# Gun question



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

I've been fortunate enough to acquire a couple new firearms for Christmas, and don't have a great place to shoot them. I'd like to sail out into the gulf past the 12 mile limit and shoot beer bottles off a float. What sort of pesky rules and regulations might I run afoul of while doing so?


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

beej67 said:


> I've been fortunate enough to acquire a couple new firearms for Christmas...


Nothing says "Christmas Spirit" quite like a warm gun....


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

I suppose we might as well add lead to the mercury and other poisons we dump into the oceans. I guess there are worse things to shoot


----------



## PaulinVictoria (Aug 23, 2009)

The only thing it is acceptable to shoot at sea are PWC, you are doing everyone a favour then.


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

Doubt I see many jet skis past the 12 mile limit.

I know you were being sarcastic, Geoff, but if anyone happens to know whether there are regulatory criteria about lead shot (buck shot) vs steel shot (bird shot) when shooting at sea, I'd love to hear them.

Are there any regulatory criteria at all?

I just don't want to get harassed by the Coasties because I don't know the rules.


----------



## Siamese (May 9, 2007)

Darned if I know.

I've been known to empty a clip or two of 9mm when I'm a few miles out on Lake Michigan. Can't say that it's great shooting, though. My primary concern is the lack of a proper backstop in case I was to have a skip, so I limit it to targets very close to the boat. 

I just save it for the range.


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

The county sherrif is our harbor patrol and when I asked them a few years ago they didn't care if you were beyond the 3 mile line.


----------



## Siamese (May 9, 2007)

Just don't hit any Somali pirates...protected species.


----------



## zz4gta (Aug 15, 2007)

Just shoot at the range. Much less of an impact on the environment, and safer. Plus you get more feedback about how you are shooting. Will make you a better shooter.


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 23, 2007)

No need for 12 miles. Used to shoot in coastal marshes all the time at ducks and geese. I agree with the above though, a range is a better place to try out a new gun and plink. I have no problems philosophically with shooting at sea, but what better way to invite a visit by the USCG?


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

I don't know where Panama City is but if you're close to Miami just go downtown and start blasting, doubt anyone would even raise an eyebrow )
Not sure what your local regulations are but I don't think you would need to go out 12 miles, and steel shot if you're shooting into water.


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

Cruise ships routinely have skeet contests off of the back in those same waters. I doubt you will do much more to the enviroment than a bunch of drunk tourists.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Don't let the liberals get you down. Your ownership helps them in the long run, even if they don't understand enough history to realize it yet.

The most prestigeous yacht club in our area shoots clay pigeons off the dock all winter long. I've been invited but I'm always busy doing boat stuff or actually sailing. Nice people, have met a bunch of them and may one day join the yacht club. There's a few more clubs that I know about that do the same thing. It's seems an active part of yacht club life up here.

We shoot clay pigeons off the beach in out near the end of Long Island. Police said it was ok, we called and asked before doing it the first time. Their attitude was "Of course it's ok, now stop calling to ask things like that." We got the launcher and everything, so it's quite an enjoyable way to get out of the house in winter. There are a lot of limosine liberals out in the Hamptons. When shooting off the beach and your run of the mill liberal walks by I always offer to let them have a try. Yes it's fun for them and they go away hopefully more educated and familiar with those things that the liberal press told them was bad their whole lives.

When out shark fishing once, 20 miles offshore, our captain talked about NYC cops onboard that were trying to shoot jumping fish with their handguns. I'm not a big fan of bullets over water because bullets can skip. But if you can't see any boats for 6 miles you've got to be ok. Even the most robust rifle won't skip a bullet that far, AFAIK.

Lead shot is ok in salt water. Steel shot is for inland wetlands where the lead would make a big negative impact. (Actually I'm not a fan of lead shot anywhere inland except ranges, since it's getting spread around on the top layer where everything lives.)

As for glass? It's made from sand, right? Enough said, except make sure you remember who gave you the advice that glass is not OK to put on the bottom of the ocean 12 miles out. (Plastic is a whole different story; you need to bring home every bit that you left with. I sometimes scoop up floating plastic bags with a dock pole and dispose of it on shore.)

Regards,
Brad


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

I live in the South. Liberals don't get me down. Much like Conservatives, they're actually sorta funny.

I have no compunction about ditching glass out where it's legal to dump, because as you say, glass is sand. Hell, it's habitat. Just got to make sure that it doesn't float back to shore and become garbage again. I also don't mind shooting bird shot for this deal, I just want to break my guns in without having to pay a fee - plus, not a lot of ranges allow shotguns in Atlanta. 

Just looking for a way to shoot a bit before making the trek to the farm in Virginia later in the year. Life in suburbia leaves something to be desired in the area of firearm discharge.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

The simple solution to solve the environmental concerns is to line up the bottles on your rail, then you take your dink out the appropriate number of yards and shoot the bottles.
Most of the glass will stay on your deck where it will be easy to scrape off.


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

...into the water.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

beej67 said:


> as you say, glass is sand.


Uummm, glass WAS sand - once it's glass, it's glass and stays that way for a LONG time. Broken glass is garbage, whether it drifts ashore or not.

Saying glass is sand is like saying a nuke reactor core is pitchblende - there's a sort of of elemental connection but that's about all.

Do like JRD recommends - find a "nice" neighbourhood in Miami for your shooting and keep the ocean clean.


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

> Saying glass is sand is like saying a nuke reactor core is pitchblende


Lets not get crazy here. If I put a beer bottle in a sock and hit it with a hammer over and over I get sand. Do that with a spent fuel rod and you get radiation poisoning.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Blast away. Nobody cares. I'd try to avoid doing it in NY Harbor. Seriously, every big game fisherman is well equipped with firearms to gain the attention of sharks when they come in next to the boat and no one has ever questioned them that I know of. The draggers and lobstermen in LI Sound occasionally take shots AT EACH OTHER and no one seems to have a problem with it.


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

If it was established what kind of guns we're actually talking about I missed it. There have been mentions of shotguns - which I would consider fairly safe assuming you check the area for nearby boats. There was also a mention of pistols which I would consider fairly unsafe as a bullet striking water at a low angle can skip like it hit concrete and travel quite a distance. Rifles were not mentioned, but if that's the kind of gun you're talking about, it would be much much safer to shoot at a range with a proper backstop as a rifle caliber bullet skipping off water can travel a very long distance.


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

I've got a Ruger 10/22 I want to pop a few rounds off with, but other than that just shotguns. So no 'real' rifles.


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 23, 2007)

beej67 said:


> Lets not get crazy here. If I put a beer bottle in a sock and hit it with a hammer over and over I get sand. Do that with a spent fuel rod and you get radiation poisoning.


I don't know about radioactive decay, but I HAVE walked on a lot of sand, and a few broken glass bottles, and I can tell you there's very little similarity between the two!


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

dnf777 said:


> I don't know about radioactive decay, but I HAVE walked on a lot of sand, and a few broken glass bottles, and I can tell you there's very little similarity between the two!


How often have you walked on the ocean bottom past the 12 mile limit?


----------



## FSMike (Jan 15, 2010)

beej67 -
Please do at least some of us a favor. Next time you want to ask a question like your original post, don't ask, just do it. That would save us from all the politically correct posts.
Thanks


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 23, 2007)

beej67 said:


> How often have you walked on the ocean bottom past the 12 mile limit?


Probably the same time you last played with spent fuel rods?

Anyway, if you want a place to break in your guns, and you're near western Pa, stop by and well set out some silouhettes or empty cans in my fields. Neighbors don't care here, in fact, they'll probably show up to help.


----------



## mxracer19 (Apr 23, 2009)

Agreed, FSMike.


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

I get so fed up with all this liberal vs conservative bull****. 

Wanting to keep health hazards out of the environment has nothing to do political leanings - we all have to breath the same air, swim in the same water, eat food from the same sources, walk on the same beaches. It doesn't matter whether the pollutants get there from shooting bottles or throwing garbage overboard or industrial sources or... As sailors and users of the ocean we should be try to preserve it. And for those who think otherwise, let me come and take a sh*t on your doorstep and then ask you how you like someone polluting your environment. 

Unfortunately human nature is to do what the hell we want, ignore the consequences and then come up with arguments to justify it. I doubt anything here is going to make any difference. 

As far as the legality is concerned. It probably contravenes some treaty or international law or local law somewhere. I have no idea how it would be viewed but I can't imagine that the CG/ law enforcement wouldn't a least check you out if they become aware. I'd jump on ch16 if I heard gunshots from the vicinity of another boat. 

As far as target practice is concerned, I think you should look for a safe, controlled location. Sail on the ocean - shoot at the range. I know that's not what you want to hear. Oh well!!


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

Geoff54 said:


> ......... I'd jump on ch16 if I heard gunshots from the vicinity of another boat.
> ..............


Why?


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

weinie said:


> Why?


Oh, i don't know. Maybe the same reason I'd call the cops if I heard gunshots from someones house. Not a normal place to hear shooting. Potentially someone shooting at someone.

If anyone hears shooting near my boat, do me a favor, call it in. Thanks!!


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

Not uncommon at all to hear shooting at certain times of the year where we sail, but its hunters with shotguns, which as I said earlier poses little danger to other boaters, since they are generally shooting upward and shot doesn't carry far or return to earth with a lot of energy.

Rifle calibers fired horizontally over the water up the ante considerably.


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

midlifesailor said:


> Not uncommon at all to hear shooting at certain times of the year where we sail, but its hunters with shotguns, which as I said earlier poses little danger to other boaters, since they are generally shooting upward and shot doesn't carry far or return to earth with a lot of energy.
> 
> Rifle calibers fired horizontally over the water up the ante considerably.


Very true - I guess it depends on where and when you sail. I doubt you get a lot of hunters 12 miles out - at least not in the conventional sense.


----------



## UPHILL (Dec 22, 2010)

BeeJ,

10/22's are fun little toys, mile to a mile and a half range, cheap to shoot.

They are very "modular" with tons of add ons.

Here is mine, looks bad ass but still a big bb gun.



















On the lake I sail on, it would be unprudent to fire mine, but 12 miles out ( in ocean) go for it.


----------



## ftldiver (Sep 9, 2002)

as someone already said, cruise ships shoot skeet...

just watch your cartridges. those 22's are pretty small... bad if they clog up your drains.


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

You'll be fine way out there...

Just watch this safety video first:

Gun Safety Video


----------



## delite (Nov 2, 2009)

Shotguns wont be a problem. Steel shot is least harmful to the environment. Shooting a rifle or handgun would of course not be that great of an idea due to the long distances the bullet can travel and they can skip on the water. You need a proper backstop for hand guns and rifles.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Geoff54 said:


> I'd jump on ch16 if I heard gunshots from the vicinity of another boat.












Good call - check the top right corner


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

beej67 said:


> Lets not get crazy here. If I put a beer bottle in a sock and hit it with a hammer over and over I get sand. Do that with a spent fuel rod and you get radiation poisoning.


Actually, you DON'T get sand, you get crushed glass.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Call me a pinko pu$$y, but shooting guns and sailboats seem like an odd combination. I kind of think of blasting away at any old thing at sea as more of a powerboat kind of activity. Shotgun or handgun blasts sort of mar the peace of a day spent sailing. They fit right in with the unmuffled rumble of a couple of blown big blocks though.


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

SloopJonB said:


> Actually, you DON'T get sand, you get crushed glass.


Depends on how long you smash it.



> I kind of think of blasting away at any old thing at sea as more of a powerboat kind of activity.


I think of shooting beer bottles off fence posts as a farming activity. I think of farming as an environmental sustainability exercise. I think of sailboats as environmentally sustainable.

I also think if someone here had a farm outside Atlanta on which they'd let me shoot bottles off fence posts I'd bring bring a case of beer and some ammo.

:gunner


----------



## GMFL (Jun 9, 2010)

Geoff54 said:


> I get so fed up with all this liberal vs conservative bull****.
> 
> Wanting to keep health hazards out of the environment has nothing to do political leanings - we all have to breath the same air, swim in the same water, eat food from the same sources, walk on the same beaches. It doesn't matter whether the pollutants get there from shooting bottles or throwing garbage overboard or industrial sources or... As sailors and users of the ocean we should be try to preserve it. And for those who think otherwise, let me come and take a sh*t on your doorstep and then ask you how you like someone polluting your environment.


Funny. I won't go into "political leanings" but think a bit. A sunk sailboat in the ocean has what, 5,000 lbs of lead in it plus fuel, oil, plastic. etc. etc? While of course it's not planned to sink a sailboat in the middle of the ocean, it happens. As a sailor and a user of the ocean, maybe you should think about that and "properly" dispose of your boat before it happens to sink.

Then, and only then, feel free to come by and **** on my doorstep.

As a side note, what is the ecological effect of adding a few ounces of lead in the ocean? I don't know (as I suspect you don't either) but I'm guessing..... NOTHING!

Lame argument...


----------



## neverknow (Feb 2, 2011)

GMFL said:


> A sunk sailboat in the ocean has what, 5,000 lbs of lead in it plus fuel, oil, plastic. etc. etc? While of course it's not planned to sink a sailboat in the middle of the ocean, it happens. As a sailor and a user of the ocean, maybe you should think about that and "properly" dispose of your boat before it happens to sink.
> 
> As a side note, what is the ecological effect of adding a few ounces of lead in the ocean? I don't know (as I suspect you don't either) but I'm guessing..... NOTHING! Lame argument...


_Damn someone beat me to it again. You are right a few ozs of lead in the ocean will not hurt a thing. This sort like the argument that carbon (man made) is causing the earth to either burn or freeze depending on which idiot you listen to. Than a single volcano explodes with the equivalency of 100's of yrs carbon in just a few minutes. Us humans are a natural part of the world we live in, it's just some choose to not acknowledge that fact._

On to the OP question. If it were me I'd worry more about the trip out and back in. It seems most of the time we always get stopped by either the Sheriff or the coast guard and they want to search us. Most of the time they are just bored with nothing to do so they stop us. I wonder what types of questions they'd have for me if the found a half dozen guns on board?

30 yrs ago we used to walk down the country roads carry our guns on our backs and no one ever cared. Today they'd probably call SWAT on me...lol


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

beej67 said:


> I've been fortunate enough to acquire a couple new firearms for Christmas, and don't have a great place to shoot them. I'd like to sail out into the gulf past the 12 mile limit and shoot beer bottles off a float. What sort of pesky rules and regulations might I run afoul of while doing so?


WHY has everyone missed the most important question to ask the OP here?

What kind of guns did you get for christmas?

MedSailor


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

neverknow said:


> ...If it were me I'd worry more about the trip out and back in. It seems most of the time we always get stopped by either the Sheriff or the coast guard and they want to search us. Most of the time they are just bored with nothing to do so they stop us. *I wonder what types of questions they'd have for me if the found a half dozen guns on board?*


From personal experience I can tell you exactly how it went.  Here is an excerpt from about 5 minutes into a perfectly normal coast guard boarding.

CG: "Is this vessel registered in your name.?

Me: "Of course. Would you like to see the paperwork?"

CG: "No that's okay, we'll look at all that in a minute. Do you have anything 
that could be used as a weapon aboard?"

Me: "Yes, I have a .45 caliber handgun on my right hip."

CORUS of CG enlistedmen: "PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR! NOW! NOW! HANDS! HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM! TURN AROUND! TURN AROUND NOW!..."

I tell you these guys watch too much TV. It was a little scary how scared of me they suddenly got. A bunch of 20somethings all yelling at me and pointing guns at me. Sheesh.... if I was going to have gone all "somali pirate" on them, I wouldn't have been pleasantly cooperating with them and told them where my concealed weapon was. That was lost on them however. They finally let me go after they realized that I was doing NOTHING wrong and that all papers were in order. 

This was quite a few years ago. Hopefully now that 9/11 is a little further in the past they're a little less edgy out there....

MedSailor


----------



## neverknow (Feb 2, 2011)

MedSailor said:


> CG: "No that's okay, we'll look at all that in a minute. Do you have anything
> that could be used as a weapon aboard?"
> 
> Me: "Yes, I have a .45 caliber handgun on my right hip."
> ...


*Sounds like a episode of COPS. LOL *:laugher


----------



## neverknow (Feb 2, 2011)

Sidney, I'm guessing you had to have a carry permit??? Or if you live on your boat is that required for hand guns? What a mess everyone should be able to have a gun anywhere they want....lol


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

GMFL said:


> Funny. I won't go into "political leanings" but think a bit. A sunk sailboat in the ocean has what, 5,000 lbs of lead in it plus fuel, oil, plastic. etc. etc? While of course it's not planned to sink a sailboat in the middle of the ocean, it happens. As a sailor and a user of the ocean, maybe you should think about that and "properly" dispose of your boat before it happens to sink.
> 
> Then, and only then, feel free to come by and **** on my doorstep.
> 
> ...


Beej76 -I may not agree with what you want to do but you have been reasonable and not tried to justify it by comparison with sinking boats. Sorry if I divert your thread but I can't ignore this.

GMFL - Oh dear, you have picked the wrong person.

Lame Argument?

First, let me say that I have no position or interest in the argument about the right to bear arms or gun control, etc., etc. I really, really don't care. What I do have an interest in is the amount of neurotoxin that is released into the environment, that I and everyone else is forced to live with. And within that topic, today's subject is pollution caused by unregulated, poorly controlled and reckless use of the guns that people do own.

We'll get to the "few ounces" of lead our OP wants to discharge, in a minute. But, as with all widely dispersed pollution sources, it's not the small amount that one person pollutes, it's the cumulative effect of everyone's pollution.

The U.S. produces about five billion rounds of small arms ammunition each year. That is between 50 and 100 million pounds of lead. Some is exported, some is hoarded but the vast majority of it ends up in the environment. And that doesn't even include the worst polluter per round, the good old 12-gauge cartridge.

But lets not stop there; Let's say that those estimates are wildly exaggerated. What do you want to say? How about a ninety percent exaggeration and just to be sure, lets base that 90% exaggeration on the lower figure. That's still 5 million pounds of lead. Do you really think that the loss of a handful of sailboats each year introduces more pollution? Your argument is a classic case of do what the hell you want and then try twist things to justify it. Or maybe you just wanted to attack me because I don't agree with your preconceived ideas.

Do I know the effect of a few ounces of lead? Actually I do. Let's take a couple of examples. ONE 2.2 caliber cartridge contains 2.6 grams of lead. That is enough lead to raise the lead level of 50,000 gallon of water above 15 parts per billion. That's the EPA limit for drinking water that many scientists believe should be lowered anyway. How about ONE 12 gauge cartridge - that could do the same thing to the drinking water for the entire city of Houston. Yeah! Lead is bad stuff.

How about the U.S. national bird, the bald eagle. It's in very serious trouble. Want to know why? Primarily, lead poisoning. In one study, more than half the bald eagles tested had potentially fatal levels of lead poisoning. Also, over half the injured bald eagles taken to Iowa rehabilitation centers had lead shrapnel in their digestive tracts. Where do you suppose that came from? Oh yeah, must be my keel.

Want more?
Even by the most conservative estimates, the 1800 or so outdoor firing ranges in the U.S. introduce more lead into the environment than almost any other industry (metals mining might be the worst). Any business that releases more than 100 pounds of lead a year is required to report that - except firing ranges which are exempt. Firing ranges can be sited next to sensitive areas where the lead leaches into ground water, rivers, etc. and there is no regulation or control. Firing ranges can be sited next to schools where lead dust drifts across the schoolyard and there is no regulation or control. And that's just the legal, responsible shooters. What about those that shoot bottles off of posts? And the small but significant number of duck hunters that still use lead shot because it works better. And who hasn't driven past a rural road sign full of holes?

Another fact? There is no safe level of lead for children. I'd like you to see the neurological damage that lead can do to a child. You know what - let's not even go there or I'll get really pissed off.

So I have a Lame Argument?? Maybe you should take your Large Member (talk about lame) and legal right to discharge lead over to a gun forum and stop polluting the waters. If you want to engage in a discussion about pollution, lets take it to Of Topic but unless you have a reasoned argument, stop wasting my time.

Anyone who wants to shoot and reduce the effect on the environment, you can look into copper bullets and steel shot. Not perfect but better than lead. Of course they are more expensive so nobody uses them unless required to -such is life.

And just for the record, abandoned boats do present a significant pollution hazard in some areas. That's abandoned boats, not the few accidental sinkings. And there are areas of boats ownership that we should be concerned about. But don't try to tell me I pollute more by going sailing than someone who discharges lead into the environment.

For those of you that think I'm wrong - keep licking the bullets.

In case it's of interest, here are some examples of lead content:
12 gauge shotgun shell - 28 grams, 22 caliber rifle - 2.6 grams, 9 mm - 7.5 grams, 45 caliber - 12.0 grams, 30-30 Winchester - 8.1 grams, 308 Winchester - 9.7 grams.


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

Geoff54 said:


> Beej76 -I may not agree with what you want to do but you have been reasonable and not tried to justify it by comparison with sinking boats. Sorry if I divert your thread but I can't ignore this.
> 
> GMFL - Oh dear, you have picked the wrong person.
> 
> ...


So thousands of pounds of lead from a sunk boat is not a problem, but a few grams from a bullet or shotgun shell wreak havoc -- got it.


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

midlifesailor said:


> So thousands of pounds of lead from a sunk boat is not a problem, but a few grams from a bullet or shotgun shell wreak havoc -- got it.


You are either reading selectively or your comprehension is lacking - been licking the bullets?


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Using lead shot so birds don't eat lead pellets is a good idea. There ARE good ideas from environmental scientists. The problem lies in how the good ideas expand into stupid ideas, far removed from the simple solutions that work. If environmentalists have one fault it is that they project the ideas too far and try to apply them to everything and everybody with intrusive Big Brother watching over it. Common sense gets thrown out the window and religious fervor takes its place as populist nonsense prevails.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The argument over introducing lead into seawater is ignoring the fact that seawater already has lead in it. Doh!

1000 sailors could fire lead shot 12 miles from shore for the next 100 years and you would never detect the difference. 

This is a question of safety. Rifles and pistols should have a proper backstop when practicing or your range should be positively cleared to the effective distance of the weapon. The later is not possible from a sailboat, as others could approach through sun glare or while you are distracted. Shotguns only have an effective range of 70 to 100 yards and full range of 150 to 200 yards. That is more easily managed.


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

Wait... what about the tons of chemicals used in the production of your boat, Geoff. The resins, epoxys, fiberglass, varnishes, glues, paints, etc? Do you know your bottom paint is so toxic, most states won't even let you scrape it off your self? What about your diesel or gasoline exhaust? Even the polyester lines on your boat are made from guess what... oil, which is transported over here in big tankers which pollute the seas in their own right and hopefully don't spill their cargo. And you are giving people crap about a few grams of metal which will evenutally break down or oxidize harmlessly by being in the water?


----------



## LooseDiamond (Dec 7, 2010)

Great question. I was wondering this same thing, and planned to ask DMR this summer. As for the bald eagles:

Bald Eagle Breeding Pairs 1963 to 2000

487 breeding pairs in 1963, 9789 in 2006. Given this is 6 years later and considering the trend...

Also, as to sailboats and shooting: Since I am on about book seven of the Aubrey-Maturin series, shooting guns from sailboats seems perfectly right! (What i wouldn't give to be on deck when a broadsides was fired!) Ha.


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

Geoff54 said:


> Beej76 -I may not agree with what you want to do but you have been reasonable and not tried to justify it by comparison with sinking boats.


Hate to further the derailment, but I imagine it will turn quite entertaining, so here we go.



Geoff54 said:


> Do I know the effect of a few ounces of lead? Actually I do. Let's take a couple of examples. ONE 2.2 caliber cartridge contains 2.6 grams of lead. That is enough lead to raise the lead level of 50,000 gallon of water above 15 parts per billion. That's the EPA limit for drinking water that many scientists believe should be lowered anyway. How about ONE 12 gauge cartridge - that could do the same thing to the drinking water for the entire city of Houston. Yeah! Lead is bad stuff.


Then I promise not to grind my .22 cartridge (note the decimal point please) into a fine powder and dissolve it in nitric acid, then sneak it into the city of Houston water supply downstream of the treatment plant. I was considering it, you know, just for kicks, but since you've warned me against it I guess I'll just mow the lawn instead.

Sarcasm aside, please do note that the EPA limit is not the lethal limit. The EPA limit is set by policy to be the concentration you're allowed to ingest daily for your entire life and have no ill effects. Presuming your math is right (I haven't checked) what you're saying is I can dissolve one lead 12 twelve gauge shell into Houston's water supply per day and nobody would die, but two would crack the EPA limit and someone might die in 30 years of exposure.

I think the sinking boat analogy is quite an apt one. I have 3000 lb of lead ballast on my boat. In order to achieve the same environmental damage (by mass) of my boat sinking, I would have to shoot five hundred twenty three thousand, three hundred seventy five (point eight) rounds of .22 long rifle shot, into the ocean. I would have to start today, and shoot 32 rounds off per day into the ocean, every day, until my 80th birthday.

I'm a civil engineer that works in water resource management and environmental fluid mechanics. Stream quality is not an insignificant part of my job. And I support the laws that prevent folks from using lead shot against waterfowl. The reason I support that, is when you have a lot of hunters, all hunting in the same place, the concentration of that lead shot goes up. Then it's not one dude shooting into an ocean, its a hundred dudes shooting into a particularly wide bend of the river. That can cause a problem.

There's a joke in graduate level environmental engineering, _"The solution to pollution is dilution."_ Seems bunk but it's basically true. Most of environmental engineering is predicated around figuring out how diluted things must be before you can reintroduce them to the environment without damaging it. All the stream water quality standards are based around concentration, not mass. Or more to the point, the mass is always cut by a flow rate to reduce it to a concentration number, to see whether your stream is 'clean' or not. The concentration of lead in one spot where the duck blind is might end up high over many years if you had lead shot. The concentration of lead on the ocean floor will never get high from shooting lead shot out over the water, 12 miles out.

There are many horrible things that the human race does to our environment. If you feel like being indignant, I'll happily give you a list of 100 ones worse than shooting a gun in 200 feet of water off the Florida coast. You can then spend your energies being indignant about those, and perhaps sleep better at night knowing at least you're focusing on the right stuff.

You told another dude in the thread this: _"Oh dear, you have picked the wrong person."_ I'm afraid, Geoff, that you've stumbled into a thread started by a water resources professional, who's a licensed PE, with a bachelors and a masters degree in civil and environmental engineering from a top 5 national engineering university, who also happens to be the president of his own engineering consulting company.

That'd be me. Hi. Lets do some math.
*cracks knuckles*


----------



## Squidd (Sep 26, 2011)

New State Fair Treat...

Lead on a Stick...


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

MedSailor said:


> WHY has everyone missed the most important question to ask the OP here?
> 
> What kind of guns did you get for christmas?
> 
> MedSailor


FIL bought us a Ruger 10/22, figuring the wife could handle it. I bought a Yildiz O/U 20 gauge. I've also got a Remington 870 that's a few years old I'd like to work a little bit. My brother has a Yugoslavian Mauser in great condition that I gave him for Christmas two years ago, I might borrow that as well. Apparently we'll be shooting that one _south_, if this whole bullet skipping thing is a concern. Obviously on a clear day, where we can see if there's anyone within ten miles of us, and seas are 2 feet or less. (common in the gulf in the summer)


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

beej67 said:


> FIL bought us a Ruger 10/22, figuring the wife could handle it. I bought a Yildiz O/U 20 gauge. I've also got a Remington 870 that's a few years old I'd like to work a little bit. My brother has a Yugoslavian Mauser in great condition that I gave him for Christmas two years ago, I might borrow that as well. Apparently we'll be shooting that one _south_, if this whole bullet skipping thing is a concern. Obviously on a clear day, where we can see if there's anyone within ten miles of us, and seas are 2 feet or less. (common in the gulf in the summer)


Fun new toys. Don't forget to clean everthing well, just being around the salt water will cause some of the metal parts on the guns to rust. Ask me how I know.

Another idea for being sure nobody is in bullet skip range is to do some sweeps of the horizon with radar. Couldn't hurt.

MedSailor


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

Radar! Hah. If I could afford radar I could afford to go to the gun range.


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

Geoff54 said:


> Do I know the effect of a few ounces of lead? Actually I do. Let's take a couple of examples. ONE 2.2 caliber cartridge contains 2.6 grams of lead. That is enough lead to raise the lead level of 50,000 gallon of water above 15 parts per billion. That's the EPA limit for drinking water that many scientists believe should be lowered anyway. How about ONE 12 gauge cartridge - that could do the same thing to the drinking water for the entire city of Houston. Yeah! Lead is bad stuff.


You throw out some psuedo-science like this and accuse me of being selective?

Please explain to us morally inferior and intellectually challenged lead lickers HTF that 2.6 grams of lead from a 22 caliber bullet happens to completely dissolve in that 50,000 gallons of water when hundreds of thousands of lead keels in freshwater lakes all over the country do not.

Then explain how in your previous posts lamenting various forms of harm to the environment, you selectively(?) failed to mention the copper based paints we sailors (likely you included) slather over our boats and grind into dust to be deposited Lord knows where.

Actually, don't explain, I've had enough with the moral superiority.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Yikes, six pages of heated responses over someone wanting to do some plinking off their boat 12 miles offshore! Sign of the times I guess. I'll have to re-assess my opinion of the power of the media to sway public opinion, thirty years ago I'm guessing most of the responses to the OP would be confusion over why he was even asking.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

I dont see much issue with the lead BUT The Garbage Plan is gonna fail and it is for real


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

beej67 said:


> I've been fortunate enough to acquire a couple new firearms for Christmas, and don't have a great place to shoot them. I'd like to sail out into the gulf past the 12 mile limit and shoot beer bottles off a float. What sort of pesky rules and regulations might I run afoul of while doing so?


According to ColRegs (rule 36) guns shots may be interpreted as a distress signal.



> Under federal law, knowingly and willfully making a false distress call is a felony. Even if a child makes the distress call, the parents are ultimately responsible. The maximum penalty for making hoax distress calls is five to 10 years in prison, a $5,000 civil fine, a $250,000 criminal fine and reimbursement to the Coast Guard for the costs incurred responding to the false call.


Pesky enough?


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

jackdale said:


> According to ColRegs (rule 36) guns shots may be interpreted as a distress signal.
> 
> Pesky enough?


That is a real concern, from a mariner standpoint, and one I would like to discuss further.

Do you think it'd be in my best interests to contact the coasties on 22 and let them know we'll be shooting beer bottles off a float? How would they typically react, do you figure? Think it's more trouble than it's worth?

I would feel fine doing that sort of thing with my local police without worry of being harassed or harangued. How are the CG about it?


----------



## PorFin (Sep 10, 2007)

Beej,

As long as you follow basic firearms safety standards, you should be fine. A .22 round may skip once or twice, but the tumble and energy transfer is going to take most of the steam out of the projectile pretty quickly.

One thing to keep in mind -- those shotgun shells have plastic wads in them (the cups that carry the lead/steel shot through the barrel). They will wind up a couple of yards downrange when you shoot. Consider how you are going to recover them, since dumping plastics anywhere is a no-go. Chances are slim that you'd ever be caught or cited, but plastics really are fouling the waters.

Be safe and have fun.


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

Good point on the wads. I hadn't thought about that at all, and I'm a big opponent of any plastics in water as well. I'll figure something out for that.


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 23, 2007)

beej67 said:


> Good point on the wads. I hadn't thought about that at all, and I'm a big opponent of any plastics in water as well. I'll figure something out for that.


Load your own with paper wads. Some (Peters, I think) have paper wads from the factory.

Also, If you're shooting an 870, the gun will likely eject the plastic hulls overboard, and they're plastic also.

And to settle the heated political aspects of this thread, let me offer the Mitt Romney response:

_I like boats. Big boats, little boats. I like guns. Plastic, I like plastic....and lead. I like boats, plastic, guns, and lead. My wife has a couple boats._


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Plastic wads are a great point. 

I will also offer that for range safety, auto loaders and pumps are harder to manage, as you can't tell as easily as a breach loader or bolt action, whether they are loaded and ready to fire. Be careful. 

For the environ argument, the principal reason that steel shot is used around waterfowl, is they were eating it, not the dissolved impact on the water supply. There is some quantity of lead in just about every drinking water supply, along with all sorts of other nasties.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

After all that has been said -- I hunted ducks from small boats for many years. Boats are not always stable and decks can be slippery. A 22 probably wouldn't panetrate the hull but it will penetrate your leg or head. If you do this be super careful even if it is calm.

Paul T


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Geoff54 said:


> For those of you that think I'm wrong - keep licking the bullets.


I don't think it'll make much difference.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

Coast Guard broadcasts live fire exercises in our neighborhood now and then (Strait of Juan De Fuca) Probably full metal jacket though.


----------



## FSMike (Jan 15, 2010)

jackdale said:


> According to ColRegs (rule 36) guns shots may be interpreted as a distress signal.
> 
> Pesky enough?


Target practice at sea can hardly be construed as "knowingly and willfully making a false distress call".


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

FSMike said:


> Target practice at sea can hardly be construed as "knowingly and willfully making a false distress call".


And another vessel could tell the difference because ...


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

I think the offense is based on the actor's intent, not the belief of nearby mariners.


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

I don't think they'd fine anyone for it, but it might create a nuisance for them if I didn't let them know I was doing it first. Which brings this back up:



beej67 said:


> Do you think it'd be in my best interests to contact the coasties on 22 and let them know we'll be shooting beer bottles off a float? How would they typically react, do you figure? Think it's more trouble than it's worth?
> 
> I would feel fine doing that sort of thing with my local police without worry of being harassed or harangued. How are the CG about it?


Say I hail them as a courtesy and let them know I'm shooting guns off in the briny deep, and to not be worried about distress calls / etc. Would the CG in your (anyone's) area appreciate being notified? Would they use it as an excuse to board you and cause a bunch of trouble?


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

Lets all get together and have a ONE DESIGN shooting match!

We can have the following classes enter:
AR-15 5.56
22LR (w/ a special ruger 10/22 since so many have 'em here... including myself)!
6 shooter .45LC cowboy gun
12 Gauge skeet
9mm semi auto competition with cardboard somali pirates popping out of a wooden speedboat.

Any other ideas?


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

weinie said:


> Lets all get together and have a ONE DESIGN shooting match!
> 
> We can have the following classes enter:
> AR-15 5.56
> ...


I'm afraid these guys beat you to it:

Somali Cruises - Cruise along Africa's east coast!

Hard not to include the 1911 or AK-47 on any "one design" gun list.


----------



## rmeador (Jan 16, 2010)

I think there are two things you could do to reduce/eliminate the chances of your target practice being interpreted as a distress call.

1) if there is a boat close enough to hear the shots, you probably shouldn't be shooting for safety reasons.

2) shoot faster than once per minute!


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

beej67 said:


> I'm afraid these guys beat you to it:
> 
> Somali Cruises - Cruise along Africa's east coast!
> 
> Hard not to include the 1911 or AK-47 on any "one design" gun list.


LOL!!!!!!

Testimonials
"I got three confirmed kills on my last trip. I'll never hunt big game in Africa again. I felt like the Komandant in Schindlers list!" -- Lars , Hamburg Germany

"Six attacks in 4 days was more than I expected. I bagged three pirates and my 12yr old son sank two rowboats with the minigun. PIRATES: 0 - PASSENGERS: 32! Well worth the trip. Just make sure your spotter speaks English" -- Donald, Salt Lake city Utah USA

"I haven't had this much fun since flying choppers in NAM . Don't worry about getting shot by pirates as they never even got close to the ship with those weapons they use and their ****ty aim--reminds me of a drunken'juicer' door gunner we picked up from the motor pool back in Nam" -- 'chopper' Dan, Toledo USA.

"Like ducks in a barrel. They turned the ship around and we saw them cry in the water like little girls. Saw one wounded pirate eaten by sharks--what a laugh riot! This is a must do." -- Zeke, Springs Kentucky USA


----------



## nccouple (Jun 11, 2011)

Anyone object to me bringing my potato gun on board?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

A securite announcement is probably in order. Your VHF should transmit further than the projectile and the USCG would hear it, if they are an issue. That should eliminate the conflict with a distres signal.

Still, I think firing off the boat isn't the safest idea.


----------



## GMFL (Jun 9, 2010)

Oops. Guess I hit a nerve. :laugher:laugher

Love reading posts that I learn from. Apparently bald eagles are able to dive to the bottom of oceans to feed, never knew that. 

BTW I thought "Large Member" was a bit funny and immature. That's what I was going for anyway... MAYBE I'll rethink? 

I won't hijack here anymore. It's just that NASCAR is red flagged right now.


----------



## creedence623 (Mar 8, 2006)

What a great slow-motion trainwreck!! This almost rivals something you'd find over on SA.


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

smurphny said:


> Using lead shot so birds don't eat lead pellets is a good idea. There ARE good ideas from environmental scientists. The problem lies in how the good ideas expand into stupid ideas, far removed from the simple solutions that work. If environmentalists have one fault it is that they project the ideas too far and try to apply them to everything and everybody with intrusive Big Brother watching over it. Common sense gets thrown out the window and religious fervor takes its place as populist nonsense prevails.


Yup! But that applies to both sides of almost all significant issues. The scientists are usually balanced - it's when the politicians and other "stake holders" get involved that thing tend to get out of hand. Not all regulation is bad - some countries are still poisoning their citizens with DDT - I'm glad that is off the market here, but it probably wouldn't be if it hadn't been banned. The alternatives are more costly and less effective.


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> The argument over introducing lead into seawater is ignoring the fact that seawater already has lead in it. Doh!


Sure there's lead in the sea - a large portion of it introduced by us. There have been some pretty interesting studies looking and lead in ocean sediments.



Minnewaska said:


> 1000 sailors could fire lead shot 12 miles from shore for the next 100 years and you would never detect the difference.


What's your basis for this is?? You probably wouldn't detect it at the surface but it bet it would entering the food chain. At what level???? But even tiny amounts are harmful and I love seafood.


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

weinie said:


> Wait... what about the tons of chemicals used in the production of your boat, Geoff. The resins, epoxys, fiberglass, varnishes, glues, paints, etc? Do you know your bottom paint is so toxic, most states won't even let you scrape it off your self? What about your diesel or gasoline exhaust? Even the polyester lines on your boat are made from guess what... oil, which is transported over here in big tankers which pollute the seas in their own right and hopefully don't spill their cargo. And you are giving people crap about a few grams of metal which will evenutally break down or oxidize harmlessly by being in the water?


Yeah, pollution is created in manufacturing. Boats, cars, washing machines, clothes, food, paper etc., ad infinitum. Although I don't know, I suspect boats aren't too bad because of their relatively small numbers and very long life. If anyone has information (as opposed to speculation), I'd be truly interested to know. We can only try to tread lightly; we cannot avoid treading at all.

I don't use poison paint and it's good that some states regulate it. We should all be looking for and using alternatives, both for our own well being and to avoid more regulation.

Lead is an element. Elements can't be broken down, only compounded with other elements. It is still lead. It's still toxic. It doesn't break down into anything harmless.


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

LooseDiamond said:


> As for the bald eagles:
> 
> Bald Eagle Breeding Pairs 1963 to 2000
> 
> 487 breeding pairs in 1963, 9789 in 2006. Given this is 6 years later and considering the trend...


Great to see the Bald Eagle population coming back, I suspect largely because of a lot of hard work by a few dedicated people. But still seriously in trouble. From an Iowa study 2004-2008.
http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/PDF/0119 Neumann.pdf


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

beej67 said:


> Hate to further the derailment, but I imagine it will turn quite entertaining, so here we go.
> 
> Then I promise not to grind my .22 cartridge (note the decimal point please) into a fine powder and dissolve it in nitric acid, then sneak it into the city of Houston water supply downstream of the treatment plant. I was considering it, you know, just for kicks, but since you've warned me against it I guess I'll just mow the lawn instead.
> 
> ...


Congratulations on all your qualifications and on your consulting company. I'm surprised you can afford to go to a range. I'm sure you know much more about environmental engineering than I do. I don't think you know anything about neurotoxicity. I'm sure you know what the numbers are but you don't understand what those numbers mean to a human being or you wouldn't make that statement about EPA levels.

If I remember correctly, the current EPA levels of 15ppb (I think the original was quoted in mg/L at the 90th percentile but I'm sure you know this) for lead in drinking water was set in the Lead and Copper Rule in 1991. The formulation of that rule was part science, part politics (there's a surprise). That rule also set a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for lead in drinking water. That goal is zero. The reason for that zero goal is that the scientific medical community didn't and still don't, know a safe level for lead. Many very smart people then and even more now, believe that there is no safe level for lead. There just isn't an ethical way to prove it conclusively. I suspect that a level was set for political, not scientific reasons and "Ill effects" is a very subjective term under those condition. Once lead enters the body it tends to stay there. The only way to get rid of it is chelation - now there's a truly controversial subject.

As for the keel. Very few sailboats are lost and not recovered. Not all will have lead in the keel. If they do it is in one big, encapsulated lump (mostly lead antimony I suspect). Of course it's not a good thing but the risk is low and life is not without risk. That's not the same thing as deliberately depositing lead in a format that can much more easily get into the food chain. I know, yours is just a little bit of lead. My car doesn't put out enough emissions to worry about by itself. Maybe I should disable the emission control. It's just a little bit.

I agree that there are lots of other things we should be concerned about - but that's not the subject of this thread. But don't try to patronize me because I believe what you want to do is wrong. I gave you more credit than that. I guess I was wrong.


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

I apologize for my previous rudeness.



midlifesailor said:


> Please explain to us morally inferior and intellectually challenged lead lickers HTF that 2.6 grams of lead from a 22 caliber bullet happens to completely dissolve in that 50,000 gallons of water when hundreds of thousands of lead keels in freshwater lakes all over the country do not.


Unless you are really intellectually challenged, you can figure this one out.



midlifesailor said:


> Then explain how in your previous posts lamenting various forms of harm to the environment, you selectively(?) failed to mention the copper based paints we sailors (likely you included) slather over our boats and grind into dust to be deposited Lord knows where.


'Already addressed the poison paint.



midlifesailor said:


> Actually, don't explain, I've had enough with the moral superiority.


If it's morally superior to want to avoid introducing poison into the environment and indirectly into people, then I guess I'm morally superior.


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

GMFL said:


> Oops. Guess I hit a nerve. :laugher:laugher
> 
> Love reading posts that I learn from. Apparently bald eagles are able to dive to the bottom of oceans to feed, never knew that.
> 
> ...


I too thought "Large Member" was a bit immature but you picked it. Ah NASCAR, that explains it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Lost lead fishing weights must keep you up at night.

The planet has lead naturally present in the ground and water. That's where we get it and I don't want it in my food any more than you. But that doesn't mean any use of it will do so.

Seven replies in a row? Arguments always end in a stalemate here, no exceptions.


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

Geoff54 said:


> Sure there's lead in the sea - a large portion of it introduced by us. There have been some pretty interesting studies looking and lead in ocean sediments.


Link please, lets have a look at them. And clarify what you mean by "large portion," are you claiming that a majority of the dissolved lead in the ocean is anthropogenic?



> What's your basis for this is?? You probably wouldn't detect it at the surface but it bet it would entering the food chain. At what level???? But even tiny amounts are harmful and I love seafood.


I might question his assertion that "1000 sailors could shoot for 100 years" and not have an impact, if those sailors were shooting at exactly the same spot. My best guess is that yes, that would have an impact. But one hundred thousandth of that, which is me shooting off my boat, will not.


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

Ooo fun. Here we go.



Geoff54 said:


> Congratulations on all your qualifications and on your consulting company. I'm surprised you can afford to go to a range. I'm sure you know much more about environmental engineering than I do. I don't think you know anything about neurotoxicity. I'm sure you know what the numbers are but you don't understand what those numbers mean to a human being or you wouldn't make that statement about EPA levels.


You are absolutely correct that I know vastly more about environmental engineering than neurotoxicity.



> If I remember correctly, the current EPA levels of 15ppb (I think the original was quoted in mg/L at the 90th percentile but I'm sure you know this) for lead in drinking water was set in the Lead and Copper Rule in 1991. The formulation of that rule was part science, part politics (there's a surprise). That rule also set a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for lead in drinking water. That goal is zero. The reason for that zero goal is that the scientific medical community didn't and still don't, know a safe level for lead. Many very smart people then and even more now, believe that there is no safe level for lead.


That boils down to arguments over the definition of the word 'safe.' Technically, the only thing that will make the world 'safe' from humans is to kill all the humans. But then again, we'd probably have to use bullets for that, dangit!

The truth is that lead poisoning is bad, but people quite often live to a ripe old age with a little lead exposure. The truth is that lead exposure in the US has gone WAY down since the elimination of leaded gasoline. The truth is that most lead exposure humans have nowadays isn't due to source lead, it's due to lead solder in pipes or lead pipes themselves between the source and the drinker.

But there's a major disconnect here. That's drinking water. I'm talking about clean water standards in the environment - big difference. I don't even need to have your argument about 'zero concentration is okay,' because I'm not trying to _drink the ocean_.

The truth about lead in surface waters, is that the Clean Water Act does a pretty damn good job of cleaning lead up where they've identified a problem, established a TMDL, and met that TMDL. If you can find an instance of acute lead poisoning that was from exposure to water in a creek that met or beat it's EPA established TMDL, you point me to it. Until then, we must presume that the TMDL program is working, when it comes to limiting environmental concentrations of lead. Where people have gotten sick from environmental exposure to lead in surface waters, has uniformly been where the creek didn't meet the TMDL.

Lead TMDLs vary by location and by water body use, but they're typically around 1 microgram per liter. So unless you have a better number you want to use as a baseline, we will use this. "Zero" is not a better number.



> As for the keel.


Lets skip the keel, and talk about my bullet, 300 feet deep, off the gulf coast of Florida. Lets do math about that bullet.

It's 2.6 grams.

That's 2,600,000 micrograms.

If I were to somehow completely dissolve that bullet into water, I would need 2,600,000 liters of water in which to dissolve it to meet a typical concentration limit for a "clean" surface stream.

That's 91,819 cubic feet of water. Sounds like a lot of water, right? In fact, that's a rectangular column of water 17.5 feet by 17.5 feet, 300 feet tall. If I were somehow to dissolve my bullet on impact, and distribute that liquid bullet to the bottom of the ocean where I shot it, I would have to move 17.5 feet down the coast before I shot another bullet, to meet clean surface water standards. Doesn't seem that hard.

But of course the bullet dissolving on impact would be the "worst case" scenario, which clearly isn't happening Instead, the bullet itself will dissolve from the pH of the ocean, over the course of perhaps decades or centuries. So lets figure out how slow we need the bullet to dissolve for the safety of the environment.

Well .. the rotational current of the Gulf is about 1.5 miles per hour. In truth this current is much slower at the bottom due to boundary layer mechanics that I'm skipping because it just muddles the issue. Instead we'll say that the "plume" from this bullet is approximately one square foot wide by the time boundary conditions no longer affect it's velocity. Now lets pretend it's totally laminar, no molecular diffusion or turbulent effects, and the plume stays exactly 1 foot square, off to infinity.

1.5 mph = 2.2 ft/sec

at 1 foot square, that's a volume of 2.2 cf passing over the bullet per second.

at that rate of advection of the plume, we'd meet clean water standards if the bullet dissolved in _half a day_.

How long do you really think it's going to take the bullet to dissolve? I would figure maybe 50 years? In 50 years, 3.5 billion cubic feet of water have passed over this bullet, and the lead concentration of the plume due to the bullet is three thousanths of a percent of the allowable limit.

Now, lead is clearly a problem if the animals in the food chain actually eat the lead pellets. This is a problem for birds, who are silly creatures who eat rocks to help their digestion, and who eat things pellet sized. Are there food-chain fish who eat rocks the size of .22 bullets? I don't know the answer to this. But the idea that the bullet will dissolve into water and harm the environment is just plain dumb. It's the sort of thing that brings all of environmentalism down, because smart people can tell it's dumb, and when environmentalists make dumb statements then they taint the whole movement. And I'm an environmentalist. Stop tainting my movement.

So! Why don't I go to a gun range? Unfortunately, the economy sucks, and while Wall Street got a bailout, Civil Engineers got a steaming pile of crap shoved down our throats, so I've got a little bit of free time to argue with people over the internet. And shoot guns. Off boats.


----------



## rmeador (Jan 16, 2010)

beej67 said:


> ... I'm an environmentalist. Stop tainting my movement ...


Please put that in your signature!

Also, I like to see some hard figures and math. Thank you for doing that out for us.


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

I made a lot of very bland assumptions in what I did above. To do it 'right' would require quite a bit more math, particularly when it comes to diffusion of plumes in water columns, and boundary layers, etc. But would also take a day, perhaps two, and it's just not worth that. A simple understanding of the units involved is all you need to show that a bullet isn't going to hurt anything on the ocean floor unless something eats the bullet.


----------



## neverknow (Feb 2, 2011)

creedence623 said:


> What a great slow-motion trainwreck!! This almost rivals something you'd find over on SA.


Yes but ppl still have to stop and look, even at a trainwreck in slow motion...


----------



## PaulinVictoria (Aug 23, 2009)

beej67, ever wished you hadn't asked a particular question?


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Beej,

Not to rain on your parade but I think you will find it almost impossiblt to hit a bottle at any distance over 50 feet or so from a boat, even in calm water. The darn boat keeps moving around. But, in the big scheme of things the best fun is in the shooting, if you hit a bottle or two, better yet. Let us know how it goes or if you need bail money

Paul T


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

dabnis said:


> Beej,
> 
> Not to rain on your parade but I think you will find it almost impossiblt to hit a bottle at any distance over 50 feet or so from a boat, even in calm water. The darn boat keeps moving around. But, in the big scheme of things the best fun is in the shooting, if you hit a bottle or two, better yet. Let us know how it goes or if you need bail money
> 
> Paul T


For me? Sure. But not everyone.

Maersk Alabama hijacking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those guys made 3 simultaneous kill shots at 300 yards in 5 foot seas through the windows of a bobbing life boat.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

beej67 said:


> For me? Sure. But not everyone.
> 
> Maersk Alabama hijacking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Those guys made 3 simultaneous kill shots at 300 yards in 5 foot seas through the windows of a bobbing life boat.


True, but we shouldn't assume we're as good as they. Can you spot the real deal seals and the "I think I'm a spec-ops bada$$" in these two photos? 



















MedSailor


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

beej67 said:


> For me? Sure. But not everyone.
> 
> Maersk Alabama hijacking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Those guys made 3 simultaneous kill shots at 300 yards in 5 foot seas through the windows of a bobbing life boat.


From the fantail of the USS Bainbridge, not a Pearson 32.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

beej67 said:


> For me? Sure. But not everyone.
> 
> Maersk Alabama hijacking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Those guys made 3 simultaneous kill shots at 300 yards in 5 foot seas through the windows of a bobbing life boat.


Many years ago I did a whole lot of big bore rifle shooting. I thought I was doing well to keep everything in the black at 200 yards from the kneeling position on still ground. The seals must have perfect eye sight and reflexes to be able to shoot that well, in addition to the latest high tech equipment, good for them, bad for the bad guys!!

Paul T


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

jackdale said:


> From the fantail of the USS Bainbridge, not a Pearson 32.


And what were they shooting _at?_


----------



## dorymate1 (Dec 6, 2011)

I also remember 30yrs ago you could tell your position in the Newport to Bermuda race by how many sets of plastisc Knife, forks,spoons & plates you came by after dinner time. I'm sure that dosen't happen any more.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Last shot on the lead issue. My Dad & I used to cast our own 3 lb lead salmon sinkers, many, many hundreds of them, and who knows how many thousands of lead bullets in our garage. I don't know for sure how much lead smoke we breathed in but it was a lot.
Not sure what effect it has had on me but I will soon be 78, am upright and still know my name. No question lead is bad stuff, I guess it all depends on how much it gets into one's system. Doubtfull that some lead sinkers or bullets in the oceanwill make much difference?

Paul T


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

beej,

no matter what evidence and actual science you use to support your arguments, there are just some people you can never convince.


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Lost lead fishing weights must keep you up at night.


Lost lead fishing weights don't keep me up at night but the Fish and Wildlife Service, at several states and four countries have some kind of prohibition or limit on lead sinkers. At least two other states have "get the lead out" campaigns to encourage the use of alternatives. Yeah, I think that's an issue too.



Minnewaska said:


> Arguments always end in a stalemate here, no exceptions.


You are absolutely right but if it makes one person think about the implications&#8230;. When I was a teenager I used to wash my motorcycle parts and tip the greasy water down the storm drain. Until someone pointed it out, I never even considered where it ended up.

After these few post I'm done - I can only bang my head against a wall for so long.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Geoff54 said:


> Lost lead fishing weights don't keep me up at night but the Fish and Wildlife Service, at several states and four countries have some kind of prohibition or limit on lead sinkers. At least two other states have "get the lead out" campaigns to encourage the use of alternatives. Yeah, I think that's an issue too.
> 
> You are absolutely right but if it makes one person think about the implications&#8230;. When I was a teenager I used to wash my motorcycle parts and tip the greasy water down the storm drain. Until someone pointed it out, I never even considered where it ended up.
> 
> After these few post I'm done - I can only bang my head against a wall for so long.


 A search on lead sinkers showed a few states banning lead sinkers smaller that about 1/4 ounce. I guess their concern was that a small sinker might be ingested by birds, similar to lead shot.

Paul T


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

beej67 said:


> Link please, lets have a look at them.


As I believe you are just trying to be a ***** about this, I'm not going to waste my time to look it up. If I remember correctly, one was from Exeter, another was in Nature recently and there is at least one other. If you are really interested, which I doubt, you can do an academic search (You do know how to do that I assume). I'd start with PubMed or PubChem.



beej67 said:


> But one hundred thousandth of that, which is me shooting off my boat, will not.


Me, me, me. Got it! There no cumulative effect. Millions of pounds of lead don't matter.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> Lost lead fishing weights don't keep me up at night but the Fish and Wildlife Service, at several states and four countries have some kind of prohibition or limit on lead sinkers. At least two other states have "get the lead out" campaigns to encourage the use of alternatives. Yeah, I think that's an issue too.


to prevent waterfowl from eating it.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

beej67 said:


> I've been fortunate enough to acquire a couple new firearms for Christmas, and don't have a great place to shoot them. I'd like to sail out into the gulf past the 12 mile limit and shoot beer bottles off a float. What sort of pesky rules and regulations might I run afoul of while doing so?


Looks like we may have drifted a bit from the original question. Aside from some possible local regulations, if you don't go out very far, the only thing I can think of is if you are shooting during waterfowl season the steel shot and shotguns only requirement may come into play. That is probably a huge stretch but if you are not too far out an overly eager law enforcement officer may want to see how far he can stretch the envelope.

Paul T


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

I'm really sort on time so let's hit the highlights.



beej67 said:


> The truth is that lead poisoning is bad, but people quite often live to a ripe old age with a little lead exposure.


Yes people live with lead in them - doesn't mean it's not harmful.



beej67 said:


> The truth is that most lead exposure humans have nowadays isn't due to source lead, it's due to lead solder in pipes or lead pipes themselves between the source and the drinker.


Sorry but you are dead wrong there. Most lead exposure is from direct contact and subsequent ingestion - the biggest problem is still kids and lead dust, primarily from old paint but also from other sources.

...........


beej67 said:


> But there's a major disconnect here. That's drinking water. I'm talking about clean water standards in the environment - big difference. I don't even need to have your argument about 'zero concentration is okay,' because I'm not trying to _drink the ocean_.
> 
> The truth about lead in surface waters, is that the Clean Water Act does a pretty damn good job of cleaning lead up where they've identified a problem, established a TMDL, and met that TMDL. If you can find an instance of acute lead poisoning that was from exposure to water in a creek that met or beat it's EPA established TMDL, you point me to it. Until then, we must presume that the TMDL program is working, when it comes to limiting environmental concentrations of lead. Where people have gotten sick from environmental exposure to lead in surface waters, has uniformly been where the creek didn't meet the TMDL.
> 
> ...


Nice smoke screen. Any idiot can do a little superficial math based on dubious assumptions



beej67 said:


> Now, lead is clearly a problem if the animals in the food chain actually eat the lead pellets. This is a problem for birds, who are silly creatures who eat rocks to help their digestion, and who eat things pellet sized. Are there food-chain fish who eat rocks the size of .22 bullets?


Bullets fragment and lead leaches and does get into the food chain.



beej67 said:


> .. the idea that the bullet will dissolve into water and harm the environment is just plain dumb. It's the sort of thing that brings all of environmentalism down, because smart people can tell it's dumb, and when environmentalists make dumb statements then they taint the whole movement. And I'm an environmentalist. Stop tainting my movement.


So why did you come up with this dumb idea - if you read my posts, I didn't. You label yourself an environmentalist, which I doubt and which is just a label you apply to yourself anyway. I wouldn't want to risk stepping in your movement, there's already enough pollution.



beej67 said:


> So! Why don't I go to a gun range? Unfortunately, the economy sucks, and while Wall Street got a bailout, Civil Engineers got a steaming pile of crap shoved down our throats, so I've got a little bit of free time to argue with people over the internet. And shoot guns. Off boats.


So you are an out of work engineer. Sorry to hear that. Absolutely nothing wrong with that of course, a lot of people are hurting right now. The problem is that you represented yourself as " president of his own engineering consulting company", presumably to pump yourself up and sound important. Not sure if it was to give credence to your argument or &#8230;.? Maybe you did a bit of self-employed work and incorporated for tax or liability reasons, which could technically make you president of a corporation. But claiming that you are the president of his own engineering consulting company is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Bottom line:
Lead is bad for you.
While one bullet might be insignificant by itself, the vast quantity of lead from bullets is not. 
Once in the environment, it stays there. (While there are ways to bind lead to other substances so that it isn't retained in a body, that doesn't happen in nature). 
Lead can fragment and leech its way into the food chain. 
Once in the food chain it tends to rise to the top. 
The effects of lead ingestion aren't always obvious.
Did I mention that lead is bad?

BTW, we never even touched on lead in primer

I'm done - feel free to have the last word. As I said, people tend to do what ever they want and then come up with ways to justify it.


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

dabnis said:


> Last shot on the lead issue. My Dad & I used to cast our own 3 lb lead salmon sinkers, many, many hundreds of them, and who knows how many thousands of lead bullets in our garage. I don't know for sure how much lead smoke we breathed in but it was a lot.
> Not sure what effect it has had on me but I will soon be 78, am upright and still know my name. No question lead is bad stuff, I guess it all depends on how much it gets into one's system. Doubtfull that some lead sinkers or bullets in the oceanwill make much difference?
> 
> Paul T


Sounds like you have been exposed and you may be having effects that you are not aware of. I was going to start listing things but it's easy enough to look up. Lead is insidious.

For those of you who have kids and reload at home, make you own lead weights, wear the same clothing in the home after shooting or anything else that brings lead into your living space. Children absorb lead more quickly than adults and the effects are more profound. Please talk to your pediatrician and take steps to keep lead out of your home. Advise on minimizing exposure is easy to find.


----------



## PorFin (Sep 10, 2007)

Geoff54 said:


> .
> I'm done ...


Thank you.


----------



## Geoff54 (Oct 30, 2011)

weinie said:


> beej,
> 
> no matter what evidence and actual science you use to support your arguments, there are just some people you can never convince.


Not a whole lot of actual science in this thread and I agree, some people you can never convince.


----------



## carl762 (Jan 11, 2010)

> Nice smoke screen. Any idiot can do a little superficial math based on dubious assumptions


Wow, Geoff54, you are the most tactful person I've seen on this board. 

I'm now resuming to run as fast as I can (since yesterday) with my 10-foot pole, but the above just had to be said.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Well, the OP asked about rules or regulations and received a lecture about lead and his qualifications. I thought the MODS might have made a comment or two as they did on some of the "going motorless" threads?

Paul T


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

Canada's 2 billion dollar screw up, the gun registry , is heading for the scrap heap , where it belongs, followed closely by the Conservative government, having fulfilled their one useful function in life.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Geoff54 said:


> Sounds like you have been exposed and you may be having effects that you are not aware of. I was going to start listing things but it's easy enough to look up. Lead is insidious.
> 
> For those of you who have kids and reload at home, make you own lead weights, wear the same clothing in the home after shooting or anything else that brings lead into your living space. Children absorb lead more quickly than adults and the effects are more profound. Please talk to your pediatrician and take steps to keep lead out of your home. Advise on minimizing exposure is easy to find.


Thanks for your concern, definitely was exposed, big time. Have no idea why we didn't wear respirators. Just completed my annual physical exam a few days ago, blood tests and all. Passed with flying colors. Was it something I said or how I said it that led you to think I may have been effected?

Paul T


----------



## nccouple (Jun 11, 2011)

No one objected to my potato gun on board. Air powered, 12 volt compressor, Battery's charged by solar. Now whats more environmentally friendly than that? Just got to empty a few beer bottles and get me a float now.


----------



## UncleJim (Jul 27, 2009)

PorFin said:


> > Originally Posted by Geoff54
> > .
> > I'm done ...
> 
> ...


Apparently he's not done


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Brent Swain said:


> Canada's 2 billion dollar screw up, the gun registry , is heading for the scrap heap , where it belongs, followed closely by the Conservative government, having fulfilled their one useful function in life.


Sounds good!! Surprised that could happen. Usually when Governments do bad things they just make them worse later.

Paul T


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

erps said:


> to prevent waterfowl from eating it.


Not an issue in eutrophic waterbodies.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

cupper3 said:


> Not an issue in eutrophic waterbodies.


"Gooey" lakes or not, non-lead shot like steel or tungsten is mandated when hunting waterfowl. Maybe if the lakes are that bad the ducks wouldnt stay there? That being said I have seen them tipping up feeding in some really bad looking and smelling water.

Paul T


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

dabnis said:


> "Gooey" lakes or not, non-lead shot like steel or tungsten is mandated when hunting waterfowl. Maybe if the lakes are that bad the ducks wouldnt stay there? That being said I have seen them tipping up feeding in some really bad looking and smelling water.
> 
> Paul T


Agreed, lead host is not legal for waterfowl anymore.

The issue of lead shot ingestion is one primarily in non-eutrophic lakes, and specifically on hard bottomed, sandy ones. In eutrophic lakes, lead shot quickly sinks into the substrate, and continues to sink.

The blanket elimination of lead shot was made to ensure a consistent enforcement regime. I am aware of at least one jurisdiction whose biologists had no concerns with lead shot, due to virtually all water bodies in that jurisdiction being eutrophic.

Elimination of lead shot is a good thing, I am just saying that there are circumstances where it is not a concern.


----------



## GMFL (Jun 9, 2010)

Geoff54 said:


> I too thought "Large Member" was a bit immature but you picked it. Ah NASCAR, that explains it.


Once I stop being immature, I'll let you stick one of those lead bullets in my head.

BTW, no one else has said it so.... You're a RACIST. Yes, NASCAR is a RACE!!!

:laugher

You still have a lame argument and haven't done well supporting it. I'll let you continue to support my position.


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

GMFL said:


> Once I stop being immature, I'll let you stick one of those lead bullets in my head.
> 
> BTW, no one else has said it so.... You're a RACIST. Yes, NASCAR is a RACE!!!
> 
> ...


Hates guns... check.
Hates nascar... check.
Beer in avatar... 98.96% probability of being some obscure microbrew.

Yup... he's a democrat.


----------



## beej67 (Apr 2, 2008)

weinie said:


> beej,
> 
> no matter what evidence and actual science you use to support your arguments, there are just some people you can never convince.


Human nature. Sure is fun to argue when you're right, though, which is also human nature. 



Geoff54 said:


> (stuff about lead being ingested and leaching into the environment)


The idea it "leaches into the environment" is the very thing I did the math on, so throw that out unless you've got better math. The only valid point you have, and it's a point I've already conceded, is that lead released from guns might make it into the food chain by some critter eating it. That's why I use steel shot in shotguns. I asked you if there were any fish that eat .22 bullets, and didn't hear any response, so unless you can dig one up this case is closed.



> So you are an out of work engineer.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I founded my company in 2009 and work quite hard, and I'm the most talented person I've ever met at what I do. But it doesn't take up 40 hours of my week, because of the economy, which leaves enough time to throw some numbers together about (rofl) "lead from bullets leaching into the environment, ten miles off shore."


----------



## byrsch (Oct 16, 2011)

beej67 said:


> I've been fortunate enough to acquire a couple new firearms for Christmas, and don't have a great place to shoot them. I'd like to sail out into the gulf past the 12 mile limit and shoot beer bottles off a float. What sort of pesky rules and regulations might I run afoul of while doing so?


With all the shooting ranges in Florida why don't you just go to one, hang up a target, and pop away? At least you'd have an idea how you are doing.


----------



## Screaming Seagull (Feb 11, 2012)

*gun question*

if you are beyond a states territorial sea and you pose no harm to any US Flag Vessel and do not interfere with import/export or military operations your in the clear. Just use common sense and use radar if you have it to look for possible vessels in the area.


----------



## weinie (Jun 21, 2008)

byrsch said:


> With all the shooting ranges in Florida why don't you just go to one, hang up a target, and pop away? At least you'd have an idea how you are doing.


and you can sail on a nice quiet protected lake instead of the ocean where its SOOOOO much more dangerous.


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

Tape the end of the barrel shut, and squirt a lot of WD 40 in the bore, then close the breach, when storing a gun on board, to eliminate corrosion in the bore.


----------

