The real cost of going lead-free

For hunters, ammunition is a practical matter. It needs to perform, it needs to be available, and it needs to be affordable. 

Yet as those with an anti-hunter agenda increasingly discuss moving hunters away from traditional lead ammunition and toward alternatives such as copper, those last two considerations are too often overlooked.  

That’s one reason The 1791 Foundation helped fund research examining the real-world cost and availability of lead and copper centerfire rifle ammunition. The findings are significant. 

Researchers surveyed major online ammunition retailers, national sporting-goods stores, and local retailers across eight states. They found that copper ammunition was not only more expensive than traditional lead ammunition but substantially less available. 

Online, copper ammunition accounted for an average of just 9.4 percent of the products available for sale, and copper options were available for only about 60 percent of the popular rifle calibers examined. Hunters who could find copper also generally had fewer choices in bullet weight. 

Then there’s cost. Across online retailers, copper ammunition averaged 15 percent more expensive than lead where direct comparisons were possible. In chain stores, the average premium was 13 percent – and 23 percent outside California, where copper ammunition is mandated for hunting. 

Those numbers matter because hunting doesn’t begin and end with a single box of ammunition. 

Hunters need to sight in rifles and practice. New hunters need range time. Parents buy ammunition for their children, and mentors often help shoulder the cost of introducing someone new to the field. 

Every additional cost – and every additional obstacle to finding ammunition – creates another barrier to participation. 

And that has implications beyond individual hunters. The researchers point to the potential effects on hunter recruitment and mentoring, as well as the conservation funding generated through federal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition under the Pittman-Robertson system. 

This is precisely why The 1791 Foundation supports research like this.

Our mission is about preserving America’s traditions of hunting, shooting, conservation, and responsible firearm ownership for future generations. That requires more than celebrating those traditions. It means understanding and addressing the real-world barriers that can make it harder for people to participate in them. 

Hunters should have choices, and innovation in ammunition is welcome. But policies affecting what hunters can use should also account for whether practical alternatives are actually available and affordable. 

Before mandating  millions of American hunters to change what they put in their rifles, there is a simple question worth answering: 

Can they actually find and afford what they’re being asked to use? 

This research suggests we need to pay much closer attention to the answer. 

Additional information on this research can be found by clicking here.