- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Good news for OB. Bad news for EPA and tree huggers
Posted on 12/24/14 at 4:53 pm to MrBobDobalina
Posted on 12/24/14 at 4:53 pm to MrBobDobalina
Density brah
Posted on 12/24/14 at 5:13 pm to weagle99
"Steel shot retains its shape better than lead shot does, and compensations can be made for its lighter weight, enabling it to retain energy as well as lead shot."
"Neither study reported significant differences between crippling rates for lead and steel shot. Extrapolating data from these two studies, we find that No. 1 steel shot would reduce crippling losses in large geese by 22.8 percent, and BB steel shot would reduce crippling losses by 18.6 percent."
"More recent field tests with lead and improved steel shot, however, show little difference in killing power between the two loads at long ranges. Anderson and Sanderson (1979: Table 5) found steel shot as effective or better than lead for killing interior Canada geese at ranges >45.7 m (50 yards). Hunters shooting small-to-midsize geese at Tule Lake, California, crippled fewer geese at ranges >45.7 m (50 yards) with steel loads than with lead (Smith and Roster 1979:7)."
"Surprising to many ballisticians, however, steel shot has been found to possess a quality of form retention that makes for a better pattern and a shorter shot string than soft lead."
There's 100's more lines I can quote where steel equals or outperforms soft lead ballisticly, if you want to read up a little more here's the U.S. Geological Survey study on it:
LINK
Crippling a bird with lead shot kills it from the inside out, its body rejects the lead vs steel in which the bird won't essentially self-destruct (though it will most likely die of starvation or predation, but lead isn't moving up the food chain.) You also have to take into account that a large amount of ducks feed by diving to the bottom to eat seeds and invertebrates that grow on submerged vegetation...1 lead pellet is shown to be enough to kill a duck within 2 weeks of ingestion.
If none of that is enough to convince you, lead is toxic. It breaks down your nervous system and long term exposure will cause organ failure. Why would you risk eating or even just chewing on lead? Idk it just seems like a no brainer to me, stepping off my soapbox now
"Neither study reported significant differences between crippling rates for lead and steel shot. Extrapolating data from these two studies, we find that No. 1 steel shot would reduce crippling losses in large geese by 22.8 percent, and BB steel shot would reduce crippling losses by 18.6 percent."
"More recent field tests with lead and improved steel shot, however, show little difference in killing power between the two loads at long ranges. Anderson and Sanderson (1979: Table 5) found steel shot as effective or better than lead for killing interior Canada geese at ranges >45.7 m (50 yards). Hunters shooting small-to-midsize geese at Tule Lake, California, crippled fewer geese at ranges >45.7 m (50 yards) with steel loads than with lead (Smith and Roster 1979:7)."
"Surprising to many ballisticians, however, steel shot has been found to possess a quality of form retention that makes for a better pattern and a shorter shot string than soft lead."
There's 100's more lines I can quote where steel equals or outperforms soft lead ballisticly, if you want to read up a little more here's the U.S. Geological Survey study on it:
LINK
Crippling a bird with lead shot kills it from the inside out, its body rejects the lead vs steel in which the bird won't essentially self-destruct (though it will most likely die of starvation or predation, but lead isn't moving up the food chain.) You also have to take into account that a large amount of ducks feed by diving to the bottom to eat seeds and invertebrates that grow on submerged vegetation...1 lead pellet is shown to be enough to kill a duck within 2 weeks of ingestion.
If none of that is enough to convince you, lead is toxic. It breaks down your nervous system and long term exposure will cause organ failure. Why would you risk eating or even just chewing on lead? Idk it just seems like a no brainer to me, stepping off my soapbox now
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News