S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,542
Posts546,066
Members14,420
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 221
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 221 |
Ok Brent, I can see that this has digressed to the point of the name calling. Thank you for your insight. Al
I believe it started digressing to the point of name calling with "Thank you, all of you lowest form of scum pond life, Lawyers." Recoil Rob: Sir or Madame, I have no knowledge of who you are nor do I know what your occupation is or may be. My statement from above was only directed in general to the self appointed ruling class that delights in inflicting pain on the American public with their many deceits. I hold a few former lawyers in the highest regard for fighting against their lying former brethren, that they watched their clients suffer under. It is a shame the mass media in America does not look more closely at all these self appointed members of the ruling class as they did to that legal wizard that was disbarred this past week. However you are correct in regards to it being personnel, but only if you are among the members of the self appointed ruling class that does not care to grant your victims plenary rights of due process, in less than general jurisdiction venues.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
If you were to choose what part would you have us believe ?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 221
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 221 |
If you were to choose what part would you have us believe ?
I would not choose for anybody to believe any part of what I've written. At best, I'm only a witness to what I have lived. My reading has been broad on a number of subjects that has lead me to my conclusions. I do find it appropriate to follow this simple rule, first among others. "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is true"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250 |
Duck hunters make good fall-guys, you uplanders just wait your turn! Time will be, when your favorite little vintage 28ga quail gun is house bound. The things they've pumped into our water, makes you wonder about the pounds of shot in the wet lands. Duck hunters were the quick fix - for all bad things.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,755 Likes: 437
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,755 Likes: 437 |
Al, if you don't care whether you are believed then carry on and expect the responses that you have received. If you find holes in the science, let's see them aired out in detail. So far, I hear you claiming holes or more like conspiracy, but no evidience is offered. Just your opinion.
I posted a number of papers on this issue in earlier discussions of this topic. Maybe you could pick those out and deal with them for starters.
Brent
Last edited by BrentD; 06/21/07 07:26 AM.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598 |
I just called the Bismuth No-Tox company and spoke to a gentleman working there. Bismuth shot production ceased several months ago. Due to the death of the owner the company is now for sale. According to the person I spoke with they expected the company to be sold and business to resume as usual. He mentioned there were offers on the table. I did get the sense from further discussion that continued operations are not definite and hinge upon a successful sale. The heirs of the estate are not interested in running this business. In further discussion he informed me they own the patent for Bismuth shot so unless someone buys those rights production of Bismuth shot becomes in my opinion unlikely. Overall the person I talked to was optimistic but the future of Bismuth shot has not been finalized. Here is the patent (# 5513689) that they own: http://www.google.com/patents?id=9TkiAAAAEBAJ&dq=bismuth+shotThere were 75 inventors. Bismuth Cartridge, L.L.C is the assignee. The patent seems to center on producing consistent size shot. After the drop, they place the bismuth shot into a tumbler with steel balls to break up the bismuth. Here is a later patent (# 5540749) that claims to make spherical Bismuth shot. The key seems to be dropping the hot bismuth shot into an anti-freeze type liquid.: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ol0hAAAAEBAJ&dq=bismuth+shotThis one is owned by: Asarco Incorporated There are earlier patents for making lead shot. Including some interesting stuff filed and owned by Inland Steel in the late '70's. Pete
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
KYJ - I'd think teardrop shot would be ideal as that is a very aerodynamic shape for subsonic flight. No reason I can think of it wouldn't pattern well. It might respond a bit differently to choke constriction than does spherical shot. I doubt it would bridge any more than spherical in the drop tube or in the choke entrance. Could you make it consistently? Anyone know of other experiments with teardrop shot?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021 |
King B not sure at all what Kent’s chamber pressures are but I'd rather err on the side of caution especially with chamber pressures. With Bismuth I could reload so I would always know approximately what the chamber pressure is. However, with Kent, they do not sell their tungsten matrix as a reloading component so I could never tell what the inside of that shell is doing in the chamber. That in itself is enough to be cautious when shooting older guns!!! All the best
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 941 Likes: 55
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 941 Likes: 55 |
I have read all the posts so far and agree with many of the things Al has said. I, too, am one who does not believe everything that has been said regarding the hazards of lead to waterfowl. Furthermore, I also believe that this non-toxic "movement" is a government / politically instigated "bandwagon" that the ammunition manufacturers have jumped on with great enthusiasm. Shotgun shells were, in the distant past, priced quite reasonably. But, when the government mandate for non-toxic shot came out, wow!!!! Suddenly,the price of those new shells was five to ten times more than their lead predecessors!! I understand that in this day and age the consumer pays for everything new so no company has to spend any money to develop something new. But, we have been hearing for years now that "prices will come down on Bismuth, etc, now that their are more people making no-tox alternatives and the start-up costs have already been paid." Anybody beleive this?? I think the ammunition manufacturers have set the ridiculous prices on their no-tox ammunition at these levels for one reason - because they can - and they have a federal mandate to back them up. Okay, those are my opinions, and quite frankly I don't care how many share them or discount them. But now, I have a question to the allies of no-tox and absurdly priced ammo who have expressed their opinions and loyalties here. I don't necessarily believe it, but I have stopped arguing that waterfowl "may" ingest lead by diving to the bottom of a pond in search of food, hence, the restriction on using lead over or around bodies of water. However, I hunt in an area for upland game where lead shot can be used, and which waterfowl (sandhill cranes) are in abundance. I can shoot my limit of pheasant with lead shot with a sandhill crane or a goose sitting right beside them, but even with a waterfowl stamp, I cannot shoot the crane or goose unless I switch to non-toxic shot. ??????? Am I to believe that waterfowl are the ONLY winged creatures stupid enough to eat lead pellets when their upland cousins are not? Also, according to the game warden I asked this question of, I cannot even shoot a goose or crane that flies over the lead-allowed land. Do these apparently stupid creatures have the ability to snag fast moving pellets in mid-flight. Far fetched? I don't think so. Purely political with no sane basis - you betcha!!! Defenders of this one? Step forward!!!
Perry M. Kissam NRA Patron Life Member
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,755 Likes: 437
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,755 Likes: 437 |
Perry, if you don't like the science, pull it out and debate it.
The laws regarding lead vs. nontoxic revolve around nonmigratory vs. migratory game birds. The latter is regulated by the federal govt. and the former by the state. Hence different regulations. Of course, pheasants can and do ingest lead with sorry effects. But states don't want to outlaw it as this is a relatively rare problem for birds strung out over much more real estate. Not always so for waterfowl.
FWIW, SOME federally purchased public hunting lands require nontox for hunting of even upland game. Because it's federally purchased land.
In the meantime, debate the science, not your politics.
Brent
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
|