lead in ammunition

[Four Season Whitetail's]

58 minutes ago, vlywaterman said:

I don't believe banning is the best either, I think that convincing hunters on copper's merits is the best approach and I think we see that happening in AZ. There are a lot of unhappy people in CA, and I just don't see how it can be enforced anyway. As I am not a duck hunter, do most people comply with not using lead?, and if so, is it because they believe lead is a problem, or they fear getting caught. I think there were lots of hunters pretty unhappy when that ban happened, and there were  lawsuits as well.

Rattler, what do you hunt with and what are the ballistic disadvantages of copper that you have seen. Are you having trouble finding rounds for your caliber? Where are you located?

Really sucks after they outlawed the lead. Knock down power at the same distance between the 2 really sucks by way of Steel. Private land and lead gets the call for most i know.

[shawnhu]

thanks for the info, 

I don't live to hunt, my son and son-in-law do, and my daughter was telling me for a few years about lead in venison,,,, I poo-pooed it, saying there is no way the blood can carry that lead around, and most of the bullet is removed or goes through, but , after loosing an eagle to lead poisoning,,,, and doing some homework, I was shocked. And I felt guilty for feeding so much lead tainted venison to my kids,,,, hunting along with road kill was all our meat. I'm not an expert on hunting or shooting,,,, but I want to do my part, there are other hunters like me who hunted for food and don't get involved in all the political crap. I wish someone had shown me this info earlier, but then again,maybe I would have thought it was just political crap.

It's easy to see the results, just shoot both yourself,,, and if you want I'm willing to come and help, and bring some copper rounds.

If you were feeding all this game meat to your family, you probably should have been smarter about your butchering. It sounds like you don't know the first thing about hunting at all, let alone how to properly handle game meat.

[LJC]

This just more bs put out by anty  hunting and anty gun groups .

Next they will make the excuse that all ammo  them selfs are bad for the environment  creates global warming and acid rain and try some crazy loop whole to ban all fire arms .

 

[Curmudgeon]

I have been busy and ignoring this stuff. I have a couple of minutes to look at this and find I have no idea why this pissing match continues. It is not productive. No minds are being changed. I agree with a lot of what Vly says. I also agree with a lot of what Rattler, Al and AT have to say, and some others too. It looks to me like the people here are speaking different languages. What do you actually disagree about? Concerns that knowledge will lead potentially to a ban? Is there anything else?

Lead is bad for humans and wildlife that consume it. Bullets fragment. You can reduce your intake of lead through proper butchering. However, you cannot eliminate it all. It is worse if you grind meat it because even a single piece will then get mixed into a batch. Eagles die from eating gut piles and butchering scraps. This is not a population level threat for one species of eagle. It may be for the other. There should not be a ban on lead ammo for hunting in NY. However, every hunter needs to be well informed of his/her choices: how they behave; how they perform. My hope is that every hunter will be informed, and I will continue to work towards that goal.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Curmudgeon
typo

[Rattler]

Vly, I hunt in the Catskills in many areas.  I have a .30-06 and a new 7mm-08 which I will be using more than the 06 now.  Switching to copper isn't as easy as it sounds for someone like me who is very anal about my rifle ballistics and bullet choices.

I have to consider cost, copper fouling in the barrel, bullet weight has to be reduced to match the lead bullet length I use now, powder levels in reloads have to be reduced to match the velocity of the heavier lead bullet, tests in ballistic gel have to be performed to be confident the bullet will perform the same way on impact and some success in the field is required to develop the same level of confidence in using it.

One thing that copper bullets require for performance is adequate velocity.  Most failures with copper are due to velocity dropping off at long range and the bullet failing to properly expand because of it.

That isn't a problem for most whitetail shots I take which are less than 200 yards, but it does create an issue when trying to develop lower recoil, or lower velocity rounds.  It also becomes quite costly to do all this experimentation and switch to copper rounds.

All of this also takes time.  And with each new rifle and round, I need to do it some more.  I've been hunting with my 06 for 44 years, and all of the experimentation I've done with it has been ongoing over that period of time.  I've found Winchester Supreme Ballistic Silver Tip 140 grain bullets work well in the 7mm-08 so far, giving me 1/2" groups at 100 yards and have performed well on deer and yotes in the past in my friends rifles.  Once I settle on a load for this rifle, I will start experimenting with 120 grain Barnes TSX bullets in some reloads to see how they do.

Anyway, that's the disadvantage of switching to copper I am talking about.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Rattler

[Four Season Whitetail's]

If there is no proven harm being done to any numbers of birds,animal or human then yes its just more jibberish really. Just as many birds are killed by so many other things out there to use that as a weapon to ban lead ammo. 

Its funny how everyday something new comes along thats going to do this and that when the same stuff has been around for 100;s of years. With no harm. Way to many researchers with to much time on their hands to draw a paycheck and get funding for the next paycheck.

[shawnhu]

Vly, I hunt in the Catskills in many areas.  I have a .30-06 and a new 7mm-08 which I will be using more than the 06 now.  Switching to copper isn't as easy as it sounds for someone like me who is very anal about my rifle ballistics and bullet choices.

I have to consider cost, copper fouling in the barrel, bullet weight has to be reduced to match the lead bullet length I use now, powder levels in reloads have to be reduced to match the velocity of the heavier lead bullet, tests in ballistic gel have to be performed to be confident the bullet will perform the same way on impact and some success in the field is required to develop the same level of confidence in using it.

One thing that copper bullets require for performance is adequate velocity.  Most failures with copper are due to velocity dropping off at long range and the bullet failing to properly expand because of it.

That isn't a problem for most whitetail shots I take which are less than 200 yards, but it does create an issue when trying to develop lower recoil, or lower velocity rounds.  It also becomes quite costly to do all this experimentation and switch to copper rounds.

All of this also takes time.  And with each new rifle and round, I need to do it some more.  I've been hunting with my 06 for 44 years, and all of the experimentation I've done with it has been ongoing over that period of time.  I've found Winchester Supreme Ballistic Silver Tip 140 grain bullets work well in the 7mm-08 so far, giving me 1/2" groups at 100 yards and have performed well on deer and yotes in the past in my friends rifles.  Once I settle on a load for this rifle, I will start experimenting with 120 grain Barnes TSX bullets in some reloads to see how they do.

Anyway, that's the disadvantage of switching to copper I am talking about.

I'm not sure he would understand what lengths responsible hunters go through to ensure we do our part in ethical kills.

[Rattler]

I believe he knows far less about hunters and hunting, then he does about lead and raptor mortality, but I do admire his passion for using copper ammo.

Perhaps learning more about the lengths responsible hunters go to, in order to achieve the best one shot kill they can, will help him understand some of the push back he can expect.

As long as he's not advocating a legislative ban on any type of ammo, I have no animosity towards the man, or his passion.

I wouldn't be surprised if, after quite some time, I actually do find a copper bullet that will perform better than any lead bullet I've ever used, but it won't happen over night and won't happen any faster if King Andy says I have to do it right away.

However, I have decided when using lead ammo, I will no longer leave gut piles or dead yotes in the field and remove far more venison from the wound area than I have ever done in the past.  That much I believe will solve the lead poisoning issues involving myself and the raptors I might effect.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Rattler

[vlywaterman]

Rattler, You are exactly right on your last post,,,, I grew up as a dairy farmer, in the Catskills. But, I do understand. The time my son and son-in-law, put into hunting all year round just amazes me, cameras, hiking, equipment, shooting,,,and that is what they talk about, all year round. But that is not me.

About your 06, I have a few boxes on hand, as that is what I use, I think the last ones were in the mid $30s/ box. I'd be happy to give you a box to try. And I can see if Dave in Margaretville can get your other rounds in if you'd like me to. You can email me directly if you would prefer,, [email protected]

The Winchester Supreme xp3 are a great round, that is what my son was using, and it sheds much less lead than corelokts, and of course shoot much better. He did switch though, and actually the copper, I think (Hornady), was less by about $10, than he paid for the Supremes. He is very happy with how they shoot, he knows it made me happy, and he doesn't worry about guts or being as careful about butchering. 

[Rattler]

I appreciate the offer Vly.  I tried some copper last year in my 06 and they grouped as well as my regular loads, but I'm using the 7mm-08 for deer now.  I'll see Dave in Margaretville and ask if he can get some 7mm-08 for me to try, but I think reloads will be the best option for me.  It saves a little money and allows me to customize the load to the rifle.  I use 140 grain bullets now, but will try the 120 grain Barnes TSX in the reloads to see how they do.  If I can get a good load worked up by deer season this year, that's what I will use this season.

[ATbuckhunter]

On 9/16/2016 at 0:44 PM, Rattler said:

I believe he knows far less about hunters and hunting, then he does about lead and raptor mortality, but I do admire his passion for using copper ammo.

Perhaps learning more about the lengths responsible hunters go to, in order to achieve the best one shot kill they can, will help him understand some of the push back he can expect.

As long as he's not advocating a legislative ban on any type of ammo, I have no animosity towards the man, or his passion.

I wouldn't be surprised if, after quite some time, I actually do find a copper bullet that will perform better than any lead bullet I've ever used, but it won't happen over night and won't happen any faster if King Andy says I have to do it right away.

However, I have decided when using lead ammo, I will no longer leave gut piles or dead yotes in the field and remove far more venison from the wound area than I have ever done in the past.  That much I believe will solve the lead poisoning issues involving myself and the raptors I might effect.

This was the whole point of this thread. To give information and help people make an informed decision on weather or not they want to try lead free bullets. Obviously copper can have some disadvantages just like lead does. I respect the fact that you are willing to try it! 

[airedale]

The point of the thread was to perpetuate a phony narrative that hunters are lead poisoning themselves and their families eating game taken with traditional ammunition. Even the head of Barnes bullets who make the majority of copper bullets believes this is an anti hunting scheme hatched by the Peregrine fund.

Al

Edited September 17, 2016 by airedale

[Curmudgeon]

34 minutes ago, airedale said:

The point of the thread was to perpetuate a phony narrative that hunters are lead poisoning themselves and their families eating game taken with traditional ammunition. Even the head of Barnes bullets who make the majority of copper bullets believes this is an anti hunting scheme hatched by the Peregrine fund.

Al

Al -

Most of the time, you make sense (at least to me). You have done so numerous times in your insistence that hunters can remove most of the lead from their meat. However, in calling this a "phony narrative" and about "poisoning" - as most people understand that word - you went off the rails. Lead is in venison. Certainly more in commercially processed meat than hunter processed but it is there. I am certain my children consumed some. I know I did. There is no safe level for kids so all those small game shotgun pellets I pulled out of my mouth when I was young means I am not as smart as I should have been. That is not a "phony narrative", it was my diet.

The level that can affect children is so small that you would refer to those amounts as exposure rather than "poisoning". The impacts are incremental and being such are measured in populations of individuals. It is hard to know what caused a 5 or 10 point IQ difference, especially if the baseline IQ for a family is high.

As far as the Peregrine Fund conspiracy, I am on a first name basis with one person who works in their main office. She is a deer hunter. You probably won't be surprised to hear she only uses lead-free ammo. She is strong too. Drags out her own deer.

[airedale]

I am not too concerned with experienced hunters buying into the dire lead poisoning consequences that the peregrine fund study is trying to establish. What I am concerned about is the general public who does not have much of a clue when it comes to this sort of stuff. Just take a peek into the politics sections of this board and look at the thread about Trump's son shooting a endangered Triceratops and the people that actually bought that line of crap and are outraged. They would easily sign a petition against young Trump if asked. As with the phony Triceratops I have a big time problem with people who have no dog in the fight and are completely ignorant of the real facts making policy about something they know nothing about and that is where this traditional  lead ammo poisoning crap can go if not debunked. 

As I have earlier stated I actually have used copper bullets, I have several hundred on a shelf in my loading room and think they are great for larger big game and If someone uses or wants to use them because of eagles that is fine. My problem with this thread is the traditional ammo lead poison baloney which I do no believe in even a little bit.

These kinds of things always start small, one only has to look at California and see how their long history of sport hunting has basically been trashed with the banning of all traditional ammo.

Al

Edited September 17, 2016 by airedale

[DirtTime]

Here's the way I really see this whole debate. The lead ammo killing predator birds isn't going the way people wanted it. So, now, lead is causing defects in kids. Just another soap box IMO.

 

I can see, MAYBE, lead poisoning in states that allow buck shot because it's shot and hits the animal in more areas then a slug or rifle bullet. Other then that, I think some of these "studies" might belong in the fiction section of a library.

 

Drugs cause defects in babies, yet no one really tries to stop the drug dealers. But, a little lead in game and lets ban lead ammo for hunters. You pick the wrong soap boxes if you want to bring defects in children into play.

 

I ask again, do you drive an "eco-friendly" automobile? Probably not!

 

Not one of these threads about lead ammo have been 100% factual, it's all opinion based. When to many people have the same warped opinion, you get laws that are ridiculous. Just look at the "Safe Act" if you don't believe me. Bunch of "crusaders" get together and who knows what will happen.

[vlywaterman]

Airedale, why would you think CA sport hunting has been trashed? cost? performance? 

And Rob, buck shot would be better for you and your kids in terms of lead getting into your venison(though of course it is illegal). Did you read any of the science? It's the bullets velocity that is causing the fragmentation into tiny pieces,,, the size of pepper flakes, hundreds of them,,, they are tiny, and you would not spit them out because you wouldn't notice them. And if you did swallow a piece of bird shot, unless it got stuck on your appendix, it would be out in a day or so. The surface area of those tiny pieces is much greater than that one piece of birdshot(or buckshot). That greater surface area makes it break down easier by your acidic digestive juices, and when small enough it can be absorbed into the blood stream. That is why, if you do use lead, don't use wine or vinegar when cooking as it starts breaking down the stuff even sooner. Did you look at x-rays of deer shot with lead?

Now, someone might mention ducks or other birds actually eating the shot and it causing problems,,,, the reason is that they have gizzards,,, the shot stays in there just like those pebbles you've seen to help break down their food. If you have ever shot a turkey or grouse or any other bird,,, you must have seen this. Doves in particular are prone to this as bird shot on the ground is the perfect size grit for them. 

[airedale]

1 hour ago, vlywaterman said:

 

Airedale, why would you think CA sport hunting has been trashed? cost? performance? 

 

Well for one I have a brother that lives in California plus I also have corresponded over the past couple of decades with various houndsmen and Airedale folks that are hunters getting plenty of feedback of how things have gone down the toilet.

Below is an article from Jim Mathews from Outdoor news service, it is long but it pretty much sums things up in a nutshell.

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2016 by airedale

[DirtTime]

4 hours ago, ....rob said:

Here's the way I really see this whole debate. The lead ammo killing predator birds isn't going the way people wanted it. So, now, lead is causing defects in kids. Just another soap box IMO.

 

I can see, MAYBE, lead poisoning in states that allow buck shot because it's shot and hits the animal in more areas then a slug or rifle bullet. Other then that, I think some of these "studies" might belong in the fiction section of a library.

 

Drugs cause defects in babies, yet no one really tries to stop the drug dealers. But, a little lead in game and lets ban lead ammo for hunters. You pick the wrong soap boxes if you want to bring defects in children into play.

 

I ask again, do you drive an "eco-friendly" automobile? Probably not!

 

Not one of these threads about lead ammo have been 100% factual, it's all opinion based. When to many people have the same warped opinion, you get laws that are ridiculous. Just look at the "Safe Act" if you don't believe me. Bunch of "crusaders" get together and who knows what will happen.

Really? Nothing to say on this? Hypocrites!

I already gave the link to the PETA site. Go spew you BS over there!

[airedale]

By JIM MATTHEWS www.OutdoorNewsService.com

 

    

 The final 2014 numbers are in and the number of hunters and fishermen in California dropped to their lowest level in history last year. I think the Department of Fish and Wildlife can pat itself on the back for its monumental effort to drive sportsmen away from hunting and fishing in an unprecedented way.

 

    

 These are the numbers: In 2014, there were 990,447 annual resident sportfishing licenses sold in this state. This is only the second time the number has dropped below 1 million (the last time in 2011, when it missed the mark by 32 licenses). Throughout the 1970s and into the mid-1980s, annual fishing license sales exceeded 2 million each year, and the peak sales year was in 1981 when just under 2.3 million were sold. As an interesting note, during that time, fishing license sales were almost exactly 10 percent of the state’s growing population. License sales continued to grow on pace with the population until the mid-1980s when the sales numbers began to steadily decline.

 

    

 While there might still be a few more hunting licenses sold between now and the end of the license year the end of June, the numbers for the 2014-15 year look like they will drop below 245,000 for the first time, setting a new, all-time low mark. While DFW on-line data doesn’t go back before 1970, I have read that hunting license sales peaked in the late 1960s at about 700,000 (there were just under 691 thousand sold in 1970). Numbers have declined steadily ever since. Numbers hovered around 500,000 per year in the 1970s and then declined into the 1980s. They dropped below 400,000 for the first time in 1988 and below 300,000 in 1997. There has been a downward trend of 4,000 to 5,000 per year since then.

 

      

Amazingly, the agency’s revenue from sportsmen has continued to grow even as our numbers dwindle. They gouge us with increased license and tags fees, permits or stamps also have annual increases, and there are new individual fees each year for just about anything we might want to hunt or catch. With the money the same or increasing, do you think the state agency cares our numbers are declining? Do they care enough to do something about it? Absolutely not.

 

    

 The DFW is in charge of selling a great ‘product,’ and if the staff wanted to refocus its management, reduce the regulatory burden on hunters and fisherman, and initiate a private-sector type marketing program (like the state has done for Covered California, the health care debacle), they could increase license sales by a minimum of 50 percent in three years. I happen to believe the reality is that they don’t want to increase our numbers again, and they are certainly not investing any of its funding to do so. They don’t want more people looking over their shoulders. They don’t want more accountability.

 

     

When fishermen represented 10 percent of the population and hunters were four or five percent of the state’s population, we were a significant ‘constituency’ group that mattered to Sacramento legislators, so we also mattered to the DFW and Fish and Game Commission’s political appointees. A phone call or letter to a representative about declining trout plants or changes in a hunting season meant the DFW and FGC would be called out and there was accountability. Today, no so much.

 

     

There are legislators today who probably don’t know the state plants trout for anglers. Why should they? Anglers are now just 2 1/2-percent of the population, and hunters represent barely a half-percent of the people in the state.

 

 To the rest of the state’s population the DFW is supposed to represent when it comes to non-game and endangered or threatened species, most can’t tell you who or what the DFW does. They don’t know its Fish and Wildlife that are supposed to be the watch dogs that protect wildlife and habitat. If they did know that, they would gasp in horror and the incompetent job the agency is doing. Why? Because there is no accountability.

 

    

 Just the condor program is a prime example. The state is supposed to be the coordinator of a broad-based coalition of scientists and researchers from private, state and federal agencies working with this critically endangered bird. After 35 years of supposedly intensive study, we still really have no idea of where or what condors eat in the wild. With all of the birds wearing markers and most with radio telemetry gear so we can track their movements and location, we still only have anecdotal information on where and how they feed in the wild. There has never been a food study done on condors.

 

     

This is a critical omission when you have been telling everyone for two decades that lead poisoning from the condor’s food is their biggest threat to recovery. And that lead poisoning — they have and continue to say — is caused by lead ammunition remnants left in game gut piles and carcasses discarded by hunters. But then we banned lead ammunition for hunting in condor country, there was a real shocker. It didn’t help.  The after-ban data shows the condors are still getting lead in the same amounts. Now, the so-called experts are scrambling trying to make the data fit the disproven theory. They are grasping at straws: ‘Hunters must not be complying.’ ‘Poachers are still using lead.’ But all the excuses beg the simple question. It’s working somewhat for eagles and vultures, why isn’t it for condors? Well, it appears the simple answer is that the assumption about condor lead coming from ammunition was at least partially wrong, mostly wrong.

 

     

Has the DFW said, ‘Whoa, we need to finally, once-and-for-all, do a condor food study and see where this lead is coming from’?

 

No, they are mismanaging endangered species like they have the resources — the hunted and fished species — that could make them a mint in license sales if those populations of game and fish were optimized.

 

A total ban on hunting with lead ammo goes into effect on July 1, 2019

The NSSF surveyed California hunters after AB 711 passed and found that nearly 40 percent said they will either have to stop or severely reduce their hunting due to the much higher costs of non-lead ammunition. This goes for 22 rimfire ammo also, probably the most widely used ammo of all. So far the best they come up with for 22 rimfire is a powdered copper X poly pressed bullet that shoots like crap and costs 10.99 for fifty. And “widely available?” Forget that. 

 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has an approved list of non-lead ammunition that has less than 40 manufacturers on it. Further, due to local restrictions in densely and highly populated Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento and San Francisco, ordering ammo by mail is nearly impossible—if not all together forbidden.The NSSF report says the ban could lead to a loss of $20 million in revenue for the state.

 

 

     I won’t name names here, but there was once a do-nothing biologist I knew in the 1980s (an anomaly back then, because the biologists with the DFG then were mostly hard-working, dedicated troops) that became the butt of a joke. I used to say, ‘Put him in charge of desert tortoise if you want to assure they go extinct.’ He pretty much represents how the entire agency functions today. There are a lot of biologists (excuse me, they are all now ‘environmental scientists’) who would love to get back in the field and do good things for wildlife, but they are handcuffed today by bureaucrats and supervisors who don’t want to fight the good fight. They are handcuffed by decades of regulations and rules that no one questioned when they were implements. They are handcuffed and lack of funding (read that ‘lack of funding’ line to mean, ‘misappropriated funding spent elsewhere on something that doesn’t really benefit anyone or anything in the state’).

 

    

In a recent press release, the DFW director hailed one of the top accomplishments of the agency: Wildlife nanny. He didn’t use that term, but he was proud of the time his biologists and wardens wasted on problem wildlife calls. Mountain lions, bears, and other potentially dangerous critters would enter urban California and need 100s of man-hours of time to be tranquilized, caged, and relocated. For many animals, they would end up in the same situation a week or two later. That is an accomplishment? Wildlife nannies: That’s what the DFW has become, a feel-good agency all fuzzy and warm and politically correct.

 

     

The wildlife nannies (aka DFW) don’t have the gumption to tell the public that those critters should get a load of 00-buckshot and a necropsy. Potentially dangerous wildlife coming into urban California is a problem we don’t want to give another opportunity to hurt someone. They come because they are looking for food; because the population is saturated, and they can’t find food or a home range outside of urban California. They come because we’ve mismanaged the lion, bear, and other wildlife populations beyond all recognition. They keep coming because we want to do the feel-good thing instead of the right thing. But it’s one of the agency’s key accomplishments?

 

    

They have lost their way. And only a handful of us remember or care what the agency should be doing or why. Hunting and fishing license sales are the big picture they refuse to see or address.

Edited September 18, 2016 by airedale

[vlywaterman]

Airedale, just rereading your post, if I look at what you posted, the numbers of hunters have been steadily dropping,,, so how does that relate to the lead ban, which will be for all hunting in 2019 and didn't start until basically July 2015.

And someone was looking for a consensus of research papers. How about this: 

 We carried out a literature search in the database Web of Science for scientific papers dealing with environmental and health consequences of the use of lead in ammunition. We used 11 different query combinations of the key words ‘‘lead, lead-free, non-lead, non-toxic, ammunition, hunting, poisoning, shot, meat, game, raptor, waterfowl, and upland game.’’ After removing non-relevant papers, we manually added approximately 100 references found by searching in other databases (PubMed, Google Scholar) or in reference lists of published literature. Finally, we were left with 570 peer-reviewed papers published from 1975 through August 2016.We found that more than 99% of them raised concerns over use of lead-based ammunition. A recent international symposium (Delahay and Spray2015 ) highlighted the health and environmental risks from lead in spent ammunition.

from: 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-016-1177-x

[Curmudgeon]

11 hours ago, vlywaterman said:

Airedale, just rereading your post, if I look at what you posted, the numbers of hunters have been steadily dropping,,, so how does that relate to the lead ban, which will be for all hunting in 2019 and didn't start until basically July 2015.

 

And someone was looking for a consensus of research papers. How about this: 

 We carried out a literature search in the database Web of Science for scientific papers dealing with environmental and health consequences of the use of lead in ammunition. We used 11 different query combinations of the key words ‘‘lead, lead-free, non-lead, non-toxic, ammunition, hunting, poisoning, shot, meat, game, raptor, waterfowl, and upland game.’’ After removing non-relevant papers, we manually added approximately 100 references found by searching in other databases (PubMed, Google Scholar) or in reference lists of published literature. Finally, we were left with 570 peer-reviewed papers published from 1975 through August 2016.We found that more than 99% of them raised concerns over use of lead-based ammunition. A recent international symposium (Delahay and Spray2015 ) highlighted the health and environmental risks from lead in spent ammunition.

from: 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-016-1177-x

This debate is not about science. It is about whether acknowledging the impacts of lead bullets will lead to more restrictions on gun owners and hunters.

[turkeyfeathers]

First time I've seen these 

[airedale]

Nothing new,  can not be used in target guns, twice as expensive, inaccurate! Good luck to the 22 shooters in California where they have to use this junk! A few reviews on it below along with a Winchester entry.

 

Al

===============================================================

OK so I shot the CCI 21 gr bullets out of a single shot Winchester rifle with open sights.

I could consistently hit a four inch target out to about 35 to 40 yards

I did not hit any 4 inch targets at fifty yards

=======================================================================

I shoot a Ruger 10/22 with a 28" match grade .920 SS barrel. We all know how hard it is to find 22 ammo. I saw these were in stock at Midway USA and bought 5 boxes of them. Went to the range and started shooting my regular SW match grade ammo. At 50 yards I shot 10 rounds that measured one hole of 3/8". Then I loaded 3 magazines of this. On a 24" square target at 50 yards I can not keep them in a 18" circle, they were all over the place. Winchester has always been a very good brand, but not these. I would not have these again if they were given to me. Save your money.

================================================================

Use these for target practice and plinking. Had quite a few FTE, and FTF out of my Ruger Mark III and my SW 15-22. Both usually eat anything. Will not be buying anymore.

================================================================

I tried this ammunition in a semi auto 22 blow back pistol. I tried mixing it with other 22 rounds as well as alone to test how it functioned. This is the only 22 LR that has failed to function in this pistol. It failed to eject about half the time. I will not buy this product again.

======================================================================

[Curmudgeon]

.22 is definitely a challenge that needs to be solved. I haven't tried these copper rounds but the tin I bought was terrible.

[Rattler]

These .22's are actually a polymer/copper composite.  The only thing that may work in .22's will be solid copper.  They will be expensive and won't expand well, unless they have a deep hollow point, which can also be a legal issue in some locations where hollow points are banned or illegal to possess under certain circumstances.