Non-Lead Ammo Discussion online

[Dinsdale]

59 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

No I didn't chrono them. I didn't even use a bench rest - just rested it on a plastic saw horse.. If I can hold a 2" group at 100 yards, that is really good. I'm really happy. I've shot only 1 deer over 80 yards in 45 years - out of 60+ animals.  

You should.

I'm pretty sure throat erosion developing loads is the single biggest reason folks don't get a deer consistently.

[Modern hillbilly]

9 minutes ago, Dinsdale said:

You should.

I'm pretty sure throat erosion developing loads is the single biggest reason folks don't get a deer consistently.

This doesn't make sense.

Is it a poor attempt at being sarcastic but not understanding what's being talked talked about?

I wasn't talking about throat erosion while developing loads, it's the erosion between seasons or on the off season through thousands of rounds.

Again lead vs non lead and my reason for not using it.

Nothing about consistently getting deer either.

[Steuben Jerry]

13 hours ago, Dinsdale said:

throat erosion developing loads

I really need to get my mind out of the gutter...

[Buckmaster7600]

You should.
I'm pretty sure throat erosion developing loads is the single biggest reason folks don't get a deer consistently.

haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Buckmaster7600]

This doesn't make sense.
Is it a poor attempt at being sarcastic but not understanding what's being talked talked about?
I wasn't talking about throat erosion while developing loads, it's the erosion between seasons or on the off season through thousands of rounds.
Again lead vs non lead and my reason for not using it.
Nothing about consistently getting deer either.

Who needs 1000’s of rounds to develop a load for hunting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve863]

13 hours ago, Dinsdale said:

You should.

I'm pretty sure throat erosion developing loads is the single biggest reason folks don't get a deer consistently.

 

No!  Folks don't get a deer consistently because they don't know how to hunt, can't shoot, don't have patience and many other reasons.  None of which have to do with developing loads.   

 

[rob-c]

Taking the politics out of the equation, copper projectiles need to be used accordingly. Copper doesn’t expand as easy as a lead core bullet so  they have to be driven faster. Hence why copper bullets are lighter for caliber, but as we all know will shed velocity at longer ranges and if enough velocity is shed the copper bullet may not expand well and you get a bullet sized skinny hole in the animal and you loose the hydrostatic shock. At the ranges we typically shoot in ny probably wont matter. I hunt with my super redhawk in 44 mag so my velocity is 12-1300 FPS and using copper bullets  would actually be in humane of me as I need a bullet that expands quickly and reliably at the lower velocities to kill deer. I don’t get the hydrostatic shock that one would get with a rifle so I want to make as big of a hole as I can get out of my . 429 projectile. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by rob-c

[Modern hillbilly]

1 hour ago, rob-c said:

Taking the politics out of the equation, copper projectiles need to be used accordingly. Copper doesn’t expand as easy as a lead core bullet so  they have to be driven faster. Hence why copper bullets are lighter for caliber, but as we all know will shed velocity at longer ranges and if enough velocity is shed the copper bullet may not expand well and you get a bullet sized skinny hole in the animal and you loose the hydrostatic shock. At the ranges we typically shoot in ny probably wont matter. I hunt with my super redhawk in 44 mag so my velocity is 12-1300 FPS and using copper bullets  would actually be in humane of me as I need a bullet that expands quickly and reliably at the lower velocities to kill deer. I don’t get the hydrostatic shock that one would get with a rifle so I want to make as big of a hole as I can get out of my . 429 projectile. 

I had similar thoughts for some lever guns.

I always thought a 45-70 would be cool shooting copper, but the loss of weight(energy) and bullet selection sucks.

I was looking at these researching https://cuttingedgebullets.com/308-165gr-mth-match-tactical-hunting

They try to prevent copper fouling and loss of accuracy (gas blowby)through that banding process. I wonder how bad other commercial copper bullets foul. Some barrels being tighter than others I can imagine their lack of proper sizing is an issue.

They too mention a faster twist rate. I wonder how many people have bad experience with slower twists.

[Modern hillbilly]

2 hours ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

Who needs 1000’s of rounds to develop a load for hunting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably a fudd.

[airedale]

16 hours ago, Dinsdale said:

I'm pretty sure throat erosion developing loads is the single biggest reason folks don't get a deer consistently.

I am assuming this statement is some kind of sarcastic joke. Very very few hunters put enough rounds through the barrel of their hunting rifle to cause any significant throat erosion. I own a battery of high velocity varmint rifles that I have shot a lot of ammo through both in developing loads and at varmints.

I pulled out my 50 year old 220 Swift (one of the supposedly most notorious barrel burners of all time)  awhile back and touched a few off just for old time sake, she still printed groups well under an inch after having shot many many rounds.

I dug out one of my favorite books (Book Of The Rifle)written by Jim Carmichel, competitive shooter, gun builder, hunter and Outdoor Life gun editor for many years for some words of wisdom.

"I get scores of letters from readers asking how long the barrel will last on their hot new hunting rifle? My standard answer to these inquiries is that if the reader shoots every day of the year year in and year out, he can start worrying about his barrel in about 20 years."

A 220 Swift fan himself he stated "I have owned Swifts with tough American barrels which have upwards of 5000 rounds through them with no loss of accuracy."

Harvey Donaldson a shooter and wildcat cartridge developer (219 Donaldson Wasp) told Carmichel he owned one of the first Winchester model 70s chambered in the Swift. After 10000 rounds it was still nicely accurate. His secret he said was keeping the barrel clean.

Barrels thought to be worn out after a good scrubbing with bore lapping paste can be brought back to life for many more years of accurate shooting.

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

I agree totally with Steve's quote below.

"Folks don't get a deer consistently because they don't know how to hunt, can't shoot, don't have patience and many other reasons.  None of which have to do with developing loads.    "

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

So say just for laughs so if a hunting rifle did have some throat erosion and it's groups doubled in size from say 1 1/2 inches to 3 inches that is still plenty accurate enough for Deer hunting. I killed a ton of Deer years ago having to hunt with a smooth bore shotgun firing foster slugs that would be doing good to hit a paper plate with at 100 yards.

 

[rob-c]

29 minutes ago, Modern hillbilly said:

I had similar thoughts for some lever guns.

I always thought a 45-70 would be cool shooting copper, but the loss of weight(energy) and bullet selection sucks.

I was looking at these researching https://cuttingedgebullets.com/308-165gr-mth-match-tactical-hunting

They try to prevent copper fouling and loss of accuracy (gas blowby)through that banding process. I wonder how bad other commercial copper bullets foul. Some barrels being tighter than others I can imagine their lack of proper sizing is an issue.

They too mention a faster twist rate. I wonder how many people have bad experience with slower twists.

Interesting bullet design, I wonder if anyone has shot some into ballistic gel, but having said that I would like to see bullets shot into the gel at all ranges. Say 100 , 200, 300 and 400 yards so we could see how they perform at long distance. 

[Modern hillbilly]

32 minutes ago, airedale said:

I am assuming this statement is some kind of sarcastic joke. Very very few hunters put enough rounds through the barrel of their hunting rifle to cause any significant throat erosion. I own a battery of high velocity varmint rifles that I have shot a lot of ammo through both in developing loads and at varmints.

I pulled out my 50 year old 220 Swift (one of the supposedly most notorious barrel burners of all time)  awhile back and touched a few off just for old time sake, she still printed groups well under an inch after having shot many many rounds.

I dug out one of my favorite books (Book Of The Rifle)written by Jim Carmichel, competitive shooter, gun builder, hunter and Outdoor Life gun editor for many years for some words of wisdom.

"I get scores of letters from readers asking how long the barrel will last on their hot new hunting rifle? My standard answer to these inquiries is that if the reader shoots every day of the year year in and year out, he can start worrying about his barrel in about 20 years."

A 220 Swift fan himself he stated "I have owned Swifts with tough American barrels which have upwards of 5000 rounds through them with no loss of accuracy."

Harvey Donaldson a shooter and wildcat cartridge developer (219 Donaldson Wasp) told Carmichel he owned one of the first Winchester model 70s chambered in the Swift. After 10000 rounds it was still nicely accurate. His secret he said was keeping the barrel clean.

Barrels thought to be worn out after a good scrubbing with bore lapping paste can be brought back to life for many more years of accurate shooting.

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

I agree totally with Steve's quote below.

"Folks don't get a deer consistently because they don't know how to hunt, can't shoot, don't have patience and many other reasons.  None of which have to do with developing loads.    "

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

So say just for laughs so if a hunting rifle did have some throat erosion and it's groups doubled in size from say 1 1/2 inches to 3 inches that is still plenty accurate enough for Deer hunting. I killed a ton of Deer years ago having to hunt with a smooth bore shotgun firing foster slugs that would be doing good to hit a paper plate with at 100 yards.

 

This whole "most hunters" thing is bull.

If accuracy and range are non arguments for using different bullet types why not ban anything but a bolt or arrow. Or let's go back to black powder muskets, they are more than  accurate enough. If it's good enough for me it should be good enough for you? Crossbows and bows are plenty accurate and have killed many deer. Eliminate the whole lead vs copper argument.

Edit* Also how many people get upset about shotgun only areas?

Maybe you're onto something.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Modern hillbilly

[Modern hillbilly]

43 minutes ago, airedale said:

I am assuming this statement is some kind of sarcastic joke. Very very few hunters put enough rounds through the barrel of their hunting rifle to cause any significant throat erosion. I own a battery of high velocity varmint rifles that I have shot a lot of ammo through both in developing loads and at varmints.

I pulled out my 50 year old 220 Swift (one of the supposedly most notorious barrel burners of all time)  awhile back and touched a few off just for old time sake, she still printed groups well under an inch after having shot many many rounds.

I dug out one of my favorite books (Book Of The Rifle)written by Jim Carmichel, competitive shooter, gun builder, hunter and Outdoor Life gun editor for many years for some words of wisdom.

"I get scores of letters from readers asking how long the barrel will last on their hot new hunting rifle? My standard answer to these inquiries is that if the reader shoots every day of the year year in and year out, he can start worrying about his barrel in about 20 years."

A 220 Swift fan himself he stated "I have owned Swifts with tough American barrels which have upwards of 5000 rounds through them with no loss of accuracy."

Harvey Donaldson a shooter and wildcat cartridge developer (219 Donaldson Wasp) told Carmichel he owned one of the first Winchester model 70s chambered in the Swift. After 10000 rounds it was still nicely accurate. His secret he said was keeping the barrel clean.

Barrels thought to be worn out after a good scrubbing with bore lapping paste can be brought back to life for many more years of accurate shooting.

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

I agree totally with Steve's quote below.

"Folks don't get a deer consistently because they don't know how to hunt, can't shoot, don't have patience and many other reasons.  None of which have to do with developing loads.    "

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

So say just for laughs so if a hunting rifle did have some throat erosion and it's groups doubled in size from say 1 1/2 inches to 3 inches that is still plenty accurate enough for Deer hunting. I killed a ton of Deer years ago having to hunt with a smooth bore shotgun firing foster slugs that would be doing good to hit a paper plate with at 100 yards.

 

If you are serious about 220 longevity would you be willing to loan the rifle? I'd be more than happy to put it through it's paces.

 

[airedale]

If you are serious about 220 longevity would you be willing to loan the rifle? I'd be more than happy to put it through it's paces.

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

 

The old Ruger 77 220 Swift is my prized possession and favorite rifle and is not going anywhere. Has proven her worth and accuracy longevity to me long ago having fired several thousand handloaded rounds on both the bench and in the field on Woodchucks and Crows. Below are a few groups I mentioned above fired not too long ago, a Crow sitting on a fence post 400 yards away would still not be safe from the old girl.

Al

[46rkl]

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, just stating my stance on lead. Highly toxic and persistent heavy metal. I want to avoid exposure as much as I can. Every pellet that hits a pheasant, for example, leaves a lead trail as it passes thru tissues. If it were just a case of removing the pellets there would be much less concern on my part. I don’t want to eat lead tainted meat if I can possibly help it so I shoot lead free alternatives. That’s better for me and anyone else who is eating wild game I’ve harvested. The secondary poisoning of wildlife would be enough to convince me by itself. Better in every way to just ban lead ammo for hunting. 

[Dinsdale]

6 hours ago, rob-c said:

Interesting bullet design, I wonder if anyone has shot some into ballistic gel, but having said that I would like to see bullets shot into the gel at all ranges. Say 100 , 200, 300 and 400 yards so we could see how they perform at long distance. 

If really interested go to Accurate Reloading forums and you will find hundreds of pages of in depth analysis by one of the guys who did all the testing for these going back years; multiple calibers (chamberings), multiple test media, and a whole pile of game. Many many reports of terminal ballistics across all their designs (they started out with solids for dangerous  game).

GS Custom make similar (lots of info and testing done on these and have shot enough to be impressed), as did North Fork(they're back in business) and Peregrine mono metals with driving bands. Thats nothing new.

 

[Buckmaster7600]

I haven’t killed a critter with a lead projectile in years however I am 100% against any kind of a government ban on anything!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk