Number 82.

The EPA’s proposed lead ammo ban is being covered by pretty much everyone, including Lawrence. I don’t have a lot to add to either Lawrence or Tam’s takes, but I do want to say “I told you so.”

(This in turn, for no particular reason, reminds me of the Robert Conquest story.)

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 26th, 2010 at 7:40 am and is filed under Guns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Number 82.”

  1. Joe D says:
    August 27, 2010 at 9:04 am

    I have to point out that lead is being phased out all over the place, not just with bullets. See RoHS.

  2. stainles says:
    August 27, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Yeah, Joe, as you may have guessed, I have to deal with RoHS in my job. And I do think shooters are concerned with lead in the environment as well; I note that Clint Smith’s Thunder Ranch requires the use of lead-free ammo for training.

    That being said:

    • There isn’t any really good substitute for lead in ammunition, both in the bullets and the primers, at this time.
    • Most of the lead expended by shooters, I believe, goes into backstops rather than into the air and water. I think many ranges actually recover and recycle the lead periodically. I’m dubious that shooter’s lead migrates very much into the environment.
    • RoHS has caused plenty of problems as well; for example, the tin whisker issue in electronic equipment.

    I think you can be concerned about lead ammo without agreeing that this proposal is a good idea.

  3. Sweet, sweet lead. « Whipped Cream Difficulties says:
    September 1, 2010 at 10:27 am

    […] while I was tied up with Armadillocon, I haven’t had a chance to blog it before now: the proposed EPA lead ammo ban appears to be as dead as the Roman […]