Should SASS start re-thinking it's position on coated bullets?

[Blastmaster]

Let's be proactive and find another source of bullet type and be a step ahead of the enviro's.

 

The Tucson Rod & Gun Club Sabino Canyon shooting range in Tucson, AZ was closed in 1997. A bunch of people built new homes around the range and joined forces with the "Friends of the Fuzzies" (wacko environmentalist) and closed down the range. The NIMBY's( Not In My Back Yard) group was and is very powerful. Here is a news clipping from the local rag dated 06/07/2003. The range is still in legal rangling and will probably never reopen. Castalia

 

 

Sabino Shooting Range Could Reopen - Update 06/07/03

 

by Julie Prince, News 13 Reporter

The shooting range in Sabino Canyon could be open again by this time next year.

 

The U.S. Forest Service is giving the Tucson Rod and Gun Club six months to seek a new permit to operate the shooting range, which was shut down six years ago.

 

Federal officials say the range, which sits on Forest Service land, had problems with safety, noise and environmental contaminants.

 

The club would have to re-build the shooting range to avoid such future problems.

 

The President of the Tucson Rod and Gun Club says, "I think probably we won more than we lost because as to the critical things, which was do we have to stick to a 17-million dollar building that we never could build... The Regional Forester seems to say no, go ahead and submit a plan for less."

 

The Rod and Gun Club is working with a shooting range designer and plans to submit an application for a new operating permit within a couple of months.

 

 

They don't like the noise or any flying objects that could remotely hit them in their new subdivision. They use lead and EPA as a lever. Remove lead, and they will find something else. Endangered Desert Turttle, snow snake, whatever.

[Fast Enuff]

It's an eco-fad. Fight it long enough and eventually they will move on to something else.

 

Give even an inch to them and they'll make laws we will never erase.

 

Lead is a base metal. It should be one of the cheapest base metals on the planet. It goes right back onto the earth from where it came. It can even be reclaimed every so many years from the ranges we shoot at and reused. Even over decades, it does not leach more than a few inches from where it lay.

 

There's no need to give in to anything.

[Max Montana, SASS #23907]

Lead on ranges are not an environmental problem. The basis of the anti argument just isn't true.

 

We want the bullets to fragment when they contact steel. Those soft fragments don't cause any harm.

 

Large intact .45 bullets that ricochet are a problem.

 

 

 

Simple answer. NO.

[Lone Dog, SASS #20401]

Some of you ole boys are letting your love of lead and downright hatred of the antis color your responses. Just hunkering down and saying NO is not going to help our cause. If sinterfire bullets can be made to work there is no reason not to approve them to be used alongside lead. Just because you hate the other side with a purple passion is no reason to rule out a viable alternative. It behooves us to have an alternative that we can use and keep on keeping on with in case of the worst case scenario.

 

That day is coming and you know that it is. We may fight the good fight until the bitter end and I fully expect us to. But sooner or later you will not be allowed to purchase that nasty lead much less re-introduce it into the precious Earth Mother in such an uncouth and primitive fashion.

 

Having an alternative in place is not giving in to our enemies, it is instead stealing a march on them. Denying them their main goal which is all guns go away. It wouldn't matter if we were shooting miniature water balloons to those people, their ultimate goal is the same. Right now we are riding high but we are only one Supreme Court justice appointment away from doom. Right now we are the elephant and our foes well know how to eat an elephant. One bite at a time. And they never give up and they are never going to go away.

 

I don't understand why anyone would so viscerally oppose the adoption of sinterfires other than the emotional one. That is a poor reason. Sometimes we are our own worst hard-headed enemy.

[Brother King, SASS #69031]

Sometimes we are our own worst hard-headed enemy.

How can we not agree with this statement. It's certainly true. But, if there's one thing we can't agree about it's how to be 'pro-active' when faced with the moral equivalent of Machiavellian control: the press and the government in the form of the EPA.

 

REcently a friend admitted that upon having moved to Sandpoint ID and having purchased a really nice, seemingly quiet rural property, she was SHOCKED that the city had been using an adjacent piece ILLEGALLY for 25 years as a shooting range. Since she was now disappointed that her quiet slice of rural living would be, when she got around to building on it, near a shooting range, she spent almost $10k on attorney's fees trying to shut the range down. She lost. Hoooorah.

 

The point is that all manner of attacks will continue until and unless shooting ranges adopt a pro-active, political first-strike to become legislatively protected; i.e. grandfathered. This just like subdivisions near airports; garbage dumps; dog kennels, etc. would do wonders to blunt even well-healed attempts at closure. Those that haven't done so are being forced to spend huge legal fees.

 

A new bullet won't do what a well-written legislation will do and most communities would rather pass it (like they did gun control) than deal with the endless sea of well meaning fools who rally to every not-in-my-backyard cause in the name of "if it only saves the life of one <BLANK>

[Captain Bill Burt]

I don't view it as a retreat, I view it as staying one step ahead of them. I view it as unwise to risk losing an entire season of SASS, be it at the state or national level, because we refused to consider some alternatives ahead of time. Based on what happened to a local club here in CT, if such a ban is put in place, it would require a lot of money and time before a final court decision was reached.

 

So what you're saying is you're not retreating, you're advancing towards the rear? I have no problem with adding other types of 'safe' bullets to the approved list for SASS, but add them as an alternative to lead, not a replacement. Just as a smart general makes provisions for an orderly retreat should one become necessary but continues to contest the field so long as victory is a possibility. You can't win a war by strictly playing defense, the best you can hope for is a stalemate.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Since the rules against jacketed bullets and gas checks is based on safety, to prevent fragments from the copper coming back, we all understand why it is there. However there are alternative options for bullets offered now available that weren't around when SASS started. Like the Nyclad bullets mentioned in another post and bullets I've seen offered by some of the smaller makers, there are now bullets that have soft materials covering the lead.

 

The subject is currently under discussion by the ROC.

 

...

[Madd Mike #8595]

I'm not interested in being politically correct, I'm interested in being proactive and planning for possible problems in the future and being realistic about what could happen in the future.

 

the lead is still let out of the bagg (so to speak)

geeeeese

 

in other words

 

..............................the jacket dont contain the lead after impact

lead problem NOT solved

[Lone Dog, SASS #20401]

Madd Mike, I have no idea what you are trying to say there, pard.

 

PWB, thank you for chiming in. But just what is the ROC studying? Sinterfires or ny-clads? Or both? Clarification please. In my view both should be approved as there is no good reason for them not to be.

 

Those who have taken this discussion sideways are missing the point. Of course we are all duty bound and sworn like the defenders of the Alamo to fight any and all closures of any shooting range anywhere at anytime in city councils, county commissions, or courtrooms of any size or jurisdiction. I myself would gladly make a donation to the legal fund of any club fighting the good fight against such outrageous and egregious closures.

 

That is not what we are talking about. All we need to know from the PTB is can we use safe and sane alternative projectiles to pursue this game that we all love so much. It's not about the fight against the anti-gunners. We are all committed to that fight. A Cowboy Action shooter choosing to use an alternative to all lead bullets doesn't make him a traitor to the cause. It's about allowing those who would like the option the ability to choose what may be best for them. That is provided we can get them approved...

[Blastmaster]

Madd Mike, I have no idea what you are trying to say there, pard.

 

PWB, thank you for chiming in. But just what is the ROC studying? Sinterfires or ny-clads? Or both? Clarification please. In my view both should be approved as there is no good reason for them not to be.

 

Those who have taken this discussion sideways are missing the point. Of course we are all duty bound and sworn like the defenders of the Alamo to fight any and all closures of any shooting range anywhere at anytime in city councils, county commissions, or courtrooms of any size or jurisdiction. I myself would gladly make a donation to the legal fund of any club fighting the good fight against such outrageous and egregious closures.

 

That is not what we are talking about. All we need to know from the PTB is can we use safe and sane alternative projectiles to pursue this game that we all love so much. It's not about the fight against the anti-gunners. We are all committed to that fight. A Cowboy Action shooter choosing to use an alternative to all lead bullets doesn't make him a traitor to the cause. It's about allowing those who would like the option the ability to choose what may be best for them. That is provided we can get them approved...

Tell us again why you are so hot on Nycad bullets? They still have lead in them, so EPA doesn't go away. The Nycad cartridge still makes a noise when they are shot. The Nycad bullet can still be shot over the berm and potentially land in someones house/property and the property owner doesn't care if it is plastic/nylon coated. So again, tell us the pros of the Nycad and that other bullet because people have already posted the cons.

[Chantry]

So what you're saying is you're not retreating, you're advancing towards the rear? I have no problem with adding other types of 'safe' bullets to the approved list for SASS, but add them as an alternative to lead, not a replacement. Just as a smart general makes provisions for an orderly retreat should one become necessary but continues to contest the field so long as victory is a possibility. You can't win a war by strictly playing defense, the best you can hope for is a stalemate.

 

It was never my intent in my original post to suggest banning lead bullets (and I edited that accordingly yesterday), merely that we should consider allowing alternatives.

 

Not all of us live in gun friendly states and for those of us who don't, most of the time we're lucky if we can fight our way to a stalemate and the reality is that is not likely to change anytime soon.

[Six-Shot]

It was never my intent in my original post to suggest banning lead bullets (and I edited that accordingly yesterday), merely that we should consider allowing alternatives.

 

Not all of us live in gun friendly states and for those of us who don't, most of the time we're lucky if we can fight our way to a stalemate and the reality is that is not likely to change anytime soon.

 

I understand the withering onslaught of the "progressive" left but don't give up the fight. Remember, "the best defense is a good offense".

 

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

Thomas Jefferson

[Chantry]

I understand the withering onslaught of the "progressive" left but don't give up the fight. Remember, "the best defense is a good offense".

 

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

Thomas Jefferson

 

So you'll be moving to MA to take up the fight there?

[Blastmaster]

It was never my intent in my original post to suggest banning lead bullets (and I edited that accordingly yesterday), merely that we should consider allowing alternatives.

 

Not all of us live in gun friendly states and for those of us who don't, most of the time we're lucky if we can fight our way to a stalemate and the reality is that is not likely to change anytime soon.

 

 

A bullet is a bullet is a projectile fired from a firearm, auto, rifle, shotgun, semi auto, revolver, whatever..... in the eyes of the uneducated general public, public preception, and no good is usually the outcome is the general public perception. Anti gun folks have been known to change their opinion after they have been a vicim of a crime and want self protection. Gun owners, clubs, ranges have to get over that hurdle before you can even get down to the bullet is made of xyz material. EPA lumps everything together and makes one ruling fit all. Like all Oil &Gas in one catagory. Mining in anther, manufacturing in another and so on. Like, lead contamination falls into all catagories, just not gun ranges.

 

So blaze away at the windmill and be pro active all you want.

 

About the only way I see it is for all shooting will be conducted in a modern state of the art shooting range with hiTec air filteration system and means to reclaim the bullets. EPA might sign off on that and local sub divisions couldn't scream safety.

[Six-Shot]

So you'll be moving to MA to take up the fight there?

 

You must know that New Hampshire was once part of Massachusetts Bay Colony, right? That's why we seceded!

Never, never, never, never, ever . . . and that's a long time!

 

"Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils!"

John Stark

 

I was looking at an electoral map of the US on Real Clear Politics the other day. If you go to their website you will see one red "jewell" in a sea of blue from Maine to North Carolina

[Chantry]

You must know that New Hampshire was once part of Massachusetts Bay Colony, right? That's why we seceded!

Never, never, never, never, ever . . . and that's a long time!

 

"Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils!"

John Stark

 

I was looking at an electoral map of the US on Real Clear Politics the other day. If you go to their website you will see one red "jewell" in a sea of blue from Maine to North Carolina

 

Which kind of makes my point. Some of us, for a variety of reasons, either choose to live or are forced to live in a blue state and in doing so have to deal with the fact that as a gun owner, we are out numbered, out voted and out spent at every turn.

[Six-Shot]

I also know of a gun club in northeastern Massachusetts that a fellow "cowboy" runs CAS out of. He told me the club had their ranges "mined" and if I'm not mistaken' (my memory is getting bad, it must be all the lead) they recovered 80 tons. The going price for lead is somewhere between $1 to $2 a pound. He didn't tell me how much the company gave them for it but if I speculate and say 50 cents a pound that's $80,000. Can you imagine what shooting clubs could do with that money? My point is there are better (smarter) ways of doing things without succumbing to the anti-gunners and at the same time shut them up and make money for the shooting sports.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

...

 

PWB, thank you for chiming in. But just what is the ROC studying? Sinterfires or ny-clads? Or both? Clarification please. In my view both should be approved as there is no good reason for them not to be.

REread post #42...we are discussing the quoted section of the OP (and the subject of THIS THREAD)

 

Those who have taken this discussion sideways are missing the point.

 

...

[blazeafar SASS # 6750]

One point seems all have missed here.

All of the discussion regarding being proactive in finding a viable substitute for lead bullets is only admitting defeat as far as the opponents are concerned. They will use that against you.

 

This is the same fight as asbestos was, as soon as some BIG government friendly company finds a product that can replace lead in function and cost......lead will be history!

 

As for the folks fighting to get a range closed, fight back....raise pigs on part of the property to raise funds for pay the legal fees!

[Six-Shot]

One point seems all have missed here.

All of the discussion regarding being proactive in finding a viable substitute for lead bullets is only admitting defeat as far as the opponents are concerned. They will use that against you.

 

This is the same fight as asbestos was, as soon as some BIG government friendly company finds a product that can replace lead in function and cost......lead will be history!

 

As for the folks fighting to get a range closed, fight back....raise pigs on part of the property to raise funds for pay the legal fees!

 

+1

 

The saying that "the meek shall inherit the earth" is a bunch of crap. That's what they want you to believe.

 

"Fight like there is no tomorrow".

[Conejo Kid #51342]

No. Lead is the perfect bullet and does not leech into water.

 

 

TRUE -- and much to the irratation of the EPA and the anti gunners.

 

 

CK

[Lone Dog, SASS #20401]

Tell us again why you are so hot on Nycad bullets? They still have lead in them, so EPA doesn't go away. The Nycad cartridge still makes a noise when they are shot. The Nycad bullet can still be shot over the berm and potentially land in someones house/property and the property owner doesn't care if it is plastic/nylon coated. So again, tell us the pros of the Nycad and that other bullet because people have already posted the cons.

 

First, it's Nyclad not Nycad. Ok, here goes. Pay attention this time. My arguments for the Cabela's/Herters plastic coated ammunition do not involve any future actions of the EPA. That concern was for the possibility of approving/using the sinterfire compressed metal projectiles as an alternative to lead bullets. I KNOW the Nyclads still contain lead under the plastic coating. duh. Acutally the term Nyclad belongs to Federal and even tho CCI/Speer/ATK now owns Federal, these cartridges are technically not Nyclads. Notice I said they were "Nyclad-like".

 

The advantages:

 

1. they are relatively cheap with their cheap aluminum hulls and cheap plastic "jackets"

2. the plastic prevents bore fouling which can also allow higher velocities all else being equal (a consideration for WBAS with the high power factor in that game)

3. the cheap non-reloadable aluminum cases allows the match to not be delayed for brass shaggin' -- just sweep the hulls out of the way and pick 'em up later at yer leisure

4. the plastic "jacket" allows the lead underneath to be dead soft as opposed to the commonly used hard cast; dead soft lead is superior to hard cast in every way (cowboybullets.com explains in great detail the truth of that statement)

 

So, to sum up I may buy some in 45 ACP and use them here where no one will say nay. It would be nice to be able to also use them in big lost brass matches as well if SASS will approve.

 

Where the EPA comes in is with the sinterfire bullets, a whole different topic from the "nyclad-like" cartridges. If you like and if I need to I can spell out the advantages of the sinterfires to you also...

[Captain Bill Burt]

It was never my intent in my original post to suggest banning lead bullets (and I edited that accordingly yesterday), merely that we should consider allowing alternatives.

 

Not all of us live in gun friendly states and for those of us who don't, most of the time we're lucky if we can fight our way to a stalemate and the reality is that is not likely to change anytime soon.

I think you and I are pretty much in agreement on this one, having an alternative to lead in place would be a wise move. I just got a kick out of the wording in one of your subsequent posts about it not being a retreat, but staying one step ahead. That reminded me of an old quote, can't remember who, about not retreating, but advancing towards the rear.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Nyclad-like bullets will present additional problems and unresolved questions that have not been pointed out yet. Let's assume that rules were modified to allow plastic jacketed bullets in commercially loaded cartridges, just to avoid all the problems of folks trying to assemble loads with plastic jacketed bullets - loading data for which I have never seen.

 

1) The plastic cladding residue mixed in with the lead will make recycling the lead stream more difficult, more polluting and more expensive for those ranges and shooters who now count on lead recovery for either a profit stream or a valuable source of lead for casting your own.

 

2) Cladding residue may stick in the hinges and mechanisms of knockdown targets, freezing them up worse than our current loads do.

 

3) No viable cowboy loads are marketed with such bullets - right now, because they are illegal. If they were legal, would there be a large enough market that a company would manufacture the bullets and assemble the loads in the wide variety of loadings and bullets that the cowboy market now demands, given the small market that cowboy shooting is?

 

4) From previous attempts to market clad bullets, one major factor was reported to be that nylon fouling of the barrels was worse than the lead fouling it was attempting to prevent. Would plastic fouling present a major roadblock to using plastic clad rounds?

 

5) Cladding adds one additional object that can be stripped and left in the bore as an obstruction. Has this product been sufficiently tested to assure that even at very low velocities, the cladding will not separate?

 

6) How will clad bullets perform in rough, pitted barrels of some of the original guns we shoot?

 

Do the potential suppliers of such ammo even consider some of us CAS shooters and our requirements when developing such loads?

 

Good luck, GJ

[Guest Tennessee Stud, SASS# 43634 Life]

Should SASS start re-thinking it's position on coated bullets?

 

No coats on bullets...

 

Mainly 'cause somebody else would likely want to start puttin' hoodies on 'em.

 

ts

[Silver Shadow]

As has been alluded to, SASS may have to re-think bullet composition all together.(and hopefully bullet manufactures are also hard at work looking for an acceptable alternative)

 

I'm afraid I must "flame in" with the lead "doomsayers".

 

I'm all for fighting the good fight against the "antis" and other opposition to our freedom to enjoy ourselves, but I'm afraid it maybe a moot point on this subject. The EPA is sneaking in the back door. Lead bullits are just a minute portion (or ammunition, if you'll excuse the pun)of the EPA's cause against lead. They will not stop until they have banned it all together for use in anything recreational, and most things critical. The best we can hope for is that this fight may go into remission for awhile if they were to find a more "popular" cause to fight for, or if for some reason a highly financed and high profile study was to emerge finding the dangerous effects attributed to lead to be bogus.(yeah right)

 

Yes, this does seem like just another rant, but wait. Have you tried to aquire lead lately? Lead wheel weights are already sinking slowly into extinction, recycling centers are already starting to refuse to sell scrap lead in my area due to fears of liability, and yes you can still purchase lead from some sources but I have been quoted as high as $60 a pound from one local metal supplier. I use to mine lead for a living(key phrase: use to), until metal prices dropped to record lows(demand) and the mines began to close. Recently precious metal prices have been on the rise, which is the only reason that the few mines, in the area where I grew up, are still in existance, but supply isn't what it used to be.

 

So, as I see it, due to pressure, supply,etc., soon I and my fellow casters may be unable to aquire lead. It won't be long after that and the commercial guys will be in the same boat. I'm afraid that no farther than my grandkids will be forced to find another projectile if they have any hope of participating in our hobby.

 

It's possible that the theory: it's easier to price ammo out of exsistance than it is to ban guns: may also be at work here.

 

Keep up the good fight, never retreat, but... have a plan B.

 

Just my view from the

 

(Silver) Shadow(s)

[Blastmaster]

First, it's Nyclad not Nycad. Ok, here goes. Pay attention this time. OK Buckwheat!! My arguments for the Cabela's/Herters plastic coated ammunition do not involve any future actions of the EPA. Wrong, Nyclad is lead core. That concern was for the possibility of approving/using the sinterfire compressed metal projectiles as an alternative to lead bullets. I KNOW the Nyclads still contain lead under the plastic coating. duh. Yep, ya still got EPA. Acutally the term Nyclad belongs to Federal and even tho CCI/Speer/ATK now owns Federal, these cartridges are technically not Nyclads. Notice I said they were "Nyclad-like". Understand. Nyclad is just a nominclature for a nylon coated lead bullet.

 

The advantages:

 

1. they are relatively cheap with their cheap aluminum hulls and cheap plastic "jackets". Define cheap. Cabella's website says $12/50rd for 9mm, $15/50 for 40S%W, & $20/50 for 45acp,,,, that is that aluminium case stuff. No 38 Special, 45Colt, 44,40, 32mags, 357mags, or any other SASS Pistol caliber is listed. Price for the 9mm is probably in the order of twice what a reloader of lead bullets can do.

 

2. the plastic prevents bore fouling which can also allow higher velocities all else being equal (a consideration for WBAS with the high power factor in that game) I don't have bore fouling, leading or anything else in my SASS guns. I doubt with a PF of 160? and velocity ~ 800fps in WB, that fouling is an issue in the 1911.

3. the cheap non-reloadable aluminum cases allows the match to not be delayed for brass shaggin' -- just sweep the hulls out of the way and pick 'em up later at yer leisure. Brass shaggin' isn't an issue at the monthlies I shoot, and besides, no one wants to double their ammo cost for each match so they wouldn't have to shag brass. Perhaps it is where you shoot.

 

4. the plastic "jacket" allows the lead underneath to be dead soft as opposed to the commonly used hard cast; dead soft lead is superior to hard cast in every way (cowboybullets.com explains in great detail the truth of that statement) Dead soft, as in swagged lead bullets, The truth? Well ya, I dislike dead soft swagged bullets, but then I don't purchase that either. Superior? I don't think so, but that is just me.

 

So, to sum up I may buy some in 45 ACP and use them here where no one will say nay. It would be nice to be able to also use them in big lost brass matches as well if SASS will approve. Unless you have another source for Nyclad ammo that is manuf in SASS pistol ammo calibers, Cabella's doesn't carry it or Herters/Federal doesn't make it. Go ahead an purchase all the Nyclad ammo you want. You can burn up all the Premium Personal Protection ammo at $25/20rds you want too. It sounds like you haven't put a pencil to paper yet. You only loose apporx 120 round or so rifle brass at a lost brass match. You keep your pistol brass.

 

Where the EPA comes in is with the sinterfire bullets, a whole different topic from the "nyclad-like" cartridges. If you like and if I need to I can spell out the advantages of the sinterfires to you also... Write slower this time please. There are elderly folk here.

 

 

You must not reload is all I can say.

[Doc Cherokee, SASS#48332]

The lead issue is something I've worried about for many years..I also like shooting muzzleloaders, and I cast my own bullets for that..I don't think there's a coated or non-lead alternative for frontstuffers..I do believe it's an issue we're going to eventually have to deal with.

 

Most if not all our shooting ranges are located in isolated areas..Developers are buying, subdividing, and selling land as fast as they can nowadays..A lot of the land surrounding shooting ranges are primo areas for development, often for high dollar subdivisions or gated communities and often the buyers will purchase the land without any knowledge of there being a shooting range next door (Stupid, but it happens).

 

The local Rifle And Pistol Club has a range that has been on the same patch of woods since the early '70's at least, and there was never a problem till some developers got hold of the surrounding area and began building upper-class housing there in the '90s.. They have been having legal hassles with the landowners ever since..They managed to get the long-range section shut down, when an adjoining landowner claimed to have found "bullets" in his front yard.

 

I think Brother King has the right idea..We need to have some legal safeguards Grandfathered into shooting ranges before the anti's lawyers come knocking..Mining the lead at ranges is an EXCELLENT idea as well, then we can rightfully claim we're doing our part to keep the planet green by recycling! The part of the lead issue that both anti's don't mention, and the EPA and the courts tend to ignore, is lead comes out of the ground..When we shoot lead bullets they return to the earth, oxidize, and lay there harmlessly until they are re-mined..I've always suspected much of the lead issue as an enviromental concern has more to do with the anti-gunners (or developers) agenda rather than saving the planet.

 

Something I'm willing to bet on is if we are ever forced to use an alternative to lead bullets, they ain't gonna be cheap..Part of the whole anti-gun agenda is to drive up the price of ammo and reloading components till all but the richest shooters can't afford the sport!

[Blastmaster]

No coats on bullets...

 

Mainly 'cause somebody else would likely want to start puttin' hoodies on 'em.

 

ts

 

 

How about a duster on the bullet?

[Blastmaster]

The lead issue is something I've worried about for many years..I also like shooting muzzleloaders, and I cast my own bullets for that..I don't think there's a coated or non-lead alternative for frontstuffers..I do believe it's an issue we're going to eventually have to deal with.

 

Most if not all our shooting ranges are located in isolated areas..Developers are buying, subdividing, and selling land as fast as they can nowadays..A lot of the land surrounding shooting ranges are primo areas for development, often for high dollar subdivisions or gated communities and often the buyers will purchase the land without any knowledge of there being a shooting range next door (Stupid, but it happens).

 

The local Rifle And Pistol Club has a range that has been on the same patch of woods since the sixties at least, and there was never a problem till some developers got hold of the surrounding area and began building upper-class housing there in the early '90s.. They have been having legal hassles with the landowners ever since..They managed to get the long-range section shut down, when an adjoining landowner claimed to have found "bullets" in his front yard.

 

I think Brother King has the right idea..We need to have some legal safeguards Grandfathered into shooting ranges before the anti's lawyers come knocking..Mining the lead at ranges is an EXCELLENT idea as well, then we can rightfully claim we're doing our part to keep the planet green by recycling! The part of the lead issue that both anti's don't mention, and the EPA and the courts tend to ignore, is lead comes out of the ground..When we shoot lead bullets they return to the earth, oxidize, and lay there harmlessly until they are re-mined..I've always suspected much of the lead issue as an enviromental concern has more to do with the anti-gunners (or developers) agenda rather than saving the planet.

 

Something I'm willing to bet on is if we are ever forced to use an alternative to lead bullets, they ain't gonna be cheap..Part of the whole anti-gun agenda is to drive up the price of ammo and reloading components till all but the richest shooters can't afford the sport!

 

 

The home owners that purchased next door are using lead and EPA as a weapon against shooting ranges. They don't really give a rip about returning lead back into a designated parcel of land. They don't want bullets or projectiles in their front yard, house or driveway. They don't want to worry about being down range of gun fire. They don't want to hear it either.

 

Uranium ore comes from the ground, but no one wants a nuclear power plant in their back yard either.

 

Carbon from the combustion of fossil fuels comes from the ground, but no one wants to put it back into the ground in a concentrated form.

[Wylie Harp, #21158L]

“We deal in lead, friend"

 

Somehow I just can’t imagine Steve McQueen as Vin Tanner in The Magnificent Seven, saying “We deal in compressed metal polymer, friend”

 

~:Wylie:~

[Doc Cherokee, SASS#48332]

The home owners that purchased next door are using lead and EPA as a weapon against shooting ranges. They don't really give a rip about returning lead back into a designated parcel of land. They don't want bullets or projectiles in their front yard, house or driveway. They don't want to worry about being down range of gun fire. They don't want to hear it either.

 

Uranium ore comes from the ground, but no one wants a nuclear power plant in their back yard either.

 

Carbon from the combustion of fossil fuels comes from the ground, but no one wants to put it back into the ground in a concentrated form.

 

I agree with you as far as lead being used as an excuse by landowners to get ranges closed, but having uranium ore in the backyard being compared to having a nuclear plant there is a bit of a stretch, IMHO..And if one doesn't want to deal with the noise or possible dangers of living next to a shooting range, they shouldn't have bought or built a house next to one in the first place..The problem is the people selling this land don't tell potential buyers what they're getting, their concern being closing the deal, period..Often they will buy a parcel after watching a video of this seemingly quiet, "back to nature" retreat..Definitely a "buyer beware" scenario..In almost all cases, the range was there first, and shouldn't have to suffer because a land buyer didn't do their homework, or an unscrupulous seller didn't tell them beforehand what they were getting.

[Doc Cherokee, SASS#48332]

The home owners that purchased next door are using lead and EPA as a weapon against shooting ranges. They don't really give a rip about returning lead back into a designated parcel of land. They don't want bullets or projectiles in their front yard, house or driveway. They don't want to worry about being down range of gun fire. They don't want to hear it either.

 

Uranium ore comes from the ground, but no one wants a nuclear power plant in their back yard either.

 

Carbon from the combustion of fossil fuels comes from the ground, but no one wants to put it back into the ground in a concentrated form.

 

Oops, double click..Sorry.

[Blastmaster]

I agree with you in part, although I don't think having uranium ore in the backyard could be compared to having a nuclear plant there..Also if one doesn't want to deal with the noise or possible dangers of living next to a shooting range, they shouldn't have built a house next to one in the first place..The problem is the people selling this land don't tell potential buyers what they're getting, their concern being closing the deal, period..Often they will buy a parcel after watching a video of this seemingly quiet, "back to nature" retreat..Definitely a "buyer beware" scenario..In almost all cases, the range was there first, and shouldn't have to suffer because a land buyer didn't do their homework, or an unscrupulous seller didn't tell them beforehand what they were getting.

 

 

I agree, no problem in what you are saying.

[Jacknife]

Why is someone always looking for a solution for a problem that doesn't exist?