>>65001841
Who seethes about .30-30? It's a fantastic cartridge.

File: 1758236249253563.jpg (28 KB, 500x171)

28 KB JPG

>>65001853
not the fact it's .30-30. It's a copper monolithic hollow point with a polymer tip. I just used .30-30 since it's the best round and if .30-30 can be effective with copper basically any round can be effective with copper

No one cares if you use unleaded ammo, in fact I wish we could move away from lead, but no one in the west wants to mine anything better and would rather the Chinese do it so any bans on lead is going to cripple firearms ownership for civilians which seems like a backdoor to gun control.

>>65001867
you know all the lead comes from china, right? the kenyan banned the last lead smeltery in 2013

>>65001866
Tbh Anyone who actually has any experience with 30 modern cal copper bullets knows they perform brilliantly in game. The arguments mostly come from a ton of ppl not wanting to be forced to use monos

>>65001914
This. I've never had the slightest issue with either 308 or 300wm copper monos for hunting. They expand fine and drop game in one round no problem. They also seem to fragment less which is nice, less stuff to pick out and less ruined meat.
>The arguments mostly come from a ton of ppl not wanting to be forced to use monos
Which in this specific case I don't understand, at least for a modern gun. I mean, I can understand people not wanting to use monos for basic training, because if you're actually burning a lot of ammo then price differences do add up. But you're not (right? RIGHT?) mag dumping at a deer, and the cost difference between an 120cpr round and a 150cpr round seems meaningless. Who the fuck cares about 30 cents for 100+ lbs of meat? Are some people are just contrarian?

Some old rounds can make it harder to hit a high BC within the spec's COAL with pure copper, but that's an issue for prs not hunting.

>>65002202
>They also seem to fragment less
not just seem. every study shows that bonded rounds are the only leaded rounds that retain about the same mass as coppers do. coppers typically retain high 90% mass in all the tests people have done

>>65001867
That's a real stretch. Like, "ngsw PCT ammo is a backdoor to disarming the populace" stretch

>>65001866
I have seen people seething about .30-30 for no real reason, I think it's mainly people who collect ARs and can't comprehend people using a caliber that has been around for so long and Fudds like.
There's also a weird perception that it's weak and shouldn't be used over 100yrds

>>65002202
Lead from bullets and shot are not poisoning animals. That's not how fucking lead poisoning works. It's not mercury. You could eat a lead weight and shit it out and not have elevated lead blood levels.
I'm not giving up sectional density and energy transfer so you can feel good about being fucking retarded.
Legacy gas. Dust, chips and soil from pre 1978 buildings. Manufacturing. Current toys, jewelry, makeup and dishes you eat off made out of the US all contain processed lead that will elevate your blood levels. Batteries that have been thrown away and left outside for the last hundred years or so all contain processed lead that is in the soil and water. Current manufacturing and mining contributions to processed lead into the environment...
You can eat chunks of bullets and shot in game meat and will not have elevated blood levels. Stop being a tool. Shopping on temu and wish and Walmart have given more people lead poisoning than the entire history of firearms. Outside the intended lead injection of course.

>>65002265
The literature does not support this hypothesis

>>65002265
>You could eat a lead weight and shit it out and not have elevated lead blood levels.
You are objectively wrong. I dunno how the fuck you got such a meme in your head but yeah, eating lead will 100% elevate your lead blood levels.
>I'm not giving up sectional density and energy transfer so you can feel good about being fucking retarded.
Who asked you to? Did you know irrational rage is a symptom of lead poisoning anon? Just mentioning it :^)
>giving up sectional density and energy transfer
lol

>>65001876
No, we have a massive lead recycling economy in the USA. We literally recycle 99% of lead used in car batteries.

Where do you think all those auto stores send their old car batteries? Or all those lead acid recycling centers? Or lead gathered from indoor range media, etc etc.

The USA operates a massive, highly efficient, and nearly closed-loop lead recycling economy, achieving a 99% recycling rate for lead-acid batteries, the highest of any consumer product in the country. This industry keeps over 160 million batteries out of landfills annually, utilizing a network of over 300,000 collection sites.
99% of lead from batteries is recycled. New batteries contain 80-90% recycled material.
A robust domestic supply chain sources roughly 73-85% of lead needs from North American recyclers, reducing reliance on imports.

>>65002298
Sure it does. Get the fuck off Google.
Did the romans die from drinking out of lead pipes? Nope. Children get lead poisoning easily. Yet all the roman children did not die drinking from lead pipes. Odd huh? They did die from drinking sweetener they made from boiling wine in lead pots. From dishes glazed with lead powder in it. From mining and processing lead.
The condor and other animals dying from bullet and shot lead was debunked. Fully. They found the sources of lead those exact animals were eating. Paint chips from fire and water towers. And old land fill they dumped legacy gasoline in.
There is nothing at all to the lead bullets and shot being the cause of animal or people's issue. Primers indoors sure. But who is dumb enough to stand indoors and breathe in burning gunpowder. You deserve lead poisoning. Go outside.
Not sorry at all to tell you all the claims that brought about the legal changes were debunked and ignored.
Enjoy continuing to be poisoned by the same people trying to end lead bullets as they allow all the imported lead kids toys and makeup and jewelry. Jackass

>>65002316
You clearly know nothing about terminal ballistics.

>>65002337
>We literally recycle 99% of lead used in car batteries.
>
>Where do you think all those auto stores send their old car batteries?
throw that shit in the ocean like a normal person

>>65002337
>No, we have a massive lead recycling economy in the USA. We literally recycle 99% of lead used in car batteries.
No we don't. It's more like 10%. Batteries are everywhere. Cars litter driveways. There are car and motorcycle, laptops and phones all through the landfills. Even worse they go to transfer stations that send all the trash off to be burned for energy. Kek. We burn and bury more batteries that we recycle. A lot more.

>>65002345
Trust me I have had an urge to take my APC UPS lead acid batteries to the outdoor range and see what guns can shoot through them lenght wise but I resist the urge lmao .

>>65002360
ummm what?

https://www.associationofbatteryrecyclers.com/industry-overview/#:~:text=The%20lead%20battery%20recycling%20industry%20has%20many,people%20who%20provide%20safe%2C%20responsible%20recycling%20services.

Its literally 99% for car batteries.

>>65002364
No, it's not. We are capable of reclaiming 99% of the lead in a car battery. We are not doing it. And we aren't even trying with lithium ion and the like ev batteries. This is hysterical.
It's not happening. Sorry to burst your bubble. Wait till you find out what some of those places that are supposed to be recycling car batteries are doing with them.
How about this. Explain in great detail the process for reclaiming lead from a car battery. Now explain OSHA and environmental rules and regulations. Now, think real hard.

>>65002338
>debunked
You said this last thread but never provided further documentation. If it was fully debunked, there'd be a paper about it

>>65002341
Nta but a monolithic copper bullet will transfer energy more effectively due to mass retention and expansion. As for sectional density, a monolithic of the same weight as a xup and core bullet will have the same SD. The only two factors in calculating SD is diameter and weight, so idk why you would think it would have a lower SD by virtue of being copper

>>65002381
I dont know if you've ever been a battery recycling plant but you are dead wrong my guy. Its one of the few things we do right. No gonna respond again, the info is freely available online.

>>65002385
Paper? A freedom of information act was filed during the California lead ban legislation that exposed suppressed information, missing information and non peer reviewed claims were made and non of the pertinent information was shown to the legislature. It's all a scam. How are those condors doing with that 98% compliance? Don't worry it's all going to work soon right? They are coming out of it but it's a slow process right? They are eating up all that lead just laying on the ground that jumps into gut piles right?
Half the shit you dip shits quote was lies.

>>65002390
>so idk why you would think it would have a lower SD by virtue of being copper
You are fucking retarded.

>>65002411
>how are those condors doing
Much better, actually. 600 individuals now, and their range has reached to the PNW for the first time in over a century

>>65002415
Please demonstrate how a cup and core 168gr .308 bullet has a higher sectional density than a monolithic 168gr .308 bullet. The only two factors used in calculation are diameter and weight, correct?

Arguing about lead poisoning is truly the weirdest timeline.

>>65002415
>>65002436
And before you reply with another nonanswer, this is a genuine question. If there is a reason monolithics have a lower SD than cup and core when all else is equal, I'd like to know

>>65002442
>All else being equal
All is not equal that's the point. You require a significant increase in length. This often leads to the necessity for a barrel swap to get the twist rate better suited for the light for length bullets.
As far as energy exchange also no. jacketed lead core bullets expand in a uniform manner. Presenting a solid flowered face when compared to the gap riddled pedals of the solid counterparts.
The failure in energy exchange can be seen and shown in the claims of both the users and manufacturers. More complete pass through than the jacketed counterparts.
It's pretty basic terminal ballistics. The solid bullets trying to replace lead core bullets are "good enough" they do not out perform them.
If you compare them by length, the lead core is better. If you compare them by weight, the lead core is better. If you simply want a pass through, the lead core fmj is better.
How do you want to try and twist this to give mediocre a little edge?
As I said. I'm not giving up sectional density, energy exchange or any other advantage of lead.

>>65002254
>Be .30-30
>Be an inefficient fudd round for retards
>Be .35 Remington
>Ostensibly a lower powered round for early semi autos
>Beat the shit out of turdy turdy
>Retards (You) proceed to buy .30-30 instead
>Theyhatedhimbecausehespokethetruth.jpeg
You're welcome for the education anon

>>65002428
You mean they are being introduced by man. Lol.

>>65002535
Are they? They built nests

>>65002507
Do you use a 1:12 twist or something? Monolithics will stabalize in the average 1:10 at average weights. I used 168gr specifically because it's a common weight for hunting and will stabalize in a 1:10. A lot of hunters I know use 150/155gr for durr since ranges are relatively short and higher velocity is preferrable, and those will stabalize no problem as well. In a 1:12, even

>>65002507
this silly nigger has confused sectional density with ballistic coefficient, likely due to lead ingestion

>>65002547
>>65002507
You can even test this for yourself. Berger has an Sg calculator on their site. The library only has their own bullets of course, but most importantly they allow you to modify all the values. So just picking a similar/same weight bullet and plugging in the length of the monolithic of choice will get you a pretty good indication

>>65002538
Yes. Birds build nests. Man bred 300 condors in captivity from 27 birds captured and from eggs in the wild. They then released them. Some in the Pacific Northwest. In federal land in conjunction with the tribes. They will continue to release them in pairs.
Over half the "recovery" 300 of 600 has been directly released bred and raised in captivity birds. Considering the time frame one could say 99% of all condors are directly from the captive birds.
Condors died off from what the 60-80s?
Lead paint. Lead gas. Industry. Open landfills. They are coming back because man brought them back.
Bullets have nothing to do with it.

>>65002547
Monolithic bullets require a higher twist rate because to use a bullet of the same weight, it has to be significantly longer.
To the point where you no longer can get solid bullets on the light or heavy ends of the spectrum.
Again. You have to give up sectional density when you switch to monolithic. You can ADJUST by changing the length. But then you created more issues.
>It works fine for me
>You can just
>This is good enough
These are statements made when you have not found a complete replacement but merely a sub par substitute.

>>65002590
if it work it work

>>65002549
>Look everyone I'm retarded

>>65002569
that sounds great we should keep lead out of their environments as much as possible

>>65002594
It works inside very small margins. The thing it is being sold to compete with works better inside those narrow margins as well as inside its own much wider margins.
It's not as good. Period. This is a proven fact.

>>65002602
if im tryna kill a creature and its dead after i shoot its little bloodpumper the bullet do not matter

>>65002598
Good. Start by making a difference. Get rid of all your electronics. Just using the grid is contributing more than you shooting. Then stop driving anywhere. BEV or ice. Stop buying things online. Stop buying anything you didn't make yourself. Don't throw anything away. Go live in a cave somewhere. Then you will have done something. Until then your massive contribution to lead in the environment will continue.

>>65002390
somehow the federal copper .30-30s are 150 grains which is the same weight as the federal bonded softpoints and the powershok jacketed soft points. Is the bullet shank just longer and in the case? like wouldn't a copper bullet require a longer bullet and overall length?

>>65002613
or I could just not use lead when hunting and not deposit lead directly into animal habitats, that sounds like a good idea

>>65002509
.35 rem is dead. I think henry and tradition are the only 2 companies currently making .35 rem guns and henry only makes .35 rem in 2 of their models and they have a lot of models for some reason

>>65002616
That won't make a difference. You care about these animals right Gretta? It's your power use and reliance on industry that is causing the lead poisoning. As well as other toxins. It's your use of the automobile, public transportation causing lead pollution. That's what is poisoning their habitat.
If you wanted to make a difference you would start with the 99.999 percent and cut it down. Not the 0.001.
But you won't. Because you are a poser.

File: no need to be upset.jpg (10 KB, 207x244)

10 KB JPG

>>65002630
I choose not to dump my car batteries in the woods, therefore I also choose to not dump lead bullets in the woods

>>65002630
why all this posturing over people saying "I'd prefer not to use lead bullets?" Why disparage people trying to help the environment, even if it is small? Sadsack fuck.

>>65002643
>I choose not to dump my car batteries in the woods
damn right, car batteries go in the ocean

>>65002509
>inefficient fudd round
It's a slightly spicy version of .300blk you're just a moron

>>65002381
>No, it's not.
>be given sound argument with source, shown refutations of his objections to said argument, and shown the marvel of American innovation
>Nooooooo
Anon, kill yourself.

>>65002652
how else are electric eels gonna get their charge?

>>65002648
Because it's a culture war thing. Anon would shit his pants if he thought it would trigger da libs.

>>65002590
Did you just not read the post? You DON'T have to give up sectional density because you CAN use the same weight bullets WITHOUT a barrel swap except in some fringe cases. You can even test this yourself with Sg calculators, freely available on berger's site. What cartridge do you hunt with and what's the twist rate of your barrel? I'll even do the calculations for you

>>65002614
Yes and yes. The mono's are longer and to keep the COAL the same they seat deeper into the case

>>65002692
This post is ignorance on blast.

>>65002714
How so? Nothing in that post is wrong

>>65002692
>You can even test this yourself with Sg calculators
Some of us own and shoot firearms and have tested the various ammunition ourselves. That's how we know you are fucking retarded.

>>65002723
I test them in my backyard because I hand load a shit ton. That's why I know you don't know what you're talking about, just regergitsting a "pros and cons" bullet point list

>>65002717
wrong.

>>65002728
You will learn nothing in your little 60 yard backyard range. I shoot up to 1000. I've hunted on three continents with regularity and on multiple occasions I was the first person to take game with priority loads.
That's how I know you are a
>Good enough
Guy, and not one who has a clue. And yes, one of them is Africa.

>>65002748
Backyard is where I test them for velocity and sd. I shoot up in the mountains beyond 1k. Do you even hand load?
>>65002737
Elaborate

>>65002752
>I test for sectional density in the back yard
You are dismissed

>>65002748
>>65002752
Why are you shooting coppers out to a yuropoor mile? leaded ammo is way better for long range shooting, but most hunters aren't shooting game at over 200 yards

>>65002763
>why are you shooting coppers
For fun, obviously. I wouldn't be shooting game out that far, as you said within 200 yards is standard. At those ranges the reduced BC is entirely negligable

>>65002345
Bro is buying shitters so clapped out they don’t even last long enough for him to know what a core charge is. Tonight I will pray for this man

>>65002808
I've had my car for over 10 years. I can assure you batteries go in the ocean and motor oil goes down the sink at the nearest section 8 house

>>65002763
To elaborate, I bought a few boxes of carious weight monos for a subsonic load I was developing. 2 very heavy for caliber and one "normal". Since I had them anyway, I wanted to see how well they did at longer ranges, so I loaded up some spicy bois and took them out

>>65002254
>30-06 is only 10 years newer than 30-30

>>65002254
>a weird perception that it's weak and shouldn't be used over 100yrds
102 maaaybe 103 yards max.

>>65002821
>I've had my car for over 10 years.
Listen to the 26 yo.

>>65002654
>7.62x52r is just slightly spicer than a cartridge in the same caliber constrained to fit into an Ar15
Zamn you showed the world that .30-30 is indeed not slow, fat, and retarded
>>65002629
Exactly my point. Gay fat retards (see yourself) decided it was a good choice.

>>65002874
>fat gay dickless retard is seething over .30-30
must be another no gunz

File: Screenshot_20260323_20424(...).jpg (783 KB, 1079x1744)

783 KB JPG

>>65002879
>Another obese tranny defending shitty-30
Must be another no shoot

>>65002905
not your gun+killed more durr than whatever gay caliber you shill for

>>65002905
>no timestamp
>filename literally says screenshot
lmao, you don't have a gun or a dick, fatso

File: 1773939217969669.jpg (866 KB, 1080x1698)

866 KB JPG

>>65002874

30-30 is old. 30-30 is weak and inefficient compared to modern cartridges. This is a total non issue for hunters

File: Screenshot_20260323_20490(...).jpg (985 KB, 1000x1827)

985 KB JPG

>>65002915
Arrows have killed more durr than fuddy-fuddy. Sorry you stan for gay cartridge used by queers (You)

>>65002931
STILL not your gun AND not an argument, it's incredible really

>>65002931
>screenshot
look at this nonAmerican no gunz no dick fat thirdie

File: Screenshot_20260323_20560(...).jpg (311 KB, 580x1053)

311 KB JPG

>>65002935
>Noooo my .30-30 is gud cause... it just is
Feel free to reverse image search queer. I ain't getting out of bed to shit post

>>65002940
>Feel free to reverse image search
lmao, this pics are from reddit.
this dickless fat faggot is posting screenshots of airshit from reddit, lmao

>>65002956
Notice how .30-30 fags, in addition to being fags, are also terrible liars

>>65002940
SURELY posting another blurry ass image stolen from discord/reddit will convince them this time
your lazy walrus ass can't even provide an alternate angle OR a good reason to not use .30-30

>>65002959
you got caught being no gunz, fatso

File: Screenshot_20260323_21063(...).jpg (103 KB, 294x523)

103 KB JPG

>>65002961
Feel free to post the Reddit thread. Maybe then .30-30 will cease to be a cartridge favored by failures and trannies

>>65002973
>no alternate angle
>imaginary trannies in your head
>no reasons why .30-30 is bad
>and to top it all off a plastic guide rod
shameful

File: Screenshot_20260323_21005(...).jpg (250 KB, 926x425)

250 KB JPG

>>65002992
The plastic guide rod is shameful tqbh senpai. Maybe some day I'll swap it out, but being my first handgun qll those years ago makes it hard to let go. However it is less shameful than enjoying an inefficient cartridge and making up lies to defend it :)

Well this has been an experience of a thread

I just want you all to know that you’re gay. Your guns are gay. Hucking a big ass rock at something was all we ever needed and bullets is for queers and nerds. Rock never jam.

File: 1756038891819887.jpg (217 KB, 2000x2000)

217 KB JPG

>>65002265
I'm literally drunk Rn and know it's the disturbed white oxide from lead is the dangerous component of lead poisoning, these retards don't understand things like lead water pipes were fine as long as the hard water built up a mineral coating on them unintentionally protected people without their knowledge, Pewter plates were big among the rich way back when tomatoes were still considered poisonous to the rich in the old world but harmless to the poor who ate them on stoneware. These predatory/herbivore birds are eating pellets that have oxidized. For waterfowl, I begrudgingly agree use bismuth or steel, but you better stay the FUCK away from
My Turkey loads, and traditional rifle or large game shotgun rounds, It's not my fault an eagle decided to use a mushroomed 180gr cor-lokt as an everlasting gobstopper they picked from the gut pile.

>>65003007
The experience of learning .30-30 are slow fat retards or that monolithic bullets are a scam foisted upon the public?

>>65003002
>it's INEFFICIENT!!!!!
ok and?

>>65003013
The only problem with 30-30 is that 45-70 mogs it. It’s fine for women.

>>65003018
Exactly that. What you wanted something deeper from a guy shitposting in bed in between lazily watching tv and scrolling through 4chan? I thought my original post was retarded enough to make that clear

>>65002973
>>65003002
>screenshot
>no timestamp
>from a reddit airshit thread
fat and dickless

>>65003027
your reasoning is dumb and gay and you're a poopyhead

>>65003022
.45-70 is a reddit meme round

>>65003034
Feel free to post the thread anon. I expect to see it first thing in the morning. I'll leave this tab open just for you ;^)

>>65003013
Nah, monos are fine

>>65003027
This supposed argument only really argues for Big lady. I inherited my Great grandfather's 1894 Winchester .30-30 he bought in 1936. come deer season he walked several miles and back with the rifle and a dressed deer on his back. back in the day he had a short stout man named Joe Kabusheck who made a living moving half cuts of beef,(literally half a cow 350# of beef at the least ) into train cars till he had a massive hernia and joined my great grandfather's farm because he was infirm, he got his own shack and mailbox. he passed in 1968 or 69

anywho deer die from silly shit
caliber doesn't really matter

>>65003048
>linking to reddit
ewww, no gunz

>>65003040
No that’s anything 6.5 and 300 blk

>>65003107
winchester and marlin didn't make .45-70 from between like the 30s until the 70s. it's a meme round

>>65002345
t. chink who can't help but throw bottles into the ocean

File: Screenshot_20260324_06393(...).jpg (307 KB, 617x997)

307 KB JPG

>>65003079
>>65003034
Good morning anon, sorry you couldn't find it. Please enjoy one last blurry off axis photo I took in bed for you.

>>65002247
Wrong

>>65002247
It's absolutely not a stretch. If they ban lead ammo for hunting, they then have a precedent to ban lead ammo for outdoor range use, then indoor range use, then any use at all. What you're left with is far more expensive ammo overall which means even less of the population can afford to shoot. Then they'll start ratcheting up more and more taxes, or disposal requirements, or requiring environmental permits because of the other metals. In the end they'll acheive exactly what they're after, only the richest and their enforcers will have guns and the people will never be able to threaten them. Look at how they keep wanting credit card companies to make firearms purchases a separate category. It's so they can pressure those companies to stop processing those transactions or make them prohibitively expensive.

>>65004019
Based slippery slope understander.

how come t b h, f a m and s o y are still filtered but seethe isnt, despite the fact its only used by bad faith shitposters?

>>65004019
>If they ban lead ammo for hunting, they then have a precedent to ban lead ammo for outdoor range use, then indoor range use, then any use at all
No they don't you fucking retard. The slippery slope is a FALLACY, not logic. The reasoning behind banning lead where it'll get into people and the environment isn't the same as banning it at a range where all the lead is going into a specific berm or backing and can then be kept from leeching and cleaned up from there as needed. You're arguing identically to
>"If they ban throwing your garbage out the window and in the woods, they then have a precedent to ban throwing garbage in the trashcan and landfill!"
Uh, no. They aren't the same thing. And you have no intrinsic right to dump your shit wherever.

>>65004096
>Nooooooo the slippery slope is a fallacy because my philosophy professor Dr. Fecalstein told me so
>Please don't point out the many times it comes true
>Also I am terrible at chess, how did you know?
Presumably you

>>65004096
>Stop worrying about supply chains
No. Grow a fucking brain. If you ban lead ammo today youre staring down dollars per round for at least a couple years.

>>65004130
>>65004139
>noooo not actual reality we hate thattt!!!
Lead ammo for waterfowl use was banned in tons of places ages ago, since it's extra bad in that context. And yet nothing else has happened since, as expected, since it doesn't set any sort of precedent whatsoever but rather was a specific response to a specific issue important enough to overcome typical political barriers.

Guess you're both just fucking idiots huh?

>>65004174
>Comparing niche ammo to mass produced target ammo
Yeah Im dealing with a grade A moron here.

>>65004238
>shotguns are niche
Holy fucking shit the complete and absolute state of zoomie zoom nu/k/. Congratulations on your first AR-15 anon but someday you'll discover there is a whole world of other guns out there too.

>>65004243
You clearly dont shoot. Youre saying niche hunting ammo that most buy a box or 2 a year is a good example of what the copper jacketed lead ammo market would look like. Youre profoundly noguns/retarded.

>>65004252
You're the one who is claiming that if lead is banned for hunting that'll definitely end up with lead being banned for everything. And yet lead was banned for hunting of waterfowl, and it wasn't banned anywhere else. QED you stupid nu/k/ faggot. People using specific ammo for hunting vs practice is already a thing.

Not that normie hunters necessarily train that much in the course of a year anyway IME. On /k/ somehow people seem to constantly forget that typical NA hunting is not a demanding application for modern firearms. Doing 2-4moa at 100yd just isn't that hard.

>>65004174
>Lead ammo was banned for waterfowl use and it hasn't spread
https://www.kunc.org/regional-news/2025-08-20/advocates-push-for-phasing-out-lead-ammo-phase-as-states-advance-voluntary-approaches
>But that's just advocates pushing for full lead hunting bans and like a few states that have banned lead for hunting all together
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/10/lead-ammunition-ban-hunting-shooting-england-scotland-wales
>But that's just another country banning it from everything but expensive tightly regulated ranges

Right enjoy the full lead ammo ban. You probably believe it when gun grabbers tell you their ultimate goal is not full confiscation

>>65004296
Stuff that strawman harder retard thats all you got now.

>>65004312
>>Lead ammo was banned for waterfowl use and it hasn't spread
>https://www.kunc.org/regional-news/2025-08-20/advocates-push-for-phasing-out-lead-ammo-phase-as-states-advance-voluntary-approaches
So nothing has happened even after all this time, just like I said. And the only efforts at all are again specific to hunting.
>B-B-BUH EUROSTAN
lol
>>But that's just another country banning it from everything but expensive tightly regulated ranges
Yeah, that is indeed another country that doesn't have the second amendment or a hundred million+ gun owners and long since restricted tons of stuff in ways we never have and never will. Nothing is more pathetic then poltroon dipshits trying to fearmonger via unfree countries.

>>65004318
>make retarded argument
>get btfo
>a-actually i-i ne-never even s-said that :( :(
>s-st-strawman ;_;
hahahahaha holy shit

>>65004328
Why do you molest kids? I mean if youre gonna make shit up Ill do it too.

>>65004324
>Lead ammo for waterfowl use was banned in tons of places ages ago, since it's extra bad in that context. And yet nothing else has happened since
>nothing else has happened since
Just a few states casually banning lead ammo for most hunting not involving birds
>But that's a less free country
That followed the same blue print of banning lead ammo for hunting and now have a full on ban coming
Sorry you can't see the end goal

>>65004096
Reason means nothing to these people. The most fundamental legal document of this country is pretty clear "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". They've been fucking with that for over a century and show no intention of stopping. Why do you think NFA stamps cost $200 in 1934? That was a massive amount of money for the average American, completely unrealistic for anyone but the wealthiest. Democrats have repeatedly talked about increasing it to match inflation, which would once again put NFA items out of the reach of the ordinary person. What do you think the intention of the Hughes ammendment was? Do you really think it was anything other than a way to artificially restrict the supply of full autos and therefore massively drive up the price to the point where a basic bitch MAC-10 costs 9-10K? They absolutely will find reasons to go after lead, and not just in bullets. They'll go after primers next, especially in the context of "public health" in indoor ranges. They've been playing this game for a very long time and they'll continue playing it while people like you go "well erm ackshually they banned lead waterfowl shot in 1988 and it took 20 years for CA to start banning it in other places (under the guise of environmental regulations and public health) and more blue states are working towards doing the same so it's not going to lead to them to moving onto trying to completely ban lead ammo in the future". It's not slippery slope, it's objective reality and the study of history and what (D) have as an end goal.
>well stamps on cans and SBRs is now 0
Through budget reconcilliation which bypasses the filibuster and can be just as easily be set to whatever (D) want the next time they're in power. You think they won't use that trick now it's been done once? The only reason they haven't tried is because the text of the law sets the price of the stamps and they were afraid of court challenges going against them.

>>65004332
Anon, we're capable of remembering posts from literally a couple of hours ago hard as that may be for you to believe. You wrote:
>>>65004019
>If they ban lead ammo for hunting, they then have a precedent to ban lead ammo for outdoor range use, then indoor range use, then any use at all
That was the argument you made and I replied to by pointing that another specific ban has not lead to any of those results at all despite a long time going by. Non-lead shotgun shells have been required by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for waterfowl hunting since fucking 1991. THIRTY-FIVE FUCKING YEARS AGO ANON. Where are the bans for "outdoor range use, then indoor range use, then any use at all" huh? Where?

You're a typical stupid nu/k/ faggot though I'll give you some credit for at least not denying that.

>>65004346
Thats not me retard.

>>65004346
Don't forget hunting use in national parks and in some states. Baby steps anon. Do you frequently get double jumped in checkers? You seem like the kind of guy unable to think too far ahead

>>65004328
Nta but are you the guy that said monos had worse sectional density?

>>65004833
No, only thing I wrote that sorta relates to density was >>65002202 where I mentioned COAL limits for older rounds. I was mainly thinking of 300wm, where if you stick to SAAMI you can't really play around with super high BC copper mono stuff without getting uncomfortably deep seated. Of course nothing stops you from just going out of spec, know a bunch of guys who like prs who do, just have to be careful to not mix your loads with factory. But I think longer term it'll make more sense to just go to 300prc or something and have more room oob. I'm also fully sympathetic to people who just want to stick with what they've got. All of that is totally irrelevant for hunting though.

FWIW I don't personally favor hunting lead bans beyond waterfowl without some sort of concessions extracted and full grandfathering, just because I don't see it as a significant enough problem either direction but there's no reason to give liberals something for free. I'd trade a federal hunting new round lead ban for a federal change to the GCA allowing all non-toxic metals to be used in all bullets, including tungsten and any steel core one wants or brass or whatever else. Make it about environmentalism and pit greens against grabbers, try to split 'em. But I also think active defense of lead is super fucking gay and copium maximum. Of course it's toxic and of course it'd be better if there were less of it, all else being equal. And copper definitely works fine for hunting. Poisoning the land loud and proud is negroid behavior.

>>65003212
I don't throw bottles in the ocean, retard

>>65003989
>screen shot
>no time stamp
lmao, not your gun, fatso, you screenshotted a reddit pic

>>65004833
Monos do have worse sectional density. See faggot if you were to make the exact same bullet shape and size the one that is mono will have shitty sectional density.
This is a simple fact. To compensate you scale up. But that's not a solution, that's a new set of problems. This best examples are the change in twist rate and the fact you simply can't get heavier weights in monolithic. Look at the AR platform. You are restricted by magazine size. That means you are topping out 10+ grains BELOW the non monolithic bullets at the heavy end in your ar15. That's a LOT in a .22.
Monolithic bullets are not as good as those with a lead core. What you are selling is a false equivalency. Your entire argument hinges on a logical fallacy.
Fuck you. Fuck the sheep you have been fucking. Fuck your dog mother. Fuck your coward father. Fuck the guy who you have thought was your father. Fuck your entire bloodline of shitty faggot used car salesman.

>>65004059
I think they got rid of it, but they used to have some weird word filter with the word "tranny" where if you wrote a short post like
>kys tranny
it would work fine but if you wrote more than x number of characters and had the word "tranny" in the post 4chan would just eat the post. So you would write some whole post and then call the other guy a tranny at the end and the post would say it posted but then never show up. but for some reason troon wasn't filtered the same way so you could write the same post and call him a troon and it would work. I think they got rid of it at some point

>>65004019
>>65004022
>>65004096
the slippery slope is real we went from
>just let the homos get married and have sex in their own homes
to
>you have to accept trannies and bake the faggot cake and let men in dresses read books to your kids unsupervised and it's bad that schools are banning a book called "gender queer" that has legit drawings of kids jerking off and for some reason is intended for 10 year olds
plus antis have in the past outright said they intended to ban handguns

>>65004238
>shotshells
>niche and not mass produced
what?

>>65005322
A mono has the same sectional density as a cup and core of the same weight. I'm sorry that AI failed you the first time but there is no reason to get mad about it

>>65005403
False equivalency. You are comparing a longer for caliber bullet to make the sectional density similar. That's not how comparisons work. Because it is misleading. A lie. You make comparisons based on items having the most similarities. Bullets of identical diameter, length, shape. Monolithic bullets have a lower sectional density. This is just common knowledge.
The issues this causes is a need for a different twist rate. Stabilization issues at different distances. Not being able to use higher weight bullets.
Monolithic bullets do not transfer energy as well as lead based. Monolithic bullets require specific velocities to open and because of this often fail at what most hunters would consider a normal range.
Monolithic bullets outside of specialty used and designs suck. And you are a tool and are dumb as fuck.

Consensus cracking shill thread.

I say this as someone who's smoked a cigar through a walker barrel, you're an extra special retard leadfag

>>65005472
The only thing getting cracked is your asshole anon. Do try not to offer it to the first guy you meet on grindr

>>65005403
It's your dumb cunt generation that thinks men can be woman. You think established words, standards and facts are mush you can twist to fit your own needs. All of you are completely fucked. It's like a wave of absolute retards brainwashing themselves. The exception is not the rule. Having to adjust by its nature means it is not. Humans have two arms and two legs. Men have dicks. V8s have more displacement than v6s.
Lead based bullets have a higher section density than monolithic.
>You just need to make it longer and then...
Your own need for adjustment from the norm has proven you are wrong.

>>65005475
What I am is right. Show me two bullets that are identical. In every way other than one is monolithic and one is lead core.
The lead core bullet has a higher sectional density. Period. Every time.
Monolithic bullets have a lower sectional density.
>I'll just make the monolithic longer.
Fine I'll just make the lead core bullet longer
>But whaaah you can't.
Fuck I can't tranny faggot. Any change you can make in a direct comparison I can as well to keep the comparison equal.

>>65005500
Right on that one, wrong on the whole it being bad for the environment and the hunter. Again I say this having chuffed a stogie down a dirty revolver barrel, I don't give a rats ass about the health costs but you'd be the dumbest fucker on two feet to act like they don't exist

>>65005500
nta, and to large extent you're right, but as a practical matter:
>Fine I'll just make the lead core bullet longer
you can't actually just increase the weight indefinitely for a given amount of case capacity right? there is going to be an absolute limit on useful load weight for any given cartridge. if you've got enough coal to work with that you can reach that limit with either lead core or copper mono, then there isn't any real advantage either way. your grain limit is your grain limit.

of course for a lot of older cartridges you cannot reach the limit with copper, only with lead (or something else dense, obviously you could do it with tungsten or some shit in principle). assuming both you and the other anon handload tho you should both acknowledge that the intersection of history of cartridge development and modern options has a lot of edge cases. that's part of the fun of it imo

>>65002265
correct on all points. fuck NAFO trannies and their anti lead soi leftist agenda

>>65005563
As a practical matter lead core bullets are better and require no adjustments or sacrifice on my part.
Bring to me the equal of lead core bullets and I will switch. Until then it's a piss poor substitute.

>>65005462
>False equivalency
Lol no. Do you choose bullets based on weight or length? It's not misleading, it's the only thing that matters. Longer bullets only matter in fringe cases. I fucking DEFY you to find a common hunting load that won't stabalize in a normal twist rate where a cup and core bullet of the same weight would. The actual real world testing does not agree with your anecdotal crusade based on your feelings and literally nothing else

>being this utterly ass blasted by simple physics
It's a weird hill you chose to die on but I can only assume it was israel's

>>65004296
>Not that normie hunters necessarily train that much in the course of a year anyway IME. On /k/ somehow people seem to constantly forget that typical NA hunting is not a demanding application for modern firearms. Doing 2-4moa at 100yd just isn't that hard.
I've heard/seen multiple people say you only need to hit like 50% of clays in a clay course to be a good shotgun hunter

>>65005602
What cartridge and rifle to you hunt with? It's a simple question but one you refuse to answer. Probably because it's an objective matter and your subjective gripes don't jive with reality

>>65005650
For sporting clays that's abysmal, but water fowl aren't going to play by 16yd/ contrinental rules so I can kinda see that

>>65005642
I choose bullets by how they perform. Both internal, external and terminal ballistics. I choose bullets based on the twist rate of my rifle and the limitations of any parts like magazines.
If you choose bullets based on weight you are a fucking retard. When you see basic bitch information like 180g bullets are the suggested minimum for certain game, it is just that. Basic bitch information.
Again, you can't win because you are making a false equivalency. If copper monolithic bullets had the same sectional density as lead they would be the same length. They are not. They have to be made longer specifically because lead is more dense than copper.
And in the end fuck you anyway. Even at the increased length copper mono bullets do not do the same work terminally.
Eat a dick. You are wrong. Go get some bolt on tits and go out karening

>>65004019
This kind of deranged paranoia just feeds into the gun nut stereotype and is completely counter to the outreach you pretend to care about.

>>65005654
>What cartridge and rifle to you hunt with

It's game dependent. I use the 375H&H. 416 Rigby, 257 Rigby, 300 weatherby mag, 30-06, 270 Winchester, 25-06, 7mmRM, 9.3x62, 338-06, 318 Wesley Richards, 5.56, and a handful of others on occasion. Starting to see the issue?
>The question I forgot to ask
What game and what distances are you using them on
You are trying to give an answer that would fit your argument without actually using the information that would absolutely prove you wrong.

>>65004336
>What do you think the intention of the Hughes ammendment was?
the actual literal intention was to poison the FOPA so the ATF could continue to harass FFLs and random people over slight technical infractions and so blue states could harass people from out of state who were driving through with guns

>>65005654
Here. I will nail your coffin shut with a terminal ballistics example. The Winchester 270 was is and will always be a popular whitetail round. Particularly the 130g bullet. The reason for this is it absolutely anchors deer to the ground. In terminal ballistics it starts dumping energy quickly into the front quarter (often ruining meat we will get to that) and then continues on into the vital organs just shedding energy. As noted above people loved the round when it was new but complained about the ruined meat. So Winchester put out a heavier bullet for the 270 for Whitetail. This heavier bullet shed less energy and passed relatively cleanly through. Resulting in less ruined meat. AND resulting in deer running much further distances before dying.
You picking up what I'm putting down? People went back to the 130g and stayed because it killed quicker on the intended game.
Guess what chuck? The monolithic 270 "replacement" bullets have the same issue the heavier 270 bullets had. They tend to go deeper and don't shed energy where it's needed for a quick kill.
You didn't know
Now you know
Adjust your shit

>>65005673
You can't help but contradict yourself. You won't even maintain your incorrect assumptions about monolithics

>>65005690
>starting to see the issue
No, because none of those would have issue with monos unless you are shooting some kind of really odd ball load. You're guessing based on feelings, and it's obvious. You're hoping people don't know the difference

>>65005751
>the monolithics tend to have the same problem the heavier .270 loads did
No they don't, and that's speaking from objective experience. Again, you don't actually seem to know what you're talking about and instead base your beliefs off of feelings and what your elders told you

>>65005602
>As a practical matter lead core bullets are better
They aren't though. There is not a single animal in NA you can't bring down in one shot with copper monos. All modern guns are massive overkill here. Not saying you can't like what you like, but none of this matters except for PRS, or if you have a really old cartridge or muzzle loader or whatever you're attached to. In which case, fucking based, and you should have the right to case your own bullets or whatever if you want imo. But for the vast super majority of hunters just grabbing a box of 308 or 6.5 or 300wm or something everything is good.

>>65005773
>>65005784
>>65005792
Funny how quickly you went all ad hom and zero substance.
Objective experience? I have shot enough whitetail with both monolithic and traditional bullets from the same 270 model 70 to be able to say beyond the shadow of a doubt my statements are proven fact. It's not up in the air. It's no open for your insane sales pitch that worse is better. I can give you examples for every caliber I listed above where the monolithic bullets had issues the lead core did not.
I could also list specially designed monolithic bullets that actually performed quite well on big game. Perhaps even better in very specific tasks, angles, ect than the lead core counterparts. But on the entirety even those are not as good as the lead core bullets.
Go get some time in the field and come back.

>>65005840
I've taken white tail with fucking 223. There is not a single caliber the model 70 comes in that should have any trouble regardless of bullet except 22-250 maybe. If you had trouble, with any hunting load whatsoever, all I can say is this is effectively you admitting that you're an unbelievably bad fucking shot, there was something wrong with your gun, you somehow have never managed to learn durr vitals, or you're a dipshit who tries to hunt from 500yds or some retarded el1t3 sn1pER distance.

>>65005809
>They aren't though
They are better. Doing the test you are designed to do better than something else makes it better. What the fuck is wrong with you? I can kill a man in self defense with my 1860 colt army. I can kill a man in self defense with a 12 gauge one ounce slug as well. The 12 gauge one ounce slug will do the job better. Do more damage. Cause incapacitation and death quicker.
There is an entire field of study called terminal ballistics that...fuck it you are retarded.
>You can just
>But this thing will work
>If you do this it's not as good but it's just as good because you can make do
What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously?
I can absolutely anchor a deer killing it as quickly as possible. No tracking. No loss of animal. No needless suffering.
>But yeah nah use this other bullet. It will kill them. Eventually. As long as you are close enough. Might take an extra shot...
You are the reason the world is getting worse.

>>65005860
Notice how you still haven't taken the information you asked for and done the thing you claimed you could do with it to show you are right?
You haven't shot a single whitetail.
First work on your reading comprehension.
Next work on responding to a statement in an honest way
Lastly and most importantly know that I know, you are a poser tranny mental patient. You don't know shit about fuck. You have balls and think you are a woman.

>>65005875
>>65005895
>the ignorant seething fudd can't help but reveal himself as a /pol/troon with "ZE TRANNIES" on his brain 24/7
Every. Fucking. Time. Jesus christ you read about lead causing brain damage but it's something else to see it written out. Sure keep deluding yourself and raging while you hunt with that tasty wall candy anon, your life. Tell us ignorants about how 45 won two world wars next and that 30-06 is the perfect eternal round. You know you want to.

Monolithic bullets fail to expand regularly on hard quartering shots as well as others. When there is any tip deformity on contract expanding does not happen. Period. This is the fatal flaw in the design. Then due to deformity and enter angle or hard surface they go wildly off course through the animal. Leading to loss of game.
Monolithic bullets just aren't all they were sold to be. But boy are the paid players trying.

>anyone who dares disagree with me on 4chan must be paid
>i am very sane and smart everyone
ok

>>65005920
Still waiting for those examples you were going to provide.
You lost shill, move on.

>>65005937
Feel free to provide those examples based off the information you asked for
Waiting...

>>65005322
NTA but this post sounds super esl thirdie

>>65005490
>V8s have more displacement than v6s.
what if the valves on the v6 were just really really big?

>>65005563
>if you've got enough coal to work with that you can reach that limit with either lead core or copper mono, then there isn't any real advantage either way. your grain limit is your grain limit.
barrel spin requirements are based on length and not weight so you would need a faster barrel to stabilize a copper at the grain limit.

>>65005602
>>65005462
as a practice matter leaded bullets don't start having advantages over copper at normal hunting ranges

>>65006513
>barrel spin requirements are based on length and not weight so you would need a faster barrel to stabilize a copper at the grain limit.
sure, but that's trivial? you just hit a calculator before you order your barrel and make sure your sg is going to be safely over 1.5. like, you should do that anyway if you're going to play around with high bc loads just to make sure when you're spending for a custom barrel. last one I got I wanted to play with those really heavy seneca 30c rounds so I got a 1:7, just an order option. if you're using fmj gotta also make sure your rpm aren't going over 300k or so but for bonded or mono that isn't really an issue.

wasn't trying to gloss over any tradeoff there but you can change twist (and lots of people do) without going outta spec, that's always been pretty flexible. so kinda considered it a given here, but now that you right that I was wrong to do so i think. for modern floating guns it might be trivial but for some really cool older guns that might not be feasible at all and that's a very valid consideration. if your stuck with a given twist then that definitely affects the option space.

>>65006513
Who's hunting with the heaviest bullets for caliber? Honest question, most people I know use faster bullets, not heavier ones

>>65006521
>as a practice matter leaded bullets don't start having advantages over copper at normal hunting ranges
Yes, they do. A significant increase in energy transfer and damage of tissues resulting in quicker cleaner kills is a remarkable advantage at all distances.
If monolithic bullets were the original and commonly used technology and someone came out with soft points today it would be considered game changing. Nobody would use the monolithic bullets again. It would be considered a giant leap in technical advancement.
That's how you know monolithic is a step backwards.

>>65008916
They don't do that, though

>>65003107
6.5 is only a meme in America. The Brit’s have been using Schoënauers as deer rifles since at latest post-Second World War.

>>65004096
>The Slippery Slope is inherently Fallacious
You should go back and tell Churchill dawg, if only he knew Hitler was Psych 101’ing him

>>65010126
It's not even a meme here. 6.5cm is very popular now

>>65002648
It doesn't help. It can't even begin to attempt to minimize the damage done by industrialization.

>>65010105
They do

File: IMG_20240310_152733.jpg (1.97 MB, 2920x2908)

1.97 MB JPG

>>65002590
Nah, modern .30 monolithics are good. This is a group of Sako Blades (handload) at 150m with irons and out of a L1A1, just to test if they will work in a very much non-specialized rifle. No worse than lead FMJ, and arguably works better than most lead ammo out of my friends' hunting rifles

>>65004324
>Yeah, that is indeed another country that doesn't have the second amendment or a hundred million+ gun owners and long since restricted tons of stuff in ways we never have and never will.
Banning lead ammo does not infringe upon the 2nd amendment though
That's why we're concerned in Europe too, they don't have to pass any gun bans, just ban lead and shooting will become too expensive and .22LRs and antiques become scrap

>>65010554
Which ones have you tested to come to this conclusion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yyl6PSWgWY

>>65008536
>Who's hunting with the heaviest bullets for caliber? Honest question, most people I know use faster bullets, not heavier ones
yeah thats what I was saying too it's only a thing for prs not most hunting. really not "any" hunting even in america at all. going for heavy I think is mainly an african dangerous big game thing. for na hunting ranges (<200yd, usually <100yd) bc is effectively irrelevant nothing centerfire slows down very fast within 200yd except varmint rounds

>>65002345
When my car finally died I pushed it into a quarry like God intended

Someone who gets paid sums that would infuriate you for their Enviromental impact expertise here.

>>65002265
Ignore this guy. He his mom let him eat paint chips off the floor of their hovel

>>65010965
That guy doesn't know about Barnes TTSX and Sako Blade
Lapua Naturalis is an older model copper monolithic bullet and it's considered to be a bit shit by connoisseurs, but my friend has taken two moose with it and he showed me the last bullet he dug out of the carcass, mushroomed just fine without losing any mass

>>65011109
Ah ya I see what you meant now. It's tough to even get heavy for caliber stuff in factory loads anyway, and the lead eater is certainly not a reloader

>>65004346
>they haven't banned led for anything else in 35 years
It took 200 years to ban lead for hunting waterfowl. In 1980 you would have been saying "sure they're talking about it but people have been hunting waterfowl with lead in this country for almost 200 years and they haven't banned it, which is strong evidence that it will never be banned."

>>65011420
>TTSX It mushroomed just fine without loosing mass
Lol. Compared to any soft point the TTSX opens slower. It has significantly less energy transfer. This is basic terminal ballistics. The more the bullet has to spend the energy transfer especially after the impact transfer the less it has to spend giving.
What you end up with is a solid that does not transfer as much energy into the target. You have a "solid" that does not expand to the diameter and completely as a soft point.
On top of that the TTSX IS one of the bullets that is commonly known to fail to expand at all on hard angling shots.
It mushroomed fine and lost no mass is meaningless by itself. You proposed to replace something. That thing expands on the initial impact transfer. That thing dumps energy as it doesn't spend it opening. That thing is a larger diameter and a complete expansion making a larger diameter wound channel.
Sorry, monolithic bullets like the TTSX are not as good as basic soft points. And when you compare the bullets by length the monolithic bullets fall even more behind. .

>>65011614
That's a lot of words just to say you can't shoot for shit

>>65011614
>It has significantly less energy transfer
Absolute mental retardation confirmed. Unless it exits (and it doesn't) it literally has the same energy transfer. Copper doesn't break the laws of physics you fucking schizo.

>>65010567
lead only becomes more advantageous at longer ranges where the density starts to matter. it's like shooting 77gr SMKs. They don't really matter at close range

>>65010585
>Banning lead ammo does not infringe upon the 2nd amendment though
>Dictionary
>Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn >more
>arms
/ärmz/
>noun
>1.
>weapons and ammunition; armaments.
>"arms exports"
leaded ammo is common use

>>65012517
I guess but the argument as I saw it was that it wouldn't work out of regular 1:10 twist barrels, which is false

>>65012542
The one (1) guy defending lead in national parks asked jeetpt for bullet point cons and has zero context

>>65012517
Wrong. The faster and more completely the bullet expands the more energy is transferred before the exchange turns to a momentum/friction situation.
The amount of energy on the initial exchange spent opening a mono is too great. You poke holes and go to a greater depth where a soft point opens quickly and dumps energy while it still has it in spades.
Monos are not as good at all ranges.>>65012542
The argument is monos benefit from a different twist rate than lead. And they do. Period. Good enough is not an argument. It's an excuse.

>>65013672
The argument was not that monos benefit from a faster twist rate. They do in the same way that any projectile does, cup and core included. The argument was that monos required a faster twist to stabalize, which is simply not true except in extreme circumstances which you as a factory ammo buyer will never encounter

>>65013672
>The argument is monos benefit from a different twist rate than lead.
Literally no difference with .308

>>65013959
Or 30-30, or 30-06, or .300wm, or .375 etc. the only time it might come up is with smaller calibers, I haven't personally tested those

File: 1755567339489228.gif (1.48 MB, 320x180)

1.48 MB GIF

>>65013672
aim for the heart juan

>>65001866
>I just used .30-30 since it's the best round and if .30-30 can be effective with copper basically any round can be effective with copper
You may wanna run that through your head again a few times.

>>65014115
it isn't my fault that the democrats pushed the 3 cues method to "dab on bush" and now you can't read

>>65014041
.22LR copper solids suck but it's a mousefart of a round so no wonder it struggles

>>65014296
.22lr barrels usually come in 1:16 so no surprise there. They haven't really changed at all unlike every other caliber around

>>65014296
>>65014309
>>65014041
I think commiefornia is the only one who mandates copper .22lr and I don't think any companies currently make copper .22lr

>>65002381
>And we aren't even trying with lithium ion and the like ev batteries.
Which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, fucktard.

>>65002630
Good point, you should just kill yourself. It's good for the environment.

What did we learn?
Monolithic bullets fail to open at specific angles and this can be shown with repeatable testing.
Monolithic bullets are lighter than lead core bull of the same size.
Monolithic bullets require a different twist rate due to above. This is basic science and can be shown with repeatable testing.
Monolithic bullets have more resistance to opening and die to that have significantly lower energy transfer in game than lead core
What we learned here today is monolithic bullets are not as good as basic ancient soft core bullets.
Lastly the mining and processing of copper causes more widespread environmental damage and severe, long-term pollution than lead.
Congratulations monolithic tranny, you are solving the problem by making it worse.

>>65015182
>Monolithic bullets require a different twist rate due to above. This is basic science and can be shown with repeatable testing.
Official retard take by a moron who hasn't fired a single copper bullet, congrats

>>65015191
>bullet is lighter
>barrel twist rate is made for an heavier bullet
>somehow the magical copper bullet is not affected by it
not that guy but holy shit you're fucking retarded

>>65015191
You are trying to debate basic ballistic science. You are wrong. Being able to shoot 3 moa with your rifle at home on paper that one time doesn't negate the fact that rifle shoots .75 moa with the lead core counterparts of the same weight.
It's BASIC ballistic science. As in common knowledge. Easily confirmable and has been with repeatable tests. There is no excuse for acting so retarded so stop.

>>65015202
twist rate is based on bullet length not bullet weight, retardo

>>65015210
>you need 0.75 to hunt durr or you're gunna die in the prairie

>>65015220
Twist rate is based on weight and length. There is a standard because jacketed lead core bullets are all roughly the same size for weight and caliber. However monolithic bullets are light for length and do not stabilize optimally using the lead standard.
You are not equipped for this conversation.

>>65015224
Need is irrelevant to this conversation or my rights. Science is right, you are wrong. Go get your dick pushed in.

>>65015238
>Twist rate is based on weight and length.
it's only based on length. people just use weight as a proxy since the diameter of a round can't change due to the barrel getting in the way and because the material making up the bullet is usually about the same, retardo
>>65015240
>you need to have the right to only hunt with 0.75 moa 3 shot cherry picked groups and anyone hunting with a rifle 2 moa or worse will get killed in the prairie
ok retard

>>65015264
Wrong. Twist rate is used to spin and stabilize the bullet in flight. The calculation for this involves both the weight and length of the projectile. It also involves its g shape and distribution as well but let's not get too far ahead of you.
In layman's terms the rate required to stabilize a childs short football that is not the same as an NFL football even if they weigh the same. Science bitch, get some.

>>65015293
it's just based on length no gunz chatgpt thirdie-kun

>>65015264
For example we can look at the Green Hill formula for twist rate. It excludes weight. Because of this the miller formula does not work for monolithic bullets. So the miller stability formula has been widely to go to to correct for this.
This is basic ballistics.

>>65015303
Green hill formula is based on the lead core density assumption. That's why you do not see weight. That is also why the more accurate miller stability formula is now used because it includes density of the projectile and is more accurate given the use of monolithic.
You people don't even grasp basic science.

>>65015306
>>65015321
lmao you had to samefaggot yourself no gunz chatgpt thirdie-kun?

>>65015349
Now I have to explain what samefag means to you? Just be wrong and learn something instead of being such a fag.

>>65015360
sure thing there, samfaggot-kun

>>65015202
>bullet is lighter
>barrel twist rate is made for an heavier bullet
Every single manufacturer matches their bullet weights to commonly used lead core weights like 150gr, 168gr and so on, fuckface mongoloid

>>65015461
So what you learned is that twist rate is calculated using weight, length, and other factors. So monolithic bullets require a different twist rate than lead core. You are welcome.
You have learned that mining and processing more copper is far worse for the environment than if we just keep shooting lead based bullets.

>>65015182
They don't need a different twist rate. This is simple science backed by repeatable testing

>>65015494
And guess what? Monos of the same weight still stabalize in those same twist rates

>>65015503
didn't read, homosexual. twist rate is based on length and federal doesn't say you need a faster twist rate for their copper .30-30s. In fact the copper .30-30s are only 11.5% longer than federal's 170 grain partition .30-30s

>>65015542
That's what I'm saying but there's one niggerfaggot claiming the require different twist rates

>>65015554
Ya it's retardo-kun, arguably the lowest IQ poster on /k/

Just look at boomers and what happens when you grow up around lead. I think that's a good enough reason to want the stuff in the least amount of things as possible.

>>65015549
Twist rate is based on length, weight, g, barrel length, mv, ect. You clearly are a no guns tranny lib just here to shit up k

>>65015778
So what you're saying is that monos still don't require a faster twist rate?

>>65015815
Monos are longer for weight and require a different twist rate.
Copper mining and processing/manufacturing causes more widespread and longer lasting damage to animals and the environment than lead.
You picked the wrong horse. Probably a trend with you. Bet you own an electric car as well

>>65015778
so then why doesn't federal recommend a different barrel twist for their copper mono .30-30 rounds, no gunz, no dick retarded thirdie-kun?

>>65015833
>Monos are longer for weight and require a different twist rate.
see>>65015883 and >>65015549
why doesn't federal advertise a twist rate for their .30-30 monos?

>copper is heavier than lead

>>65015900
literally no one in the entire thread has said that, retardo

>>65015883
Because they reduced the velocity of the 150g copper mono so it would stabilize in the standard 30 30 rifling. The 30-30 unlike bolt or semis do not come in a variety of rifling twist options and just chopping 100fps off the too long for weight bullet was the easy option.

>>65015833
>monos are longer for weight
Yes
>...and require a different twist rate
Very rarely and never in the case of factory ammunition, which is what you use anyway

>>65015907
>reduced velocity
>so it would stabalize
No, lower velocity actually has a reductive effect on stability. Though the impact is pretty minor

>>65015907
pretty sure it's the other way around, like 20 inch AR barrels can stabilize rounds with a lower twist rate than 14.5 inchers can

>>65015907
>they reduced the velocity
They actually didn't, it's the same load. Double niggers like you never think to check the test barrel length, you just see numbers on the box and go with it

>>65015955
It's 90 to 100fps slower than lead core 150g 30 30 loads on a chronograph.

>>65015999
Who's chrono? Look again, it's 2390 for the leaded out of a 24" barrel and 2300 for the trophy copper out of a 20" barrel

>>65015833
>Copper mining and processing/manufacturing causes more widespread and longer lasting damage to animals and the environment than lead.
No, it causes less than 1.7% the lasting damage to animals and the environment as lead. Nice try gigaretard.

Ron Spomer actually has a nice video on the subject. You can skip the beginning, he talks about some very basic concepts we probably all already know. Though judging by some of the posts ITT, perhaps not
https://youtu.be/We6OM03wSEI?si=TOZJXpk0YGVZbOyP

>>65015999
Probably more bearing surface

>>65016214
Monolithics havw release grooves to prevent this.

>>65015833
>Monos are longer for weight and require a different twist rate.
No, tard. My experience is with .308 but anything from 1:10 to 1:12 stabilizes copper solids fine. Actually from my friend's old cheapo Parker-Hale copper had basically laser accuracy in comparison with lead

>>65015833
>Monos are longer for weight
Correct.

>and require a different twist rate.
If you want to get pedantic about it then the mathematically ideal barrel length and twist rates for a copper monolithic and lead-core bullet of identical external dimensions being propelled by an identical charge are marginally different at best.

Accuracy issues with copper bullets are almost ALWAYS the result of someone getting cute and hand-loading bullets that are way too long.

>>65018459
270 barrels that stabilize 150g bullets 1:10, will not stabilize anything over 140g in monos. Really they aren't the best for 140 monos as it's not great for those either. I'd say that's a pretty big deal. You will find this in all calibers using monos. The opinion of if something is "stabilized" will be wildly different if it's a fudd that shoots 3 rounds at 100 once a year before deer season and others who shoot 300 or more all year round.
Fact remains, technically and that's the best kind of ically, the statement
>Monolithic bullets require a different twist rate
Is factually correct.

>>65018481
why would someone shoot 300 copper monos in a year?
>Fact remains, technically and that's the best kind of ically, the statement
>>Monolithic bullets require a different twist rate
>Is factually correct.
federal doesn't recommend a different twist for their 150 gr normal bullets, 170 gr partitions and 150 gr copper monos, so no, they don't require different twists and you are factually wrong and gay and retarded

>>65018481
It makes more of a difference in smaller calibers. In .30 and above, a hunter is realistically not going to find the margin unless they're a hand loader and know what they're doing
>the statement monolithic bullets require a different twist rate is factually correct
It's not, because it's not always the case. The statement
>monolithic projectiles *might* require a different twist rate
Is factually correct

>>65018481
One of the benefits of monolithics, at least as far as hunters are concerned, is how light you can go. They aren't interested in matching or increasing weight, just velocity. A .308 100gr leaded bullet is going to perform quite poorly in average twist rates, but monos don't care and they're going fast as FUCK

>>65018666
Velocity without mass, penetration without energy transfer on impact, you have a tenuous grasp of ballistics.

>>65018678
>velocity without mass
You like it back there in the 1950's, gramps?
>penetration without energy transfer
They aren't hardened penetraters, these are designed to expand and will do so violently at those velocities. The last 80 years of terminal ballistics has demonstrated the lethality of light and fast projectiles
>you have a tenuous grasp of ballistics
You don't know shit

>>65018651
It is the same across all calibers. Monolithic bullets have a narrow window of grain weight in any given twist rate. Add velocity, lose velocity, it all has an effect and narrows the window more.
>Monolithic bullets require a different twist rate
This is a factually correct statement without personal bias.
You want to say something is good enough. You want to say it will work. You want to say you won't notice it inside these parameters. That's because you are promoting a product based on personal bias.
>Monolithic bullets require a different twist rate.
Simple fact. Learn to address the subject without bias.

>>65018666
>A .308 100gr leaded bullet is going to perform quite poorly in average twist rates
That's not quite true either, Lapua OT bullets are quite accurate at that bullet weight too

>>65018690
Monolithic bullets penetrate deeper because they spend less energy on impact resistance transfer and more on opening. When they actually open properly. A bonded lead core bullet of the same weight will out penetrate AND cause more damage through energy transfer than it's mono counterparts. A bonded lead core of the same size as a monolithic bullet will out perform it in every single ballistic metric.
I know what I know. You don't have a clue
Janny is a tranny

>>65018706
>When they actually open properly
Which any modern copper hunting bullet will do

>>65018712
All modern monolithic bullets suffer from failure to open properly at steep angles. All of them.

>>65018755
Might I suggest you learn to shoot, it's not like lead core will do you any good on a bad hit either

>>65018803
Lead core bullets perform flawlessly at steep angles. I recommend you tell whoever paid you to shill this is a low traffic board and has no significant influence over consumer purchasing.may

>>65001914
>experience with 30 modern cal copper bullets knows they perform brilliantly in game.
They are what they are. I've killed multiple deer, elk, mountain goat and a bison with GMX and TTSX out of a .30-06. Lots of other animals with lead. IME lead produces larger wounds and faster stops.

Copper penetrates brilliantly, but 100% weight retention comes at a cost - a narrower wound. Some of the newer bullets expand reliably <1800fps, but that expanded diameter is all you'll get for a wound channel.

>>65002202
Personally I don't see the point in gucci ammo for 99% of hunting. I'd rather just develop one good load, make 200 at a time, and then go shoot or hunt as required. Copper sucks pretty hard for that, not to mention rifles will just hate certain bullets.

>>65018696
I am addressing the subject without bias, you're simply wrong according to manufacturer data and math

>>65018755
No they don't. Don't take my word for it though,
>>65016167
has been hunting for 50 years

>>65002390
>a monolithic copper bullet will transfer energy more effectively due to mass retention and expansion
No, they will not. That doesn't make any sense, and "energy transfer" isn't an objective way of looking at terminal ballistics

>>65018899
One, monolithic bullets suck at energy transfer. They are better at weight retention than many lead core bullets but that's a momentum conversation.
Energy transfer, impact resistance, all very important parts of terminal ballistics with rifles. With pistols or slow rifle bullets, solids in big game, no.
But with expanding big game bullets absolutely. The transfer of energy determines the secondary wounding outside the bullet track itself.
Look at that crying little fat faggot that shot that pedophile in the arm during those riots. His bicep didn't vaporize because a middling little .22 caliber bullet went through it. It exploded because a 50 to 60 grain .22 bullet traveling over 3000fps hit it and at that velocity his biceps tissues had dramatically increased impact resistance and the energy the bullet transfered was overwhelmingly more than the stretch capacities of said tissues and they fucking vaporized into a stringy mess of gelatinous oh I done fucked up.
Terminal ballistics is fun for the whole family.

>>65018893
>Even spoomer agrees with me. You have a narrow window of monos that will work in your rifle. Monos fail on steep angles and shots that encounter bone. Monos don't transfer energy like lead core do.
Any bonded lead bullet will out perform every single mono in every single way and you will have a larger window of weights that will be stabilized from your twist rate.
>Your twist rate is fine for monos don't listen to them
Good luck only being able to shoot one bullet weight from your budget bolt action there Johnny stump licker.

>>65018979
You can shoot lots of weights. I don't know who gave you the idea that mono's were so incredibly sensitive to twist rate that you can only shoot 1 weight at a given twist, but you can literally check any manufacturer to learn otherwise

>>65018955
I suspect we are in agreement about a lot of things, but I don't think you can quantify or describe energy transfer in a meaningful way. Like, N/cm3/cm(depth)? Or some shit?

I just don't see a point in looking at anything other than gel blocks and dead animals. That's all that matters. How big of a hole does X bullet put in tissue at Y speed. Tons of info out there, and more being produced all the time.

>>65018678
yeah, fuck .270, you need a .35 cal if you want to kill a durr

>>65018696
>This is a factually correct statement without personal bias.
so then why doesn't federal say their .30-30 copper monos need a different twist rate?

>>65019048
>Describe energy transfer in a meaningful way
Energy transfer is when the bullet overwhelms the target tissues at and after initial impact resistance and energy passed to the tissues of the target. When the amount of energy passed to the target in wave form stretches the tissues past the breaking point said tissues are torn, ripped and irreparably damaged. As the bullet has spent a lot of its velocity overcoming the initial impact resistance, then transfer of energy it slows to a point where the interaction in the target is now momentum based. Simply overcoming friction/resistance.
Copper mono bullets do not expand presenting a large frontal surface. Mono bullets do not expand as much as lead.
Because of this the energy transfer portion of terminal ballistics in mono bullets is over faster, less frontal area means less transfer, and the mono bullet spend more time on the momentum portion.
The end result is the mono bullet goes deeper, as it has spent less velocity doing damage via energy wave tearing tissues in the vital zone.
You need a lot of not available to the masses data to accurately predict energy transfer on animals and people. Most of being stretch capacities of specific tissues.

>>65019125
The same reason a donkey and a horse can make offspring.

>>65018755
skill issue

>>65018955
>Look at that crying little fat faggot
oh so you're gay and no gunz

>>65019210
The bullet doesn't open at the same angle other bullets open reliably and it's a skill issue.
Have a big cup of my shit is better than your shit so just keep sipping that cope and seethe

>>65019216
>I'm a pedophile
Yes you are

>>65019226
make better shots. skill issue
>>65019231
no, you are, homo

>>65019233
>Make better shots
Those shots are high skill good shots that with the proper bullet incapable and kill quickly.
Your product is lacking.
You are lacking in skill and knowledge.
Try harder poser.

>>65019240
>Those shots are high skill good shots
apparently not if the bullet doesn't work. skill issue. learn to shoot better

Ron spomer said he liked them for onlique shots because they were much more likely to reach the vitals.

>>65019272
Post gunz nogunz. Fucking liberal tranny janny cum guzzler

>>65019281
if you post gunz, homosexual, I'll reciprocate

>>65019126
I'll state flat out at the beginning so there's no misunderstanding - I don't like copper, and that's after going through a 4 year phase where I got meme'd into using them on everything.

I shot a mule deer 3 years ago with a 168gr Barnes TTSX at about 60 yards, strongly quartering to, and recovered the bullet in one of the rear quarters. I shot a WT deer last year with a 143gr ELD X, 370 yards, somewhat quartered away, bullet was under the far side hide. In both cases the bullets had no kinetic energy left - they came to rest. The energy didn't go anywhere except into the deer. 100% energy transfer. It doesn't tell us anything about the volume, shape or depth of the wound those bullets created.

Comparing these two bullets and their performance, both were recovered (obviously). The wound on the mulie was good, and very deep, but I was pushing that .30 cal bullet at 2950fps, and it was at close range. The wound on the WT was GREAT - lungs were goo - and that .264 bullet would have only been going about 2000fps on impact. Comparing the two expanded bullets, the 6.5 is quite a bit narrower.

A lot of monos expand very well. They can overcome the elasticity of tissues and create wounds that are bigger than their expanded diameter, but only when they're going fast as fuck. As they slow down, their diameter is basically the wound channel you get. 100% weight retention is the problem with monos. It's treated as a selling feature - IMO it is not. For me, bullets that retain 70-90% weight at the speeds I shoot them are ideal. Big wide wounds over the velocity spread of my normal hunting distances, and enough penetration. Some fragmentation is very desirable if you're trying to kill something quickly.

Like I said before, just give me the gel tests. In the last couple years I ditched copper and started hunting with a smaller rifle, and in comparing all the apples and oranges I find that all I care about is how big of a hole the bullet makes.

>>65019296
>intentionally eating lead fragments

>>65019296
>The energy didn't go anywhere except into the deer. 100% energy transfer.
Common misunderstanding or misrepresentation.
An arrow that is shot with a broad head that did not completely exit the deer would not be said to have transferred 100% of its energy to the deer. Even if in broad strokes scientifically it is correct.
An arrow with a large flat metal coin attachment on the front that hits a deer side on and bounces off has transfered more of its energy to the deer than the above.
In terminal ballistics and this is backed by all the experts literal rocket scientist included in Bob Forker, it is far more intertwined but can be broken down into stages. The initial impact stage and then into a certain depth (diameter, surface area, velocity, stretch capacity, ect) you the bullet is transferring energy to the surrounding tissues. Once the bullet has slowed enough it is no longer an energy conversion. It is momentum. It is the object simply spending its velocity overcoming the friction resistance of the object.
In other words your ttsx did not transfer 100% of its energy. It actually transfered less energy than a bonded lead based bullet of the same weight. The lead based bullet spent less opening. Then when it was open and open quicker than the mono does, the lead based bullet has a larger diameter more complete surface area. It's that area that allows for a better transfer of energy. At a certain point the lead based bullet then is no longer transferring any meaningful energy and it's simply overcoming friction. Of course with the larger diameter expanding and more complete surface area the friction is greater and will stop sooner than the mono.
>Give me the gel tests
Don't use gel. Use increasingly strong/high elasticity vessels filled with water. Then you have a standard based on what you have witnessed those same bullets do on game to compare new rounds to.

>>65019294
Post gunz or face the hammer

>>65019387
global rule 12, homosabi. I will gladly post my gun if you post yours first

>>65019406
Rules of /k/ face cunt, he who is called out must post gunz or fuck off.

>>65019415
I'll post it as soon as you do, but since you've done this shit before, I know you won't because you don't have gunz, retard

>>65019430
Post gunz or on topic. This is low quality off topic chaff

>>65019326
I do avoid eating lead via shot placement and careful trimming, but all things considered, I'm not worried about it in this context.

Inorganic metallic lead isn't readily absorbed by our bodies. Our stomach acid will convert a very small amount of it into bioavailable lead compounds before we shit it out, but we have to eat an unreasonable amount of it before we would get elevated blood levels. When I have kids I will probably switch back to copper and make do, because children and pregnant women are much more sensitive to lead than adults.

Birds of prey are another story. They have gizzards and a very low pH gut that can convert a lot more metallic lead into absorbable compounds. I'm going to experiment with removing guts from the field this bear season for that reason.

By far and away your biggest source of lead exposure if guns are your hobby is the lead styphnate in primers. If you shoot in volume, you should absolutely be worried about that shit, because it coats your hands, gun, cases if you reload, etc, and is very readily absorbed via several pathways. In other words, if you practice regularly with a pistol, and you aren't using D-Lead wipes and D-lead soap and stashing shooting gloves in a plastic bag, or you tumble brass dry, or you shoot indoors often without a respirator, you can fuck off with your concern trolling.

>>65019439
again, global rule 12. I'll post guns when you do, retard. I've been on topic. you asked me to post guns because I called you a shit shot for not being able to take a durr with coppers, faggot
>>65019452
>I do avoid eating lead via shot placement
sounds like you could just use coppers and this whole thins is a skill issue

>>65019452
>>65019470
I agree with you on the primer shit. got a peer reviewed study showing that it's fine to eat lead fragments from bonded bullets?

>>65019470
Nogunz

>>65019365
>Common misunderstanding or misrepresentation.
>An arrow that is shot with a broad head that did not completely exit the deer would not be said to have transferred 100% of its energy to the deer. Even if in broad strokes scientifically it is correct.
>An arrow with a large flat metal coin attachment on the front that hits a deer side on and bounces off has transfered more of its energy to the deer than the above.
There isn't really any point in discussing further - you just described a scenario where 2+2=8. This isn't a conversation that's well grounded in physics.
>Don't use gel use this contraption I've never used and no one else uses either so you can't compare anything to anyone else's results
Eh.

>>65019486
we don't sign our posts here

>>65019487
Lol, no. All energy conversion is not equal. All bullets opening do not have an equal cost. All transfer of energy does not overcome stretch capacity. All penetration does not result in a temporary cavity.
Arrows are compared using the momentum figure because that most accurately predicts its performance in game.
High velocity bullets use the energy figure as that at some levels is the best way to accurately predict it's performance in game.
Pistol and dangerous game bullets use the Taylor ko model as it is the most accurate in predicting performance in game.
When you shoot a deer with a high velocity rifle the first portion of the terminal ballistics can be best predicted by energy figures. That is because it is largely a massive impact resistance situation then a dump of energy into the surrounding tissues from energy converted into a wave in the tissues.
After this stage the bullet much like a pistol bullet or arrow is best predicted using momentum. Or compared bullet to bullet if you will.
There are men who thought the energy wave traveled through veins and stopped the heart and brain. They were wrong, but there is a noticeable pressure spike when shot.
There are doctors who have argued that bullets only leave a bullet size hole. Despite the fact we can watch videos of real shootings where tissues rip and tear apart much much larger than the bullet.
There are multiple different things happening in terminal ballistics.
If you think it's as simple as the bullet left the deer energy was wasted. The bullet stayed in the deer all the energy was transferred to the deer...
Well terminal ballistics isn't for you.
>Hell I can't swim so I stay my black ass out of the pool
That's you, stay out of the pool. Ballistics and gene

>>65019470
>sounds like you could just use coppers and this whole thins is a skill issue
I've killed 6 diff species of big game with copper bullets. About 12 animals total I think, including some that would be bucket listers for a lot of hunters. It was a real phase for me, looking down at all the lead-shooting peons. Then I stopped using them, because the terminal ballistics are observably worse for most uses. Also it isn't a case of "just" using coppers, coppers fly like shit, I don't want to practice with $2 ammunition, I don't want to hunt with a load that's different than what I practice with, I want to practice 500+ rounds a year with my hunting rifles, etc.
>>65019476
No, it would be like finding a paper that says a couple smokes and a couple drinks every now and then are fine for you. I don't work in research, but I am a biologist, and I would never put my name on something like that lol. It's up to people to manage their own risk.

My personal opinion, having read a lot of the research that is actually out there and doesn't just re-cite something else, is that the risk is very minimal for me in my stage of life. In cases where accute lead poisoning was attributable to the ingestion of lead projectiles, the circumstances were not only excessive, but extreme - like swallowing shot almost daily for extended periods. Some survey-style studies have shown correlation between blood lead levels and consumption of game meat in *some* populations, but they did not show *dangerous* elevation, and they also did not take into account a ton of other very important factors - what game meat, shot with what kind of gun? Like were they just hogging down lead bird shot all the time? Were the participants already aware of the risks of lead? How did they trim their animal before butchering? What were their other risk factors? If they were rural and their houses were older, how were they plumbed and painted? How much did they shoot recreationally? Etc.

>>65019626
>I'm a biologist
oh, so a moron. got it. chem God here. and so you don't have any documents showing you don't get lead poisoned by eating bullet fragments

>>65019583
>Taylor ko model
Yeah, you're deep into the gobbledyguk fuddery. Very little of this is measurable science. There are more legible ways to describe what you're talking about, but it's somewhat moot because you can just shoot the bullets into things and see what they do, including game animals.

Humor me anyways. What's the rate of energy transfer of a common hunting load that you like? If this is something we're going to use as criteria, presumably we can quantify it. Let's dream it up. Like, magnitude of radial force at the widest point of the permanent cavity, perhaps multiplied by the length of the cavity and then by 0.5 to average between wide and narrow portions.

Maybe to get all of those inputs we could shoot the bullet into a calibrated medium of known elasticity, take measurements of the cavity, and then start doing a bunch of bullshit math, working backwards from our "see it with your own eyes" calibrated medium to get some esoteric conversion factor. Don't look at gaping fucking hole in our medium, that tells us everything we want to know - look at the meaningless number you can milk out of it with a formula I literally shat out just now. I call it the Arcane Bullshit Model.

File: duk6y19ulaaz_1.jpg (44 KB, 770x578)

44 KB JPG

If your not using DU rounds to hunt. I just can't help you anon

>>65019707
I'm not being rude to you, I explicitly said that the risk was acceptable to me, based on my overview of the work that's out there.

Can you show me an instance where someone suffered accute lead poisoning from eating a deer that was shot with a lead bullet? Also, as a side note, how many rounds do you think you shoot per year (all platforms), and what's your post-shooting protocol for managing primer residues?

Incidentally, if you consider yourself a good chemist I'd be interested in what you have to say regarding the conversion of metallic lead in the GI tract into bioavailable compounds, because I'm very interested.

>>65019842
I usually only shoot outside if I go to an indoor range I use a .22, but that's mostly due to concussion and I always wash my hands and face with d-lead before coming home and then shower. I also have specific range pants and I keep boots, a few shirts, a normal coat and a shooting coat in my range back to wear once I get to the range so the only thing I wear while driving that would get exposed would be my pants and undershirt and I don't think those get much exposure.
I was asking for the peer reviewed stuff because I wanted to see your data on GI track absorption you were basing it on.

>>65019761
You aren't very bright are you