@ 05:00 am (GMT)
Lane SalvatoSomething has been sort of simmering in me for months and it's beginning to reach a boiling point. That is the pushing of solid copper bullets on a hunting public that doesn't need or benefit from them in any way, and the embrace of them by people who don't know better.
Spare me the arguments about lead that are based upon lame studies put together by California professors with agendas. Spare me the platitudes of changing with the times. Spare me the arguments about "meat destruction". You destroy a lot more meat when you can't recover the animal than a bullet will ever do. The sole purpose of a bullet is to make a quick, clean kill. Copper is so bad at this that the embrace of it by the hunting public defies logic. Can they work in certain situations? Yes. Are they ever ideal? No.
The whole purpose of banning lead based bullets in California is to remove options from hunters. Does anyone really believe they will stop with copper? There will be some "study" showing copper bullets do something that is deemed undesirable and they will need to be replaced with something else. One less choice for hunters.
Let's do ourselves a favor and not embrace this folly in places where copper isn't already required. And let's demand that ammo manufacturers offer clean killing choices if they are going to get rid of lead. They are out there right now and they work better than anything that's ever been offered. If you really think lead from hunters is harmful to condors, or believe lead is going to hurt your family, then demand from ammo manufacturers an alternative that actually works.
My whole argument is not that lead should never be banned, it's that there is currently no reason to ban it. If there is a reason to ban it, then the replacement should work at least as well as what we've had for a hundred years. Solid copper ain't it!