Over here when lead was prohibited for hunting waterfowl, there was lots of heated debating about the issue. People hunting with grandpa's old shotgun had to either get a new gun for use with steel, or use the hideously expensive Bismuth shells. Seems most active hunters switched to newer guns. I haven't heard anything about modern guns wearing out prematurely due to shooting steel.
> To use non-lead alternatives you typically either have increase the size of the projectile( (s) in the case of shotgun shot ) and/or increase the powder charge. This typically means an individual will need to purchase different firearms. For instance, to get close to the ballistic performance of lead shot in a 12 ga shotgun you will need a 3.5 inch shot shells. The vast majority of shotguns accept 2.75 or 3 inch shells.
Or, you know, if your gun can't take those spiffier shells, slightly limit your shot distances?
> Steel shot in shotguns is more likely to wound game by creating bleed tunnels causing the animal/bird to bleed out much later and not be retrievable. Lead creates more catastrophic immediately fatal wounds.
IIRC there was some research from Denmark suggesting the opposite, namely that the significantly harder steel pellets would have a higher probability of punching through bone and hit vital organs rather than deforming and lodging in the bone. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Copper bullets do not expand as quickly and as effectively as lead bullets leading to more wounded game.
I think this is a relatively newer development, and it seems every year manufacturers are introducing newer copper bullets with more ductile alloys, precut grooves and whatnot to make them expand faster. I don't think it will take long, to the extent it hasn't already happened, that copper bullets will be good enough for the vast majority of usage. Sure, if you want to hit a rodent at 800m or some other extreme form of long-range marksmanship, you really want the density of lead, but most rifle hunting is done at significantly shorter ranges.