ITX lead free round balls

[matt denison]

I saw an ad in the latest American Rifleman Mag. for ITX lead-free Muzzleloading Round Balls. Went to the website to check it all out. Smaller sizes retail for about $1 each, larger size (.601") are about $1.50 each. My question is has anyone tried these and what do you think?

I know that our friends in California where lead ammo. is "restricted" may be very glad for this lead free ammo.

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, I must have missed it.

 

[necchi]

Here's a test and review done by member Pletch, http://www.blackpowdermag.com/featured-articles/nonlead-field-test.php

You can see some current comments about these in a thread just down this section a bit titled "Powder types".

 

[matt denison]

Thanks Necchi.

I'm thinking of getting a handful of these and test them in a 20 ga. smoothbore with and without a patch.

 

[Billnpatti]

Another reason for me to say "Thank God I don't live in California". The price of those balls is way to salty for me. I am fortunate to live in a state where the legislators have not lost their minds.....yet. My heart goes out to our brothers who are trapped in The People's Republic of California.

 

[MarTay6]

Yes. Let's not try to kill something with something that might cause brain damage! :rotf:
Wes

 

[William O.]

Another reason for me to say "Thank God I don't live in California". The price of those balls is way to salty for me. I am fortunate to live in a state where the legislators have not lost their minds.....yet. My heart goes out to our brothers who are trapped in The People's Republic of California.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Many Klatch]

Laffin, ball bearings work pretty well. They are pretty cheap too. Years ago I bought a box of .60 ball bearings. Still have a few. They really zip along.

 

[Drago]

I believe Roundball was the one that tested brass balls and found they worked well. He also used rubber mulch as a filler in a box and was able to recover and reuse the balls for target shooting.

 

[Flintfan69]

I believe Roundball was the one that tested brass balls and found they worked well. He also used rubber mulch as a filler in a box and was able to recover and reuse the balls for target shooting.

Unfortunately, if it came down to it, brass would be considered toxic ammunition because of the zinc and lead that most brass contains. Pure copper round balls would be allowed, but again, would be more expensive. Nice thing about the copper based ammunition, while not nearly as heavy as the tungsten based ammo like ITX, it is soft and would not damage the rifling.

 

[Many Klatch]

Used to be a barrel maker that lived in Indiana that only shot ball bearings out of his rifle. At the end of a match folk would see him down range picking up ball bearings to reuse. He might shoot a barrel out in two or 3 years of steady use, but he'd just fresh it out and go again.

If you shoot patched ball bearings out of a smoothbore there is no harm. If you wanted to shoot ball bearings out of a rifle I would recommend working up a thick patch, smaller sized ball combination. A greased leather patch might be a good idea. If the ball bearing doesn't touch the rifling it shouldn't hurt a thing.

Just Don't Dry Ball

 

[roundball]

I believe Roundball was the one that tested brass balls and found they worked well. He also used rubber mulch as a filler in a box and was able to recover and reuse the balls for target shooting.

Correct...there's no damage to solid hard balls or a barrel...a proper patch takes care of that.
I recovered and reused these from the rubber mulch trap box like you mentioned...then I reused one on a deer that fall.
The amount of lead in these solid brass balls is virtually unmeasurable at only 7/10ths of 1%...I'd be surprised if any state took issue with a solid brass ball as it relates to almost non-existent lead in it's manufacturing.

 

[George T.]

I really enjoyed the post. A good read but I think I'll stay in Texas!

Geo. T.

 

[Flintfan69]

The amount of lead in these solid brass balls is virtually unmeasurable at only 7/10ths of 1%...I'd be surprised if any state took issue with a solid brass ball as it relates to almost non-existent lead in it's manufacturing.

With the mass hysteria surrounding anything that contains lead these days, I wouldn't be surprised at all if a state/Feds took issue with that small amount of lead. You're probably right though, it is such a trace amount it probably wouldn't matter. The problem with brass however, isn't the small amount of lead, it's the high percentage of zinc that it contains that would not lead to it's approval for use in non-toxic zones. Pure copper balls would be fine, while more expensive, they are softer than brass and slightly more dense and therefore would make a better hunting projectile.

Let's just hope we are just arguing semantics though, and the ridiculous ban on lead bullets stays a localized, regional issue.

 

[Patocazador]

I've found that most wildlife officers here have little knowledge of the laws they enforce. I doubt that they would be aware of the composition of a brass ball. Just don't carry the packaging that shows the makeup of the alloy.

 

[roundball]

The problem with brass however, isn't the small amount of lead, it's the high percentage of zinc that it contains that would not lead to it's approval for use in non-toxic zones.

Never heard anything about Zinc being any problem, for example, Fish & Wildlife Service:

“”¦Coatings of copper, nickel, tin, zinc, zinc chloride, zinc chrome, and fluoropolymers on approved nontoxic shot types also are approved”¦”

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/currentbirdissues/nontoxic.htm

 

[matt denison]

It would be difficult (not impossible) to cast your own balls from copper or brass. I'm thinking bisimuth, maybe lead-free pewter, tin? zinc? that melts @ under 1,000 deg. There has been some article written (Bevel Brothers) about the use of pewter. Pewter wasn't as accurate as lead but it is good for "hunting" accuracy and at only about $5.00 a pound is reasonable. Remember we are only talking about hunting, not plinking or target work. Lead is still OK for shooting paper.

If using a large enough caliber like .600 then expansion isn't so critical. You will still punch a 5/8" hole in whatever game you shoot at.

 

[Flintfan69]

The problem with brass however, isn't the small amount of lead, it's the high percentage of zinc that it contains that would not lead to it's approval for use in non-toxic zones.

Never heard anything about Zinc being any problem, for example, Fish & Wildlife Service:

“”¦Coatings of copper, nickel, tin, zinc, zinc chloride, zinc chrome, and fluoropolymers on approved nontoxic shot types also are approved”¦”

The key word there is "coatings". Zinc in large enough concentrations IS toxic. Brass is about 35-40% zinc. If solid brass projectiles were ever brought up for debate by the Feds for use as acceptable in non-toxic areas, I'd bet you a coke they will get rejected.

Not sure why anyone would want to use brass over pure copper as a projectile, other than solely based on cost, but if we are already debating of the use of anything other than lead, that horse has already left the barn.

The mechanical properties of pure copper are superior in every respect for use as a projectile over brass. However I will add, BOTH are horribly lacking in comparison to lead.

Like I said earlier, lets hope this never gets farther than arguing theory on a website, but again, that horse might have left too.

 

[Rick Son]

I'm in Ca.i'm shootin lead wetehr they like it or not,i'm will NOT comply!But may be movin to Texas soon..

 

[roundball]

The problem with brass however, isn't the small amount of lead, it's the high percentage of zinc that it contains that would not lead to it's approval for use in non-toxic zones.

Never heard anything about Zinc being any problem, for example, Fish & Wildlife Service:

“”¦Coatings of copper, nickel, tin, zinc, zinc chloride, zinc chrome, and fluoropolymers on approved nontoxic shot types also are approved”¦”

Zinc in large enough concentrations IS toxic.

The link to the official source you're quoting on how much is a "large enough concentration" would be appreciated.

 

[Flintfan69]

The link to the official source you're quoting on how much is a "large enough concentration" would be appreciated.

Since you are not able (or willing) to look it up on your own. Here's just a couple to get you started:
http://www.aspcapro.org/sites/pro/files/zp-toxbrief_0202.pdf
http://www.merckmanuals.com/vet/toxicology/zinc_toxicosis/overview_of_zinc_toxicosis.html

Those two write ups are focused specifically on dogs/pets. Pennies contain about 2,400 mg zinc now, and the first study states that ALL instances of ingested pennies should be consider potentially fatal by animals. And, if not fatal, there are serious long term complications that can result from zinc toxicity.

If a single penny contains about 2,400 mg of zinc, and a .50 cal. round ball is about 35-40% zinc. By doing some simple weighing and math, you can figure out how much is in single round ball by comparison to a penny.

Even a simple Wiki search on zinc will lead you to multiple links to medical journals on zinc toxicity, especially to both vertebrates in in-vertebrates in the wild.

In comparison, the shotgun pellets you refereed to that have a coating (wash) of zinc that is microns thick, and would probably only have a mg of zinc each by weight.

Again, I'm not even sure why you are trying to defend the use of brass as a choice for round balls in non-toxic areas. Even if there were no toxicity concerns with zinc, pure copper is softer, and more dense (heavier). A much better choice for projectiles if you had to pick one.