I ran across an interesting paper this morning; “Chemistry and lung toxicity of particulate matter emitted from firearms.” It was published about a year ago, but I only just found it.
This came from the EPA, so I was expecting a real mess. But to my surprise the testing and analysis they did actually looks pretty good. The short version is that they captured “gun smoke” from the muzzle and breach, exposed mice to it, then did a fairly extensive chemical analysis of the particulate matter. They dissected the mice to see what effects occurred. All that was fine.
And then they blew it all on an unsupported, over generalized conclusion. A more accurate title would have been “Chemistry and lung toxicity of particulate matter emitted from one single type of cartridge in a specific model of rifle, and one single type of cartridge from a specific model of handgun.”
They began well with:
Abstract: “Smoke emissions produced by firearms contain hazardous chemicals, but little is known if their properties change depending on firearm and ammunition type and whether such changes affect toxicity outcomes.”
They acknowledged the existence of many types of ammunition and firearms, but only tested one handgun (“9 mm handgun (copper jacketed Pb slug)”) and one rifle (“M4 rifle using M855A1 ammunition”) combination. Based on that detailed but limited sampling, they somehow managed to draw a generalized conclusion about all handgun and rifle ammunition.
At least I’m guessing that that they used a single handgun/ammunition combination, since they didn’t specify the handgun model or ammunition type for that.
Conclusion: “We demonstrated that the handgun smoke PM caused no lung toxicity at 24 h post-exposure, while the rifle smoke PM at the same concentration showed strong toxicity (including injury, inflammation and decrements in lung function) following a single instillation exposure in association with the high level of Cu (26% of PM mass).
Sure; that’s what they found… for their extremely limited sample.
In the real world of ammunition…
Propellants vary. Single-based? Double-based? Is the powder ball type or extruded stick? What size? That all affects burn rate. How much propellant is in the case?
Projectiles vary: bullet diameter and mass. What is the bullet made of? Is it jacketed or unjacketed? Jacketed with what metal or alloy? Is it Teflon coated?
Primers: Small pistol? Large pistol? Small rifle? Large rifle? Shotshell? Large shot shell? What chemical composition?
Of course, there’s always muzzleloaders: black powder or Pyrodex?
In the real world of firearms, we see more differences which will affect the ejected particulates.
Rifling type: land/groove rifling will abraded the bullet more than orthogonal rifling. A faster twist will cause more abrasion than a slow twist. Then, of course, there are smooth-bore shotguns.
Barrel length matters, too. Longer barrel, more projectile wear.
While the research really only addressed toxicity, I’ll note that “The dose makes the poison.” They trapped the smoke from a barrel and breach, then exposed the mice to all of that. In the real world, more factors yet affect the shooter’s exposure.
A longer barrel rather obviously puts more of the smoke farther away from the shooter behind the gun. How tightly the breech seals affects how much of the smoke is channeled back towards the shooter. And the use of a silencer/suppressor will raise that back pressure (while limiting what goes out the barrel end).
Then we move to other barrel attachments. In a plain barrel, the smoke ejects 360 degrees as the bullet exists the barrel. But add a flash suppressor and the blast is directed forward, away from the shooter.
But a muzzle brake/compensator will tend to channel some of the muzzle blast back towards the shooter; even more so than an unadorned barrel.
As a shooter, my greatest personal environmental concern is lead exposure in an indoor range. Bullets impacting the backstop fragment and generate lead dust. That’s why indoor ranges have very good ventilation systems. Beyond that, I wash my hands after shooting and before handling food.
The testing and analysis they did was quite good, as far as it went. But it was far too limited to warrant general conclusions about “handguns” and “rifles,” much less all “firearms.”
In the old days I would have said, “Hit ’em upside de haid wit a reloading recipe book!”
But I’m more refined now, so, … Oh, what the hell. SMACK THE EDUCATED DUMMIES!
Also, I’d suggest that even the lubricants used on the gun could play a part in the overall mix. A small part, I’d think, but a part nonetheless.
And I’d be curious about the size of the mice. I would think small mice would be more affected….but that almost sounds like I don’t trust..oh wait. I don’t.
You have to remember that most studies intended for the government are done slightly differently than actual scientific studies using the scientific method.
A government sponsored study makes the determination of what the effects of the study show, then they come up with the hypothesis that best works with the methods used to achieve the desired end result.
I tried to discuss the topic of climate change with an obvious leftist who chose to only spew government approved ideas, without any willingness to listen to any other point of view. I disengaged from the discussion, and the guy kept trying to get me to continue to allow him his diatribe. Like most pests, I ignored him and he went away.
One other problem with the research done by the government, in this case with mice and gunsmoke, is the enormous cost involved when you add all of it up. I know it is too late now, but one wishes that we would be able to force the government to only do those things that they have been charged to do via the U.S. Constitution, and stay the heck out of every other area. That would likely reduce the need for an income tax to nothing. Or the could keep the same taxes, but build an actual protective wall on our borders, and also protecting us virtually against anyone who would seek to harm us. That number grows daily with the actions being done by a Democrat government out of control.