Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Considering that bismuth is not that rare of a metal, I really don't understand why it is so expensive per pound, but it is

Cost of extraction, refinement, containment or lack of demand price increase

[Reelya]

Bismuth is a perfectly acceptable alternative to lead for use in projectile weapons, however the cost of the metal makes shooting with it prohibitive.

That sounds ideal actually. If it's really life or death you shouldn't be worrying about the cost of bullets, and it would discourage people shooting off at random, while encouraging gun owners to secure their bullets as valuables. It would also deincentivise killing people with guns for small profits, because if you end up putting 6 bullets in someone, that's a lot of money.

Even with 3D printed guns becoming a thing, making it hard to buy lead for bullets would seem to reduce a lot of the incentives.

[wierd]

Sadly, for "Throw away" projectile weapons, such as 3Dprinted ones, the deleterious effects of using non-soft metals, and the undesirability of harder metals due to lower sectional density, are of secondary concern;

If the intent is to kill somebody at short range, (Or to threaten to kill somebody in such a circumstance to extort money or compliance), then a traditional "zip-gun" that shoots a rather large nail overcomes the price restriction.

There is little investment in the actual firearm itself (being made of 3D printed plastic), and the projectile itself is a cheap commodity hardware item, which cannot be made artificially expensive without severe economic reprocussions.

Guns are a thing that simply wont go away.

(I would go so far as to say that "Gun control" is probably not a justifiable strategem for combating gun related violence. Social reform, improved healthcare (including for mental infirmities), and increased social mobility through economic and educational reforms would all serve to combat gun related violence much more effectively than simply trying to pretend that cutting off the flow of firearms will somehow magically make the underlying cause go away.)

[Leafsnail]

There is a pretty big environmental movement to ban lead bullets.  Of course as wierd demonstrated it gets tangled into the second amendment issue and suddenly gun owners/hunters are fighting for the right to poison themselves and their families.

[Neonivek]

There is a pretty big environmental movement to ban lead bullets.  Of course as wierd demonstrated it gets tangled into the second amendment issue and suddenly gun owners/hunters are fighting for the right to poison themselves and their families.

How exactly?

[Leafsnail]

There's quite a popular conspiracy theory that the government is trying to drive up ammo prices to disarm the populace, and that any move to ban lead bullets would be part of that.  Just try reading the comments of this article.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/21/end-line-for-lead-bullet-regulations-bans-force-switch-to-green-ammo/

e: here's a WND article espousing the same view.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/bullet-health-fears-dry-up-ammo-supplies/

[wierd]

It would also serve to make the weapons that are employed by the mass public significantly less safe, as the cost of ownership of a properly safe weapon would be outside of the range afforded by many people that would wish to exercise their second amendment rights.

Take for instance, the afore mentioned 3D printed ones.  These devices may be able to fire for a few dozen shots, but are always going to be inherently unreliable, and prone to explosive malfunction.

[Leafsnail]

Bullets are slightly more expensive -> I must get myself a really dangerous and terrible plastic gun to fire those bullets with in order to save money!

I mean I guess that's an interesting way to try and justify putting minor financial considerations ahead of concerns about releasing a known neurotoxin into the environment.  You could make exactly the same argument for lead paint or petrol (Petrol is slightly more expensive -> I must build myself a really dangerous car in order to save money!).

[Neonivek]

Seriously is firing bullets into underground reservoir a hobby or something?

[wierd]

I take your point, but you didn't fully consider the implications of using incorrect (but cheap) materials in a proper gun.  Barrel erosion, damage to the receiver, and gun explosions are all highly probable occurrences for using incorrect ammunition inside a modern, well-designed firearm.

This is exactly why using one that is cheap to produce en-mass is attractive;  When there is no tangible benefit to the "safer" gun (Because it is not actually safer, because you cannot get the ammunition and must use improvised ammo), and the expensive gun will be damaged by use, then a gun that you can simply throw away or melt down and recycle (print again) makes a compelling case.

Disposable firearms are not new, and are actually a very old idea. It's where the derringer found its market niche, and yes-- it was NOTORIOUSLY unsafe.


Neonivek:

In some parts of rural america, it actually is.  Shooting tin-cans and bottles is still very much a thing in flyoverland USA.  Simply because discharging a weapon within a city limits is wreckless endangerment does not mean that this is the case in very low population, and unincorporated areas, where a proper earthen backstop is present.  Shooting into a culvert or the equivalent is a very bad idea due to risk of ricochet, but not everyone is terribly bright, and may people DO INDEED go target shooting as a hobby.

[Leafsnail]

Seriously is firing bullets into underground reservoir a hobby or something?

No but firing them at animals is

I take your point, but you didn't fully consider the implications of using incorrect (but cheap) materials in a proper gun.  Barrel erosion, damage to the receiver, and gun explosions are all highly probable occurrences for using incorrect ammunition inside a modern, well-designed firearm.

This is exactly why using one that is cheap to produce en-mass is attractive;  When there is no tangible benefit to the "safer" gun (Because it is not actually safer, because you cannot get the ammunition and must use improvised ammo), and the expensive gun will be damaged by use, then a gun that you can simply throw away or melt down and recycle (print again) makes a compelling case.

Disposable firearms are not new, and are actually a very old idea. It's where the derringer found its market niche, and yes-- it was NOTORIOUSLY unsafe.

You'd still be able to get ammo (and not "incorrect" ammo) - it would just be made of a different, not horribly toxic material.  Copper bullets already exist.  Therefore you would not need to use improvised ammo and the stuff about plastic guns and derringers and whatever is still wildly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Reelya]

There is a pretty big environmental movement to ban lead bullets.  Of course as wierd demonstrated it gets tangled into the second amendment issue and suddenly gun owners/hunters are fighting for the right to poison themselves and their families.

How exactly?

People who handle ammunition have measurably higher blood lead levels. About 33% of packaged venison has measurabled amounts of lead from bullets, even after professionals have tried to remove all of it. So if you hunt and eat your own kills then you are almost certainly ingesting a lot of lead.

Seriously is firing bullets into underground reservoir a hobby or something?

Are you talking about groundwater lead contamination? Rain causes surface bullet fragments to wash into the reservoirs. Rain is a thing. It's how things on the surface get into the reservoirs.

Really, the copper instead of lead should add only a small cost per bullet, definitely much less than $1 a bullet. If you can't afford that extra dollar then I question your need to be shooting things. Any other markup is market exploitation of the changeover. Once that's over with and production scales up prices will fall again.

[wierd]

Seriously is firing bullets into underground reservoir a hobby or something?

No but firing them at animals is

I take your point, but you didn't fully consider the implications of using incorrect (but cheap) materials in a proper gun.  Barrel erosion, damage to the receiver, and gun explosions are all highly probable occurrences for using incorrect ammunition inside a modern, well-designed firearm.

This is exactly why using one that is cheap to produce en-mass is attractive;  When there is no tangible benefit to the "safer" gun (Because it is not actually safer, because you cannot get the ammunition and must use improvised ammo), and the expensive gun will be damaged by use, then a gun that you can simply throw away or melt down and recycle (print again) makes a compelling case.

Disposable firearms are not new, and are actually a very old idea. It's where the derringer found its market niche, and yes-- it was NOTORIOUSLY unsafe.

You'd still be able to get ammo (and not "incorrect" ammo) - it would just be made of a different, not horribly toxic material.  Copper bullets already exist.  Therefore you would not need to use improvised ammo and the stuff about plastic guns and derringers and whatever is still wildly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

For most firearms, copper is not a proper material, as I pointed out earlier. Copper clad birdshot destroys antique firearms.

Additionally, bismuth is prohibitively expensive. It costs over 2.75$ per pound. A typical bag of reloading shot weighs 20lbs or so (and is not much bigger than a large ball.) In addition, it is also VERY HARD TO OBTAIN.

(I know, because I wanted to acquire some bismuth shot to melt down to make white metal for casting miniatures. I could not find any distributors.)


For an idea of just HOW expensive bismuth is, here is the website of a wholeseller.
http://www.metalshipper.com/bismuth.html

20.00$ per POUND.


There are other contributing factors related to pure bismuth's lower sectional density compared to lead; Pure bismuth of the same volume has 86% the mass of lead. 

Due to the astounding price of bismuth, most bismuth shot for use in bird rounds is tungsten/bismuth alloy. Tungsten is a much less dense metal, and the alloy is harder than either lead or pure bismuth, which then goes right back to weapon deterioration from use.  The lower sectional density means that in order to get the same down-range dispersion, a greater amount of propellent and muzzle velocity is required. This can VERY EASILY push a gun outside of its safe operating zone of intended function, and make guns explode.

[Leafsnail]

"Therefore we should be allowed to poison the environment with lead"?

[Neonivek]

"Therefore we should be allowed to poison the environment with lead"?

Or we could just prohibit people to fire into the environment and to properly dispose of bullets from the animals they shoot.

How often do hunters miss?