LEAD FREE BULLETS – PROS & CONS

Paul Bradley from Hexagon Ammunition offers an expert analysis on the emergence of lead-free bullets, examining their impact on hunting ethics, manufacturing challenges, and environmental health.

Lead has been used to manufacture bullets for around 600 years. While many raw materials change over time with advancements in technology and scientific discovery, lead continues to dominate the projectile market. The only significant change in that time was the addition of a copper jacket in 1882 by Lieutenant Colonel Eduard Rubin, director of the Swiss Federal Ammunition Factory and Research Centre in Thun, Switzerland. This was largely driven by developments in propellant which allowed bullets to reach higher velocities. Lead bullets would break apart due to centrifugal force as they left the barrel spinning rapidly. The copper jacket kept them intact and did minimal damage to the rifle bore.

Lead makes a perfect projectile core for several reasons. It can be easily formed into a desired shape. It is very dense, which gives weight to the projectile. Weight gives both increased terminal energy and desirable ballistic coefficient (projectile drag is influenced by weight and form factor). Lead also deforms readily upon impact, which has a twofold effect — reducing both dangerous ricochets and over-penetration of target. The downside is that it is toxic. It is not healthy to be regularly exposed to lead. This health risk effects those on the manufacturing side, the shooters and, of course, concerns about the environment have also been voiced.

So, it seems we are slowly moving toward lead-free projectiles. As usual the forums are awash with discussion on the matter. Opinions range from lead-free bullets being fantastic to them being useless and in some cases even dangerous. So, what is the truth?

There are three main groups when it comes to lead-free projectiles: Monolithic, usually made of copper or brass; Frangible, made of compressed powdered metal: and Bimetallic. Frangible projectiles fulfil a very niche role. They lack the weight required to really compete in any long-range work. However, they break apart readily when hitting a hard target (a hardened steel plate). This greatly reduces ricochet hazard and as such they provide a useful training option for short range work. Despite rumours, they are completely unsuitable for hunting. They do not break apart in soft tissue and tend to travel straight through game, making them an unethical option. That may change as the innovation in that area grows.

Monolithic copper and brass projectiles are readily available and have been used for some time by both target shooters and hunters. Brass is comparatively cheaper in terms of material purchase. The real preference for brass is its machinability. It is harder than copper and thus far easier to run through a CNC machine, which keeps production cost down. The benefit that its hardness offers in terms of cost becomes a negative regarding function. Being a lighter, harder material means you sacrifice some weight. It also increases ricochet risk and lacks the ductility required to deform in soft targets. Brass is therefore unsuitable for hunting bullets due to the risk of over penetration and also ethical considerations.

Copper is the most popular material for lead-free projectiles in the current market. In terms of performance it is still the poor relative of lead. Copper does not deform as easily and lacks leads density. Copper also has some machinability challenges. There are many iterations of copper alloy. Most of these have been created to make the material easier to machine by increasing its hardness. In terms of function, the best choice would be pure copper. It is denser, heavier and has ductility. These are all highly desirable traits of both a target and hunting bullet. Bullets need to be machined to tight tolerances for both safety and precision. Pure copper and machining to tight tolerance are not the best of bedfellows. I know because I have spent many hours begging machinists to find ways to CNC pure copper for me. In return they begged me to let them use C109, a harder and much easier option! I believe there are opportunities in this market for innovators. The process of forming or printing bullets from pure copper would be a great area to explore.

There is significant innovation in the lead-free projectile market. Bimetallic products such as Norma’s Evostrike utilise materials such as tin, nickel and polymer to produce ethical, lead-free hunting options. New production techniques enable the projectiles to give expansion comparable to lead cores, great barrel life and, of course, high levels of precision and accuracy. As lead becomes a naughty word we are likely to see new and interesting materials and designs emerging. It has never been a better time for R&D in the hunting/projectile sector.

So, as a retailer, what should you stock? If your customers are looking to shoot paper with lead-free projectiles, then brass is certainly an option. If they are hunters then you are going to need to recalibrate your ideas about projectile weight. A hunter who typically uses a 165+gr bullet will find that the copper or bimetallic alternatives at that weight will provide poor performance. The harder copper will likely not deform in soft tissue and the result will be over penetration and an unethical shot. This is especially so in smaller species such as muntjac. Using a bullet with less mass will result in much better deformation. Expanding lead-free projectiles in the 100-140gr region tend to produce results which are comparable to their lead cored 165+gr counterparts.

The negative press that lead-free options garner is generally due to rumour or a lack of technical understanding from the user. If the correct product is selected for the job at hand then lead-free projectiles can provide a perfectly acceptable option. This, in large part, falls upon the manufacturers, distributors and sales staff. If they have a good understanding around the pros and cons they can advise the customer properly and avoid disappointment. I believe there is a lot of work to be done here. The industry has been fast to develop but has also been slow to educate end users. Hopefully this will change as the demand for lead-free products increases.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic, e-mail your views over to editorial@fieldsportspress.com