Lead ammunition - BASC statement in response to RSPB and WWT open letter

[25 Sharps]

Thinking of costs, a box of Eley Grand Prix was about 13 shillings when I first got a shotgun, about 2 hour's pay for a bricklayer at that time. How much are they earning today?
Killing efficiency of non-lead shot, or lack of it, is the most concerning factor.

Around £300+/day

 

[Mr. Gain]

An interesting thread. I continue to find the adherence to flimsy science an obvious stalking horse for those who oppose shooting as alien to their world view. Consequently, I find the the absence of any challenge to the claims for a scientific basis for the blanket ban that threatens to undermine so many aspects of the shooting world somewhat baffling. By all means keep lead out of environments where there are measurable negative impacts on animal or human health, but prove those impacts, and implement specific programmes of mitigation where necessary. This is the intelligent science-based approach, not some fantasy demonising lead in projectiles as if it were nuclear waste.
I see genuine benefits for lead alternatives in deer stalking, and some viability in game loads for shotguns (Bioammo currently seems to have the best recipe, even for classic game guns), but clay shooters, vermin controllers, target shooters, black-powder shooters, rimfire shooters and airgun shooters all stand to lose out, many of them catastrophically, and all to solve what exact problem? Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one has measured the negative consequences of lead shot, precisely because it cannot be measured. So the reconstruction or destruction of an activity worth billions with many positive environmental impacts is being imperilled on the basis of supposition and no one is pointing this out to the policymakers and the public. I've lived long enough to know the world is routinely mad, but this takes the absolute biscuit!

 

[Dunwaters]

An interesting thread. I continue to find the adherence to flimsy science an obvious stalking horse for those who oppose shooting as alien to their world view. Consequently, I find the the absence of any challenge to the claims for a scientific basis for the blanket ban that threatens to undermine so many aspects of the shooting world somewhat baffling. By all means keep lead out of environments where there are measurable negative impacts on animal or human health, but prove those impacts, and implement specific programmes of mitigation where necessary. This is the intelligent science-based approach, not some fantasy demonising lead in projectiles as if it were nuclear waste.
I see genuine benefits for lead alternatives in deer stalking, and some viability in game loads for shotguns (Bioammo currently seems to have the best recipe, even for classic game guns), but clay shooters, vermin controllers, target shooters, black-powder shooters, rimfire shooters and airgun shooters all stand to lose out, many of them catastrophically, and all to solve what exact problem? Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one has measured the negative consequences of lead shot, precisely because it cannot be measured. So the reconstruction or destruction of an activity worth billions with many positive environmental impacts is being imperilled on the basis of supposition and no one is pointing this out to the policymakers and the public. I've lived long enough to know the world is routinely mad, but this takes the absolute biscuit!

We’re at the end of the process, the problem for the last 30 years has been that no one or no body has been able to contradict the science behind the statement that lead is harmful and we shouldn’t be slinging it about. There may be an agenda at work that sees a lead ban as a way to curtail shooting, but that’s an aside.
The decision to ban lead is irrevocable at this stage short of a Russian invasion, all we can do now is negotiate exceptions to the ban where necessary.
No point in railing at BASC et al either, they’ve done the best that they can, but they got hammered by the science.

 

[Dunwaters]

Growing need around the world? How many US states have banned lead ammunition?

My RFD has these on the shelf Norma ECO Speed-22, he couldn't get them inside 6" at 25 yards in various guns, that is with a 24 grain bullet so a 1:16 should stabilise it.

Rebarrelling 0.22s £800+ for many guns worth £<150.00!!

Subsonic 0.223, again , you are going to need a heavy, heavy bullet say 70-90 gr, in lead free at subsonic speeds!! Firstly, .22 cast bullets are used for subsonic as they can be lubricated, copper bullets with that bearing surface may jam in the barrel; secondly twist rate is only half of the stability equation, speed is the other half so you are going to be needing a 1:5 or so at a guess to stabilise long, lead free, 0.22 bullets (I loaded 120 gr subsonics in the 25-45 sharps, 1:10 twist, they literally went through the target sideways, quiet though!); Finally, cost!! speciality 0.223 ammunition is going to be over £1.00 per round, £2.00 the way things are going, who is going to use that for volume rabbit control! Oh, and they will deform less, bounce more, carry more energy down range further as they will not slow as quickly as a deformed lead bullet. All in all a cracking idea!!

The market isn't crying out for a lead free rimfire ammunition because the vast majority of the world is still quite happy to use lead ammunition and will continue to do so.

Your sand trap is exposed to wildlife and therefore could be a risk, you may not be allowed to use it for lead in 2 years time . . . .

You clearly don't live in the real world.

The fundamental problem of the .22 is that the design is well over 100 years old, both rifles and barrels last just about forever and it was designed to function with a fairly restricted range of lead bullet weights. I dont agree that we’ll need to go to 70-90 gr loads for sub sonic, 40 will still do it but 40gr copper is too long to stabilise with the standard twist and lighter sub sonic bullets lack energy down range and won’t cycle In semi auto actions unless we jack velocity up a bit.
So it looks like theres no practical alternative at the moment.
From which I take a small crumb of comfort.
Lead shot is banned in the US at the Federal level for wildfowl and theres an increasing insistence on non lead for large game in areas with healthy scavenger populations, a good chunk of New Mexico for example. California is pretty much a lead free state.
Theres also a growing movement away from lead for upland game, largely voluntary, but the average US game shooter uses far fewer shell per season than their UK equivalent.

 

[Heym SR20]

Growing need around the world? How many US states have banned lead ammunition?

My RFD has these on the shelf Norma ECO Speed-22, he couldn't get them inside 6" at 25 yards in various guns, that is with a 24 grain bullet so a 1:16 should stabilise it.

Rebarrelling 0.22s £800+ for many guns worth £<150.00!!

Subsonic 0.223, again , you are going to need a heavy, heavy bullet say 70-90 gr, in lead free at subsonic speeds!! Firstly, .22 cast bullets are used for subsonic as they can be lubricated, copper bullets with that bearing surface may jam in the barrel; secondly twist rate is only half of the stability equation, speed is the other half so you are going to be needing a 1:5 or so at a guess to stabilise long, lead free, 0.22 bullets (I loaded 120 gr subsonics in the 25-45 sharps, 1:10 twist, they literally went through the target sideways, quiet though!); Finally, cost!! speciality 0.223 ammunition is going to be over £1.00 per round, £2.00 the way things are going, who is going to use that for volume rabbit control! Oh, and they will deform less, bounce more, carry more energy down range further as they will not slow as quickly as a deformed lead bullet. All in all a cracking idea!!

The market isn't crying out for a lead free rimfire ammunition because the vast majority of the world is still quite happy to use lead ammunition and will continue to do so.

Your sand trap is exposed to wildlife and therefore could be a risk, you may not be allowed to use it for lead in 2 years time . . . .

You clearly don't live in the real world.

Thanks - I do live in the real world. I am trying to be practical and realistic.

Most rimfires have simple to change barrels - with many is simply undoing a couple of screws and pulling it out, and we are not talking £800 a time. Pre threaded walther barrels are £300 for centrefire rifles.

And as for reloading a 223 and costing £2 plus a load. Well I have just built up a load for mine using a non toxic bullet and still well below £1 a round.

And it now has Feck all to do with the EU. We had a little thing called Brexit where we completely removed ourselves from any EU legislation. This is now totally in the hands of our Westminster government which was voted by an overwhelming majority, so no point blaming the EU.

 

[25 Sharps]

The fundamental problem of the .22 is that the design is well over 100 years old, both rifles and barrels last just about forever and it was designed to function with a fairly restricted range of lead bullet weights. I dont agree that we’ll need to go to 70-90 gr loads for sub sonic, 40 will still do it but 40gr copper is too long to stabilise with the standard twist and lighter sub sonic bullets lack energy down range and won’t cycle In semi auto actions unless we jack velocity up a bit.
So it looks like theres no practical alternative at the moment.
From which I take a small crumb of comfort.
Lead shot is banned in the US at the Federal level for wildfowl and theres an increasing insistence on non lead for large game in areas with healthy scavenger populations, a good chunk of New Mexico for example. California is pretty much a lead free state.
Theres also a growing movement away from lead for upland game, largely voluntary, but the average US game shooter uses far fewer shell per season than their UK equivalent.

Re-read the post, heym suggested using subsonic .223 which is what I am suggesting you need a heavy .224 bullet because of the additional powder space available,

 

[25 Sharps]

Thanks - I do live in the real world. I am trying to be practical and realistic.

Most rimfires have simple to change barrels - with many is simply undoing a couple of screws and pulling it out, and we are not talking £800 a time. Pre threaded walther barrels are £300 for centrefire rifles.

And as for reloading a 223 and costing £2 plus a load. Well I have just built up a load for mine using a non toxic bullet and still well below £1 a round.

And it now has Feck all to do with the EU. We had a little thing called Brexit where we completely removed ourselves from any EU legislation. This is now totally in the hands of our Westminster government which was voted by an overwhelming majority, so no point blaming the EU.

Some, modern rimfire a have easy to change barrels, what about all the old BSAs, Brunos Veores, marlins, winchesters etc. etc.

My buddy has a Mauser .22 mag, he can’t find a smith to rebarrel it for love nor money! Most smiths are looking at £600 minimum for a CF rebarrel, and costs are going up bit down.

Unless the rimfire is designed as a switch barrel you would also need to go for a re proof.

Obviously .223 can be loaded for a lower cost but some people, especially volume rabbit shooters, don’t reload they’re ammunition. Again you are looking at it with your own viewpoint!

Then even if you do load there is the difficulty of loading a subsonic, lead free, stable round. Particularly when the main powder for achieving this (trail boss) is banned! In fact I’ll set you a challenge, go out and develop a subsonic .223 round with lead free that shoots <1.5” at 100 yards like a good .22 will with subs. And even then you are talking 6/8/10x the cost of a .22 sub plus the time to load it!

As for brexit who mentioned that? I didn’t, but yes, we have the opportunity to make our own rules. If we are not careful we will be railroaded into a ban on all lead!

 

[enfieldspares]

Some, modern rimfire a have easy to change barrels, what about all the old BSAs, Brunos Veores, marlins, winchesters etc. etc.

Much as I was initially going to respond to the post by HEYM SR20 in a similar way I cannot do so.

I am of an age in years when I remember seeing very very many .22LR BSA and etc., etc.., from the era of corrosive compound primed cartridges that had been "shot out" (which was really a lie as the truth was that in fact the owner hadn't cleaned the barrel and it had rusted appallingly and was now unserviceable) that had been re-lined by either Parker Hale or A G Parker.

So in fact, yes, these guns could be re-lined if the will were there to make such liners and the adjustment capability of the iron sights on the rifle were still able to accommodate the different ballistics of these new non-lead bullets. But it would be expensive, it would require re-proof and finally I fail to see what risk has ever been posed to wildlife from the use of .22LR small bore target rifles on indoor ranges or on outdoor ranges with traditional sand bank butt traps.

But as I will repeat and repeat again all of this BASC initiative has as its driver a need to protect their investment in the British Game Alliance and its attempt to justify big bag commercial shooting on the basis that what is shot is then marketed as food to those outside of the actual day itself rather than being distributed in the closed group of land owner or lease holder, guns, beaters, pickers-up, stops and etc., etc..

BASC HAS THROWN EVERYBODY ELSE UNDER THE BUS TO PROTECT THOSE FOR WHOM LIVE GAME SHOOTING IS LITTLE MORE THAN SHOOTING FEATHERED CLAY PIGEONS. IT IS SHAMEFUL.

 

[geoffw]

My reckoning

1) Rifles - plenty of good non lead options now for all stalking rifles with bullets that are accurate, provide quick and humane kills and leave nice clean carcasses.

And there seem to big strides taken in bringing venison to the consumer market place.

2) Shotguns - falls into two parts

a) shot - steel shot is cheap, and works. If you got a steel shot proof, then high velocity works really well and gives you kills out to 50 yards. Normal velocities work well enough for most guns and most shooting.

Bismuth is an option for valuable old guns. But is expensive. But if you pick your shots does it add a lot to the cost of a days shooting?

b) Wads. Steel shot really needs some form of cup or sleeve to give good performance. Plastic wads provide this. But plastic wads are full of their own challenges.

There are a good number of innovative approaches to producing a fully biodegradable shot cup type wads, from all sorts of different approaches. Some are using plastic type materials that break down on exposure to water - still concerns over nano plastic content though. Others are more of a moulded fibre.

Overall there are now several brands on the market that just seem to work, judging by reviews etc.

Big challenge still though is volume, and making them widely available without a ridiculous price.

Younger generations of shooters are using over and unders and anything less than 10 years old is probably steel shot proofed, or can be made so by simple change of chokes.

Older shooters using old prewar guns that are tightly choked may have a challenge, but with normal game choking there are already and certainly will be good affordable options on the market. Whether Bodget and Bang will stock them is another matter entirely.

I think it will be a question of planning ahead and ordering them in.

16, 28 and 410s - market is much smaller and these will be the last to be available. There are a couple of options for 16 and 28, but not yet for the 410.

I'm going to disagree with you on point 1- there are still a lot of lead-free bullets out there that are not providing humane kills and to my knowledge none that will allow you to take your third, fourth, fifth or sixth beast out of a herd once it's disturbed and no longer presenting those textbook broadsides in a leisurely, take your time fashion- at which point we're into solid lung shot territory... and copper pencils right on through.
I'd say there's a very long way to go yet on that front (and I also recognise that it's a journey and we should get there eventually)

 

[Heym SR20]

I'm going to disagree with you on point 1- there are still a lot of lead-free bullets out there that are not providing humane kills and to my knowledge none that will allow you to take your third, fourth, fifth or sixth beast out of a herd once it's disturbed and no longer presenting those textbook broadsides in a leisurely, take your time fashion- at which point we're into solid lung shot territory... and copper pencils right on through.
I'd say there's a very long way to go yet on that front (and I also recognise that it's a journey and we should get there eventually)

Not the experience of many using lead free. Go for the Hilar rather than double lung they drop on the spot.

If you are going to lung shoot use a fragmenting bullet like the Geco Zero.

 

[Whitefront]

But as I will repeat and repeat again all of this BASC initiative has as its driver a need to protect their investment in the British Game Alliance and its attempt to justify big bag commercial shooting on the basis that what is shot is then marketed as food to those outside of the actual day itself rather than being distributed in the closed group of land owner or lease holder, guns, beaters, pickers-up, stops and etc., etc..

What "investment"? BASC didn't even set up the BGA - that was the CA etc. It was only later that BASC came on board and provided a loan secured with a legal charge on the assets. How is that an "investment"? You don't need to invent a conspiracy theory to explain why nine very different orgs decided to lead a move away from lead.

The fact is that if game (and pigeon, rabbits etc) is ever deemed officially unacceptable as human food by the authorities because of lead contamination, then most forms of live quarry shooting will suffer the consequences - especially stalking. If the FSA condemn lead-shot game, then don't think you can just palm it off on friends and family. That would be unethical and probably illegal.

The fact is that if we don't make the switch voluntarily, it will be imposed on us, sooner rather than later. At least the action by the shooting orgs (and GWCT) has spurred the manufacturers into producing some very good leadfree alternatives. If the orgs had just buried their heads in the sand and pandered to the old bufton-tuftons, who always oppose change and have already had their fun without a care for future generations, then we would be caught with our pants down by the imposition of a legal ban - as may be about to happen in the EU.

 

[Liveonce]

The two fundamental issues are 1) lead is poisonous, and 2) no cost effective practical substitute exists at this time, if ever, to replace it in every one of the many and various applications it has been used for in firearms over centuries.

 

[Rewulf]

We’re at the end of the process, the problem for the last 30 years has been that no one or no body has been able to contradict the science behind the statement that lead is harmful and we shouldn’t be slinging it about.

6 years ago , the very 'voice' of UK shooting did just that, then just like that , they changed their mind....

There may be an agenda at work that sees a lead ban as a way to curtail shooting, but that’s an aside.

Its not an aside, its a huge problem, its also manipulation and deception, a shape of things to come.

The decision to ban lead is irrevocable at this stage short of a Russian invasion, all we can do now is negotiate exceptions to the ban where necessary.

You can negotiate all you like, but if shooting in general is the real target, then youve just nailed yourself into your own coffin.

No point in railing at BASC et al either, they’ve done the best that they can, but they got hammered by the science.

Theyve done NOTHING , except propose a ban, that didnt need to be done.
The acceptance of a possible incoming control , by the biggest shooting org, is again , facilitating just that, meek acceptance of whatever they want to do with us.
They have not , as you seem to think 'Done us a favour' They have protected their own interests, and be damned to the ordinary shooters who pay their subs.

 

[Whitefront]

No shooting org has proposed a ban. Quite the opposite, in fact: they are trying to head off a ban by encouraging a voluntary move, while at the same time ameliorating the potential impact of a ban if one is eventually imposed by the authorities.

 

[Liveonce]

What "investment"? BASC didn't even set up the BGA - that was the CA etc. It was only later that BASC came on board and provided a loan secured with a legal charge on the assets. How is that an "investment"? You don't need to invent a conspiracy theory to explain why nine very different orgs decided to lead a move away from lead.

The fact is that if game (and pigeon, rabbits etc) is ever deemed officially unacceptable as human food by the authorities because of lead contamination, then most forms of live quarry shooting will suffer the consequences - especially stalking. If the FSA condemn lead-shot game, then don't think you can just palm it off on friends and family. That would be unethical and probably illegal.

The fact is that if we don't make the switch voluntarily, it will be imposed on us, sooner rather than later. At least the action by the shooting orgs (and GWCT) has spurred the manufacturers into producing some very good leadfree alternatives. If the orgs had just buried their heads in the sand and pandered to the old bufton-tuftons, who always oppose change and have already had their fun without a care for future generations, then we would be caught with our pants down by the imposition of a legal ban - as may be about to happen in the EU.

I think you need to look it another way, if the ban on lead results in pricing the majority away from clay shooting and target shooting, then the game shooting will not support the industry that we have today. The game season is to short to do that. Business will close, less demand so less imports and competition, prices for the remainder will go through the roof. Yet the killing for fun will still tarnish game shooting.

Is it morally sustainable to raise millions of game birds not native to this country just so they can be driven to guns for the act of killing them for fun, like has been said, feathered clay pigeons.

Do you think banning lead will shut the likes of wild justice up so they quietly go away?

 

[Liveonce]

No shooting org has proposed a ban. Quite the opposite, in fact: they are trying to head off a ban by encouraging a voluntary move, while at the same time ameliorating the potential impact of a ban if one is eventually imposed by the authorities.

However the voluntary ban has set us up for a massive fall, unless all game entering the food chain is shot with non toxic shot and we have a big challenge to make that happen.

Fail and the call that self regulation is failing will be very loud Indeed.

 

[StephenToast]

I'm going to disagree with you on point 1- there are still a lot of lead-free bullets out there that are not providing humane kills and to my knowledge none that will allow you to take your third, fourth, fifth or sixth beast out of a herd once it's disturbed and no longer presenting those textbook broadsides in a leisurely, take your time fashion- at which point we're into solid lung shot territory... and copper pencils right on through.
I'd say there's a very long way to go yet on that front (and I also recognise that it's a journey and we should get there eventually)

This is total shite from start to finish.

The bullets I'm using are just as effective on fifth and sixth shots as was the lead I was using before.

Also. There is no reasin why you would be lung shooting above any other shot by fifth or sixth deer any more than you would first or second. You just take the shot presented.

 

[geoffw]

This is total shite frim start to finish.

In what way? What's been your experience of culling with leadfree and on how many beasts in the last couple of years?

 

[StephenToast]

In what way? What's been your experience of culling with leadfree and on how many beasts in the last couple of years?

I just added a bit more in my original post.

Little over 600 deer with RWS HIT over the last four years. Muntjac roe fallow and red.

 

[Whitefront]

Do you think banning lead will shut the likes of wild justice up so they quietly go away?

Certainly not. But why continue to provide our opponents with an open goal in the form of lead? I haven't used lead ammo for several seasons. There is no need to do so. And in the wider context of the total costs of a season's shooting, the price differential of non-lead ammo is marginal. All ammo is is certainly cheaper in real terms than it was in my father's day.