I think most of us agree that steel is a poor substitute for lead and some of us even have suspicions as to why our governments find it so toxic that it must be banned. I wouldn't expect anyone to remember posts, that I have made much earlier, on my belief that the govts motivation is for reasons other than the protection of predatory birds or waterfowl. The subject is; can older double guns safely use steel shot to keep them in the field so that, even as apparantly abborant it is to some, for reasons I won't speculate on, people who must be more concerned about their money spent(by shopping at Walmart for their steel shotshells) can remain shooting the old shotguns they already own rather than leave the woods and fields to those aged men who have reached a level of financial wealth that has them wanting only for the respect they don't feel from those who must live a more practical life style. It is unfortunate that an age old classism exists, even today, in which the less fortunate must be continually put in place by the more fortunate, as the opportunities present themselves. "My gun is better than yours" and "people who use steel shot should find a pool hall rather than clutter the woodlands and clays games". Why we must stray from the subject of using steel shot to these petty pronouncements on who can afford nontoxics more exspensive than steel, seems to be a tangent some we must come back to over and over again. It makes me wondered how much they can really appreciate a soul renewing day in the fall woods with gun, dog and grouse, with all their worries that they may encounter someone with a Mossberg filled with steel shot?
