User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/25/2020 9:36:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Topic Moved
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2020 2:32:58 AM EDT
[#2]
Fiocchi was going to make a "Blue Guardian" line of ammo using lead free primers.
Not sure if it happened... ( covid ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2020 12:35:31 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fiocchi was going to make a "Blue Guardian" line of ammo using lead free primers. Not sure if it happened... ( covid ) Doesn't look like you can buy it anywhere. It's so weird to me that there isn't more focus on this considering lead primers are the main way you get exposure to lead as a shooter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2020 2:27:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't look like you can buy it anywhere. It's so weird to me that there isn't more focus on this considering lead primers are the main way you get exposure to lead as a shooter. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Fiocchi was going to make a "Blue Guardian" line of ammo using lead free primers. Not sure if it happened... ( covid ) Doesn't look like you can buy it anywhere. It's so weird to me that there isn't more focus on this considering lead primers are the main way you get exposure to lead as a shooter. Just my observations: #1...... you are picking the absolute worst time to look at ammo availability and cost............. -Yes, primers maybe the primary exposure method but VERY few people suffer from lead exposure now. So the question is moot. -If there is interest in LF ammunition, it seems to be govt/military who can spend alot of money on ALL the routes of toxic metal exposure. -Mostly it is indoor ranges that are concerned and relatively speaking they don't shoot alot of rifle rounds. Well not enough to outweigh the expense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2020 2:40:40 PM EDT
[#5]
You get more lead exposure from your drinking water than you do from primers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2020 5:08:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't look like you can buy it anywhere. It's so weird to me that there isn't more focus on this considering lead primers are the main way you get exposure to lead as a shooter. Your info might not be telling the whole story.... Bear in mind this wasn't always the case. Lead bullets and open based jacketed bullets also cause exposure ( considerably more ) ... probably more since the burning propellant is also burning the exposed lead base. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2020 10:27:04 PM EDT
[#7]
You can safely send all of your non lead free primed ammo to me for safe disposal. No charge because it is a non issue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2020 1:12:18 AM EDT
[#8]
I would say that the real danger from the lead would be at the terminal end. Crowd control gases would also have an effect.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2020 9:51:55 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't look like you can buy it anywhere. It's so weird to me that there isn't more focus on this considering lead primers are the main way you get exposure to lead as a shooter. Even if primers are the main source of lead, if the amount you’re exposed to is negligible, then lead-free primers are a solution in search of a problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2020 3:01:22 PM EDT
[#10]
Wow, there is a LOT of ignorance in this thread which probably explains why there isn't more interest.
There was a study posted on reddit recently if I can find it again, which showed that the AVERAGE blood lead levels in shooters firing as few as 200 rounds per month were significantly elevated. Also, the lead exposure from primers is not negligible (clearly as indicated by the study results), since fine particles that are inhaled are absorbed at a rate of almost 100%. Here, I found the study - https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-017-0246-0 Some highlights... Shooting at firing ranges results in the discharge of Pb dust, elevated BLLs, and exposures that are associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. Women and children are among recreational shooters at special risk and they do not receive the same health protections as occupational users of firing ranges. Nearly all BLL measurements compiled in the reviewed studies exceed the current reference level of 5 µg/dL recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH). There are several sources of potential lead exposure from shooting guns and firing ranges. Most bullet projectiles are made from lead, but a large amount of lead is also present in the primer, composed of approximately 35% lead styphnate and lead peroxide (and also contains barium and antimony compounds), that ignites in a firearm barrel to provide the propulsion for the projectile [9–13]. A portion of the lead bullet disintegrates into fine fragments while passing through the gun due to misalignments of the gun barrel [9]. The lead particles, along with dust and fumes originating from the lead primer and the bullet fragments are ejected at high pressures (18,000–20,000 psi; 124–128 mpa) from the gun barrel, a large proportion of which occurs at right angles to the direction of fire in close proximity to the shooter [9]. The shooter can inhale fine Pb particulates (mainly from the primer) which constitutes the proximal exposure pathway. Several studies focused on before-after comparisons of shooters, particularly shooters in military and police occupations, and found marked increases in BLL resulting from firing range activities. Tripathi et al. (1989) [9] measured BLLs in police cadets before, and 1, 2 and 5 days after starting shooting practice, and 69 days after the start of shooting. At 69 days after the start of shooting, the BLLs of the cadets remained above baseline levels prior to shooting. Rocha et al. (2014) [35] conducted a study of BLLs of police cadets before a shooting course and 3 days after the cessation of the shooting course. The mean BLL of cadets increased from 3.3 µg/dL (95% CI?=?3.0–3.6 µg/dL) before the course to 18.4 µg/dL (95% CI 16–21 µg/dL) 3 days after completion of the course. In all cases the BLL increased significantly after the course (p?<0.001). Within 3 days, the BLLs of the course instructors increased from 3.6 µg/dL to 22.1 µg/dL in one case and from 7.7 µg/dL to 18.3 µg/dL in another. Fischbein et al. (1979) [36] conducted a study of 23 firearms instructors and reported that the BLLs increased measurably after firearms training. Vivante et al. (2008) [37] reported a statistically significant (p?<0.001) increase in BLLs of 29 Israeli soldiers from a baseline of 10.3?±?2.0 µg/dL to 18.9?±?3.6 µg/dL six weeks after training. So you guys can keep believing the common folk wisdom that you need to eat lead bullets to have a problem. Lead primers are awful for your health. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2020 5:49:30 PM EDT
[#11]
And yet the lead-free primers that are so very necessary to save us from this scourge are...so rare as to be meaningless. But somehow we manage to shoot thousands of rounds a year and we’re not dropping dead from lead poisoning. Good ventilation and common sense (especially with regard to hand washing before eating) render the chances of lead problems insignificant. If you mostly shoot outdoors and wash your hands, it’ll never be a problem.
But you go ahead and give up shooting or look for unicorn ammo or whatever you need to do to feel safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2020 5:57:00 PM EDT
[#12]
I view any "science" related to firearms published by health journals, the CDC, etc as a hit piece. I can't help but notice that the article mentions women and children are especially at risk. Are there merits to the study? Maybe, but given the anti-gun stance of the aforementioned entities, I take anything they say with a grain of salt. It's sad that SCIENCE! is seldom any longer science but an agenda driven paper with monetary interests backing it.
That said, unless you are a competition shooter or a JSOC team that shoots exclusively indoors, I wouldn't sweat it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2020 7:33:39 PM EDT
[#13]
Science was weaponized a long time ago, unfortunately.
Anyone that thinks "the science is settled" does not do research. Lead is bad, sure no kidding. Feel free to get rid of it in our ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2020 7:51:13 PM EDT
[#14]
OP:
I'm sorry I didn't realize that this was going to turn into a sermon: "......Wow, there is a LOT of ignorance in this thread which probably explains why there isn't more interest.......... Actually my comments have been based on my 36yrs of shooting........ not simply reading an article. So no, my comments aren't ignorant, they are based on facts. And yes, as ironic as this may be...... I've had my lead levels checked several times in my life. Just as a good friend of mine who is a Police Firearms Instructor for 20?yrs has too...... No... no increases. So I'll say this another way....... The reason "noone is concerned" about Lead Exposure is because it is a over-blown, lacking-in factual-basis, unnecessary waste of resources.............. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2020 8:55:24 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow, there is a LOT of ignorance in this thread which probably explains why there isn't more interest. Username checks out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2020 8:56:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OP: I'm sorry I didn't realize that this was going to turn into a sermon: "......Wow, there is a LOT of ignorance in this thread which probably explains why there isn't more interest.......... Actually my comments have been based on my 36yrs of shooting........ not simply reading an article. So no, my comments aren't ignorant, they are based on facts. And yes, as ironic as this may be...... I've had my lead levels checked several times in my life. Just as a good friend of mine who is a Police Firearms Instructor for 20?yrs has too...... No... no increases. So I'll say this another way....... The reason "noone is concerned" about Lead Exposure is because it is a over-blown, lacking-in factual-basis, unnecessary waste of resources.............. Quoted for truth |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2020 1:38:17 PM EDT
[#17]
True Believers gonna believe...
 Everyone else is an ignorant moron... Forrest |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2021 11:26:36 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OP: I'm sorry I didn't realize that this was going to turn into a sermon: "......Wow, there is a LOT of ignorance in this thread which probably explains why there isn't more interest.......... Actually my comments have been based on my 36yrs of shooting........ not simply reading an article. So no, my comments aren't ignorant, they are based on facts. And yes, as ironic as this may be...... I've had my lead levels checked several times in my life. Just as a good friend of mine who is a Police Firearms Instructor for 20?yrs has too...... No... no increases. So I'll say this another way....... The reason "noone is concerned" about Lead Exposure is because it is a over-blown, lacking-in factual-basis, unnecessary waste of resources.............. Quote HistoryQuoted: OP: I'm sorry I didn't realize that this was going to turn into a sermon: "......Wow, there is a LOT of ignorance in this thread which probably explains why there isn't more interest.......... Actually my comments have been based on my 36yrs of shooting........ not simply reading an article. So no, my comments aren't ignorant, they are based on facts. And yes, as ironic as this may be...... I've had my lead levels checked several times in my life. Just as a good friend of mine who is a Police Firearms Instructor for 20?yrs has too...... No... no increases. So I'll say this another way....... The reason "noone is concerned" about Lead Exposure is because it is a over-blown, lacking-in factual-basis, unnecessary waste of resources.............. so because you and your friend haven't experienced elevated lead levels, the studies examining large samples of people are overblown... lol I view any "science" related to firearms published by health journals, the CDC, etc as a hit piece. I can't help but notice that the article mentions women and children are especially at risk. Are there merits to the study? Maybe, but given the anti-gun stance of the aforementioned entities, I take anything they say with a grain of salt. It's sad that SCIENCE! is seldom any longer science but an agenda driven paper with monetary interests backing it. It wasn't published by the CDC, it was published by independent researchers who quoted the CDC only to establish a reference range for when lead levels can be concerning. People have an agenda yes and scientific publications aren't insulated from human nature. We've still known for a long time that lead is bad for you and so vaporizing it next to your nose is questionable. And yet the lead-free primers that are so very necessary to save us from this scourge are...so rare as to be meaningless. But somehow we manage to shoot thousands of rounds a year and we’re not dropping dead from lead poisoning. Well yeah, chronic low level lead exposure isn't really associated with just dropping dead, but more like, cognitive difficulties, fatigue, increased risks for certain cancers, bone issues, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2021 11:51:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well yeah, chronic low level lead exposure isn't really associated with just dropping dead, but more like, cognitive difficulties, fatigue, increased risks for certain cancers, bone issues, etc. And the evidence of widespread instances of those...? You’re sure trying hard to push a narrative here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2021 3:20:49 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Studies have found the main lead exposure from shooting is the primer. I have only found one non-frangible .223 round that has the Catalyst lead free primer: https://www.luckygunner.com/223-rem-55-grain-fmjbt-federal-american-eagle-lead-free-primer-20-rounds However it is not in stock anywhere and I can’t find it on Federal’s website. Maybe it’s a discontinued product? Does anyone have experience with this ammo or can speak to its reliability or where to find it in bulk? OP: You started this thread by asking the above questions and: -It was explained to you that now is the worst time to try and find ammo of any type. -It was then inferred that noone has any experience with the ammo you asked about. You then started down the road of preaching to us your thoughts on lead poisoning...... which noone here has experienced or is in the least way concerned about. You call that ignorance............. I call that reaching the end of a thread. Do you have a technical question to ask? Because otherwise your questions have been answered...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2021 11:00:38 AM EDT
[#21]
As I mentioned before... I don't think you are getting the whole story.
Please link to the various studies you have read. Are the results from a indoor range ? ... a outdoor range ? This matters quite a bit. If a indoor range, has the installed ventilation / filtration system been properly maintained ? Full auto firing ? or Semi auto ? .... so how many rounds being fired , RPM ? Duration of time spent at the range ? Exposed lead base bullets ? Or total metal jacket ? Caliber ? What shooting position is being used ? Are you eating and smoking at the range ? Are people taking the time to wash their hands after shooting ? Ultimately.... you can be the biggest factor in your own lead exposure. Shoot outdoors. In a well ventilated area. Make sure you wash up after crawling around picking up your brass, or shooting prone. Consider your shooting position... prone is gonna kick up everyone else's dust if the space is routinely used by others..... If you are going to be doing some blasting shooting, try not to bunch up... spread yourselves out. Do you have a pregnant wife at home ? ... younger kids ? Consider a change of shoes and clothes prior to dragging any picked up lead from being in contact with a outdoor ranges concrete floors. ( again, Shooting prone, picking up your brass ) Wash your hands... keep eating, and smoking to a minimum while at the range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2021 11:42:32 AM EDT
[#22]
There are a few things not mentioned in the linked report but in one of the referenced reports:
WERE DATA GAPS IDENTIFIED IN ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS ABOVE? [Are lead levels a health hazard at ranges] IS RESEARCH NEEDED TO FILL THOSE GAPS? - Epidemiology studies of firing-range personnel are few. - To the committee’s knowledge, size distribution and chemical speciation of airborne lead particles associated with firing ranges have not been performed. Such information could be used to estimate the bioavailability of the lead particles found in firing-range air. - The CPA model used in the OSHA standard to predict BLLs from air lead concentrations may not be appropriate for direct application to firing-range personnel, so physiologically based pharmacokinetic or other dosimetry models may need to be developed for this purpose. Those models could consider other biometrics of exposure, such as bone and semen lead levels. - The extent to which occupational oral exposure to lead-based dusts found in the firing-range environment by hand-to-mouth contact contributes to total lead body burden has not been adequately characterized. - The immunotoxicity of low-level lead exposure has been incompletely studied in adults. - Interactions between noise and lead exposure have been incompletely evaluated. Some of these factors would seem to be rather important to assessing the health hazard posed by lead at ranges. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
