3 ms·

I'm a target shooter, I wonder how the lead contained in the bullets and that is burned at firing time is affecting me :s

DanBC 13y ago
This was a concern for the armed forces who have conducted studies on lead-alternatives for ammunition. (Aplogies if I get my bullet terminology wrong - I have little idea about this stuff. Here I'm talking about the lead slug projectile part of the round of ammunition). http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19116438 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19116438 I think that alternatives cause other problems by stripping the gun barrel and etc. On a gentle tangent I sometimes wonder how many rounds of ammunition were fired during Iraq and Afghanistan wars. And how much brass and lead there is for local populations to recover and sell. And whether that's worth the risk of handling unfored ammunition or finding cluster bomblets or similar.
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  The brass would be more easily recovered. The lead and depleted uranium is not quite so simply recycled. Recall that hollow-point ammunition is banned for use by national armies. A lot of their munitions are designed to tumble in soft tissue or to shatter on impact. Some rounds are intended to send a rivulet of liquified metal through armor. Under such conditions, I am sure that a lot of the fired rounds ended up as dust, to either be inhaled immediately or to become a soil contaminant later. Turning every battle site into a Superfund-style cleanup is unlikely according to the local economics.
Zigurd 13y ago
If I shot a lot, I would be concerned: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19395342 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19395342 I use lead-free pellets in a pellet rifle, which we keep on hand to shoot at animals that want to eat our chickens. It seems like a lot more pellets are lead-free now than just a few years ago. I don't like the idea of lead pellets laying around on my property. Most lead-free pellets also claim to be "high velocity' so it seems unlikely they are wearing the rifle barrel more than lead pellets.

DanBC 13y ago

This was a concern for the armed forces who have conducted studies on lead-alternatives for ammunition. (Aplogies if I get my bullet terminology wrong - I have little idea about this stuff. Here I'm talking about the lead slug projectile part of the round of ammunition). http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19116438 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19116438 I think that alternatives cause other problems by stripping the gun barrel and etc. On a gentle tangent I sometimes wonder how many rounds of ammunition were fired during Iraq and Afghanistan wars. And how much brass and lead there is for local populations to recover and sell. And whether that's worth the risk of handling unfored ammunition or finding cluster bomblets or similar.

logfromblammo 13y ago
The brass would be more easily recovered. The lead and depleted uranium is not quite so simply recycled. Recall that hollow-point ammunition is banned for use by national armies. A lot of their munitions are designed to tumble in soft tissue or to shatter on impact. Some rounds are intended to send a rivulet of liquified metal through armor. Under such conditions, I am sure that a lot of the fired rounds ended up as dust, to either be inhaled immediately or to become a soil contaminant later. Turning every battle site into a Superfund-style cleanup is unlikely according to the local economics.

Zigurd 13y ago

If I shot a lot, I would be concerned: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19395342 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19395342 I use lead-free pellets in a pellet rifle, which we keep on hand to shoot at animals that want to eat our chickens. It seems like a lot more pellets are lead-free now than just a few years ago. I don't like the idea of lead pellets laying around on my property. Most lead-free pellets also claim to be "high velocity' so it seems unlikely they are wearing the rifle barrel more than lead pellets.