Lead-free bullets

I read the post about lead-free primers.  In terms of reducing lead exposure and blood lead, there are lots of good ideas and advice in that post.  I asked CCI if they would make their lead-free primers available to handloaders and I got a nice reply:  negative.  I agree that it is important to work on reducing lead exposure as my blood lead level is also elevated.  Here’s an alternate path that I think is worth pursuing.

 

I found a supplier of lead-free copper (compressed particle Cu) bullets.  Yes, I know there are lots of copper and copper/polymer bullets out there.  But, we bullseye shooters have a special requirement:  performance at the target.  I did a lot of testing of a lot of bullet models.  I found one that works.  See 50 yd and 25yd pictures.  These were fired outdoors using a Les Baer 1911 in a Ransom Rest.  Bullet is a 150g HP.  I use 4.5g Tite Group at 50yds and 4.0g at the short lines.  These loads have the additional advantage of low recoil.  These loads function my Les Baer with a 12.5 lb spring.  Others with slide mounted sights find they need a bit more powder.

I can make these bullets available for sale in the Commercial Row page.  But, I wanted to first see if there was some interest out there.

I tried several times to attach pictures of my Ransom Rest results.  Maybe it will let me do that here?

OK.  What does it take to attach a picture?  How to do this?

When I was responsible for indoor range air quality at a government range, the prevailing wisdom was that most airborne lead came from the lead styphnate in primers, and that good ventilation was the engineering control to avoid blood lead issues.

We had range personnel working 40+ hours per week in an active range with no problems.

If a recreational shooter is experiencing elevated blood lead, copper bullets are likely not the solution.

Richard Ashmore wrote:When I was responsible for indoor range air quality at a government range, the prevailing wisdom was that most airborne lead came from the lead styphnate in primers, and that good ventilation was the engineering control to avoid blood lead issues.

We had range personnel working 40+ hours per week in an active range with no problems.

If a recreational shooter is experiencing elevated blood lead, copper bullets are likely not the solution.

Elemental lead particles from lead bullets are an order of magnitude higher than the lead that comes from a primer. This is the amount of lead that is blown out in one 38 Special, 158 grain lead bullet.




However, when you look at the OSHA standards of 80 micrograms per cubic meter, and compare to the amount of lead in a primer,s primer lead is very high.



I am of the opinion that plated bullets or jacketed bullets are a very good start if you want to cut the amount of lead in the air as you shoot. You breathe that stuff in, it goes right into your lungs, then your blood stream. Lead free primers are slowly making their way to the market, and I have not tried them yet, but rest assured, if they turn out to be non rusting, stable, and predictable, I will be using them.



Incidentally the old chlorate primers were lead free. But, they were called corrosive for a reason: they left primer salts which created rust! You had to use water, soap or water, or a water based cleaner, to dissolve the primer salts. Salts don't dissolve in oils.

Slamfire;
I appreciate your reply more than Mr. Ashmore as you provide test data compared to "prevailing wisdom".  Further, I agree about the use of lead-free primers; I will switch to them when they become available.

Further, though, you don't comment about lead-free bullets.  While I agree that jacketed bullets help (a lot), some indoor ranges don't allow them (like mine).  So, I still maintain that using (handling, loading and shooting) totally lead-free bullets is a further step in the right direction.  Price is about the same as jacketed bullets.  Recoil is lower as bullet weight is lower.  BEST of all is on-target performance.  I used a Ransom Rest to put 10 shots in 1.9" at 50 yds.  That holds the X-ring and beat out all other bullets I tested including jacketed and lead.  (I wish I could upload target picture, but this site won't allow me to do so???)
Some of our guys use polymer coated bullets; I'm sure that helps with the lead exposure, but, I could not see reasonable group sizes at 50yds.;
John Hauser at PROSAF Precision

Another attempt to upload a picture

Everything I've read points to the single most important thing to protect shooters from lead exposure at gun ranges is adequate ventilation. 

Various state/provincial and federal agencies publish air flow standards.


But moving to lead-free products will be a huge help to cleaning, limiting lead exposure, and remediation.

Curious as to the source of the chart and definition of abbreviations and "...using modified ammunition".

mikld wrote:Curious as to the source of the chart and definition of abbreviations and "...using modified ammunition".

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nbsspecialpublication480-26.pdf

Found use Google search. Try it.

S148 wrote:

mikld wrote:Curious as to the source of the chart and definition of abbreviations and "...using modified ammunition".

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nbsspecialpublication480-26.pdf

Found use Google search. Try it.

Given the amazing amount of information on the web, it also amazes me how few people will search for it, even when given a URL or a reference.

Yes.  Thanks for the link.  The article went into a lot more detail than the two tables presented above.  They went further and developed loads with jacketed bullets plus lead-free primers.  There still was significant residual air-borne lead.  Then they cleaned the bore and lead fell further.  Finally, it took significant more rounds to get air-borne lead down to safe levels.  They concluded that there was significant lead in the rifling and it took a while to get it all out.

I recently joined because I'm interested in loading revolver cartridges for accuracy.  After reading this topic, I though I would add something.

The elemental lead from bullets even when it is airborne may not be as readily absorbed in the blood as the lead salts (lead styphnate) from the primer compound.  Lead salts are very efficiently absorbed by the body.*  So while the bulk source of lead from ammunition is easily the bullet rather than the primer, the greater danger to range occupants and reloaders comes from the lead salts in the primers.

Lead-free primers are essential to indoor range safety.  While ventilation can remediate a lead air-quality issue, there have been too many failures for a person to reasonably depend on the ventilation working as it is hoped to.  If you have personal responsibility to ensure the ventilation is effective, then by all means do so.  If you are depending on someone else to do this for you, it would be wise to take personal responsibility for your own health in the ways available to you.

Using lead-free primers reduces the amount of lead salts that you're exposed to, but if others are using lead-styphnate primers at the indoor range it may not be enough to make the air safe.  Reloaders can also reduce the amount of lead styphnate they're exposed to by wet-tumbling brass or using ultrasonic cleaners instead of dry tumbling brass that was fired with lead styphnate primers.  Dry tumbling indoors where the dust will contaminate work surfaces or living space would be the worst.

I switched to lead-free primers exclusively about three years ago, even though I never shoot indoors, and I do not regret it at all.  There is limited selection of lead-free primers.  As of last year, only Fiocchi was offering their lead-free primers to reloaders.  This year?  Well, no manufacturer seems to be offering any primers to reloaders, but that's another story.  Furthermore, Fiocchi was only offering small pistol and small rifle magnum primers.  It is apparent that lead-free pistol primers are exclusively small pistol primers and this has engendered the .45 ACP and 10mm cases with SPP pockets.

Vista Outdoor (Federal, CCI) has developed their own lead-free "Catalyst" primers.  Last year they proclaimed that all Federal factory ammunition would be using Catalyst primers within two years.  Those claims seemed doubtful at the time and even more so now.  It does seem reasonable to expect that we will move away from lead-styphnate primers at a wholesale level the same as we previously moved away from mercury fulminate primers in the past, but it is not clear how soon this will happen.

I contacted Vista Outdoor (Federal) last year about providing Catalyst primers to reloaders and they indicated that they had no intention to do that.  They did not explain further.  This was well before the current crisis so there was no relation there.  I have read others who contacted CCI requesting the same and they were similarly informed that CCI would not be doing that.  One person speculated that they would not provide their lead-free primers to reloaders because they could be incompatible with existing load data.  I don't believe that.  We already have standard and magnum primers and it's not likely that these primers produce radically different pressures than those.  It is much more probable that the Catalyst primers work poorly with certain heavily-deterred (slow-burning) powders.  More could be learned by pulling bullets on factory ammunition with Catalyst primers and experimenting with them.  I have not been willing to do that due to the expense and because they don't offer it in the chamberings I own.  I would have to salvage the primers alone and toss everything else.

I do hope the primer manufacturers see increasing demand for lead-free primers and start to meet that demand.  However, I am not an advocate for accomplishing this through regulatory restrictions.  Furthermore, right now it is unrealistic to expect manufacturers to see any shift away from demand for lead-styphnate primers.

I believe lead bullets contribute less to the health hazards for target shooters and reloaders than lead-styphnate primers and these hazards can be mitigated with lead-safe bullets rather than lead-free.  I use plated "lead-safe" handgun bullets and jacketed hollowpoint rifle bullets.  Neither have an exposed lead base that can be burned up by combustion gases.  The rifling in the barrel does not scrape into the lead core either.  These bullets are very affordable.  I have bought thick-plated handgun bullets for as little as $0.08 ea and 6.5mm rifle bullets for $0.17 ea.  These bullets don't address all the potential hazards from lead for hunters and the environment.

Lead-free bullets come in three varieties I know of.  One is compressed powdered metal (Sinterfire) bullets that consists mostly of copper and tin.  The copper-polymer composite bullets are similar.  The second is drawn copper wire bullets like those from Barnes, Nosler e-Tips, and Hornady GMX.  This would also include copper jacketed varmint bullets with tin cores.  The third type is CNC-machined copper bullets (Lehigh, Cutting Edge, etc.)

All these bullets tend to sell for substantially higher prices than lead-safe plated bullets.  Only the Sinterfire or metal/polymer composite type bullets are practical for high-volume target shooting.  I've shot a lot of the Sinterfire, but I do not like their low density.  They're longer than heavy-for-caliber bullets and lighter than light-for-caliber bullets.  The metal/plastic composite bullets are similarly low density.

Importantly, lead-free bullets won't contaminate meat with lead.  If I'm going to eat game, I will shoot it with a Barnes TTSX.  I've seen the x-rays of lead bullets that peppered game with lead contamination far away from the wound channel.  I'm not interested in eating lead.  Besides, the Barnes bullets have outstanding performance.

I'm skeptical that the volume of lead bullets fired outside shooting ranges has a substantial impact on the environment, but it does have obvious toxicity.  Within the shooting range, lead remediation methods are practical, but not without expense and risk to workers.  So-called environmental concerns are often raised by tree-huggers that are opposed to freedom and 2nd Amendment rights and no doubt lead ammunition bans can be used by them simply to thwart the people they hate for enjoying this freedom.  That doesn't mean that freedom lovers shouldn't be concerned about the environment.  On the contrary, we ought to be irrefutably recognized as the very ones who truly care about it.  Hopefully, we will not cling to a love of toxic lead just because the tree huggers decided to use it against us.  I know, for an example, that Clint Smith enforces a lead-free bullet policy at his Thunder Ranch in Oregon because he cares about the property, the land, and the environment.  He lives there.  It's beautiful.  He doesn't want to see it trashed with a bunch of toxic lead crap.  Since he owns it, he uses his authority to be responsible for doing better than that.  We ought to treat the public lands that we own similarly.  Mind you Clint does have exceptions to his lead-free requirement, and we can be reasonable too.  To be clear, I don't support any effort to regulate lead ammunition.  Instead, I think we ought to make wise choices of our own volition.  The better we do that, the more apparent it will be that the efforts by the haters are unreasonable.  I especially want lead to remain un-banned for the sake of casters and muzzleloaders.  I don't do those things myself, but it seems unreasonable to effectively ban them.

I hate lead, but I'm not willing to ban it.  Shooters and reloaders can stay safe by using lead-free primers, shooting outdoors, not using dry media for brass fired with lead-bearing primers, and handling and shooting lead-safe bullets.

Also, watch out for lead-bearing keys.  They add a lot of lead to the brass to make key cutting easy.  It's no big deal if they just sit in a drawer, but if you keep keys in your pocket and handle them frequently, make a change.  I put keypads on my doors and my vehicles have switches and pushbutton starters.  I went that way before I even realized keys had a lot of lead.  I just keep a lot of things in my pockets and don't have any room for keys.  I still have a lot of keys and keylocks, just none that I ever have to carry around.


* Luckey, T. D.; Venugopal, B. (1979). Physiologic and Chemical Basis for Metal Toxicity. Plenum Press. ISBN 978-1-4684-2952-7.

Using crumb rubber for a backstop will reduce airborne lead. Don't smoke or eat at the range. Keep indoor ranges clean with frequent cleaning using HEPA filtered vacuum cleaners, as well as, washing down everything. Companies, like D-Lead make some great products to clean one's hands and shoe bottoms. Our indoor range provides D-Lead hand wipes for folks to use when leaving the facility. 

I disagree that lead bullets in game present any real threat to health. It's the dust that's inhaled and ingested that is a problem for people. There is a legitimate concern for waterfowl ingesting lead shot.

Having a reusable respirator handy with P-100 filters can be used anytime. It can be used while shooting, if one's lead levels are high. It can be used when cleaning an indoor range and can be used when emptying brass tumblers and media or while casting bullets, etc.

Different people absorb lead and retain lead at different amounts. Children are most at risk and extra efforts should be taken to protect them from lead dust. For most adults, good ventilation and good hygiene will keep levels low enough to not be a concern. 

People who always over react to any problem that they don't understand, have caused even the mention of lead to be like talking about radiation in certain locales. Much of the "concern" has been politically driven by those who would do anything to deny citizens opportunities that in any way involve firearms.

Interesting thread, I shoot exclusively outdoors, 22, 45 and 38 special about 99% of the time I reload my 45 & 38's, use coated bullets for the 45 and wet tumble my brass. I had my blood lead levels measured and they were in the 12 range (whatever that measurement is) the info I had says the level should be below 4.  This is with shooting about 3-4 times a month and around 180-210 rounds per trip to the range.  In addition to the lead from the primers I suspect the dust kicked up from brooms people use to sweep up brass are the biggest culprits but I don't know for sure.  I sure wish lead free primers would become available for reloaders, I suspect CCI might be worried about liability issues if they start selling them to reloaders but I don't know that as a fact.

Thank you Juniper, my medical health provider is Kaiser and they get concerned if the lead number is over 4, mine was or is in the 10-12 range and in CA they report that to Calosha and they send you a letter of concern.  I do think the primary culprit is lead dust and airborne lead from the primers.  At the range I go to the staff gets lead tests done and if it is over a certain number they can't work, this range has set up HEPA filters on the indoor range and started using big squeegees for sweeping up brass but outdoors it is brooms for that.

juniper wrote:I understand that some blood lead levels may be "common" and that some levels are below what would call for action such as chelation therapy, but there is no level that is considered safe.  Lead has no confirmed biological role, and there is no confirmed safe level of lead exposure.*1 A 2009 Canadian–American study concluded that even at levels that are considered to pose little to no risk, lead may cause "adverse mental health outcomes".*2


1 World Health Organization 2018.
2 Bouchard et al. 2009.

Juniper,

Thank you for great information on the subject.  I want to add couple points from my own experience.  In last three of four year I've been tested annually, and have lead level in blood gradually decreased from 35+ to sub-25.  According to OSHA, there are two "standards" for lead level in blood, and magic numbers are 40 and 5.  Former is for individuals, who are professionally involved with exposure to lead.  Latter is for general population.  What needs to be clearly communicated and understood (and you stated this in your prior post), is that effects of lead levels in blood and absorption of lead differs from age to age.  All studies on the subject point that lead is the most dangerous for the fetus during pregnancy, and affects future mental development of the child.  As such those of us who are lucky to be in child barring age group, must be extremely vigilant and minimize your exposure.  However those who are beyond the "prime" have very little to be concerned about. With that said, it is up to each individual to decide how anal he / she needs to be about controlling ones own exposure, and what level should be considered as unacceptable.  I personally follow latest OSHA guidance for the folks who are professionally involved with lead, and am not going to hyperventilate anymore until I see numbers above 40.  After all there is a reason lead is an additive to the jet fuel, so I hope, it'll help lubing my old joints.    if anyone want to read more on the subject -Blood-lead level requirements and medical removal protection provisions of the lead standard. | Occupational Safety and Health Administration (osha.gov) 


Oh.... BTW, TMBK half of the City of Chicago still drinks water delivered through the lead pipes.

AP

There is no lead in jet fuel. AVGAS used by many piston powdered aircraft still contains some lead. Just as older cars, older piston aircraft engines cannot use no lead fuel without compromising engine life and/or performance. So, lead content is still with us for now. Industry/government is working on solutions.

Lead in older gasoline engines, as I'm sure many here will second, was essential to long valve seat life. It prevented the valves from spot welding to the seats thereby ruining a very precise and time consuming procedure that was at that time done by hand. Lead will absolutely clog a catalytic converter in a short period of time... Emissions laws lead to the removal of lead from gasoline.

Avgas has lead not for valve issues  but for detonation margin in turbocharged engines at altitude.

Motophotog7 wrote:Lead in older gasoline engines, as I'm sure many here will second, was essential to long valve seat life. It prevented the valves from spot welding to the seats thereby ruining a very precise and time consuming procedure that was at that time done by hand. Lead will absolutely clog a catalytic converter in a short period of time... Emissions laws lead to the removal of lead from gasoline.

Valve wear was a concern, but protecting valve seats was a nice side effect of using lead additives. The primary reason was the development of higher compression engines and the need to control detonation.

The concerns about the lead were around LONG before catalytic converters. Sadly, the additive was really only finally banned to protect catalytic converters designed to stop smog and not for the specific reason to reduce lead exposure.

"Early in its use as a fuel additive, health concerns were raised regarding the use of lead in gasoline. In 1924, 15 refinery workers in New Jersey and Ohio died of suspected lead poisoning. As a result, the Surgeon General temporarily suspended the production of leaded gasoline and convened a panel to investigate the potential dangers of lead use in gasoline."
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-a-brief-history-of-octane#:~:text=Leaded%20gasoline%20was%20the%20predominant,of%20proven%20serious%20health%20impacts.

"Ultimately, the story of leaded gasoline was one of human health versus industry. It was an incredibly toxic product, but was finally pulled off the market not because it harmed people, but because it harmed machines."
https://www.autotrader.ca/newsfeatures/20190614/the-unexpected-reason-we-stopped-using-leaded-gasoline/

Removal of lead from gasoline is one of the biggest influences on reduction in crime and violence.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/?sh=5d2dd5a212c4
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health/

Juniper's call to avoid politicising lead is important and vital. Lead is a serious danger and should be treated as such by all in the sport for our own health, the health of our families, our communities, and to avoid losing facilities due to real dangers. When paranoia or politically driven agendas use lead as a reason, answering with well reasoned, factual, fully supported data  and having remediation, mitigation, and contingency plans are the only solid defence to ensure widespread community support.

There's a huge wealth of information available through a general Google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=lead+gun+ranges&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA733CA734&oq=lead+gun+ranges&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30i457j0i22i30l3j69i60l3.3305j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I've always liked the following investigative report. While we need ranges and facilities, we need to hold those ranges and facilities to task to follow the rules and protect workers, customers, community, and environment.
https://projects.seattletimes.com/2014/loaded-with-lead/1/

Slartybarkfast, thank you for the links, the last one really hits home. Our indoor range is filthy and we have many members with elevated lead levels that don't use it any more. I do not shoot in it like I used to. I'd rather dry fire until it gets warm enough to go outside. We are a private club with no paid employees.
Stan

Folks-listed below is information from my December 2020 blood test, it may be useful to some of you.

My blood level was tested first in July 2018 and it was 14.6. I got it down to 5.3 by using a P100 respirator when I shoot on our modern (built in 2016) indoor range that seems to move a decent amount of air compared to other ranges I have shot at. I shoot about 6 hours per week from October through April on this indoor range. Other club members who don't wear a respirator report lead levels of 8 to 11. They don't shoot as many hours as I do I would guess 2-3 hours at most.  Our range has a crushed rubber backstop-not steel plates.

I always wore the P100 when I did my case cleaning (dry media) separation which was done out of doors.
I shoot 6-10 hours a week from May to Sept. outdoors-no respirator worn.

I can shoot two hour  practice strings indoors wearing the respirator  without any relative discomfort or score impairment.

Hope this helps!


Standard Range: <=4.9 ug/dL
INTERPRETIVE INFORMATION: Lead, Blood (Venous)
Elevated results may be due to skin or collection-related
contamination, including the use of a noncertified
lead-free tube. If contamination concerns exist due to
elevated levels of blood lead, confirmation with a second
specimen collected in a certified lead-free tube is
recommended.
Information sources for reference intervals and
interpretive comments include the "CDC Response to the 2012
Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention
Report" and the "Recommendations for Medical Management of
Adult Lead Exposure, Environmental Health Perspectives,
2007." Thresholds and time intervals for retesting, medical
evaluation, and response vary by state and regulatory body.
Contact your State Department of Health and/or applicable
regulatory agency for specific guidance on medical
management recommendations.

Age Concentration Comment
All ages 5-9.9 ug/dL Adverse health effects are
possible, particularly in
children under 6 years of
age and pregnant women.
Discuss health risks
associated with continued
lead exposure. For children
and women who are or may
become pregnant, reduce
lead exposure.

All ages 10-19.9 ug/dL Reduced lead exposure and
increased biological
monitoring are recommended.

All ages 20-69.9 ug/dL Removal from lead exposure
and prompt medical
evaluation are recommended.
Consider chelation therapy
when concentrations exceed
50 ug/dL and sympto
ms of
lead toxicity are present.

Less than 19 Greater than Critical. Immediate medical
years of age 44.9 ug/dL evaluation is recommended.
Consider chelation therapy
when symptoms of lead
toxicity are present.

Greater than 19 Greater than Critical. Immediate medical
years of age 69.9 ug/dL evaluation is recommended
Consider chelation therapy
when symptoms of lead
toxicity are present.