Hacker News Reader

Comment by harimau777 | Hacker News Reader

It seems questionable to me that the article doesn't discuss differences in performance or other drawbacks of non-lead bullets.

I'm not an expert, but a quick Google search suggests that they may be more expensive, less easy to find, and more likely to pass through targets. I found at least one article that claimed they may have greater stopping power since they do not break up in the target as easily. However, I have heard anecdotes about steel shot having less stopping power than lead.

View on HN

Hunter here. For big game like deer and moose, I actually prefer copper ammo. With lead shot, if I hit the shoulders or haunches and my family or I eat that meat, there's a very good chance we're eating bits of lead. Most Lead bullets disintegrate on impact, while copper bullets rarely fragment and penetrate deeper.

If I wasn't eating the meat, I could see the argument for lead, but it's a weak one at best. In my own experience copper bullets do not go all the way through large game. And I don't believe in hunting for purely for sport.

Deer hunter as well, who eats the meat. I really don't think the large game rounds are a factor. I think I've shot 5 round in the last 8 years, and there are no edible bits in the chest cavity. The lead bullets mushroom out, but...a non-factor for a deer. 270, 30-06, and 300 mag lead ammunition will liquify the chest cavity, but does not go through it.

Shotgun rounds are a different thing. Here in Minnesota, they eliminated lead for waterfowl hunting -- which is a fair thing to do. I'll shoot many, many more rounds at birds - and cleaning the shot out can be tricky. Best not to be spraying the land and/or lakes with lead bbs.

No input on the article - I’m just stoked to see the hunting public well represented here on HN.

That is very cool to me as a fellow outdoorsman.

> For big game like deer and moose, I actually prefer copper ammo.

Surely you mean copper-jacketed lead, right? I don’t think that solid copper bullets would travel very far or carry much of a punch …

Given his concerns about feeding lead to his family, almost definitely he means solid copper. Modern lead-free solid copper bullets work quite well for many animals. Here's a sample article comparing them against traditional copper jacketed lead: https://www.guns.com/news/2017/03/18/do-copper-bullets-offer...

Steel shot is required by law to hunt water fowl in U.S.A. The lead shot falls in the water. It's eaten by fish then eaten by eagles or waterfowl that are then eaten by people, so it's easy to find in any gun sport shop.

Rifle bullets are mostly either lead, which leaves lead residue on the machines parts and causes jams as the tolerances decline. Thus lead coated with copper is superior technology and more reliable but more expensive to boot. It doesn't mushroom as much but the velocities are higher. Plus rifles aren't used around water do they are much less likely to end up in the food supply and this legal for hunting.

In regards to steel shot having less stopping power its due to the density differential between steel and lead. Generally when people say stopping power they are describing the amount of force exerted and more mass equals more force (assuming the same velocity).

Lead Free ammunition exists in various forms and the terminal ballistics can be different than lead ammunition. So many compositions are possible and this is a massive topic that is quite hotly debated and studied in the firearms community.

It is not just mass. Hollow points are considered to have more stopping power because they mushroom to a greater diameter and impart more energy to the target. A steel round of greater mass can pass through the target with greater ease imparting much less energy.

For shot the problem is that each piece is very small, so air resistance slows it down meaningfully if the density isn't there (e.g. steel vs lead); so the exact same power at the muzzle will have very different power when hitting the bird if a less dense material is used.

Honestly, there are differences. Do they matter? IMHO, no.

Most "stopping power" debates are talking about rifles that are vastly capable with or without lead bullets, and with the bans that have happened, the tech has moved forward. e.g. Barnes Bullets (which are copper) are considered a premium round, not just a premium non-lead round. And they aren't really overpriced.

WRT shotguns, I don't know this end as well, but the ammo market could use some forced innovation (the firearms market in general lacks innovation).

This is specifically in regards to shotgun ammunition as steel shot vs lead shot have large differences due to the density differential.

Source: https://www.hunter-ed.com/alaska/studyGuide/Two-Major-Differ...

> (the firearms market in general lacks innovation)

As someone who is subject to the California Safe Handgun Roster[0], the amount of innovation in the handgun space in six years is frustrating.

[0] tl;dr: normal people can't buy a handgun released after 2013 new from an FFL.

The article talks about use of lead-based ammunition for wildlife hunting. I see no problem with it. Sure, solid copper rifle bullets are expensive, but you only need one of them per hunting season. Ok, a box to zero the rifle.

As long as lead remains legal to use at the shooting range (where the vast majority of rounds is spent, and most lead is subsequently recovered and reprocessed), it's not a big deal.

It's worth noting that steel core bullets are often banned as "armor piercing" rounds, despite that fact that most worthwhile hunting cartridges can pierce body armor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com