ammunitionWhile researching this article (full disclosure: I wrote it) I learned that lead-based ammunition is a well-known threat to Condors and other scavengers, and may have negative effects on humans who unknowingly ingest bullet fragments.
The anecdotal evidence I came accross suggests that lead-free ammunition performs just as well as lead-based ammunition, and lack of adoption is largely due to habit (we like to use what we have always used).
So, my question is two-part:
(Note, this question was originally asked at http://outdoors.stackexchange.com/ but due to the technical nature of the question (ammunition performance) it was suggested I turn to the firearms experts here.)
There are a number of issues with lead-free ammo. Chief among them is cost. The cost of lead-free ammo is substantially more than that of lead based ammo. This alone, and chiefly has delayed widespread adoption of lead-free bullets.
“Extensive” is an ambiguous term, but I have used several types of lead-free bullet and there are certainly differences in performance. On the plus side, lead-free solids achieve greater penetration and are capable of excellent accuracy. Being constructed from homogenous material, they do not suffer inconsistencies in center of gravity as jacketed or multi-material bullets may. On the other hand lead is a difficult metal to compete with, for density and malleability (both important, especially for hunting bullets) and most alternate materials are not as heavy (has negative impact on accuracy potential) and will not expand and retain mass as well, which is important in achieving best terminal performance - “stopping power”).
A final issue (in the US) is our ridiculous ban on “armor piercing ammunition”. This ban (which declares bullets to be “armor piercing” if they contain the wrong materials and can be used in a pistol) prevent a lot of solutions from coming to market. Barnes recently had to withdraw a series of banded solid (non-lead) bullets that the ATF determined were in violation of the law.
+1 to Gene’s point that there huge documented difference in cost!
I would add that many of us can document the performance between lead and alternate ammunition via our waterfowl experience. Not only are the lead-free alternatives inferior performers, but my shotgun barrels take a beating from the stuff.
Finally, and the main reason for my reply, is that you start your question by stating a spurious notion that lead somehow has a proven detrimental effect on Condor populations. To quote Arizona wildlife biologist Gerry Perry:
“As one can deduce condors are susceptible to a variety of types of mortality, and simply pointing out lead related deaths further demonstrates the politically motivated angle that anti-hunting groups have on their agenda – ban lead ammunition.”
The rest of Mr. Perry’s comments on the subject can be found here:
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/AZletter.cfm
Lead and non-lead rifle ammunition are very similar in performance. Lead has been used for a long time because of how cheap it is, it is easy to work with, the density and softness of the metal. The attributes of lead have allowed for the development of expanding bullets (due to lead deforming at high velocities on impact) and heavy bullets for penetration. Heavy weight lead bullets allow for penetration despite the fact that the bullet is losing mass due to fragmentation while passing through an animal (generally lead bullets lose ~15-30% of their weight). Non-lead bullets on the other hand expand due to specific manufacturing and are designed to perform exactly the same every time and extremely unlikely to fragment.
Non-lead bullets are made of copper or guilding metal, and are therefore less dense than lead. This does not mean a reduction in performance however. Non-lead bullets tend to hold 98-100% of their weight and expand to approximately 2x diameter. They put about the same foot/lbs of energy into a deer sized ballistic gelatin block at 100 yards. In all non-lead bullets tend to perform the way that bonded lead core bullets are manufactured to and actually do it better. The idea that non-lead rifle bullets will damage barrels is not accurate as they are made of metals that are used to jacket lead core bullets. Impacts on the barrels are for all intents and purposes identical.
There are several things to consider when switching to non-lead. The first is that because they are less dense bullets of the same weight will be slightly longer. Therefore, to maintain accuracy it is often a good idea to actually move to a lighter non-lead bullet as it will match the twist rate more like a heavier lead bullet. If shooting light skinned game lighter bullets with a polymer tip will help to drive expansion even more. Also, shifting a little bit farther into the shoulder as the point of aim will increase expansion.
Having tested numerous types of lead and non-lead bullets in ballistic gelatin, water barrel tests and in hunting situations, I am convinced that non-lead bullets are a technology that far surpasses what is capable with lead. Lead worked for many years due to reasons I talked about earlier, but with expanding monolithic non-lead bullets they have created bullets that will out-perform the old standbys. Everything that is required for a hunting bullet is there. Deep penetration, great expansion, and high accuracy with the added bonus of not leaving fragments of lead behind in gut piles or worrying about finding it in the game meat you are eating.
For more information on the testing we have done, available non-lead bullets, some pricing comparisons and lots of articles check out www.huntingwithnonlead.org.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.