Reloading and lead...THIS IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR PERSONAL INSULTS BTW!

[Liveonce]

The days of shooting being affordable ended donkeys years ago!

I can remember the days when Norma 100gn factory soft points were £15 a box, i can even take you to the hedge where a heap of the brass lays from practice shots on the range in the early days.

yes and no, airgun shooting the least expensive, .22lr under £10 for 50 shoots and then clay shooting being the most costly, but Clubs, or certainly the one I belong in will heavily discount the price of clays for juniors to encourage them to participate in the sport.

lose the above and it’s another nail in the cofin.

 

[Lancaster]

My question is if/when this comes in to play - will the price of lead free come down?
For anyone that says lead free is cheap or as cheap as premium bullets, don't lie...
Barnes LRX in .264, 127g comes in at £62.99 for 50. That's expensive in itself. The equivalent to that as far as I'm concerned is for example the hornady eld m, 147g in .264. These come in at £47.99... for 100. Not 50. That would be £24 for 50 of them. There in NO comparison in cost in the slightest. As said in a previous thread, this will likely be the end of target shooting unless for the super rich or sponsored shooters, even then, what's the point in competitions if there's only 1 person In it?
Anyone who says they're on par really need their heads checking.

My question is if/when this comes in to play - will the price of lead free come down?
For anyone that says lead free is cheap or as cheap as premium bullets, don't lie...
Barnes LRX in .264, 127g comes in at £62.99 for 50. That's expensive in itself. The equivalent to that as far as I'm concerned is for example the hornady eld m, 147g in .264. These come in at £47.99... for 100. Not 50. That would be £24 for 50 of them. There in NO comparison in cost in the slightest. As said in a previous thread, this will likely be the end of target shooting unless for the super rich or sponsored shooters, even then, what's the point in competitions if there's only 1 person In it?
Anyone who says they're on par really need their heads checking.

Nielsen Sonic Lead Free Target — Deer Gear

Great for load developing and for practice, the target bullet shoots the same POI as its hunt brother and therefore offers fantastic advantages when load developing as you can use these to develop your round at nearly half the cost of the hunting bullet. For this reason we will also be offering the

www.deergear.co.uk

I have no idea how these perform at long range, but if you are punching holes in paper rather than shooting at something with a pulse these seem cheap enough.
Hornady ELD aren't a premium bullet, Nosler bullets are, and there is little price difference between Nosler's and Barnes, Fox, Peregrine's Yew Tree etc.
Unless you shoot lots of deer, in which case your employer or contractor fees pay the bill, the bullet is the cheapest bit of the whole equation, unless you can't hit a cows arse with a banjo and therefore need to fire lots of bullets at a target to hit within the same parish as the beast that you are firing at is standing.

 

[Apthorpe]

You’re going to have to work very hard to convince government officials convinced that they are protecting future generations of both wildlife and humans from the health hazards associated with the use of a known neurotoxin, with no safe level of exposure, to grant exemptions to government policy to non essential minority leisure users.

There are alternatives, they may not be very practical but they exist for most uses. We’ve done ourselves no favours by opposing lead substitution and denying the science for the last 3 decades, now we’re going to get a near complete ban rammed down our throats.

We haven’t been denying the science. My position is precisely in line with the science. The inconvenient fact is that the science does not justify the position being taken by a tiny clique of anti-shooting campaigners (under 100, in fact) and gladly leapt on by the mass of brainless fools our bureaucracies are stuffed with.
We were always going to get any form of ban they could dream up. The science is entirely immaterial to the process.

The EU position on lead fishing weights is distinctly odd, they are exempting commercial users, but anglers will face a ban. From what I’ve read it applies to all lead weights, both the 1/2Lb + bombs I fling off the Clare rocks and the smaller weights and split shot beloved of the coarse fishing brigade.
So far theres no move to ban lead foil seals on wine bottles, but I suspect that’s just an oversight.

Indeed, yet “you’re going to have to work very hard to convince government officials ……health hazards … neurotoxin etc.” You see, everyone knows that this is all bullsh1t and nothing to do with the risks of lead and “the science”, because they cannot honestly be used to reach the conclusions being used against shooting.

 

[timbrayford]

Having read the government consultation proposals its clear that the author had only a scant knowledge of shooting activities and there appears to be a distinct lack of citations to peer reviewed scientific research to support the case against lead. That said its clear that both politicians and the civil service want to steamroller the restrictions through regardless of any known facts!

 

[Dunwaters]

We haven’t been denying the science. My position is precisely in line with the science. The inconvenient fact is that the science does not justify the position being taken by a tiny clique of anti-shooting campaigners (under 100, in fact) and gladly leapt on by the mass of brainless fools our bureaucracies are stuffed with.
We were always going to get any form of ban they could dream up. The science is entirely immaterial to the process.

Indeed, yet “you’re going to have to work very hard to convince government officials ……health hazards … neurotoxin etc.” You see, everyone knows that this is all bullsh1t and nothing to do with the risks of lead and “the science”, because they cannot honestly be used to reach the conclusions being used against shooting.

We’ll have to agree to differ, for me the fact that lead is toxic and that shooting deposits large amounts of it into our food and our countryside can’t be denied, which leaves a leisure industry campaigning to continue to use a toxin.
The risk to humans is small, the risks to wildlife are higher, but why should there be any risk?
That’s the line being taken, I don’t like it but it’s hard to argue, particularly when most people don’t see a need for what you’re doing.

 

[Apthorpe]

We’ll have to agree to differ, for me the fact that lead is toxic and that shooting deposits large amounts of it into our food and our countryside can’t be denied, which leaves a leisure industry campaigning to continue to use a toxin.
The risk to humans is small, the risks to wildlife are higher, but why should there be any risk?
That’s the line being taken, I don’t like it but it’s hard to argue, particularly when most people don’t see a need for what you’re doing.

Fine. Then you will have stopped shooting altogether because the primers in your ammunition spread lead compounds (which are far more toxic) around. You will also have spurned driving (which accounts for the major use of lead), and will share my view that the military must also be forbidden from using heavy metals too. However, I suspect this is not the case and consequently your position seems inconsistent to me.
If one takes the approach that no risk is acceptable, then you prohibit every activity including those beneficial to humans or the environment. It is an absurdist position.
For me, the facts are paramount. The factually unfounded claims and wild extrapolations used by those in favour of banning lead are misleading at best and wilful lies at worst. Policy made on the basis of wilful ignorance invariably causes more harm than good.

 

[Norfolk Deer Search]

Fine. Then you will have stopped shooting altogether because the primers in your ammunition spread lead compounds (which are far more toxic) around. You will also have spurned driving (which accounts for the major use of lead), and will share my view that the military must also be forbidden from using heavy metals too. However, I suspect this is not the case and consequently your position seems inconsistent to me.
If one takes the approach that no risk is acceptable, then you prohibit every activity including those beneficial to humans or the environment. It is an absurdist position.
For me, the facts are paramount. The factually unfounded claims and wild extrapolations used by those in favour of banning lead are misleading at best and wilful lies at worst. Policy made on the basis of wilful ignorance invariably causes more harm than good.

The facts do not matter because they will be what ever they say they are l and the ban will go ahead regardless of what you, me or anyone thinks.

 

[Liveonce]

The facts do not matter because they will be what ever they say they are l and the ban will go ahead regardless of what you, me or anyone thinks.

That‘s democracy for you
…..

democracy is a society in which the citizens are sovereign and control the government.

 

[countrryboy]

We’ll have to agree to differ, for me the fact that lead is toxic and that shooting deposits large amounts of it into our food and our countryside can’t be denied, which leaves a leisure industry campaigning to continue to use a toxin.
The risk to humans is small, the risks to wildlife are higher, but why should there be any risk?
That’s the line being taken, I don’t like it but it’s hard to argue, particularly when most people don’t see a need for what you’re doing.

Ur slightly missing the point, exactly the way the antis have wanted everyone too.
Its just not quite that simple thou althou they want it to appear that simple.

Lead in its lead form is very stable and poses very little risk, if it was such a high risk material why is water still carried in lead pipes?
How many hundred thousand or million folk in UK still drink water that has travelled through a lead pipe?
I really would love to see the number.
Is there a massive clamour to replace all lead pipes urgently??
Where's all the surveys into how much water u can safely drink from lead pipes??
That surely is a far greater health risk to the population as its hidden, or all lead fed taps to have a warning label on them.
Anyone who eats game knows of the tiny risk


Hell when i done my last house up 15 odd years ago i replaced mine and my neighbours lead supply pipe into the house and the cowboys/subbies that joined it to the water supply still left 4ft of lead pipe ( from the old toby to water main) despite my plumber being there and going rage at them and phoning there boss, doubtful that lead will ever be removed now.
They then clattered the gas main and had half the street shut for 4 days, and still never replaced that piece of lead pipe, despite the street being dug up and it being exposed
And i bet that team of cowboys have done that all over as standard so lots of folk that thought they replaced there lead pipes have won't have as they were too lazy to do it right

Even for wildfowl a lot of the problems with wildfowl and them ingesting it, was not entirely that they were absorbing it into there blood stream but often the fact it would just stay in there gizzard and sometimes there gizzards would become jam packed with shot, so they were starving to death rather than dieing of lead in the blood.

I dunno wot age u are dunwater or how much game u've ate over the years.
But can u honestly say u've ever been worried about it?
Hell when i was younger i practically lived purely on shot animals as it was free and i was skint ( or saving my cash for more important things like beer!!!) and even now with all this 'science' i would still wager a lead shot game bird is more healthy than most other supermarket meals.
Hell they can't even guarantee ur getting a cow when u buy something with beef on the label.
How the hell are they vetting the many other food quality/health issues

 

[Norfolk Deer Search]

That‘s democracy for you
…..

democracy is a society in which the citizens are sovereign and control the government.

But for every one of us there is 100 of them, we are an extremely small part of the wheel that most think should not exist!

 

[countrryboy]

The facts do not matter because they will be what ever they say they are l and the ban will go ahead regardless of what you, me or anyone thinks.

Which facts are these the LAG and most other studies carried out 5-10 years ago found there was very little compelling data for the ban and very little risk.
Possibly that was basc's cunning plan all along put the quisling swift in the LAG and let them do basc's dirty work for them, and then the CA came along and foiled there cunning plot!

Lead has been weaponised by the antis in the exact same way as they have HH's and blue hares for grouse shooting, just a very easy target with just a smidgen of truth they can exaggerate.
And with so many shooters in the 'i'm alright camp' as i don't shoot grouse or airguns etc, the job is well and true f@@ked

basc and others should have thought tooth and nail to stop it getting this far, and even if that was a losing battle atleast it gave the ammo makers more time to develop alternatives.
Also it would show shooters do have some fight in them to others, notably firearms legislation instead of the lap dogs we are and just take wot ever shafting comes our way.
Even with simple things like airports/airlines being so incompetent they can't check in a gun despite others doing it effortlessly and the rules and guidelines being there.
it really would not take much for an org to highlight this and hold those responsible to account.

Now with every piece of legislation or change its just a case of bending over and taking it, and basc are standing there with the KY smiling wot a good job there doing as without them they would be no KY, really about all basc is good for

 

[Dunwaters]

Fine. Then you will have stopped shooting altogether because the primers in your ammunition spread lead compounds (which are far more toxic) around. You will also have spurned driving (which accounts for the major use of lead), and will share my view that the military must also be forbidden from using heavy metals too. However, I suspect this is not the case and consequently your position seems inconsistent to me.
If one takes the approach that no risk is acceptable, then you prohibit every activity including those beneficial to humans or the environment. It is an absurdist position.
For me, the facts are paramount. The factually unfounded claims and wild extrapolations used by those in favour of banning lead are misleading at best and wilful lies at worst. Policy made on the basis of wilful ignorance invariably causes more harm than good.

The lead in primers is a microscopic fraction of the payload in a shotgun cartridge, I drive a Euro 6 compliant diesel, which is as clean and efficient as it gets and the military may use whatever best suits their purpose, lead, uranium or plutonium not excepted. You and a couple of other contributors continually bring this up, plus lead flashing and plumbing, they’re actually banned, what’s left is legacy which will be replaced.
As for facts, here’s one you can’t deny, most shooting takes place as a leisure activity, as such you don’t actually have to do it, if you don’t raise millions of pheasants and partridge or make millions of clay pigeons then you don’t have to use 10’s of millions of cartridges to shoot them.
Thats the nub of the matter, while you personally may be convinced that the evidence is skewed and the level of risk overstated, the sad fact is we have no real reason or justification for continuing to use lead other than that we want to, and we’re finding that impossible to justify to an unsympathetic audience.
The paint makers, roofers, plumbers, printers and petrol engine producers all had a better case than us and they all lost.
The arguments are over, the only item remaining on the agenda is “ terms of surrender”.

 

[Norfolk Deer Search]

Which facts are these the LAG and most other studies carried out 5-10 years ago found there was very little compelling data for the ban and very little risk.
Possibly that was basc's cunning plan all along put the quisling swift in the LAG and let them do basc's dirty work for them, and then the CA came along and foiled there cunning plot!

Lead has been weaponised by the antis in the exact same way as they have HH's and blue hares for grouse shooting, just a very easy target with just a smidgen of truth they can exaggerate.
And with so many shooters in the 'i'm alright camp' as i don't shoot grouse or airguns etc, the job is well and true f@@ked

basc and others should have thought tooth and nail to stop it getting this far, and even if that was a losing battle atleast it gave the ammo makers more time to develop alternatives.
Also it would show shooters do have some fight in them to others, notably firearms legislation instead of the lap dogs we are and just take wot ever shafting comes our way.
Even with simple things like airports/airlines being so incompetent they can't check in a gun despite others doing it effortlessly and the rules and guidelines being there.
it really would not take much for an org to highlight this and hold those responsible to account.

Now with every piece of legislation or change its just a case of bending over and taking it, and basc are standing there with the KY smiling wot a good job there doing as without them they would be no KY, really about all basc is good for

I don’t disagree in the slightest

 

[JTO]

leaves a leisure industry campaigning to continue to use a toxin.

The sort of thing that happens when a hunter gatherer activity becomes a 'sport'.

 

[JTO]

And with so many shooters in the 'i'm alright camp' as i don't shoot grouse or airguns etc, the job is well and true f@@ked

Oh! You noticed!

 

[Apthorpe]

The facts do not matter because they will be what ever they say they are l and the ban will go ahead regardless of what you, me or anyone thinks.

Spot on. The fact that even the lunatics pushing this ban aren’t predicting it having any discernible overall benefit to wildlife confirms the cynicism of this move.

The lead in primers is a microscopic fraction of the payload in a shotgun cartridge,

Lead in primers is in a highly toxic and chemically active form. Lead in pellets is essentially inert and has no toxicity, except for the microscopic fractions abraded from the surface or dissolved in acid. So, in reality, the lead from primers is quite as much of a problem as the tiny proportion of pellet and bullet weight that causes any toxic effect. You cannot

I drive a Euro 6 compliant diesel, which is as clean and efficient as it gets

So do I and it contains a large quantity of lead, some of which ends up in the environment.

and the military may use whatever best suits their purpose, lead, uranium or plutonium not excepted. You and a couple of other contributors continually bring this up, plus lead flashing and plumbing, they’re actually banned, what’s left is legacy which will be replaced.

This is not true. Lead flashing is not banned, is widely available and often used even on new buildings.
(The Church of England requires it to be used on re-roofing their churches. We bring it up because it is true, and it is a large-scale source of exposure to lead - in precisely the same chemical form as ammunition, yet is deemed not to be unacceptably toxic.

As for facts, here’s one you can’t deny, most shooting takes place as a leisure activity, as such you don’t actually have to do it, if you don’t raise millions of pheasants and partridge or make millions of clay pigeons then you don’t have to use 10’s of millions of cartridges to shoot them.

So what? That’s both completely immaterial and irrelevant. It just leads down a rabbit-hol of moronic economic argument that ends up with everyone going back to living in caves. Leisure activities have the same value as any other activity. We don’t actually have to do shooting. Nobody actually has to do manufacturing, farming, law, accountancy, mediciine and so on. The fact is that all activities form important parts of society which support each other.

Thats the nub of the matter, while you personally may be convinced that the evidence is skewed and the level of risk overstated, the sad fact is we have no real reason or justification for continuing to use lead other than that we want to, and we’re finding that impossible to justify to an unsympathetic audience.

Nor does anyone have any real reason or justification to keep breathing, yet you, presumably reject that argument. Notably, you don’t accept that argument as having any applicability to your other activities.

The paint makers, roofers, plumbers, printers and petrol engine producers all had a better case than us and they all lost.

They didn’t because functional alternatives to lead paint existed; roofers still widely use lead; lead pipes were redundant and better materials supplanted them; printers didn’t lose the ability to use lead, that technology was obsolete and superseded by computerised printsetting; and improved metallurgy allowed lead to be removed from petrol. Lead compounds in petrol were actually harmful, and are continually used in arguments to justify banning lead despite the fact that metallic lead does not have the same properties at all.

The arguments are over, the only item remaining on the agenda is “ terms of surrender”.

Indeed. It’s another step back for science and reason, and another leap forward for blind idiocy and prejudice.

 

[JTO]

Spot on. The fact that even the lunatics pushing this ban aren’t predicting it having any discernible overall benefit to wildlife confirms the cynicism of this move.

When a senior police officer was asked why there had not been a drop in handgun crime after private ownership was banned, his answer was :- "We didn't expect it to".

 

[dropmdead]

at what point do rifles become section 58 when you cannot buy ammo?

 

[Dunwaters]

Spot on. The fact that even the lunatics pushing this ban aren’t predicting it having any discernible overall benefit to wildlife confirms the cynicism of this move.

Lead in primers is in a highly toxic and chemically active form. Lead in pellets is essentially inert and has no toxicity, except for the microscopic fractions abraded from the surface or dissolved in acid. So, in reality, the lead from primers is quite as much of a problem as the tiny proportion of pellet and bullet weight that causes any toxic effect. You cannot

So do I and it contains a large quantity of lead, some of which ends up in the environment.

This is not true. Lead flashing is not banned, is widely available and often used even on new buildings.
(The Church of England requires it to be used on re-roofing their churches. We bring it up because it is true, and it is a large-scale source of exposure to lead - in precisely the same chemical form as ammunition, yet is deemed not to be unacceptably toxic.

So what? That’s both completely immaterial and irrelevant. It just leads down a rabbit-hol of moronic economic argument that ends up with everyone going back to living in caves. Leisure activities have the same value as any other activity. We don’t actually have to do shooting. Nobody actually has to do manufacturing, farming, law, accountancy, mediciine and so on. The fact is that all activities form important parts of society which support each other.

Nor does anyone have any real reason or justification to keep breathing, yet you, presumably reject that argument. Notably, you don’t accept that argument as having any applicability to your other activities.

They didn’t because functional alternatives to lead paint existed; roofers still widely use lead; lead pipes were redundant and better materials supplanted them; printers didn’t lose the ability to use lead, that technology was obsolete and superseded by computerised printsetting; and improved metallurgy allowed lead to be removed from petrol. Lead compounds in petrol were actually harmful, and are continually used in arguments to justify banning lead despite the fact that metallic lead does not have the same properties at all.

Indeed. It’s another step back for science and reason, and another leap forward for blind idiocy and prejudice.

I’m going to leave it here, we will never see eye to eye on this but we’ll both have to deal with it anyway…
Good luck and safe shooting.

 

[Rewulf]