Gee, I don't remember it the same as oskar. When the initial calls for the bans on lead shot came, they weren't from hunters who were aghast at finding the swamps and lakes littered with lead poisoned waterfowl. The calls for lead bans came from wacky environmentalists and anti-hunters. There were and still are many other sources for an animal or bird to get lead into their bloodstreams, many much more efficient than swallowing lead shot. Go check the price to get tested for lead poisoning, and then ask yourself who was paying for all of these autopsies of dead ducks. Hunters were almost universally against lead shot bans, and virtually all still are against lead ammunition bans. After reading reams of junk science on the subject, including much of what the anti-lead zealot Ben Deeble used to post here, I am more convinced than ever that it is a scam designed to reduce participation in the shooting sports.
oskar makes the claim that storms and wave action will soon cause lead shot to sink deep into the silt, but isn't it strange that it didn't happen until after the anti-lead people got what they wanted... a way to make hunting more expensive and less effective. Yes, there are those hunters and shooters who will continue to hunt even if they have to use silver bullets. But when there are many fewer shooters and hunters left, it becomes much easier and sociably acceptable to restrict our gun and hunting rights.
Sorry oskar, but steel is ballistically inferior to lead. It is not just as good. It is also more expensive, but not nearly as expensive as some of the other non-lead ammo. We often hear about this alternative ammunition being in short supply. Imagine how much more it would cost if demand increases due to more lead ammo bans. We could look back at $2.00 a pop as the good old days.
I shot a groundhog yesterday. The autopsy showed that he died from acute lead poisoning which caused massive cerebral hemorrhage. Works for me.
