.....the manufacturers will have to make guns that shoot steel shot. And it doesnt really affect me. Meanwhile, I have about a half dozen bags of lead to run through my reloaders in the future. But I can adapt and shoot steel at the clubs that make me use it. I cant see myself ever shooting a 28 gauge and probably not a .410, either, so..........?? Sorry about the guys who do. Good luck.
No thanks to your brand of slow drip gun control. Don't forget about pricing shooters, particularly new ones, out of the game. You are a fan of shooting sports, exactly as you are a climate fanatic, make Jimmy happy first, and no one else matters.
Other than in a state like California, with a total ban on lead, it's unlikely that current nontox requirements will price anyone out of the game. For one thing, steel isn't as expensive in comparison to lead as it used to be. And most places you can still shoot lead at targets, which is where the real volume shooting takes. The problem for most people is that shooting in general --no matter what you shoot or where you shoot--has become more expensive. Both for factory shells and for reloading components. New ones will have a problem once they're off the school trap shooting teams and no longer getting ammunition either for free or at significantly reduced prices. Without support from the clubs and/or from hunting/conservation groups like PF/QF and RGS/AWS it will be a definite challenge for them even if they're able to shoot lead.
I get it Larry, everything is more expensive, but are all things becoming more expensive at a similar rate. I do not believe so, and you know I'm referring to the subject matter. Anecdotes? I made a recent purchase from a deep blue state business, and in summary it was a relatively slower, and far more expensive process to get the item to my FFL. Would you suppose there are less costs and hoops to jump through for non firearm related things?
I gladly used quite a bit of steel shot on waterfowl last fall, but it was not with any type of gun that would be considered a classic or antique. Does that matter? What about using sub gauges on game as appropriate? I accept your comment as opposition to mine, but is it really a win for our kids, when we hold our noses and stand with the Jimmies of today, who are so dismissive of things that they don't value?
You may recall, though I am not the biggest fan, I believe it will probably be black polymer semi-autos that will convince many of those trap team kids to stay interested, while they have to juggle that expense with the greater difficulties and challenges of today's life. I know that can be a long and slow path back nice guns and wing shooting, but I wouldn't count on good ole boy shooting clubs for a universal welcome, and it's insanity to assume a connection between conservation organizations and shooting sports. My favorite picture of my grand sons are of ear to ear smiles, holding shot up cans, prouder than any of the particiption trophy pictures, I've seen of them from soccer.
But hey, I'm starting to see the hen's teeth large primers, and a thousand box of smalls for a smidge under sixty bucks. In the vein of being a catch all summary, is there hypocrisy in you and the prof saying we can deposit copious amounts of lead into the environment for target shooting, but not for on the decline hunting? Or, are we to pretend that California political policy, doesn't foreshadow? Aren't we fortunate that the congressional branch has prescribed senate representation?
