Disadvantages of lead-free ammo?

[Dreaded Claymore]

I was over at the condors thread in General Gun Discussions, and thought about this, because I don't know anything about ammunition.

What are the ballistic disadvantages to using lead-free ammo? Obviously it costs more, and some people say it's a way to enact a stealth gun ban, but does it actually shoot worse?

I mean, if we discovered some magic metal that's cheaper than lead, just as heavy, and non-toxic, we'd all be using that right away, because protecting the environment from lead poisoning is a GOOD thing. Since this is the real world where things aren't perfect, I'm just wondering what the tradeoffs of lead-free ammo are.

[J-cat]

First of all, lead comes from the environment. Second, lead ammunition is more accurate than the no-tox crap. The unleaded 22LR ammo they be selling is grossly inaccurate and maybe that's the point, so you miss everything you shoot at.

[glockman19]

Price...the cost of copper is much higher than the cost of lead. Accuracy may also be a factor in small .22 caliber. The lead free Brnes XXX ammo I've shot has been as accurate as any I've shot in .223, .308 & .30-06.

[5shot]

Copper bullets are much bigger/longer. If you look at the picture below, the large .454 is a 250 gr. copper Barnes. The smaller one is a 300 gr. Hornady XTP. Larger bullets limit the amount of powder you can load into a handgun cartridge.




The Barnes handgun bullets do expand well. I shot a cow elk with the below bullet from a .454 Casull.

[Cowboy T]

And in the shotgun arena, Hevi-Shot is way more expensive than the lead ammo you can get at Wal-Mart.

For amount of powder you can put in there, that depends a lot on the powder. For handguns, many powders, especially the fast burners, will not actually fill up the case before you hit the max charge, i. e. max pressure. Thus, your bullet's weight becomes the major determining factor. Trail Boss is an exception to this.

On the other hand, magnum-handgun-friendly or rifle powders will come closer to filling the case, as I've found with 2400. With the all-copper bullets, that would mean the longer bullet will protrude further into the chamber. Then it depends on your specific model of firearm. Some are OK with that (e. g. S&W 460 XVR's, Ruger #1's, many bolt-actions), but AR-10/15's and similar platforms probably won't like that as much due to the magazines. You might be able to seat your bullet a bit further back if you need to.

[Fjold]

Actually as far as accuracy goes, a monolithic bullet has the potential to be more accurate than a standard cup and core bullet. In bullets with lead cores you have to worry about jacket thickness, core construction, placement of the core in the jacket, the taper of the jacket and core, etc. With monolithic bullets all you have to worry about is one material shape.

[toby]

Skip the no lead ammo stop hunting in Kali condor zone and things might change? if they don't you've lost nothing? and certainly kali will have takin a big $$$$ loss and maybe they will wise up a bit works for me.

[sequoia_nomad]

I mean, if we discovered some magic metal that's cheaper than lead, just as heavy, and non-toxic, we'd all be using that right away, because protecting the environment from lead poisoning is a GOOD thing. Since this is the real world where things aren't perfect, I'm just wondering what the tradeoffs of lead-free ammo are.

There is not one documented case of a condor dying from ingesting a lead bullet. Lead is a naturally occurring substance. Most cases of lead poisoning involve lead-based paint and other industrial products as well as air pollution and it's fallout, typically in an urban environment. The whole condor lead-scare thing is just that, a scare tactic that sounds environmentally feasible enough that the masses will believe it without a second thought, paving the way for them to pass increasingly draconian legislation.

I realize I've strayed from your topic. I do agree with fjold's comment regarding a stability and a monolithic projectile. But it should be an individual's choice, not the government's dictation.

[brianinca]

>>>
protecting the environment from lead poisoning is a GOOD thing.
>>>

I reject your initial premise, it's simply unfounded.

Copper is actually quite toxic in the normal environment. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...655.1/abstract

The USFS did a big study in Virginia that showed lead residue from shot and bullets to be quick to oxidize (become much less biologically available) and slow to move. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1104005801.htm

I've assembled non-lead reloads for everyone in my family in 8 different calibers. I found non-magnum calibers to have significant case capacity problems, for 30-30, 308 and 762x39 I was not able to run a full OCW series due to insufficient capacity with the chosen powders, even after vibratory settling. in 3006, 270 Win, 270 WSM, 300 WM and 450 Marlin case capacity was not an issue. Accuracy was as good as the high quality hunting bullets from Nosler, Sierra and Hornady that I prefer and previously used.

After 3 years in the field, the Barnes are fine for deer and pigs and less than optimal for black bear (300 gr .458 FN vs 350 gr Hornady). The lead based bullet penetrated completely while the copper bullets were all recovered and it took more shots to "shoot the wiggle out" of the big ones.

I have a couple boxes of 308 and 277 Nosler E-Tips to work up this winter. There is merit to the Barnes design approach, else they wouldn't have had a viable presence in the market before the lead ban. However, to characterize the ban as anything other than an anti-hunting and anti-firearm initiative is ridiculous.

Regards,
Brian in CA

[Timberwolf]

Give Hornady GSXs a try - you can use interchangeable load data with the equivalent lead core bullet and accuracy is very good.

[J-cat]

Actually as far as accuracy goes, a monolithic bullet has the potential to be more accurate than a standard cup and core bullet. In bullets with lead cores you have to worry about jacket thickness, core construction, placement of the core in the jacket, the taper of the jacket and core, etc. With monolithic bullets all you have to worry about is one material shape.

In practice, however, leaded bullets outshoot monolithic solids.

[Munk]

Cost is the primary disadvantage. And with lower density, these guys are right, case volume becomes a problem.

There is not one documented case of a condor dying from ingesting a lead bullet. Lead is a naturally occurring substance. Most cases of lead poisoning involve lead-based paint and other industrial products as well as air pollution and it's fallout, typically in an urban environment. The whole condor lead-scare thing is just that, a scare tactic that sounds environmentally feasible enough that the masses will believe it without a second thought, paving the way for them to pass increasingly draconian legislation.

I realize I've strayed from your topic. I do agree with fjold's comment regarding a stability and a monolithic projectile. But it should be an individual's choice, not the government's dictation.

You are absolutely right. The condors ARE suffering lead poisoning, yet the source is as of yet unknown. The required reports from the DFG (or whoever was required by law to publish a few reports, with the final to be released in 2012) all show that the condors have been getting lead from somewhere, and that they are constantly having to be medically treated for it. HOWEVER, the reports also say that this is NOT to be taken as proof that the lead is from ammunition since the source is unknown. Could be paint, fumes, old solder, fixtures on high volt power lines and the towers that support them, any number of random human based lead sources, and any number of natural sources as well.

[knucklehead0202]

amen, amen and amen. this lead nonsense is a bigger farce than global warming, which i'm sure they'll try to blame us for next. lead is a "NATURALLY OCURRING SUBSTANCE" as in, it occurs in nature, like perhaps where some condors live. i agree that we certainly should attempt not to introduce high volumes of lead into certain environments, but realistically, a fairly well-traveled hunting ground will see a fraction of the lead as something like an outdoor shooting range. anyhow, BS is BS, and laws about guns and ammo shouldn't be written by people who not only know nothing about them, but believe that the general public should not be allowed to have them. meanwhile they sit in their mansions with armed guards. wankers...

[Dreaded Claymore]

I am aware that lead is a naturally occurring substance. Iridium is a naturally occurring substance too, but that doesn't mean you'll find raw chunks of it just sitting out on a mountain where condors can find them. Rather, it's one of the rarest elements in Earth's crust, and costs three times as much as silver because of it.

When humans acquire pure metals, it usually involves mining them in a highly impure, dilute form from the Earth, and refining them. Just because lead exists in the universe doesn't mean that condors are ever going to touch it, barring human activity.

Don't misunderstand, I did read above that nobody's proven that bullets are causing lead poisoning. Honestly I know virtually nothing about this issue except what you guys just told me, and you're all probably right. And I certainly wouldn't put it past California to look for any possible way to make firearms less available or useful. But the "lead is natural" line was getting to me. It reminds me of the potheads here at HSU saying "Marijuana is natural, man, it's just a plant so it's okay to smoke it." Death cap mushrooms are natural too, but if you eat one you'll die. And a natural pack of wolves can kill your ***.

[CodeDog]

If they take away my lead bullets I guess I'll switch to depleted Uranium.
I mean its a thousand times more toxic but hey it's not banned.

http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=40