Anybody reloading .40 S&W with non-jacketed bullets? - Page 2

lee n. field · October 2, 2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

If so I'd like to know what you are using and how it has worked.

Handcast 180gr truncated cone over 4.7 grains of Bullseye. The same bullet as pictured in post 18 above.I have to run loaded cartridges through a Lee Factory Crimp Die or some won't chamber reliably. Some kind of size issue there (duh). I also have to be careful of seating depth. Lubed with Rooster Jacket -- Lee Liquid Alox is sticky and messy. Maybe someday when I'm rich I'll get a proper lubrisizer.

Shot through an XD40.

Works OK.

Farmland · October 2, 2009, 12:49 PM

Always lead the bad boy.

Lets face it it is toxic but there is not point to needlessly panic and run from it.

The number one way that lead enters the body is through the mouth. That is why young children are mostly at risk. So don't chew on your bullets. However you will find far more third world stuff in your house that has lead. Dusting is really found more in an industrial setting. So don't take your dremmel to your lead bullets.

Keep your hands clean and don't pick up anything and place it in your mouth such as food or snuff. Yes there can be a dust exposure too but I doubt most of us reloaders have to worry much about that. I don't cast so I don't know if you make a lot of dust. In fact I can't even give you any tips while casting but this OP just wants to load some lead bullets.

In any event regular reloading of lead bullets with safe practices will normally keep you exposure to dangerous levels down. I say normally because there is always an exception for someone somewhere. If you feel your at risk get tested nd then you know if you are the exception.

I appreciate those who would like to eliminate or reduce lead exposure. However to say reloading with lead bullets is going to result in problems just isn't proved from any source that I can find for those doing it correctly.

I keep my lead bullets in their original boxes and I limit the touching to placing them on the case during reloading. This eliminates any dust concerns along with contamination of the bench. Though I have been known to redip with an ungloved hand.

, I think both cut down on cavities.

So it is a nice warning to take safety serious when reloading lead but not worth throwing up the red flag to not use lead.

I do use a lot of W231 behind most of my lead with pretty good results.

FlyFish · October 2, 2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Lead is also absorbed thorough your skin. It is another proven fact.

I'm an environmental toxicologist working in human health and ecological risk assessment, and dermal absorption is something we deal with every day. The dermal absorption factor for elemental lead is very low (about 0.06, i.e., 6/100ths of what contacts your skin enters your body), even in the presence of perspiration. It's higher for some lead compounds, but also quite low for many of them. The exposure route(s) to be concerned about regarding lead on your skin (hands) include primarily via eating, smoking, or rubbing your eyes, and nose-picking, and you should be careful to wash your hands well before doing any of them.

For comparison, the absorption factor for ingestion is 0.40 and for inhalation it's 0.90 - the latter route is what we should all be concerned about, particularly those of us who shoot in poorly ventilated indoor ranges, as I do. My serum lead was elevated to about 31 mcg/dl last year and I started wearing a respirator with P100 filters when shooting indoors. It's now down to 11.8 mcg/dl (for adults in the US, a normal level is something less than 10), and continuing to fall (I think - we'll find out at the next blood test).

Foxbat · October 2, 2009, 02:13 PM

The absorption factor is important, but it only tells part of the story, as it does not tell you how much lead will actually enter your body - you also have to consider the amount that comes in contact with your skin, lungs, etc. It is quite likely that by loading 1000 lead bullets with bare fingers, much, much more lead comes in contact with skin than enters your digestive tract. Therefore plenty of lead will enter your blood through skin even though the absorption factor is lower.

In addition, there have been other interesting studies, for instance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3238426

I am not trying to make people stop using lead bullets if they feel like it. But I think it is important to understand all the implications, including the possible cost savings versus health risks, so everyone could make an informed decision.

You are also bringing up another VERY important point - quality of range ventilation... this is very hard to measure, and even though there is very powerful system at our range, I wonder how effective it actually is. I have not done lead blood test, so it seem like a good idea to have one.

FlyFish · October 2, 2009, 03:59 PM

The study you cite used lead nitrate, not elemental lead, which is the issue at hand. The DAF of lead nitrate is approximately 100 times higher than that for elemental lead (as I said in my original post on this subject, some lead compounds have higher DAFs than elemental lead). And in looking into that, I realized that I had a unit conversion error in my original calculation of the DAF for elemental lead, which should have been 0.0006 (not .06). That means that you would need to have approximately 1500 times more lead on your skin, vs. being inhaled, for the absorption to be equivalent on a mass basis (and about 667 times more than if ingested). Not impossible, I suppose, but that's a pretty big difference and, generally, exposure due to dermal absorption of lead is discounted in most risk assessment situations.

A larger issue, and one that is actively debated by researchers currently, is how the thickness of the toxicant on the skin should be handled. That is, if you have a certain amount of lead (or whatever) spread over say 10 square inches of skin how does that absorption rate compare to the same amount of lead spread over a single square inch? While the mass of lead stays the same, now the thickness of the lead is 10 times what it was previously. Is the portion of the lead on top of the coating still "in contact" with the skin and available for uptake? And if not, what should the mass in the denominator of the DAF equation be? Good questions, and ones that don't currently have good answers.

ETA: Yes, good idea on the blood test. I'd recommend that anyone who shoots regularly, even if not indoors, add a serum lead test to their annual physical. It certainly was a big wake-up call for me.

c.j.sikes · October 2, 2009, 04:08 PM

i shoot 4.6 gr hp38 175 gr lead bullet. works for me. idont have any affect from casting lead bullets, well venelated area over pot is key. of corse i am no authorty, after all i am only 76 and have been casting bullets for 50 odd years, 10 of which i was doing it proffesionaly(s & s bullet co.) boys be carefull out there! cjs

snuffy · October 2, 2009, 04:24 PM

An environmental toxicologist comes on here, tells you how little lead can enter the human body, you still say the sky is falling. Fine, don't shoot lead, there will be more for me to shoot.

Fumes/vapor, the same thing in my mind. Some lead, like pure lead, has to be hotter to melt than an alloy like linotype. But none are hotter than 900 degrees. While there might be a small presence of lead vapor present around any molten lead, it is minuscule.

I was told by a chemist that the lead vapor present at any temp above molten lead is hugging the surface of the melt, a thin layer 1/8 inch thick. That means if your lead pot is less than full-to-overflowing, it should stay tight against the lead. So, unless you take a soda straw, to purposely suck it away, you will not be inhaling lead vapor.

As for me, I've been casting since 1973. More so lately. A couple years ago, after seeing how concerned some were about lead poisoning, I had the VA include a lead test in my panel. I was very surprised, my level was 5.0. Casting, loading, and shooting in a poorly vented indoor range SHOULD have had my lead level much higher.

The EPA says the lead wheel weights have to go. BECAUSE??¿ The intersections of streets and roads are lead contaminated by WW that have fallen off cars, then are GROUND into dust by traffic!:barf:

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not eating from a road, or licking the streets!

Foxbat · October 2, 2009, 04:35 PM

"As for me, I've been casting since 1973."

That is the strongest argument so far.

medicdave · October 2, 2009, 06:20 PM

"I had a buddy that decided to shoot lead bullets though his .40 (Glock)......."
Glock even tells you thier polygonal rifle isn't made for lead, and will cause leading and a Kaboom. That said your sig will be fine with lead bullets. If you don't want to cast, keep an eye on gunbroker auctions. I just bout 5000 commercial cast 40 cal bullets for $40 a couple months ago. Dutch auction with no other bidders. The biggest lead hazard in reloading is breathing the dust from spent primers when seperating the media from the cases in your vibratory case cleaner. I don't think I reload jacketed bullets at all in handguns, and have started switching my lever guns to cast as well. They just work.

SQUAREKNOT · October 3, 2009, 08:23 AM

'The biggest lead hazard in reloading is breathing the dust from spent primers when seperating the media from the cases in your vibratory case cleaner."
LAST WEEKEND I USED A DREMAL TOOL TO CLEAN 2000 .45 PRIMER POCKETS
WORKED GREAT-SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS NOT TOO GOOD FOR MY HEALTH AS THE DUST REALLY FLEW

FlyFish · October 3, 2009, 10:48 AM

Quote:

LAST WEEKEND I USED A DREMAL TOOL TO CLEAN 2000 .45 PRIMER POCKETS
WORKED GREAT-SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS NOT TOO GOOD FOR MY HEALTH AS THE DUST REALLY FLEW

I don't think it's necessary to put your affairs in order just yet, but I sure wouldn't do that too often without wearing a respirator.

Crosshair · October 3, 2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

The EPA says the lead wheel weights have to go. BECAUSE??¿ The intersections of streets and roads are lead contaminated by WW that have fallen off cars, then are GROUND into dust by traffic! I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not eating from a road, or licking the streets!

Don't forget that the EPA required the use of MTBE in gasoline to "help the environment", despite it knowing how bad it was for the environment decades ago. Not to mention its use is unnecessary in modern cars anyway. 100 million people in 49 states are now at rusk for unsafe exposure to MTBE through contamination ground/drinking water. GO EPA!!

Corporations may do bad things to the environment, but it takes the government for it to happen at a nationwide level.

snuffy · October 3, 2009, 11:54 AM

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=mtbe+fact+s...Ftfacts91.html

MTBE fact sheet.

Thanks for the heads up crosshair. I didn't know about that additive to gasoline. Way to go EPA! They can screw up like that, and they want to take over health care!!!

October 2, 2009, 12:49 PM	#27
Farmland Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2009 Posts: 869	Always lead the bad boy. Lets face it it is toxic but there is not point to needlessly panic and run from it. The number one way that lead enters the body is through the mouth. That is why young children are mostly at risk. So don't chew on your bullets. However you will find far more third world stuff in your house that has lead. Dusting is really found more in an industrial setting. So don't take your dremmel to your lead bullets. Keep your hands clean and don't pick up anything and place it in your mouth such as food or snuff. Yes there can be a dust exposure too but I doubt most of us reloaders have to worry much about that. I don't cast so I don't know if you make a lot of dust. In fact I can't even give you any tips while casting but this OP just wants to load some lead bullets. In any event regular reloading of lead bullets with safe practices will normally keep you exposure to dangerous levels down. I say normally because there is always an exception for someone somewhere. If you feel your at risk get tested nd then you know if you are the exception. I appreciate those who would like to eliminate or reduce lead exposure. However to say reloading with lead bullets is going to result in problems just isn't proved from any source that I can find for those doing it correctly. I keep my lead bullets in their original boxes and I limit the touching to placing them on the case during reloading. This eliminates any dust concerns along with contamination of the bench. Though I have been known to redip with an ungloved hand., I think both cut down on cavities. So it is a nice warning to take safety serious when reloading lead but not worth throwing up the red flag to not use lead. I do use a lot of W231 behind most of my lead with pretty good results.

October 2, 2009, 02:13 PM	#29
Foxbat Senior Member Join Date: January 13, 2008 Posts: 367	The absorption factor is important, but it only tells part of the story, as it does not tell you how much lead will actually enter your body - you also have to consider the amount that comes in contact with your skin, lungs, etc. It is quite likely that by loading 1000 lead bullets with bare fingers, much, much more lead comes in contact with skin than enters your digestive tract. Therefore plenty of lead will enter your blood through skin even though the absorption factor is lower. In addition, there have been other interesting studies, for instance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3238426 I am not trying to make people stop using lead bullets if they feel like it. But I think it is important to understand all the implications, including the possible cost savings versus health risks, so everyone could make an informed decision. You are also bringing up another VERY important point - quality of range ventilation... this is very hard to measure, and even though there is very powerful system at our range, I wonder how effective it actually is. I have not done lead blood test, so it seem like a good idea to have one. Last edited by Foxbat; October 2, 2009 at 02:20 PM.

October 2, 2009, 04:08 PM	#31
c.j.sikes Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Location: marlow okla Posts: 227	lead loads for 40 cal. i shoot 4.6 gr hp38 175 gr lead bullet. works for me. idont have any affect from casting lead bullets, well venelated area over pot is key. of corse i am no authorty, after all i am only 76 and have been casting bullets for 50 odd years, 10 of which i was doing it proffesionaly(s & s bullet co.) boys be carefull out there! cjs

October 2, 2009, 04:24 PM	#32
snuffy Senior Member Join Date: May 20, 2001 Location: Oshkosh wi. Posts: 3,055	An environmental toxicologist comes on here, tells you how little lead can enter the human body, you still say the sky is falling. Fine, don't shoot lead, there will be more for me to shoot. Fumes/vapor, the same thing in my mind. Some lead, like pure lead, has to be hotter to melt than an alloy like linotype. But none are hotter than 900 degrees. While there might be a small presence of lead vapor present around any molten lead, it is minuscule. I was told by a chemist that the lead vapor present at any temp above molten lead is hugging the surface of the melt, a thin layer 1/8 inch thick. That means if your lead pot is less than full-to-overflowing, it should stay tight against the lead. So, unless you take a soda straw, to purposely suck it away, you will not be inhaling lead vapor. As for me, I've been casting since 1973. More so lately. A couple years ago, after seeing how concerned some were about lead poisoning, I had the VA include a lead test in my panel. I was very surprised, my level was 5.0. Casting, loading, and shooting in a poorly vented indoor range SHOULD have had my lead level much higher. The EPA says the lead wheel weights have to go. BECAUSE??¿ The intersections of streets and roads are lead contaminated by WW that have fallen off cars, then are GROUND into dust by traffic!:barf: I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not eating from a road, or licking the streets! __________________ The more people I meet, the more I love my dog They're going to get their butts kicked over there this election. How come people can't spell and use words correctly?

October 3, 2009, 11:54 AM	#38
snuffy Senior Member Join Date: May 20, 2001 Location: Oshkosh wi. Posts: 3,055	http://www.ask.com/bar?q=mtbe+fact+s...Ftfacts91.html MTBE fact sheet. Thanks for the heads up crosshair. I didn't know about that additive to gasoline. Way to go EPA! They can screw up like that, and they want to take over health care!!! __________________ The more people I meet, the more I love my dog They're going to get their butts kicked over there this election. How come people can't spell and use words correctly?

October 2, 2009, 03:59 PM	#30
FlyFish Senior Member Join Date: January 20, 2009 Location: Overlooking the Baker River Valley Posts: 1,723	The study you cite used lead nitrate, not elemental lead, which is the issue at hand. The DAF of lead nitrate is approximately 100 times higher than that for elemental lead (as I said in my original post on this subject, some lead compounds have higher DAFs than elemental lead). And in looking into that, I realized that I had a unit conversion error in my original calculation of the DAF for elemental lead, which should have been 0.0006 (not .06). That means that you would need to have approximately 1500 times more lead on your skin, vs. being inhaled, for the absorption to be equivalent on a mass basis (and about 667 times more than if ingested). Not impossible, I suppose, but that's a pretty big difference and, generally, exposure due to dermal absorption of lead is discounted in most risk assessment situations. A larger issue, and one that is actively debated by researchers currently, is how the thickness of the toxicant on the skin should be handled. That is, if you have a certain amount of lead (or whatever) spread over say 10 square inches of skin how does that absorption rate compare to the same amount of lead spread over a single square inch? While the mass of lead stays the same, now the thickness of the lead is 10 times what it was previously. Is the portion of the lead on top of the coating still "in contact" with the skin and available for uptake? And if not, what should the mass in the denominator of the DAF equation be? Good questions, and ones that don't currently have good answers. ETA: Yes, good idea on the blood test. I'd recommend that anyone who shoots regularly, even if not indoors, add a serum lead test to their annual physical. It certainly was a big wake-up call for me.

October 2, 2009, 04:35 PM	#33
Foxbat Senior Member Join Date: January 13, 2008 Posts: 367	"As for me, I've been casting since 1973." That is the strongest argument so far.

October 2, 2009, 06:20 PM	#34
medicdave Junior Member Join Date: October 1, 2009 Posts: 4	"I had a buddy that decided to shoot lead bullets though his .40 (Glock)......." Glock even tells you thier polygonal rifle isn't made for lead, and will cause leading and a Kaboom. That said your sig will be fine with lead bullets. If you don't want to cast, keep an eye on gunbroker auctions. I just bout 5000 commercial cast 40 cal bullets for $40 a couple months ago. Dutch auction with no other bidders. The biggest lead hazard in reloading is breathing the dust from spent primers when seperating the media from the cases in your vibratory case cleaner. I don't think I reload jacketed bullets at all in handguns, and have started switching my lever guns to cast as well. They just work.

October 3, 2009, 08:23 AM	#35
SQUAREKNOT Senior Member Join Date: July 16, 2008 Posts: 263	'The biggest lead hazard in reloading is breathing the dust from spent primers when seperating the media from the cases in your vibratory case cleaner." LAST WEEKEND I USED A DREMAL TOOL TO CLEAN 2000 .45 PRIMER POCKETS WORKED GREAT-SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS NOT TOO GOOD FOR MY HEALTH AS THE DUST REALLY FLEW