Lead vs. Steel Shot

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

Because the afflicted creatures may — before they die — travel a great distance from the place where they ingested the shot, it's been difficult to document the magnitude of the problem . . . though numerous studies have shown direct links between lead and waterfowl mortality in limited populations. Still, by extrapolating from the known deaths and the evidence of disease-related fatalities, experts can estimate with some assurance that between 2% and 3% of the waterfowl population of North America is lost to lead-shot poisoning each and every year (that's two to three million birds).

THE ALTERNATIVE

Shell manufacturers and independent researchers have, for more than 20 years, been working to develop an acceptable substitute for lead pellets in shot shells. But of the dozens of different materials that have been tried, only one has proved to be both ballistically effective and economically acceptable: steel. Unfortunately, a number of questions have been raised about steel shot, too, and the controversy has been raging ever since the first steel-shot-only hunting zones were designated in the early 1970's.

Since then, the areas in which only steel can be used to hunt ducks and geese .rave been expanded, and the range of gun gauges that fall under the restrictions has grown. To date, we know of no regions that have placed such restrictions on upland shooting . . . though new evidence of lead poisoning in doves and such could bring about regulation in those areas as well.

On the other hand, some hunters' organizations have actively fought the mandate in selected localities . . . because although the fact that lead does cause bird poisoning seems to be fairly well accepted today, the value of steel shot as a substitute isn't. Opponents of the "new" shells claim that they result in unnecessary crippling of birds and excessive gun wear.

We've discovered, however, that a wide body of competent research exists . . . so in the following paragraphs we're simply going to summarize the findings concerning lead versus steel shot.

BASIC BALLISTICS

Lead has been the preferred material for forming pellets since the first "scatter gun" was developed . . . and for seemingly good reasons. To begin with, the energy of a moving body is determined by its mass and its velocity. And as you probably know, lead is a very heavy metal. So when this substance is used to make shot shells, a great deal of weight can be packed into each pellet and therefore into the limited space in the casing.

Steel, of course, has a lower mass than lead (its weight is about 68% of that of the toxic metal, per unit of volume), and if equal-sized loads of steel and lead were fired at the same velocity, the latter material would definitely prove to be the superior shot. For example, information developed by Tom Roster of the Oregon Institute of Technology (who's one of the experts on shot ballistics) shows that a load of No. 4 lead (the numbering indicates size . . . higher numbers refer to smaller shot) with a rated velocity of 1,255 feet per second (FPS) will retain 3.65 foot-pounds of energy per pellet at 40 yards, and 2.36 foot-pounds at 60 yards. By contrast, a load of No. 4 steel fired at 1,250 FPS will retain only 2.10 foot-pounds at 40 yards and 1.22 foot-pounds at 60 yards. (It has been estimated that at least 2.0 foot-pounds per pellet is required to produce a clean kill on a duck.)

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print