The thing is, all of the good alternatives to lead are either vastly more expensive than lead (not a big deal for hunting ammo, *huge* deal for target ammo), are way inferior to lead in terms of density or ductility (particularly important WRT handgun ammo), or are restricted to police/military in the most popular calibers by Federal law because of their potential armor-piercing capability when used in handguns or small- and intermediate-caliber rifles.

The combination of very high malleability/ductility, very high density, and very low cost is hard to replace; there are only so many metals in the periodic table, after all.

...that this belongs in the E & E topic but is here just to portray a negative image of anything pro-gun?

You'd think Democratic anti-gun cultists might . . . . . . .

that gun grabbers like this new regulation?

My guess is that they are trying to affect the supply of *all* ammo and don't really give a shit about only the bullets used while actually hunting.

and sinkers:

The amount of lead they put into the ground is so minute it doesn't even merit discussion.

but didn't the lead come from the ground in the first place?

good.

Most lead in the environment comes from lead paint dust, old wheel weights, disguarded consumer electronics.

In otherwords, city sources vs lead core hunting bullets.

Lots of lead in the asses of some city folks.

Lead is used more in fishing than in hunting. Where are the studies on the impact of lead contamination from fishing?

... who carries a fly rod in public.

...with their fly open in public either.

Including some places in WA state....

If the EPA could focus on conservation and wildlife protection then many people would probably support copper/bismuth/tungsten as alternatives for ammo. The law unfortunatly (historically) impacted target shooters and hunters at ranges shooting less expensive practice rounds. Lead on a range can be controlled and reclaimed. The EPA seems inflexible in writing their regulations.

Blackpowder hunters would probably be put in a bind, so as a compromise let blackpowder hunters continue to use their lead. Blackpowder hunters are an extreme minority.

For deer and other large game, solid copper projectiles with segmented sections are just as effective as the traditional lead core soft points. The problem is, many of the solid copper projectiles are extremely good at defeating ballistic armor/plate steel and are called out as "cop killer" and "armor piercing" hence a different group wants those banned for totally different reasons.

There is also another sub-set of firearm oppositionist who are anti-hunting and will support anything that reduces hunting. The anti-hunting coalition would oppose firearms for target and self defense if it gave them an edge on hunting reduction.

The NRA is just a vocal mouthpiece on this one, with so much overfunding they just take the lead from the hunter lobby groups and run with it. For both sides of the arguement it's a game of posture and lawyers seeking to hold ground or take ground.

How is compromise possible when there are so many groups with a finger in the pie?

Can't use lead, can't use copper...

I bet gold would be okay

As in marbles. As in legislative groups having lost their marbles.

Movie quote: "You guys think not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth." That's the problem with politics.

there's no comparison...outdoor cats are invasive mobile miniature environmental disasters. Now, I believe the NRA is wrong on this, but I wonder if the antis are as worked up about the damage cats do as they are over lead shot? Or is this environmentalism just another opportunity to attack gun owners?