robert

I was going to be quite also, but I can not. I hate to keep this thread dragging on and I hope not to contribute any grief to Amanda, I believe she was quash this sort of thing, and given a little time I do hope she gets that. But I just have to say this one thing. Oneshot is right. It was YOU Dustin that used the term genocide. He did NOT, YOU put those words in his mouth. I believe one of the offended persons alluded to the genocide of his family, but again it was YOU Dustin that said that word and gave that concept. As you put it "let's call a spade a spade", I don't know if you are a troll or not, but what I remember of your posts they were mostly inflammatory. If that was you intent, you did "fight the good fight" and brought about the change you wanted

You didn't see it coming? There are people who are so dead set against being told what bullets to use on the Kaibab that now you are going to have a fight the flippen greenies. You've given these wackos a battle cry!!! You like to point out that there are hunters that are for this, well all I was trying to say was that it would be nice to avoid a fight. Well that didn't happen and now look at the crap in california, they are saying that even pure copper bullets contain lead and will take away all rifle hunting. You wanted the fight and now you have it (one which hunters did not win in the republic of california), I hope we win it here! Regardless if you thought the condor thing was BS or not, if we had complied willingly a couple of years ago, maybe we could have avoided this, maybe not, I don't know. Maybe it was a conspiracy with Barnes, I just hope they have it worked out to where they don't get banned also (like in california). I guess your right lead is every where, but you have to realize it is a hot issue, look at how everyone reacted to all the lead paint toys coming from China. So I guess we have this whole situation to blame on the "Eco Hunters" that were in favor of using non lead on the Kaibab, we gave them an inch, now they want a mile.....yeah right. These idiots are always going to fight us over something, now they have an issue that they can do a lot of damage with. I just hope our Governor has more sense than the one in the R.O.C. Robert

No, No, No ..................thats funny!

Yeah I don't think their goal was to replace every caliber. I just remember him saying that they had done it in some instances, and I don't remember the name of the organization either. I thought it was an example of showing cooperation between them and hunters rather than an opposition to hunting. I guess I was just thinking idealistically, and that it would be nice if we could take care of a problem before it got to big. That way we could avoid a fight over banning ammunition, and having antis cry foul (no pun intended). Also I do think that Barnes (and from what I have read the new E-Tip) have shown to be effective on big game.

I'd have to agree. Last year my uncle and I were up by Marble Canyon and started talking to a guy that was tracking condors that had been collared. He was explaning that lead was the biggest problem that they were facing. Not at any point did he come across as anti-hunter, and we hadn't even revealed to him that we were hunters. He was just explaining the problem and giving a solution. As I remember at one point he mentioned that in some cases his orginization would actually trade a box of non-lead bullets for a box of leaded ones. I know that all copper bullets are more expensive, but it is not like they are an inferior product. I know for alot of my gear I am willing to spend a little more if it will perform better. I feel the same way about bullets, if there preformance is good and they won't poison some birds, thats two checks in the plus column for me (and I think having either one of the benefits would be enough for me to spend a few extra bucks).

Thanks Tony, C 'n' S, and Jim, thats very good info, I really appreciate it! Robert

I've got another Bino question, and I'm suer it's been answered in some form here, but I haven't found it through searches. With the power being the same, would you go with a larger or smaller objective, for example a 42 or 56. I would think the 42s would be enough field to look around in, but if you can, why not get a larger field of view. I would think the problem with the larger field of view would be that there is too much to get your eyes around, and is there the possibility of missing something towards the edges? I would like to here if anybody has any thoughs on this, Thanks, Robert

That is pretty cool!

Thats what I had thought, but like Ron, I was curious. Thanks for the explantion.

Congrats on the Devils advancing in the baseball world series.........Oh, oops, I guess not.

That IS a classic.....I cant stop laughing