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.
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.
