doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com old doubles and no lead lead shot?

I guess some will wait for Al Gores' science of depleted ex-tank rounds shot only areas, before they realize the true meaning of the ban. Like flesh eating bacteria, but this time, fired in your old guns.
Too many stand and be counted guns in the heartland of America.

I think the so called "science" behind the lead shot ban dealing with waterfowl is about as bogus as bad science gets. Terrible doomsday type stuff. Banning lead-shot has done nothing to bring back waterfowl populations in North America. The banning of Market Hunting helped, restrictive seasons have helped, but habitat management and habitat conditions are the number one reason for the rebound of waterfowl numbers. There are huge populations of waterfowl in other countries that allow shooting of waterfowl with lead...the difference is their habitat conditions are way better than ours. There are studies out now that challenge these findings when it somes to waterfowl and lead. I never understood why its illegal to field hunt ducks and geese and shoot them with lead when you can hunt the same field for upland game and shoot all the lead you want. Doesnt make much sense.

I was thinking....on game refuges, Federal WPA and WMA's, where the signs say "NON-TOX ONLY" why doesn't that include rifle bullets or shotgun slugs? UH-OH, opening a whole other can of worms there....

I think I am in the minority here, but I firmly believe we will see more reasonably priced no-tox (non-steel) in the next few years. Reasonable cost is a relative term, and what may be reasonable to an upland hunter may seem outrageous to the range folks.

The recent shell offerings that are costing $3.00 p/shell are that expensive largely because of air transportation costs from China to the United States. If the tungsten had been sent by ship the cost of the shells would have been significantly less, although still more than steel. I have not used them but the manufacturer says they compare favorably to lead.

From what I understand the Bismuth company is hung up in an estate. That problem will eventually take care of itself bringing that product back to the market. Even if it is not resolved, it is also my understanding that the patent on bismuth has little time remaining. If the demand is still there some manufacturers will pick up this product. If there is enough demand the cost will come down.

There are currently, at least, two U.S. manufacturers serving the vintage gun market, and one of them is trying to get the cost down. I for one will try and support that effort with my wallet. I have far more faith in economics than I do in politicians.

Maybe as Larry and others have said we will get a little lucky and economics will help drive the state DNR's in the right direction. The Fed's may be another issue to deal with, because I am not sure no-tox will gore their ox.

The original poster asked about old guns and no-tox and what are the viable alternatives to lead. The political angle of lead banning has been discussed here many times in the past and we end up preaching to the choir. And whether it's good or bad science is moot as well because the momentum behind banning lead is increasing. I still want to hear what the effects are of modern steel loads on damascus barrels. That is, do shotcups offer adequate protection of the bore, what is the optimum choke diameter for fixed chokes, are low pressure steel loads effective? That's what I want to know.

There is always Benelli Montefeltro option.

My Jap A-5 does fine with steel, but it doesn't give me the warm fuzzies when I shoot it like the oldies do.

Last time I checked here in North Dakota it was a $100 non-criminal violation to be caught hunting with lead shot. Considering that there are not a whole lot of game wardens checking people in this state (I've never personally been checked) and also considering the price of decent alternatives to lead, I suspect that there is still a lot of lead being shot at waterfowl around here.

I have to agree with LB on this one. Here in WA. we still use lead for upland everywhere except some release sites. The state has considered the lead ban on upland but they can't quite get their mind around it for one very good reason. There is not enough good research that proves that small amounts of lead is harmful to anything where it used for upland hunting. They also are having a problem with decreasing sales of hunting licenses. They know that no-tox shot requirements for all upland hunting will add to that decrease. Realize that the Feds are the ones who mandated no-tox originally but they don't sell hunting licenses. The states have to walk a tight rope here and risk losing an already small revenue source if they push too hard. Tree huggers don't buy hunting licenses and they know it.

Anyway, the price of no-tox shot will go down. The price of fuel will continue to go up. That's more of a worry for me.

Jim

Something else we haven't considered: The feds can mandate nontox on waterfowl because they control waterfowl hunting regs, waterfowl being migratory. They can't mandate nontox for upland birds, because the states are in control of the regs. The only way the feds could play in banning lead shot would be as part of a much broader ban on the use of lead across the entire spectrum, like something coming out of the EPA. And under such a ban, lead shot would comprise but a tiny percentage of materials covered.

And if some states start banning lead, we can vote with our feet. If MN bans lead, come hunt pheasants in IA, or go to the Dakotas. Go to WI for grouse. Don't buy a hunting license. Wouldn't take long for state DNR's to get the message. And states like SD, where hunting is big business, would probably welcome all the refugees.

Ruffed grouse hunting sucks in South Dakota, but, point taken. The number of small game hunters VS deer hunters in MN makes the big game guys more important to the DNR. I expect that includes out of state licensees.

My alarm bells started going off when the new dove season was steel shot only. I've never hunted doves, don't consider MN prime habitat for them, and noted that the areas where people were hunting them are prime pheasant locations. A DNR toehold was firmly established.

Non toxic only will reduce the numbers of hunters. Face it, most people don't take one or two big trips to a different state, and not hunt in their home state. Just the opposite, most hunting occurs on the home stomping grounds, with a little in other states to boot. I just won't be one of the guys who takes up monster truck mudding, or oil painting after it happens. It would be a mistake to think that what happens in MN, or any other midwestern state with a strong hunting culture, wouldn't happen soon after in the another.
Monkey see, monkey do when it comes to state level departments of government in this part of the world.

Another thing to consider, is, if the feds decide one fine day that woodcock were either a species of special concern, or endangered, it could indeed effect what loads you use on grouse, in any state woodcock migrate through. Hypothetical, at best, but, stranger things have happened.

Fact is, I'm non toxic ready now. Complaining about it doesn't help. I don't have my name in the order book for a new RBL 28 gauge, and that Tobin 16 with the new wood is a close as I'm going to get to a shotgun heirloom that can't be used with modern non toxic loads. I guess if I were Mr. Stokeld, I'd ask myself, "Can I buy that old double, pay to have the repair work it needs done to it, use it for the remainder of lead shot legal time we have, and be comfortable with it perhaps, at some time in the future, being worth a fraction of the money I have into it, or, worse, nothing, except to me?"
If the answer is yes, well, by all means. If the answer is no, then, start getting ready for a non toxic future, now. Hey, I have two doubles that were tough sells before this issue was being kicked around-they both feature lefthand stocks. I decided to restock them knowing full well I have more into them then would likely be returned in the future. One has to make those decisions sometimes. But, I'm not doing it again. The two I have are just enough for my situation, and they don't look bad with the collection of pumps in the safe. One of those doubles will eat steel, when the time comes. One, will be a wall hanger, I suppose. I'm OK with that.
Best,
Ted