Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Barnes Bullets, Are they missing the LR hunting boat?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael Courtney" data-source="post: 920818" data-attributes="member: 28191"><p>California is disadvantaging their hunters and citizens. The military has gone to lead free bullets for standard infantry loads, but I truly hope they do not follow suit for loads intended for use beyond 500m. All the same factors discussed above make designing longer range lead free loads challenging, with the added challenge of the required JAG approval related to the Hague Convention. Even if Barnes solves the problem for long range hunters, it probably won't help long range military users.</p><p></p><p>Other than the jacketed lead bullet, composite bullets have a long history of failing to achieve the accuracy needed for long range work. The technical challenges of mass producing bullets where the center of gravity is on the axis is one challenge. There are others. </p><p></p><p>It is a fantasy to believe that "modern technology" can replace lead, even moreso when operational requirements dictate that replacement technologies be comparable with the cost of lead. Even allowing replacement technologies to be 2x the cost of lead, performance is still far behind, not only for projectiles but for lead free primers also. </p><p></p><p>Our nation has foolishly followed California's lead in many areas. Hopefully mandating lead free bullets won't be next.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Courtney, post: 920818, member: 28191"] California is disadvantaging their hunters and citizens. The military has gone to lead free bullets for standard infantry loads, but I truly hope they do not follow suit for loads intended for use beyond 500m. All the same factors discussed above make designing longer range lead free loads challenging, with the added challenge of the required JAG approval related to the Hague Convention. Even if Barnes solves the problem for long range hunters, it probably won't help long range military users. Other than the jacketed lead bullet, composite bullets have a long history of failing to achieve the accuracy needed for long range work. The technical challenges of mass producing bullets where the center of gravity is on the axis is one challenge. There are others. It is a fantasy to believe that "modern technology" can replace lead, even moreso when operational requirements dictate that replacement technologies be comparable with the cost of lead. Even allowing replacement technologies to be 2x the cost of lead, performance is still far behind, not only for projectiles but for lead free primers also. Our nation has foolishly followed California's lead in many areas. Hopefully mandating lead free bullets won't be next. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Barnes Bullets, Are they missing the LR hunting boat?
Top