I am pleased to note that there is to be no ban on lead shot in the UK.
Hopefully this will revive the English SxS trade and enthusiasts.
Come on Toby , bring them to Market.

Judging from recent auction prices the UK market is thriving. I was soundly out bid on nearly everything at Holt's and shocked by some of the prices. A big change just from the April auction. Maybe the Brexit will be a good thing for you guys. Something has been making it harder to find British guns at a price point but I have not given up yet.

Not everyone here will be happy to hear that you guys will not have to endure extremely high costs for ballistically inferior non-lead ammunition...

Nah, England never did very well on its own. Always struggling to created and maintain one of the largest empires the world has known, effortlessly beating the hell out of countries many times their size, nah, they'll struggle.

Great news!!!! I bet that was a relief to many.

Where did you get the news from Salopian? Is it a result of the Lead Ammunition Group report?

For our U.S. cousins. It is already in place in England and Wales for the shooting of Ducks and Geese anywhere. In Scotland it is for any quarry species over wetlands. And everywhere on any land subject to being a SSSI that is a Site of Special Scientific Interest usually land with rare or endangered species identified there.

It's good news as Bismuth and Tungsten shot here are very expensive and Steel, apart from not being very good, is unsuitable in the vast majority of English guns. Ironically a lot of the attempt to get a lead ban comes from the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust set up by the late Sir Peter Scott. He shot ducks and geese in numbers bordering on the obscene by today's standards. Over 100 White Front Geese in on morning flight! And it's now the successors to his organisation that are doing the damage to shooters. I no longer have anything to do with them. Lagopus.....

If that's the case what shotguns are used for waterfowl in England and Wales?

Would that ban be in effect even on private lands if it was enacted?

A good victory for reason and thought, yet in today's world only a victory today.

Whether in the UK or USA the illiberal green and their fellow travelers will only regroup and restart the effort.

They will for deluded reasons go overboard on lead where it is not a real issue and for anti hunting and class, culture issues fight their campaign indefinitely

That's pretty well how it works today. Tendency to "go overboard" is common.

Face it guys, there is no real alternative to lead and they know that.

No "real" alternative for bullet and shot, yes. That's not how it works in today's world.

The letter can be seen here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...life-160712.pdf

When California banned all lead for all hunting statewide, our esteemed Governor Moonbeam stated that there are now viable alternatives to lead, as he signed the law. Maybe he knows something we don't. Idiot.

The ban is still being phased in, but we are almost done in this state.

Yep, California hunting has been and is being regulated into the grave. Its seems also that it was about to happen to our English brothers. Possibly a glimmer of light or more accurately common sense.

King, do you have schizophrenia or something? You have been consistently anti-lead and have supported Canada's lead ammunition bans. Go back and read your own words in the "Lead and Condor deaths" thread from January of this year. This latest attempt at re-inventing yourself is the same thing you do when you get called out on your anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment positions. Not everyone here has a poor memory.

Here is what you said in one of your posts in the Lead and Condor deaths" thread on 1/24/16, post #433945. It was not possible to use the normal QUOTE function because your little brother Larry got the thread locked:


(QUOTE: KING BROWN)--
Whatever a slam dunk is, this from federal Environment and Climate Change Canada website:

"Increased exposure to heavy metals can cause:

weight loss, weakness
blindness, muscle paralysis, seizures
increased likelihood of predation
increased susceptibility to disease and infection
altered patterns in foraging behaviour, loss of appetite
reduced ability to reproduce

"Researchers use a combination of field study and laboratory analysis to identify, track and investigate the effects of heavy metals in wildlife species, specifically birds, and their environments. Where heavy metals are suspected, researchers investigate food sources, food chain transfers, individual species and ecosystem functioning.

"Research on heavy metals is helping to predict adverse effects of environmental contamination and aiding the development of science-based environmental policies and regulations for the management of environmental lead and mercury contamination.

Lead

"Research on lead in wildlife has focused mainly on the issue of ‘lead shot,’ small pellets of metallic lead used as projectiles in shotgun ammunition for hunting and target shooting. A related issue is the accidental ingestion of small lead fishing sinkers and jigs used in recreational angling.

Waterbirds can ingest spent lead pellets or lost fishing tackle, resulting in poisoning. In addition, birds shot with lead pellets and not retrieved by hunters can become a source of secondary poisoning for predatory and scavenging wildlife. Other animals may prey upon dead or wounded game animals having lead shot embedded in their tissues.

Research ongoing since the 1960s led researchers to conclude that lead shot was the most important source of elevated lead exposure in waterfowl and some other waterbirds species. It was estimated that annual lead poisoning affected 250,000 birds in Canada, and about 2.5 million across North America.

Based on this research, Environment Canada banned use of lead shot for hunting most migratory game bird species. The nation-wide ban, in place since 1999, has resulted in a dramatic decrease in elevated lead exposure in wild waterfowl. It was found that elevated lead in bones of migrating ducks decreased between 52% and 90% depending on the species and location sampled."
(END QUOTE, KING BROWN)

Dishonesty is not civility.

Treblig there is only private land as such in the U.K. Some wildfowl clubs exist who will buy up or lease suitable coastal areas and police it themselves otherwise it takes place with the blessing of the land owner. No public hunting areas like you have as our land surface to population isn't so good.

Semi Auto 12's with 3" or 3 1/2" chambers are quite often the choice of coastal wildfowlers. Inland flighting may involve Bismuth or Tungsten depending on the wealth of the participant if using older doubles. Lagopus.....

I buy a few boxes of tungsten or bismuth for my older guns each year depending on what's available locally and what I can afford but it hellishly expensive; I had a horrific time one Saturday I went ferreting and threw on a cartridge belt to find twenty carts into the belt I had been using bismuth all morning.... expensive rabbits. Often ill use my old guns mainly and take a newer gun that will cope with steel for duck but I dont have any great love for steel. Next intended purchase is some horrific modern monstrosity to use and abuse.. if lead was banned it would have priced me out of using my own guns for sure so I'm very relieved

Thanks Lagopus, interesting. So I take it this lead ban would in effect stop the sale of all lead shot shells at the gun shops as there would be no way to monitor hunting parties on private lands that may be using lead shells.

Got it in one trebling. That was the intention of the anti-shooting lobby. The price of Bismuth would go up and up because of the shortage caused as a result and then only rich people would be able to shoot driven pheasant and grouse etc. The lefties would then say that shooting is an elitist and rich persons sport and should be banned.

I'm with Demonwolf in that I don't particularly like steel and do not find it effective unless quite close. I only use steel to shoot goosanders to protect fish stocks on the river under a special license. Being ducks I am obliged to use steel. They are inedible so just shot as vermin. I know that I have to be much closer for a certain kill and often require a quick follow-up shot. I bought a cheap Turkish Hatsan semi-auto 3" magnum for the job. I rarely shoot ducks and geese now and only use the old 8 bore to shoot geese in Scotland where I can flight them inland so can use lead.

Steel shot not good for the teeth. Not good for ground game because of the ricochet risk and not allowed in commercial forestry as it does not do chainsaws much good. Lagopus.....

Kent is bringing out bismuth again. More expensive than steel, but at least cheaper than the other barrel-friendly alternatives. And available in 16 and 28ga, as well as 12 and 20.

Larry, the subject of this thread is the successful thwarting of yet another lead ammunition ban. But you took the opportunity to go off topic again to tout an inferior alternative to lead shot. How is it that you feel the need to lecture others about going off-topic, yet you frequently do the same thing yourself.

Oh. sorry... I forgot that you are pretending to ignore me for pointing out your frequent hypocrisy. Carry on.

Makes me wonder about Tungsten as Denmark have banned that as a health risk.

Norway had the right idea as they reversed the ban and went back to lead on the grounds that the alternatives caused unacceptable wounding. Another win for common sense. Lagopus.....

Interesting, lagopus. We're already down the nontox road on waterfowl. But the potential "unacceptable wounding" thing . . . that's why I've always promoted a blind test, lead vs steel, on pheasants. That's never been done.

The trouble with tungsten as a raw material is, the brokers say, "This is the price, take it or leave it and don't worry about us we'll sell it."

I think a Tungsten shortage came about because of Military requirements for armour piercing rounds taking precedent. The price went up quite steeply during the Iraq war.

I'll be visiting the beautiful country of Norway again next year so I'll ask around in any gun shops I come across to find out a bit more. I do call in the fishing shop in Bergen and the owner speaks perfect English. If I call in I take him some English fishing magazines. He does a bit of shooting too so will be sure to know more. Lagopus.....

Let's see...

Density of Lead- 11.34 grams per cubic centimeter.

Density of Steel- 7.8 grams per cubic centimeter.

So lead is nearly 50% more dense than steel. Shouldn't take a rocket scientists or a double blind study to know which type of shot would be ballistically inferior and produce more cripples. A few centuries of experimentation and the actual more recent experience with ducks and geese after the 1991 U.S. lead shot ban for waterfowl apparently isn't enough for Larry either.

Then there's the little problem of the total unsuitability of steel shot in our vintage doubles. Plus the higher cost. Then there's that little problem with the greater potential of breaking a tooth if you bite down on a piece of steel shot.

We all know the real motivation for the anti-lead ammunition movement. At least those of us with any brains do. It is to make shooting and hunting less affordable to the masses so that it would be easier down the road to enact more anti-gun legislation. Yet we still have those gun owners who fall for that ruse and even go so far as to aid and support it.

That's funny about King Brown. He chewed my ass out several years ago for using steel to hunt ducks. Sounds like he has done a 180.

King Brown has been anti-lead ammo for quite some time. That earlier "Lead is Dead" quote was from 2006. This one supporting the use of tungsten is from 2007:



His anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric goes back at least that far too, but he still insists he is pro gun. Go figure. I stopped making excuses for gun owners who stab us in the back some time ago.

That's great news, even better that no evidence has been found to provide real reason for a possible ban. That should stop it rearing it's head again a few years down the line.
It's good news for the thousands of airgun shooters in the UK too. The non lead pellet alternatives fell way short of the mark.
Thanks for the post and link.

"Funny" is the right word, im, because I'm sticking to "lead is dead." No 180 here, as you speculated. Lead is being phased out primarily for public health considerations. Hunters and anglers are victims of the gone-overboard ricochet. I agreed there is no "real" alternative for bullet and shot, as another member said, but don't quibble about TM efficacy.

I agreed with old colonel's post that the UK easing is "only a victory for today" because the "illiberal green and their fellow travellers will only regroup and restart the effort. They will for deluded reasons go overboard on lead where it is not a real issue and for anti-hunting and class, culture issues fight their campaign indefinitely." I said the "Tendency to "go overboard" is common.

Having said that, I support the Canadian anti-lead ban for waterfowl. It's unquestionably better for the birds. Early-days steel was an abomination, and the heavier loads and speeds to make up for steel's limitations don't work for me nor all-but-one of my doubles. They weren't made for it. I use TM and bismuth, a smidgen of the total cost of gunning.

Wow, two to one. Public health and better for the birds, that's a formidable pair. Don't mind the topic about the science and lead, did hunters and anglers ever have a chance?

A Chance? Not when science is political and predisposed to an answer. One thing life has taught me is to be wary of all science in the news. 1st because the news selectively quotes. 2nd because too often science has become more subjective and less objecive when linked to funding and politics.

No one political view has a monopoly on half baked unscientific science

Wasted effort to fight the lead ban for waterfowl. That train left the station 25 years ago. Uplands . . . different story. And for the most part, it's going to be one state at a time. (See California.) So if you see it coming in your state, make noise. Ask for evidence that the ingestion of lead is harming the species in question. Hunters and shooters have won a number of battles on this issue. California's problem is that they have only a tiny percentage of hunters. It's far less likely to happen in states with more hunters and shooters.

I think old colonel and Larry have it right: it all comes down to numbers, whatever the science says. If you've got the numbers you carry the day. Authenticity of numbers as representative of reality is as ephemeral and accurate as the news today that the "Republican Party" made Trump its nominee.

Canada's most controversial environmental debate of the 70s was whether to spray Nova Scotia forests to protect from the spruce budworm. Medical researchers "linked" spraying to children's deaths from Reye's Syndrome. Public protest withdrew protection, makingthe largest clearcut on the continent, observable by astronauts in space.

I campaigned for protection---forests can't be managed without protection. All of the august authority of the doctors won with the public. The federal government investigated the so-called link of the insecticide with Reye's Syndrome. I announced its findings to an US international forestry conference: another case of bad science.

The Colonel's right: triumphs of reason are victories only for today. The reality is that there are more antis than us. Numbers count, right or wrong.

King should certainly know about the numbers of "anti's" since he is one of them. Few here have posted as much anti-lead or anti-2nd Amendment garbage on this site as King.

And when it comes to getting off topic, King is just as bad as his little brother Larry. Who in hell was talking about spruce budworms or Reye's Syndrome anyway??? But whenever King can't get away with re-inventing himself, he typically falls back on attempting to change the subject.

It was equally entertaining to see Larry Brown's comments on what it takes to stave off future lead bans. Larry went on and on for days back in January of this year in the "Lead and Condor deaths" thread blaming lead poisoning in eagles on alleged lead bullet fragments left in gut piles and wounded deer. Talk about junk science, but Larry kept repeating it without considering the ridiculous assertions that all of these gut piles were contaminated with literally hundreds of lead bullet fragments. His remarks were about as much help as tossing a cement block to a drowning man.

So, when we're hanging out at King's place, sampling the fine wines, why would we want to listen to Larry advocate for a blind test of lead vs. steel with regard to wounding pheasant? Before you over indulge, as long as you stand by the science doesn't matter position, who would be interested in reading a report about barbarians maiming innocent wildlife? Let's suppose you change your mind and science becomes important, who would be interested in reading a report about barbarian hunters maiming innocent wildlife?

If Larry is so right, doesn't all he might want to do is just use steel shot for himself, instead of advocate? Why go through so much gymnastics to be anti hunting? Why not ferguson for a total hunting ban, and then civilly reach across aisle and offer notox hunting of biodegradable targets in a magnanimous gesture? Did I get it right, hunters and anglers really are not victims of any mythical overboard ricochet, just fools for denying the inevitable?

Craig, have you been drinking again? The only place I've ever shot upland birds with steel is on a preserve which requires nontox. I shoot lead. I advocate for lead in the uplands. If there were blind tests showing that steel ends up crippling more birds than lead, that would give the lead supporters more "ammunition" when they oppose any move to require nontox for upland birds.

The nontox requirement for waterfowl is obviously "inevitable". It's here to stay. The wasted effort is in fighting that battle. Fighting any requirement for nontox in the uplands, on the other hand, is a war in which those of us who support lead have already won numerous battles. A few examples: If Wisconsin's Natural Resources Board had their way, all DNR-managed lands in the state would be nontoxic shot only. They're not. The people of WI voted that recommendation down, soundly, at DNR meetings a few years ago. The IA Natural Resources Commission wanted dove hunting to be nontox only. That got shot down. MT has significantly limited its game department's ability to regulate lead shot.

Re King's statements, I'd disagree with him on one point: I don't believe--at least in the USA--that there are more antis than there are hunters/shooters. There may be more antis in some states than hunters/shooters, and that's where we have a problem. But where there are good numbers of hunters and shooters, and where they're willing to make noise (and politicians listen to noise), they can win--as illustrated above.

The real danger is that the antis have latched onto the "lead is bad, let's get rid of it!" line--and that's a line which, unfortunately, can be sold to people who aren't really anti-hunting. Right now, the EPA can't regulate lead in ammunition. Katie bar the door, all across the country, if they ever get that authority.

No Larry, it was a typo, I mean't whine. But, since you asked, I'll give it the ole try. I don't care what you chose to use or not use for ammo while upland hunting. I was commenting on what you advocate for.

Please read for comprehension, it looks like you occasionally disagree with King about the value of a scientific study. King says the road is set, regardless of the science.

The 'real danger' would be the title of the study that you advocate for, 'hunting cripples'. You yourself said that the audience is the non hunting politically aware. If your facts mattered, you would never have to comment, 'the wasted effort is in fighting that battle'. Unless, of course, King is right and facts don't matter a bit.

It seems like you're trying to be a functional alcoholic? Just kidding around Larry, I'll work on my drinking problem, if you'll work on yours?

What do I advocate for, Craig . . . other than lead? No need to advocate for anything where waterfowl is concerned. The law is in place. No sense advocating for lead for waterfowl because it's illegal. Likewise, no sense advocating for nontox because that's the law. But always a good idea to advocate for lead (if that's what you support) for upland game, because that's where it's under attack.

Cripples are a reality, regardless of what kind of ammo you shoot. The only extensive steel shot study done on pheasants--comparing various sizes of steel--showed what I consider to be an unacceptably high rate of cripples. However, steel shotshells have improved since then. But I still think it would be worthwhile to do the blind test, lead against steel.

We're ALL the audience, Craig. When there's a threat, that's when hunters get excited and start making noise. If that "noise" were to include the results of a study showing the superiority of lead over steel, that would help us make our case to the politicians--who are the ones that end up making the decisions.

Here in the UK the LAG that was set up by the government five years ago became heavily discredited last year. The chairman, who was the last British Association for Shooting & Conservation chief executive, had a letter made public in which he came out in favour of a lead ban, before the full committee had seen all the evidence.

It might have been expected that this fellow, John Swift, would naturally lean towards lead shot retention. However, it appears his release of this letter was an ill-judged attempt to influence members of the committee who were either neutral or against a ban. One probably did not have to look too far behind Swift to see some political string-pulling going on.

The LAG report was sitting in the Minister's in-tray at the time of the referendum and Cameron resignation. Liz Truss was moved from that department to become SoS for Justice. It must have been one of her last - and best - actions to rule against the report and allow the continued use of lead ammunition. In fact, she was quite blunt: "With regard to the impact of lead ammunition on wildlife, we note that the report does not provide evidence of causation linking possible impacts of lead ammunition with sizes of bird populations in England. In both instances – human health and wildlife – the report did not show that the impacts of lead ammunition were significant enough to justify changing current policy; we therefore do not accept your recommendation to ban the use of lead ammunition."

Tim

I do not understand how the pro lead policy was adopted, but your explanation shows that the ban had a good chance of being rubber stamped into acceptance. For someone to dig it out of a pile of unfinished business likely had more to do with their political convictions than results of studies.

If I'm not mistaken, there is evidence that elevated lead levels can be found in upland game birds, and that lead can be ingested by other animals and humans that eat those birds. Thankfully, but by the slimmest of margins, Ms Truss distinguished some difference between wildlife and shooting estates. Thanks for the insight from your side of the pond.

My appreciation for the above also. Enlightening to me.

My point is, and continues to be 'cripples'. If I had to guess, a truly scientific study would conclude that both lead and steel cripple game birds. But, I get to wave around a study that says lead does such and such a percentage less crippling. You're very adamant about what a waste of effort it is undo the steel and waterfowl hunting regs and laws. I never revisited that topic, but I'm sure you're aware of the numerous crippling studies associated with the introduction of steel shot. I would think that shows the wisdom of pursuing that leg to stand on.

'We' may be an audience, but maybe at some point you can admit that 'we' can not force a decision making politician to dig an obscure item out of a monstrous pile of business just to give us satisfaction. To help out, 'we' may be better off advocating for politicians rather than studies.

I think I have posted this before, but it was what convinced me that a lead ban would be dubious:

From: The blog of Guy N Smith, author and owner of the Midland Cartridge Co, (now defunct), circa 2010

"Blood Test
I requested a blood test to determine the level of lead in my blood. According to the internet the acceptable blood lead concentrations in healthy persons without excessive exposure to environmental sources of lead is less than 10ug/dL for children and less that 25 ug/dL for adults. My doctor was somewhat surprised at my request but agreed, stating that I would have to pay for it. I was only too happy to fork out £40 in an attempt to dispel the malicious myth. It turned out to be money well spent.
I have eaten game since I was old enough to consume solid foods. During the war years when meat rationing was in force we ate whatever my father shot. Without the benefit of a freezer, this comprised game throughout the Winter months and fresh rabbit and pigeon during the rest of the year.
Further to this, I had a small cartridge loading business during the 1960's when I must have handled tons of lead shot. Nowadays I am stripping down shotgun cartridges on a regular basis for review in this column. Hence I am undoubtedly classified as having excessive exposure to lead.
The result of my test showed that the level of lead in my bloodstream was just 5ug/dL, half that of a child without excessive exposure!. That says it all as far as I am concerned and I shall ignore further press releases on this ridiculous claim with the contempt it deserves."

Tim

Apparently root vegetables grown in certain areas can contain lead limits above W.H.O. guidelines. So, veggies beware! Eat game and be healthy. :-) Lagopus.....

Craig, there's no doubt that both lead and steel result in cripples. My point is what I see as an unacceptably high rate of cripples in the only extensive study done on pheasants (by Tom Roster). In the early days of steel, a lot of waterfowlers complained about its effectiveness. Two points there: 1. Steel loads are a good bit better today than they were 25 years ago. 2. Waterfowlers had to make an adjustment when switching from lead to steel, both in terms of shot size and also because of the different ballistics, steel vs lead. Because steel sheds velocity a lot faster than lead does, and because waterfowl shooting is longer range on average than is upland shooting, and because early steel loads didn't have the "speed of light" muzzle velocity of some of the current loads, more lead was required on long passing shots.

We do the digging out for the politicians, Craig. And of course we start with the DNR. If a lead vs steel study shows less crippling with lead, then the DNR is less likely to recommend any kind of blanket lead ban for upland birds.

The battle in America is upland non-tox. I'd have to agree that the waterfowl lead ban is likely irreversible. Modern high speed steel is perfectly effective on waterfowl.

The only problem for our small group of classic doubles fans is non-compatibility. Bismuth is the answer to that problem.

I do not believe science will find a problem with lead upland shot fall anything like the results that were relied upon in some heavily shot over wetlands. In addition, while steel is now comparable with lead for waterfowl purposes it is because of speed and use of larger shot. That combination will not carry over to upland use in my opinion...Geo

It just occurred to me: steel rusts over time and that may lead to other problems.

"Rust has an unpleasant metallic taste, which often deters people from ingesting it in toxic amounts. But prolonged ingestion — consuming contaminated well water, for example — can cause serious health issues including diarrhoea, stomach ache, nausea and vomiting. In severe cases, liver failure and major cardiovascular complications may occur characterized by rapid breathing, increased heart rate and weak, erratic pulse."

Just balancing the pros and cons of steel!

Tim

Astute, Geo. I wonder if we need some/any combination to continue hunting in the uplands. If we can't get it to carry over, what's that say for the future of hunting.

But Tim, on the "pro" side . . . dentists love steel shot.

And what happens if you have some in your gut and then go for a MRI Scan? Lagopus.....

Larry Brown's comments about fighting lead shot bans are laughable when you go back and read his posts in the January 2016 "Lead and Condor Deaths" thread. Larry repeatedly threw deer hunters and their lead bullets under the proverbial bus with his inane comments about their bullets being a major source of lead poisoning in eagles.

That kind of support is about like tossing a cement block to a drowning man.

What yo you expect from a guy that thinks muzlims are a loving bunch of people ?

Joe, there are crazies everywhere, overseas and here and home-grown as in American and Canadian instances who will blow up innocents to serve their demented ends. Moslems, Christians or whoever you categorize as "a loving bunch" share a proclivity to violence to get what they want.

We send our militaries to far-off places to cause the deaths and maiming of perhaps tens of thousands more than than terrorists have of ours with nothing to show for it, except 60,000-plus US fatalities alone in Vietnam and Iraq, acknowledged now as blunders---but they're gone.

When it comes to judging religions and violence you might consider August 19, 1942 when the US was just getting into the Second World War. Canada lost 5,000 of its best infantry storming the beaches of Dieppe in one morning, a "strategic" test of German defences but more of stupidity and suicide.

Joe, I don't judge people by their religion. Where my father grew up--not in the South, but a small town just outside Des Moines back in the 20's--there was a sign on the railroad station that said: "[censored], don't let the sun set on you in this town!" And both he and my grandmother told of the occasional fiery cross burning in the fields. Wouldn't have been any Muslims around back then . . . but plenty of folks didn't much care for Catholics or Jews or blacks. Just plain old church-going folks.

I'd forgotten about that sign on the railroad station until I read an article in the Des Moines Register a few years back. Seems there were more than a few "sunset towns" in Iowa, with that same rule concerning blacks.

jOe may have been one the guys setting the crosses on fire...

Yes King, you are right the South Vietnamese have done so much better under the Commies, not to mention the Cambodians. While poorly done, the blunder was on the part of both those who protested as willing dupes of of the Left, and those who failed to properly execute the conflict.

In the end and through most of it, it was not a civil war. I am very comfortable in stating the Vietnamese would have done better if they had not lost to the externally driven invasion by the North Vietnamese regulars fully supported by their communist hegemon buddies in China and the Soviet Union.

I doubt even you could argue the Cambodians fared anything but horrifically under their Communist allied with the Vietnamese, Chinese, and Soviets.

Communist expansionism was a proven fact and not a myth, anymore than the Communist use of willing and complicit dupes in Hollywood and the American left. You can argue the US had negative and positive impacts in its opposition to the communist march south, but we did not cause that expansionism, only stymied it.

There is no doubt without the help of the left's active efforts in support of Communist, policy choices would have been different.

As for Iraq, the current administration's choice to incomplete a flawed process and walk away demonstrates a strength of character which permeates their regular actions in relation to every traditional value, while their perseverance in deception and skirting of both enforcement of law or simple adherence to US Code exceeds any bad expectation I had ever imagined.

I always assumed that the left were essentially like me with a different tilt, I grew up in a democrat household who hated Nixon and strongly believed in civil rights and protecting the little guy. What The Clinton amorality crushed, and the current incumbent proved to me is I was wrong, they do not share my traditional liberal values embodied in the Constitution and our Declaration of Independence. They don't take their oath's seriously and are shameless in their actions and speech.

While you may throw around terms like "blunder," I can only agree voters blundered to trust the Democrat Leadership had a modicum of honesty. Their truth is sophistic in the worse sort; willing to say anything or do anything to win an election or a bill passage.

The left will say or anything to win. The first condition of democracy is to accept defeat and support the system. They cannot be good sports. The second is to be a good winner in understanding the need to build actual coalitions; i.e. Not ram through nation changing bills like Obamacare. I could go on, but it is of little use.

I simply cannot trust the left and have real reservations about the right.

I'm generally left, Colonel, but none here should have doubts about what I think of Hilary Clinton. Everything seems corrupted by money, whether it's Clinton, Trump or Putin. I appreciate your thoughts, from a life in public service.

The question here is, lead is the best because of it ballistic qualities and cheap price, whereas all the other alternatives are either expensive or have little or no ballistic qualities.

We don't know what the future of lead will be however what we do know is, that the best alternative to lead ballistic qualities, or tungsten, isn't going to get cheaper. There are just way too many applications for tungsten and its properties in today's world.


"The free element is remarkable for its robustness, especially the fact that it has the highest melting point of all the elements. Its high density is 19.3 times that of water, comparable to that of uranium and gold, and much higher (about 1.7 times) than that of lead."

"Tungsten's many alloys have numerous applications, including incandescent light bulb filaments, X-ray tubes (as both the filament and target), electrodes in TIG welding, superalloys, and radiation shielding. Tungsten's hardness and high density give it military applications in penetrating projectiles. Tungsten compounds are also often used as industrial catalysts."

What you say about lead is true. However, steel has gotten both better and cheaper, while lead has gotten more expensive. Result: While lead is still better than steel, the difference isn't as great as it once was. And we've pretty much lost the argument that steel is too expensive. And I agree with you that it's unlikely the barrel and vintage gun friendly "nontox" alternatives to steel will get much cheaper.