|

I can tell you for sure that I have inhaled some of these vapours as a result of night shooting from a vehicle. Should I be filling out a risk assessment or filling a claim for exposure to hazardous chemicals?

andyk said:
From the point of view of shootings continued existence, I don't see a purpose in labouring the point about lead in primers, it'll just backfire. Far better to try to limit the extent of the inevitable restrictions we will soon see.
Click to expand...

My take on these issues is usually 'I'm going down with the ship.'

Better to throw everything into disarray and make people ask questions than sit back and be quiet.

Whistleblowers (not that I consider myself to be one) risk a lot yet still feel it is necessary, as the truth being witheld does more damage in the long run.
 
caberslash said:
My take on these issues is usually 'I'm going down with the ship.'

Better to throw everything into disarray and make people ask questions than sit back and be quiet.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your points on the push to use lead free rifle bullets. I just don't see the point in raising arguments which will clearly backfire and see even more stuff banned that doesn't need to be.

As noble as it is to go down with the ship, you still drown.
 
Don‘t get wound up on irrelevant matters.
Alcohol free drinks may also contain uo to 0.3 vol% alcohol. Who TF cares?
 
Steff said:
Don‘t get wound up on irrelevant matters.
Alcohol free drinks may also contain uo to 0.3 vol% alcohol. Who TF cares?
Click to expand...

Apply that argument to the potential presence of lead fragments (or the catch all term being used currently on packadging, bullet metal) and there is no good reason for the use of copper bullets on deer whatsoever.
 
The difference between primers and bullets is that if the shooter uses primers with lead in then it affects only them, it's their choice to manage the (perceived) risk. If lead bullets are used then that (could) affect whoever eats the meat and they don't have a choice as such in that. Or the choice is being made by the game dealers and retailers who dont want any lead in their meat because it affects their customers or at least their sales.
 
nun_hunter said:
The difference between primers and bullets is that if the shooter uses primers with lead in then it affects only them, it's their choice to manage the (perceived) risk. If lead bullets are used then that (could) affect whoever eats the meat and they don't have a choice as such in that. Or the choice is being made by the game dealers and retailers who dont want any lead in their meat because it affects their customers or at least their sales.
Click to expand...

Wrong, the percentage of people who reload is small in comparison to those who use factory ammunition.

If it is being supplied to an agency or sold to the consumer as being 'lead free' or at least the term is used in a generic way at the point of sale, and the user is being exposed to lead during discharge, unbeknownst to them, then they should be made aware.

Choosing what primer you stick in your handloads is down to the reloader. Use match heads if you like.
 
caberslash said:
Wrong, the percentage of people who reload is small in comparison to those who use factory ammunition.

If it is being supplied to an agency or sold to the consumer as being 'lead free' or at least the term is used in a generic way at the point of sale, and the user is being exposed to lead during discharge, unbeknownst to them, then they should be made aware.

Choosing what primer you stick in your handloads is down to the reloader. Use match heads if you like.
Click to expand...
Well a brief look online and Hornady, Sako and S&B all advertise their ammunition as "lead free bullets" they don't say the entire ammo is lead free. What manufacturers are falsely claiming their ammo is lead free other than the ones who is lead free primers?
 
caberslash said:
Can you post the direct link that on here please, would like to read, thanks!
Click to expand...
The thing is many of us have been through the lead/steel thing while you was still at pre school so it is nothing new for people to get their nickers in a twist about. lots of us had lead pipes feeding the mains water.

I learnt to wipe lead joints then used that skill to repair Rolls Royce wings so seating a primer in a case is not much of a challenge with or without lead in it :rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

.303 British lead free for deer
Replies
8
Views
334
25 Sharps
25 Sharps
Lead fee die problems
Replies
3
Views
291
remmy243
R
Duck hunting with sub gauges in the US
Replies
0
Views
120
Heym SR20
Heym SR20
25-06 lead free
Replies
12
Views
191
Heym SR20
Heym SR20
6.5 lead free rapid expanding varmint heads??
Replies
13
Views
1K
Mihangel Dan Pren
M
The Stalking Show - 11th to 12th April 2026 - Staffordshire County Showground
Back
Top