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

[Rewulf]

Read the proposals, REACH has spelled it out in clear terms. There’s no hidden agenda, they’re following a WHO recommendation and banning lead projectiles in sporting ammunition, both shot and bullets.

Does the WHO and REACH also recommend banning lead in electronic circuitry ? https://lindy.com/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/07/Reach-Article-33-Statement-2020-Juni-EN.pdf Solder, lead acid car batteries, removing all lead water pipes.

Err .... NO.

I never said anything about the effects on shooting, I laid out in simple terms what is now official UK government policy.
They’re going to ban lead, your opinions don’t count because they’ve already made up their mind and they’re doing it regardless of the effects on shooting because the science tells them that lead is bad for people and animals.

Then why bother with participation in the consultation ?
Is it just all about damage limitation?
BASC seem quite willing to sacrifice some parts of shooting , so it can save the bits that it likes and profits from , THIS is the crux of my argument, not whether its happening or not.

Your dismissal of the validity of the evidence won’t stop it, the experts with big brains and pointy heads and letters after their names have said that it’s correct and they’re the ones that Boris and his cabinet listens to.
Get your head around it, it’s going to happen soon and you will be affected.

I agree , they HAVE decided , but it doesnt stop me from pointing out the holes in their arguments, or are pointy headed scientists never wrong ?
In this case , the data is based on many assumptions and estimations , where the conclusion has been arrived at anyway, no matter what the data suggests.

As I keep pointing out , 2016 saw pointy heads not seeing lead as a problem , 4 years later the EU decides it is , so despite no new evidence , the science boffins now declare lead from shooting , public health enemy no 1 .

You need to lose the mindset of continual pointless denial, get behind your national bodies efforts to salvage what they can or you’re going to do more harm to shooting sports than Chris Packham ever dreamed of.

I refute that myself personally is going to do 'more damage than packham' but getting behind those such as BASC , who are only going to salvage what THEY want salvaging, and they have done enough damage already.
They have not defended their members interests at all , and I feel they have been less than honest regarding the whole issue.

You criticise me, yet its your selfish refusal to even consider how we can minimise our impact on the environment or concede that some change is necessary that’s going to see us treated as a bunch of science denying Neanderthals indulging in practices that the planet would be better off without and on the fast track to extinction.

Im not criticising you personally, but lets get this straight , if lead projectiles are so bad that recreational shooters in SOME countries must stop using lead, why not 'lead' by example , and ban lead in military and police use too , or are they not part of the pollution problem too ?
After all , theres no difference in efficiency is there , as we are constantly told ?

 

[Norfolk Deer Search]

What are you lot going to do IF they 100% blanket ban the whole lot?

 

[Rewulf]

What are you lot going to do IF they 100% blanket ban the whole lot?

It wont stop me personally from shooting, I have the time , money and knowledge to make copper work , even steel in my shotguns wont be an issue.
My few rimfires will likely end up as scrap though.

The issue is accessibility to shooting, you may find the price increases in ammunition will cause existing shooters to give up, and new shooters to find the increased costs prohibitive.
The early access of rimfires to target and vermin control, will also disappear , making the whole firearms access experience just fade away.
In effect, it will kill off private firearms ownership eventually, as no new blood comes through.

 

[big ears]

it is very short sighted to think this does not have the potential to impact on you, may be not in the short term but long term, we all need each other.
Think of the consequences of a significant collapse in the numbers of people shooting or what they are shooting.
Will the powders and primers you need to load your ammunition still be available or the ammunition, given the not insignificant cost of importing such dangerous goods, will the volume sold justify importing them if so what price will they be? Then how many gun shops will survive, just how local will be your nearest supplier be. Possibly the importers and gun shops will consider their is an easier way to make a living and diversify away from such products or just close down due to lack of business.

Look at the prices and supply issues now.

A few years ago I had a really accurate load using IMR4350. This in my rifle and my hands was super accurate. One hole at 100m. Then my RFD could get any more so I had to try different powders until I found RS62 worked almost just as well. Then the local dealer stopped getting hold of RS powders so I looked into N150 and after a bit of hassle found an acceptable load with accuracy I would accept.
Why I am I telling you this? The reason is that none of my subsequent loadings were ever as good as the first but they were good enough and it was not an issue in the long run that I couldn’t get IMR4350.
I think this copper debate is not much different.
You may not believe it now but there will be life after lead.

 

[Norfolk Deer Search]

It wont stop me personally from shooting, I have the time , money and knowledge to make copper work , even steel in my shotguns wont be an issue.
My few rimfires will likely end up as scrap though.

The issue is accessibility to shooting, you may find the price increases in ammunition will cause existing shooters to give up, and new shooters to find the increased costs prohibitive.
The early access of rimfires to target and vermin control, will also disappear , making the whole firearms access experience just fade away.
In effect, it will kill off private firearms ownership eventually, as no new blood comes through.

I am personally of the opinion, privately owned firearms has 15-20 left!

If another nutter goes on the rampage god forbid less than 10

 

[Rewulf]

I am personally of the opinion, privately owned firearms has 15-20 left!

If another nutter goes on the rampage god forbid less than 10

I wont argue with that .

 

[Rewulf]

You may not believe it now but there will be life after lead.

Theres life after having a hand or a foot chopped off, its just not the same life you had , because youre now disabled.

If some life threatening illness was the reason for losing the limb, then at least you can justify the loss.
When its because the doctor got it wrong, and you didnt need the amputation, then its a far more bitter pill.

Lets hope those 100,000 birds a year that (might) have died from lead poisoning were worth it, and rest safe in our beds that the EU can eat lead free venison from us

 

[Dunwaters]

Does the WHO and REACH also recommend banning lead in electronic circuitry ? https://lindy.com/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/07/Reach-Article-33-Statement-2020-Juni-EN.pdf Solder, lead acid car batteries, removing all lead water pipes.

Err .... NO.

Then why bother with participation in the consultation ?
Is it just all about damage limitation?
BASC seem quite willing to sacrifice some parts of shooting , so it can save the bits that it likes and profits from , THIS is the crux of my argument, not whether its happening or not.

I agree , they HAVE decided , but it doesnt stop me from pointing out the holes in their arguments, or are pointy headed scientists never wrong ?
In this case , the data is based on many assumptions and estimations , where the conclusion has been arrived at anyway, no matter what the data suggests.

As I keep pointing out , 2016 saw pointy heads not seeing lead as a problem , 4 years later the EU decides it is , so despite no new evidence , the science boffins now declare lead from shooting , public health enemy no 1 .

I refute that myself personally is going to do 'more damage than packham' but getting behind those such as BASC , who are only going to salvage what THEY want salvaging, and they have done enough damage already.
They have not defended their members interests at all , and I feel they have been less than honest regarding the whole issue.

Im not criticising you personally, but lets get this straight , if lead projectiles are so bad that recreational shooters in SOME countries must stop using lead, why not 'lead' by example , and ban lead in military and police use too , or are they not part of the pollution problem too ?
After all , theres no difference in efficiency is there , as we are constantly told ?

You don’t appear to appreciate where the process is, you’re endlessly repeating questions and arguments that have been considered and rejected much earlier in the process.
Unless you can produce convincing new evidence to the contrary neither WHO or REACH are going to re visit their decision. Unless the decision is revisited the policy stands as is.
Rehashing old discredited arguments isn’t going to achieve anything, your process is way beyond that point. We are now at the final stage of the game, banning lead is government policy, even if Boris walked away tomorrow the civil servants would still continue to implement the ban until someone tells them to stop, so you’re getting it.
The only arguments left are where and when lead use will remain acceptable.
Signs are that won’t be a big section of users.

 

[Rewulf]

You don’t appear to appreciate where the process is, you’re endlessly repeating questions and arguments that have been considered and rejected much earlier in the process.
Unless you can produce convincing new evidence to the contrary neither WHO or REACH are going to re visit their decision. Unless the decision is revisited the policy stands as is.
Rehashing old discredited arguments isn’t going to achieve anything, your process is way beyond that point. We are now at the final stage of the game, banning lead is government policy, even if Boris walked away tomorrow the civil servants would still continue to implement the ban until someone tells them to stop, so you’re getting it.
The only arguments left are where and when lead use will remain acceptable.
Signs are that won’t be a big section of users.

Im fully aware of all that , Im just having a bitch about it
Like I say , it wont stop ME from shooting (for now) , but this move will eventually destroy it for virtually everyone.

It was always going to end up like this , they started off banning various firearm types, but the easiest way will be to ban the bullets they fire, say theyre toxic and the public wont complain about that will they ?
When lead has gone , copper will be the new toxin, but by then there will be so few people shooting, that the voices of complaint wont even make the squeak we are making now.

 

[Liveonce]

A few years ago I had a really accurate load using IMR4350. This in my rifle and my hands was super accurate. One hole at 100m. Then my RFD could get any more so I had to try different powders until I found RS62 worked almost just as well. Then the local dealer stopped getting hold of RS powders so I looked into N150 and after a bit of hassle found an acceptable load with accuracy I would accept.
Why I am I telling you this? The reason is that none of my subsequent loadings were ever as good as the first but they were good enough and it was not an issue in the long run that I couldn’t get IMR4350.
I think this copper debate is not much different.
You may not believe it now but there will be life after lead.

yes indeed their was life after the pistol ban, but not all businesses survived, those that did had to find away of replacing the lost revenue.

In my experience target shooters will get through far more tubs of powder (primers, bullets) a year than a stalker so the target shooters are supporting the stalkers in making it viable to import your N150 etc.

 

[big ears]

yes indeed their was life after the pistol ban, but not all businesses survived, those that did had to find away of replacing the lost revenue.

In my experience target shooters will get through far more tubs of powder (primers, bullets) a year than a stalker so the target shooters are supporting the stalkers in making it viable to import your N150 etc.

As you say there is life afterwards. Time to move on.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Lots of opinions and interesting reading and perhaps the opinion that matters the most right now is the Health and Safety Executive and their zero tolerance stance on the risks of the outdoor recreational use of lead ammunition for wildlife, people and the environment in England, Wales and Scotland - and your views and experience can be submitted to them online here:

UK REACH – Restriction Proposals 004 - Lead shot in ammunition - Health and Safety Executive - Citizen Space

Find and participate in consultations run by the Health and Safety Executive

consultations.hse.gov.uk

There is some initial advice and FAQs from BASC here:

Ammunition - BASC

Ammunition Read all of our latest advice and guidance on ammunition, whatever your chosen shooting discipline. Shotgun Rifle Airgun Lead ammunition restriction proposals The Heath and Safety Executive published the UK REACH restriction dossier for lead ammunition on 6 May. The document outlines...

basc.org.uk

 

[kes]

Pontius Pilate did the same thing.

 

[big ears]

Pontius Pilate did the same thing.

Not quite sure what this means apart from washing your hands of the whole thing and giving into the masses?

Some might say from this decision a great religion was created which had brought great support and happiness (and wars) to many people.

 

[Reloader708]

Quick question for Conor O'Gorman, obviously we are still speculating at this stage even though things do appear quite bleak.
Regarding the proposed buy back; will there be a similar scheme for obsolete guns/rifles?
I have two rifles that I'm unable to find a suitable alternative for, namely. 22lr and .45-70, I don't really want to just lose that investment, especially for the .45-70.
If we are going to go down this route will this be a point BASC can argue for its members?

 

[enfieldspares]

The very very obvious elephant in the room that BASC don't appear to have addressed is that in older .243 Winchester and 6mm Remington rifles 100 grain non-lead bullets will not stabilise. This mean that the Deer Laws as they apply to Scotland will have to be changed to remove that 100 grain marker.

 

[griff]

Quick question for Conor O'Gorman, obviously we are still speculating at this stage even though things do appear quite bleak.
Regarding the proposed buy back; will there be a similar scheme for obsolete guns/rifles?
I have two rifles that I'm unable to find a suitable alternative for, namely. 22lr and .45-70, I don't really want to just lose that investment, especially for the .45-70.
If we are going to go down this route will BASC can argue for its members?

Perhaps the BASC insurance will cover you for your loss..

 

[Millerich]

The very very obvious elephant in the room that BASC don't appear to have addressed is that in older .243 Winchester and 6mm Remington rifles 100 grain non-lead bullets will not stabilise. This mean that the Deer Laws as they apply to Scotland will have to be changed to remove that 100 grain marker.

I’ve heard multiple times that this will be dropped.

 

[Kersnow]

The very very obvious elephant in the room that BASC don't appear to have addressed is that in older .243 Winchester and 6mm Remington rifles 100 grain non-lead bullets will not stabilise. This mean that the Deer Laws as they apply to Scotland will have to be changed to remove that 100 grain marker.

Edinburgh rifles have copper 6mm rounds for salw

 

[Kevgun]

Game shooting does the most damage, because it throws the most lead about, but BASC will defend them for sure, the rest of us will be thrown under a bus.