Posted on 08/27/2010 11:43:54 AM PDT by JohnKinAK
It doesn't really matter whether or not it is a good thing or a bad thing, nor whether or not it "harms us" for an unelected and unaccountable government bureaucracy to dictate what materials can be used for a constitutionally protected activity.
If there were a metal better suited for ammo in terms of metallurgic properties, costs, maintainability, etc. than lead then the marketplace would have already moved to that alternative metal. There are rounds available made with steel, brass, brass-jacketed lead, and other materials. In the current market and with its current level of relative freedom for market participants to willingly engage as they see fit, lead is still the best ammo out there. Whenever freedom is restricted and government authority is usurped and expanded, that is a BAD THING, regardless of whether or not it directly "harms us".
OK, how about very deadly at short range and very quiet.
Yep, they are that. Definitely wouldn’t want to get shot by one.
Ban lead bullets as “toxic”, ban non-lead bullets as “armor-piercing cop-killers”
Sounds like their plan to me.
High-power crossbow: 320fps, maybe 400 grain bolt, about 125 Joules of kinetic energy
Average 30.06: 2,600fps, about 200 grain bullet, about 4,000 J
Even a .22 LR: 1,750 fps, about 30 grain bullet, about 280 J
You’re literally down around a .22 Short in terms of kinetic energy.
Power, or more accurately energy, goes up linearly with mass, but squared with velocity. Crossbows are cool and silent, but they can’t pack the punch due to a much lower velocity. You can just pack vastly more potential chemical energy in a smaller space than you can mechanical.
You know, I've heard they came out with these newfangled things called pliers for that. I'll have to try them one of these days.
Gold is softer than lead, and denser. How much money you got?
Cost. Any other material that could be used for the core of bullets is far too expensive and too hard to work with to be practical. It would also require a huge amount of research on the part of bullet manufacturers to come up with new manufacturing methods as well as ballistics calculations.
Reloaders and small bullet makers would be devastated. I shoot benchrest and the sport is dominated by small, low volume custom bullet makers. Every one of them would be out of business. Large volume bullet makers, such as Sierra and Hornady just can't keep their tolerances up to the standards we require.
Standing firm, hold your ground, November is the only chance I see right now. God help us.
I think you just described their plan perfectly. Thanks.
De Fund the EPA!
It is time we tried to get on their watch lists. It is time to defend ourselves. It is time.
I am thinking that may not have been a good message to leave 8-X
>I am 100% for gun rights, so don’t flame me, but I am wondering why it would necessarily be a bad thing to make bullets out of something other than lead. How would that harm us?<
I agree 100% - but with this blood sucking administration and their preponderance to destroy the RTKBA They will come up with anything to make the cost more costly than it needs to be. It will end up another way to keep people from buying ammunition that would be cost prohibitive.
I wouldn’t give them any more reason to make “change” for us.
Now as they are blood suckers, we may need silver bullets soon anyway .. but that can be in another thread
Cool Cartoon!
NSSF urges you to stress the following in your opposition:
* There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.
* Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 50 state wildlife agencies.
* A 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk.
* A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle’s recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition – the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.
* Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring.
Mmm, I don't think so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.