Are gloves allowed?

Just got my blood levels test back.  Not good.  Definately going to need to take steps to continue shooting.  I shoot only at the club level.  In my CAS matches golves are prohibited.  Are there any restrictions about using gloves for BE?  I'm thinking about using the nitrile gloves.  I've started using them in practice.

Get some D-lead towels and soap. My regimen is to wash my hands with Hand Cleaner (ex. Go-Jo) and then to use cold water and D-Lead soap. It doesn't take much. If it is impossible to wash my hands I have the D-lead towels and use those. 

The lead is entering through your mouth or nose. don't touch those areas while shooting. Also, what is the ventilation like where you shoot?

hp246 wrote:Just got my blood levels test back.  Not good.  Definately going to need to take steps to continue shooting.  I shoot only at the club level.  In my CAS matches golves are prohibited.  Are there any restrictions about using gloves for BE?  I'm thinking about using the nitrile gloves.  I've started using them in practice.

No, they are not allowed.  It used to be rule 3.11, which has been deleted from the current rule book, but is still listed in the index.  It is now rule 5.2 (b) under artificial support.

Start wearing a N100 mask. $10 bucks at any big box store.
S.

are you shooting at an indoor range?

ingestion is the issue with lead, not necessarily contact.

As long as you thoroughly wash your hands with the appropriate "stuff" and do so before touching any food etc, then contact on the hands is not an issue. It is all about the air you breath. Several of my shooting buddies have gone to breathing filters. Who knows, maybe after my next test I will too. (last one I was only a 6 but have been shooting at an older indoor range a lot more)

Thanks guys.  Yep.  Respirator is in effect as of today.  Much handwashing is in my future.

Remember to wash with COLD water.  Hot/warm water causes the pores to open so that you would possibly absorb more lead.

cdrt wrote:No, they are not allowed.  It used to be rule 3.11, which has been deleted from the current rule book, but is still listed in the index.  It is now rule 5.2 (b) under artificial support.

Quick check - are "shooting gloves", made from ultra lightweight material, that provides zero support, allowed in Bullseye?  
As a follow-up question, if they're not allowed in competition, do any of you use them during practice?

I'm thinking specifically of the Bob Allen "Shotgunners Shooting Gloves" that some people at my range were using, so I bought a pair.  They weigh next to nothing, as I said, offer zero support, and protect my skin.  I didn't expect to like them so much.  I find I can shoot with or without them exactly the same.  When matches ever return, I'll leave them at home if necessary, but for practice, they are very comfortable.  As it says on the packaging, they are "soft, light, breathable, and washable".

No gloves allowed and I do in practice what I do in matches, so I wouldn't wear them during practice either.  Just like the Wuhan virus wear a mask and don't touch your mouth or face until after you have washed your hands.  I'm not sure hand sanitizer works for lead but there are wipes specifically for lead:
https://www.amazon.com/Hygenall-LeadOff-Disposable-Cleaning-Decon/dp/B001SJ0JIU
- Dave

dronning wrote:No gloves allowed and I do in practice what I do in matches, so I wouldn't wear them during practice either.  Just like the Wuhan virus wear a mask and don't touch your mouth or face until after you have washed your hands.  I'm not sure hand sanitizer works for lead but there are wipes specifically for lead:
https://www.amazon.com/Hygenall-LeadOff-Disposable-Cleaning-Decon/dp/B001SJ0JIU
- Dave

It's the American virus I'm concerned about, not whatever they have elsewhere, Coronavirus, or Covid-19, and hopefully it doesn't mutate, so whatever cure they find for it will continue to work.  Thanks for the advice about the mask, but not only can't I find one to buy, I've read how the hospitals need all they can find more than individuals.  Once they're readily available, I'll gladly buy one.

There are times when my skin feels "dried out", and the glove makes shooting much more comfortable.  I'll leave them home at the next match.

About lead, this is what I got years ago - not sure if it's still available.  I got it mostly for reloading, back when I was using a single station reloader in the 1980's.  My hands used to look all shiny and silvery by the time I finished - this was before I realized how bad this was for my health.  

Thank you for the update - if I need to buy more, now I've got another option.

I have no idea if this helps with lead exposure or not...

http://www.gloveguard.com/dermaguard/

I would only advise a mask for those with high lead levels.  If you do have high levels and can't find a mask only shoot outdoors or on indoor ranges that have great ventilation.  Of course that's when indoor ranges are open again.
- Dave

Oh and like Lyme disease, West Nile, Legionnaires, MERS, Hong Kong flu, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Spanish flu, German Measles......  named after their origin because that's what people will call it.

Rules are great and attempt to keep everyone almost equal.  However, wearing nylon, latex, or other similar gloves has merit these days given the coronavirus problem.  If in a match such as bullseye where shooters "pass scorecards right and score left", there is contact with things what others may have contacted.  Same with using someone's stapler or pen or scoring devices.

For that reason, I would certainly allow competitors to wear such gloves mentioned above.  Any type of other glove should not be allowed if it can provide any shooting advantage such as shooting gloves designed to and worn to reduce recoil or other advantageous things.  

If a medical condition exists that would greatly benefit the shooter AND other competitors if that shooter were allowed to wear nylon, latex, or other similar gloves, then that shooter should appeal to the NRA for a waiver for specific matches that they want to compete.  Such gloves don't really provide any advantage in grip.  If the glove is tight, it is uncomfortable and will make the hand sweat.  That will result in a slippery grip.  If the glove is too big, then the grip will be loose.  Some people are allergic to certain types whether powdered or not so that is a consideration as well.

Footwear that covers the lower leg above the ankle such as boots of any height most certainly provides artificial support.  Yet boots are not mentioned in the rules.  Why not?  Probably because a great many shooters wear them.  Boots or footwear above the ankle is forbidden in international pistol.

Common sense should rule rather than anality.  Unfortunately, one person's common sense may not agree with another's.

Finally, a match director can specify any exception to just about any rule as long as that exception is specified in the match program that must be submitted to and approved by the NRA.  If the NRA will not approve the program because of the exception to pistol rules noted, then there is no further argument or discussion.  If the competitor is unable or unwilling to accept the rules as specified or listed, then that person should pick another sport/hobby.

I'm being crucified right now by my kids pediatrician. Her lead came back as a 6 and they are blaming my shooting. I use d-lead wipes and shower immediately after every range session. All clothes go directly in the wash when I get home.

As well you should be if your shooting is causing her blood level readings.  Your shooting and her test results make for an easy conclusion or diagnosis even if the two things are not directly related.

Then again, perhaps there is another reason for her apparent exposure to lead.  Do the clothes you wear get washed with other items such as her clothes, towels, wash clothes, or anything that she or others may be using or wearing?  The washing cycle you are using may not be thorough enough to remove whatever lead is in you clothes.  A blood test for other people in your house might confirm that.

Might also be a good idea to have her tested again.  Labs make mistakes and any questions should be cause for another test.  If the second test comes back with the same levels and your actions after shooting are true each time you shoot, then there may be other factors involved.  

Do you reload?  Is she around you when you do.  Is your reloading done where the heating and air conditioning can circulate lead particles from reloading (depriming sends lead into the air).  

The D-Lead product is very good.  I used to provide all bullseye shooters and range personnel with a packet.

Does she go to places with lead based paints or materials?

If possible, I would consider getting your water tested. My high school tested the water after the Flint MI issue, sure enough it had traces of lead.

Do you reload? If so how do you clean your brass? Dry tumbling is notorious for being a dusty mess. 

In general good hygiene practices are always a good idea.

Range clothes get washed right away and by themselves. My lead numbers are fine. I sonic clean. Reloading is in the basement. She doesn't go in the basement and she has never been to the gun club. My house was built in 94' well past the lead paint days. I have public water, so it allegedly gets tested every year. We switched her and my wife to bottled water anyway just in case. Had her tested 3 months ago and she was a 6. 2 weeks ago she was a 4. So it's going in the right direction. The level guidelines are shakey. "normal" used to be 10, aparnetly it was changed to a 5 a few years ago. But they will not do anything medically until your at a 45. She goes again in June.

Jwhelan939 wrote:Range clothes get washed right away and by themselves. My lead numbers are fine. I sonic clean. Reloading is in the basement. She doesn't go in the basement and she has never been to the gun club. My house was built in 94' well past the lead paint days. I have public water, so it allegedly gets tested every year. We switched her and my wife to bottled water anyway just in case. Had her tested 3 months ago and she was a 6. 2 weeks ago she was a 4. So it's going in the right direction. The level guidelines are shakey. "normal" used to be 10, aparnetly it was changed to a 5 a few years ago. But they will not do anything medically until your at a 45. She goes again in June.

It sounds to me like it's extremely unlikely that your daughter's elevated lead levels are related to your shooting, particularly given the first 5 sentences of your post above. (Have you pointed out those facts to your censored judgmental pediatrician???) 

You said your lead levels are fine.  Have you tested your wife's lead levels?  If so, have you compared them before and after switching to bottled water?  
Given what happened in Flint, it may not be a bad idea to have your public water tested yourself, even though it's "allegedly" tested annually (tested by whom?).  

If it were me (and it's not me, I get that) I'd want to figure out the underlying source of the lead level elevation in your daughter, and I'd start by having the water tested.  But obviously it's your call. (I wouldn't want to have "lead" you astray with my advice.) It's good to hear that the lead levels are going in the right direction for your daughter.  Hopefully that will continue. Good luck and best wishes.

I asked a friend who's daughter also had high lead (it was in his daughter's tea set) he sent me the info below.  He also said be careful of clothing as some dyes can also contain lead
- Dave

1. Discard all brightly painted toys -- whether wooden, plastic or metal -- that have been manufactured in Pacific Rim countries, especially China. Toys that are particularly risky are those where the paint can be peeled or chipped off, and those that can be easily mouthed by young children.
2. Discard all ceramic or pottery toys manufactured outside the U.S., especially those made in China, India, and Mexico.
3. Remove all metal jewelry from children immediately. If the jewelry has special significance, parents can have it tested. The CPSC provides a list of laboratories that will test products. Parents can also speak to their local health department.
4. Buy only soy-based crayons. Although lead-filled crayons have not been the subject of a recall since 1996, in rare cases children have been poisoned by eating them.  Check for old art kits in the house.  And, as with toys, "nontoxic" labels are not an assurance that a product -- especially one made in China -- adhere to U.S. safety standards.
5. Take caution when exposing children to other items known to contain lead. These include imported vinyl mini-blinds made before 1997, vinyl bibs, vinyl backpacks, canvas lunch boxes (especially those with metallic linings), car keys, children's chalk, pool chalk, Mexican candies, Mexican home remedies, and all pottery and ceramics manufactured outside the U.S.

Holy Molly!  

While displaying some adroitness in regards to the use of different fonts and styles, Saidentary's post appears to make him the one who is judgemental, not the pediatrician.  The use of a body part as an adjective to further describe the pediatrician seems to further that perception.  There seems to be no problem with responding with little knowledge of other than a few facts originally posted.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.  After he washes his hands with soap for 20 seconds, he should do the same to his keyboard.

Perhaps gathering a few more facts such as actions suggested by several other posts might be the proper response and recommended course rather than any immediate emotional outbursts and the call for the "somebody go git some rope" approach.

Was there a direct face-to-face discussion with the pediatrician and you or was the diagnosis based upon the daughter's or wife's perception of what happened in the pediatrician's office?  How did the pediatrician know that you were involved with firearms?  It sounds like a logical conclusion on the part of the pediatrician to observe the blood level and then ask questions about possible exposure sources to lead.  If your shooting was raised during the office visit, then isn't it logical that the pediatrician offered that as a potential cause?

Not trying to defend the pediatrician.  Simply trying to understand how the pediatrician's perception may have come about.

This is a very interesting topic that concerns all of us and those around us.  I would be very interested in reading any follow-up to you and your daughter's situation.  It could most certainly be very educational to us all.

Pure speculation ... but I bet Occam's razor is being used. 

I can imagine the conversation with the pediatrician.

Dr: "Your daughters lead levels are high, is there any lead in your house? 

JWhelan: "Yes I shoot precision pistol with lead bullets."  

Dr: - "There is the source!"

I also will speculate that one of the items listed in dronning's post or something similar contains the true source of the elevated lead in the ladies in the house since jwhelan says his lead levels are fine and he is the one in closest contact to the lead in the basement.

While I am glad they are treating your daughter and she is showing improvement, what caused the initial test in the first place?  Routine check-up or was it related to other symptoms?  ( and none of your business is an acceptable answer. I am just curious.)

Jwhelan939 wrote:I'm being crucified right now by my kids pediatrician. Her lead came back as a 6 and they are blaming my shooting. I use d-lead wipes and shower immediately after every range session. All clothes go directly in the wash when I get home.

6 is a non issue. My doctor says anything 19 and under is fine, although I have also heard 10 is the threshhold. I was at a 6 at one item with just good washing practices after shooting. I then started shooting much more at two indoor ranges with less than ideal air systems and shot up to a 29. i now where a P100 filter mask when shooting indoors. Outdoors not a real issue, again with proper handwashing. Problem now is getting any masks or filters.

Children aren't adults. They still have an immature central nervous system, which is what is affected by lead. Although there is NO safe lead level, the cdc and pediatric groups recommend a limit of 5 and under for children. 
why would you want to take a chance with your kids?

38Super!! wrote:Holy Molly!  

While displaying some adroitness in regards to the use of different fonts and styles, Saidentary's post appears to make him the one who is judgemental, not the pediatrician.  The use of a body part as an adjective to further describe the pediatrician seems to further that perception.  There seems to be no problem with responding with little knowledge of other than a few facts originally posted.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.  After he washes his hands with soap for 20 seconds, he should do the same to his keyboard.

Perhaps gathering a few more facts such as actions suggested by several other posts might be the proper response and recommended course rather than any immediate emotional outbursts and the call for the "somebody go git some rope" approach.

Was there a direct face-to-face discussion with the pediatrician and you or was the diagnosis based upon the daughter's or wife's perception of what happened in the pediatrician's office?  How did the pediatrician know that you were involved with firearms?  It sounds like a logical conclusion on the part of the pediatrician to observe the blood level and then ask questions about possible exposure sources to lead.  If your shooting was raised during the office visit, then isn't it logical that the pediatrician offered that as a potential cause?

Not trying to defend the pediatrician.  Simply trying to understand how the pediatrician's perception may have come about.

This is a very interesting topic that concerns all of us and those around us.  I would be very interested in reading any follow-up to you and your daughter's situation.  It could most certainly be very educational to us all.

Fair enough about the anatomic reference.  I apologize.  (I did have it crossed out though, intending to convey that that's what I wanted to say but didn't.)  In retrospect, it was a very poor choice of a word, even if it was crossed out. I'll also concede that it would have been much better to have come to that conclusion--and to have made the choice not to choose that word (even if crossed out)--prospectively.   I'll see if it can still be edited out.