Lead ammunition creates health risks to shooters and instructors at firing ranges because of the toxicity of lead and also creates environmental risks and cleanup costs. The authors of this report assess the benefits and costs of lead-free reduced-hazard and lead training ammunition based on current market conditions and firing range maintenance practices and offer strategies to ensure reliable supplies and lower prices of training ammunition.

Comparing Training Ammunition Options for Firing Ranges

Life-Cycle Costs, Market Trends, and Purchasing Strategies

Drake Warren, Rebecca Tisherman, Alvin Moon, Biayna Teni Darabidian, Jack Kappelman, John Marder, Ellen M. Pint, Nicolas M. Robles

ResearchPublished Dec 23, 2025

Lead ammunition creates health risks to shooters and instructors at firing ranges because of the toxicity of lead and also creates environmental risks and cleanup costs. U.S. government agencies have explored using completely lead-free ammunition, called reduced-hazard training ammunition (RHTA), as an alternative. The authors of this report assess the benefits and costs of lead-free RHTA and lead training ammunition based on current market conditions and firing range maintenance practices, to inform decisions by law enforcement organizations that manage firing ranges or are considering investments in these facilities. The authors also provide strategies that law enforcement agencies can use to ensure reliable supplies and lower prices of training ammunition.

Key Findings

  • The choice between using RHTA only or primarily using lead ammunition is largely driven by trade-offs between higher near-term costs of RHTA, which is about twice the price per round, and higher long-term environmental and health costs and risks of lead ammunition. However, there are opportunities to mitigate the risks of lead through range cleaning practices and technological solutions, such as rubber bullet traps.
  • Users and trainers might be hesitant to adopt RHTA because of ballistic differences between it and lead ammunition that mean RHTA cannot precisely match the performance of lead ammunition.
  • Law enforcement organizations may need to use both RHTA for training that involves splash-back and ricochet risks and lead training ammunition for qualification.
  • Organizations with multiple firing ranges may be able to minimize costs and risks by consolidating the use of lead ammunition in fewer ranges.
  • Decisions about the use of RHTA or lead ammunition will vary based on local circumstances, such as firing range availability and training requirements, but, regardless of these decisions, organizations should prioritize the proper maintenance of firing ranges.
  • There may be opportunities for federal agencies and other law enforcement agencies to obtain better prices and a more secure supply of training ammunition, especially for RHTA.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Warren, Drake, Rebecca Tisherman, Alvin Moon, Biayna Teni Darabidian, Jack Kappelman, John Marder, Ellen M. Pint, and Nicolas M. Robles, Comparing Training Ammunition Options for Firing Ranges: Life-Cycle Costs, Market Trends, and Purchasing Strategies. Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center operated by the RAND Corporation, 2025. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3020-2.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.