Ammunition Type and Shot Placement Determine Lead Fragmentation in Deer

Abstract

Lead remnants from spent ammunition introduce health risks to humans and wildlife that consume game harvested with firearms. Most current research has focused on effects of high‐velocity rifle bullets, whereas low‐velocity lead ammunition has received little attention. We examined whether fragmentation characteristics differed between 3 common low‐velocity ammunition types when shot into the thoracic cavity or shoulder of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) culled in Indiana, USA, from May–September of 2009. We shot and subsequently radiographed 43 deer to determine the number of fragments, fragment size, and distance traveled by individual fragments. We also radiographed deer post‐evisceration to determine the proportion of fragments available to humans and wildlife scavengers for consumption in muscle and visceral tissue, respectively. All radiographed deer had evidence of fragmentation, with a geometric mean of 13.1 (95% CI = 10.3, 16.8) fragments/deer. Most fragments (89%) were <5 mm from wound channels, and no fragment traveled beyond 205 mm from a wound channel. Fragments were often retained within the muscle tissue of deer with a geometric mean rate of 0.55 (95% CI = 0.48, 0.65). Muzzleloader bullet fragments were larger than those generated by rifled and sabot slugs, and sabot slug fragments had the shortest dispersal from wound channels. Shoulder‐shot placement and bone contact for all ammunition resulted in a greater number of fragments (P < 0.01). Shoulder‐shots also generated more small fragments and higher fragment retention in muscle tissue. The overall mean number of lead fragments detected across our ammunition treatments was less than previous studies. Our results indicate ammunition type and shot placement may be considerations for hunters wishing to limit their potential exposure to lead from harvested big game. Additionally, when compared to high‐velocity rifle bullets, significantly fewer lead fragments are made available to humans and wildlife that consume game harvested with low‐velocity ammunition types, such as those tested here. Complete elimination of lead ingestion by humans and wildlife, however, is only possible by using non‐toxic ammunition alternatives. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.

Assessment of Lead‐Free .22 LR Bullets for Shooting European Rabbits

“…When the rabbit was confirmed dead, we conducted a postmortem categorization of the location of bullet wound tracts following the methods of Hampton et al (2016). We used radiography to assess the terminal ballistic performance of bullets in animal tissues (Herring et al 2016, DeNicola et al 2019, Broadway et al 2020. We collected a random sample of 27-28 rabbits shot with each bullet type, tagged each rabbit with a unique identification number, and refrigerated them until they could be radiographed.…”

“…We used radiography to assess the terminal ballistic performance of bullets in animal tissues (Herring et al 2016, DeNicola et al 2019, Broadway et al 2020). We collected a random sample of 27–28 rabbits shot with each bullet type, tagged each rabbit with a unique identification number, and refrigerated them until they could be radiographed.…”

A comparison of fragmenting lead-based and lead-free bullets for aerial shooting of wild pigs

“…We then used radiography to assess the terminal ballistic performance of bullets in animal tissues. Radiography is an accepted method in wildlife studies for detecting lead particles [ 3 , 6 , 32 , 47 , 48 ]. The pigs were radiographed using a portable Cuattro ® Slate Plus portable digital radiography system (Cuattro, Golden, Colorado, USA) set at 80 kVp and 2.5 mAs and a wireless 14” x 17” (36 x 43 cm) digital plate [ 6 ].…”

“…any radiograph with >300 fragments was scored as ‘>300’. The maximum distance (mm) between fragments was also counted for each radiograph as per [ 48 ]. Average fragment size for each film was assigned to one of three categories: small (< 1mm), medium (1–5 mm) and large (> 5mm), as per [ 48 ].…”

“…The maximum distance (mm) between fragments was also counted for each radiograph as per [ 48 ]. Average fragment size for each film was assigned to one of three categories: small (< 1mm), medium (1–5 mm) and large (> 5mm), as per [ 48 ]. We estimated average fragment size to the nearest millimeter and the straight‐line distance as the widest point between two fragments in the field of view.…”