Nosler Announces New Lead Free Varmint Bullet

[FWS]

Might be another good fur bullet.

Nosler Announces New Lead Free Varmint Bullet

Bend, Oregon— New for 2010, Nosler Incorporated, long known for its innovative premium bullets, is proud to announce the next leap in bullet technology. The Ballistic Tip Lead-Free™ is everything that varmint and predator hunters expect from a Ballistic Tip®, but now available in a lead-free package offering lighter weights in a highly frangible projectile.

The Ballistic Tip Lead-Free™ will premier as a 22 caliber 35 grain flat base bullet with a metallic orange polymer tip. The leadless bullet is made from patent pending soft iron core technology™ that exhibits explosive expansion at lower velocities, while still retaining structural integrity at ultra high velocities. Unlike tungsten, Nosler’s soft iron core technology™ is completely non-toxic.

The Nosler Ballistic Tip Lead-Free™ can be used in areas that require leadless bullets, but still possess the performance and quality that Ballistic Tip® users have become accustomed to for over 25 years. The ultra-thin gilding metal jacket allows immediate and total expansion without fouling your barrel as quickly as pure copper bullets, which in turn offers more shooting with less frequent cleanings.

The Nosler Ballistic Tip Lead-Free™ will be offered in boxes of 100 at $18.99; the same MSRP as standard Ballistic Tip® bullets, therefore you won’t have to pay more to enjoy your favorite recreational activity, no matter where you live.

MSRP = $18.99 / 100 B.C. = .200 S.D. = .100

*Initial offering in 22 caliber 35 grain, available 4th quarter 2009 with additional offerings available in early 2010.

[lb]

I admit that this bullet seems like a good product, but there are several things rattling around in my head.

First, the need. All we have is a bit of shaky evidence that some condor somewhere died as a result of lead poisoning.

Nevermind expending millions of dollars on a bird that has lost the survival game, one that will always need inordinate protection.

And, because of this thousands of humans will be forced to curtail their legitimate activities so that these animals will not consume lead, a naturally (and common) occuring basic element.

Okay, great. Copper and iron bullets for our varmint rifles. No shotgun pellets and no twenty-two rimfires, 50 million firearms declared illegal, at the stroke of a pen, and based on junk science.

Do condors eat squirrels? Do rimfire bullets stay inside squirrels? Do hunters retreive the quail they shoot that may have lead pellets inside the body? That problem is solved since we cannot buy lead shot without some effort. High velocity exploding bullets contaminating small game carcasses that condors don't see and won't eat?

The issue is one of control. Soon, there will be other areas and they will expand these areas. They are breeding condors and giving them to Mexico and Arizona. What will happen next? Why, we need to protect those condors from ingesting poison in those small critters that is not part of their diet, right?

Consider this. You are walking about and shooting an occasional rabbit, or squirrel. You expend your last "lead free" bullet and walk back in the direction of your vehicle but a game warden stops you and asks to see your ID license and inspect your firearm for compliance with local regulations.

Do you think you will be cited for something, without being able to prove that you were shooting "lead free" bullets, and not contaminating the whole area with toxic lead? It depends on what type of ranger or warden that you encounter. They USED to be sportsmen, like us. Now, many are environmental activists, and see their mission as protecting animals from hunters.

I'm not happy with the direction that game management policy is taking. Biologists planting lynx hairs with the intent to restrict access to some areas, rangers starting forest fires in AZ for unknown reasons? There are some things, regulations and game codes that have no validity except for; "just because we said so".

Food for thought. Comments?

[trappincoyotes39]

Your comments are dead on. Commons sense was written out of the ESA and sportsman and shooting sports will suffer because of it.

[Lil' Bit]

Frightening and I agree. A feel good response to activists, it seems.

[trappnman]

common sense tells us that lead studies are factual, and bans against lead make sense- wildlife hunters, small game hunters, already are no lead in many areas, and so what? Why battle inconsequential issues?

btw, no hairs were ever planted in the lynx case. What happened, is that some of the biologists were wondering if the lab was identifying hairs incorrectly (there was some history here, but don;t remember what- FWS would-) so hairs were sent in a blind test this was known by many before hand, and was doumented

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman the million dollar question where was this reasearch 20 years ago??

Until they show "A" study on human health issues assoiciated with lead ingestion from wildgame, it means little to me.

[trappnman]

its been what- 20 years or more since lead was legal on waterfowl?

the lead bans AREN'T because of human consumption-

everyone always say to me change with the times- how is this different?

[trappincoyotes39]

Depends on who you are asking tman? The recentstudies have been about lead consumption and the findings in deer burger. It is a mutli winged ploy first you use endangered species and the plight of those from lead then add in the poor and hungry and those effects and try to sway public perception.

The problem I have is why today is this such an issue and not when we put in the ban on lead in the water for waterfowl?? We knew lead effects since the mid 70's yet we waited until 1990's to discover the other??? I think it reaks of anti hunting and shooting, and I'm entitled to that opinion. As we have ate wild game with lead for years and years and can anyone show one study showing the adverse effects from that consumption? Not one medical person ever thought of undertaking this back in the 70's???

My thoughts are proper cleaning and taking away blood shot spots which will tell you where the "Bad" things are will not cause you much harm. How many millions upon millions of pheasants consumed in the mid west and yet not even one cases of long term effects from eating those millions and millions of pheasants?

We have far less hunters than years past and know lead is the main concern??? Again follow the tracks and I'm betting this all leads to anti use and anti hunting sentament again my opinion.

[trappnman]

depends on who you are asking? lead has been illegal on waterfowl for at least 2 decades-

if woh oyu are asking says different, then hes wrong-

lets not combine the 2 issues- I have zero side on the issue of human consumption- as you state, not enough studies-

Shooting lead doesn't bother me a bit- and I eat what I shoot. And will continue to do so. In fact, having venison stew tonight shot with lead slugs.

but the effect on waterfowl? not in question

but my point is this- bans on lead are coming- you know that, I know that every Gods child knows that-

so isn't it good therefore, that companies are developing alternatives before it's mandated?

20+ years ago, the steel shot was a great change- and I pissed and moaned like the rest- the shells today- no real difference as far as range and killing power ON WATERFOWL.

and price- cheaper by far now, than 20 years ago.

your opinion is that non lead shot will end hunting- I disagree and think it will have no factor-

hear any youngsters sayiog they aren't going to hunt ducks becasue they have to use non lead?

[trappincoyotes39]

They are making these alternatives out of need not want in most cases. My fear is this, we can do away with lead not really the issue, but what happens to the other metal markets when ALL lead is gone and done with??? Lead is a cheaper metal than what they are using as replacements. These new gilded metals can they be recycled??? Lead can be!!!!

My worry is when lead is all gone for all hunting which is still suspect for human consumption we agree on that, then what happens to these other metal markets and what will be the true cost? If it goes too high then your going to loose a % of people no doubt about that. Is that the true agenda behind it all??? It is one thing to say at this point it cost X amount more for non lead but you take away all lead a cheaper form then will that help thse other metal markets go lower in price or go higher?

Hevi shot is great but can everyone afford to use it??? What would happen to tungston if all hunters made the switch??? There is only so much to be extracted would the price drop or go higher yet? I'm betting the latter. I'm looking long term and these metal markets and what happens when consumption rises good or bad for the hunter or sport shooter. Who has a that answer???

Say a box of 50 count 25 caliber bullets goes from 22.00 per box to 39.00 per box what effect does that have??? I'm betting not a good one. What if 32.00 per box of 20 winchester 30-06 rounds goes to 49.00 per box of 20 what effect will that have and so on. Once the switch is made to zero lead you think they would ever go back?

I'ma skeptic and for good reason, if they can have an alternative that works as well or better at price point of the same then use what you think is best until then I will keep shooting my lead bullets I know perform well and have zero problem eating the things I shoot with them.

[trappnman]

and on those issues TC- I bow to you as I have zero experience in rifles etc-

I personally feel that the alternatives will, in a short time, just be like steel replacing lead (and I use steel as the generic term) where the price drops with use. the price on those has dropped to where they are about the same as good lead shotshells.

is lead that much more available than other metals or man made stuff?

and keep in mind- I don't want alternatives mandated for any use (I do agree with the wetland use on shot- sue me) - if lead gets replaced, let it be voluntary-

[trappincoyotes39]

Yes I beleive so. Steel is very common and highly recycleable metal. These metals they are using for hunting bullets have alot of copper in them much more fragile market than steel for sure, plus these gilded metals make ups of 3 or more materials all being harder to get than steel.

Steel bullets in a rifle barrel not a good option.

We have seen what tungston has done and hevi shot has been on the market for quite sometime and there prices are reflective of that raw material market. Plus one needs to consider manufacturing cost of these other materials and figure that into consumer pricing.

Nevre had a problem with waterfowl and lead stands to reson it sits in shallow pools and divers feed on it, much different than big game hunting and other shooting endevours. Plus the consumption side I'm not buying it until we have concrete proof of those effects, we have history on our side for that matter.

[akona20]

Why is depleted uranium okay to use in some countries and lead not okay in others?

[trappnman]

tc- i agree

[lb]

I think the waterfowl lead ban MAY have had a somewhat valid justification, but only in those eastern flyways where the ponds have a muck bottom. I do not believe a universal ban was useful or necessary in virtually all of the western states where a gravel bottom predominates. In sand and gravel, the lead settles below the pond bottom, to where the DIVERS can't injest it, and divers are the ONLY species threatened and only in specific areas of the country where they could regulate lead, on a case by case basis.

So, what percentage of ducks are divers and are affected, versus the ENTIRE waterfowl population that will see an increase in cripples, as some people maintain, due to inferior ballistics and poor shape in many of the alloys that have been mandated? How many shotguns are unsuitable for anything other than lead shot?

Twenty years is not a great deal of time, when some shotguns stay in the family for generations.

It seems to me that I have read data, (since supressed) that suggests that waterfowl deaths from lead poisoning was LESS before the ban than the current loss rate due to less pellets in the shot charge and resulting in a higher percentage of cripples since mandates were introduced. It is possible that their solutions involve a measure of junk science. Maybe? Or is this 1000% bogus information?

edit: I had in mind steel shot, as an inferior solution to a minor problem, but the exotic shotshells, from bismuth to heavy shot and everything in between, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in price and that adversely affects hunting opportunity as a fact of life. LB