I use 204 - but why not use copper in your .243 ?
Lead update.
- Thread starter gixer1
- Start date
I use 204 - but why not use copper in your .243 ?
They will be, or switching to lead free alternatives, such as barnes Varmint grenades.
Ballistic wize, how do they compare to a 58gr hornady?
And how expensive?
Cost wise well, ballistics wise they have a lower BC, can be compensated for with speed, terminal they kill stuff well enough.
I was a massive copper sceptic, but it’s all I use for deer now across various calibres. The yew tree TLRs match or exceed lead ballistics, cost is about twice that of lead but still manageable.
Will stick to 50 gr v-max in my .223 though….
If it is, I'd rather see the fact before accepting it.
It's rather late and I may be a touch woolly on this, but I seem to remember BASC promoting phasing out lead ammunition, perhaps before 2021, I think in 2020?
Well, you said it yourself. It seems to me that if the HSE is reviewing lead abecause the ECHA is reviewing lead, then you can hardly blame that on Brexit. Rather it seems that Brexit was the only possible way (not taken) to avoid reviewing lead ammunition.Plans announced to phase out lead ammunition in bid to protect wildlife
The HSE is reviewing the same chemicals that the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is reviewing. There is a long list of chemicals involved. ECHA is reviewing lead in ammunition and so is HSE. For more on the post-Brexit role of HSE see:
UK REACH explained - HSE
www.hse.gov.uk
Over the last three years of the HSE review into 'lead in ammunition', mirroring the ECHA review in the EU, BASC has submitted detailed reports to the numerous HSE consultations and we challenged various proposals we believed were unevidenced, disproportionate to the risks, and/or impracticable.
The key outcomes resulting from BASC, other shooting organisations, and circa 11,000 individuals that provided input to the various stages of the review are as follows:
However, there is much more work ahead and further details are here:
- The transition to the restriction proposed for the sale and use of lead shot for live quarry has been extended from three to five years.
- The transition to the restriction proposed for the sale and use of large calibre rifle ammunition for live quarry has been extended from 18 months to three years.
- No restrictions proposed for small calibre rifle ammunition
- No restrictions proposed for airgun pellets.
- No restrictions proposed for target shooting for 95 per cent of rifle ranges, and no restrictions proposed for the five per cent of remaining rifle ranges that can de-lead.
Moving away from lead: the next stage
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has sent its final recommendations to the government on restriction proposals for lead ammunition.basc.org.uk
Can you comment please on if BASC will ask for .22 Rimfire and 9mm Rimfire shot cartridges to be exempted. I see that .22 Rimfire bulleted cartridges are exempted and note that there are NO non-lead .22 Rimfire or 9mm Rimfire cartridges made. Will therefore .22 Rimfire **** cartridges be exempted?
If not these .22 Rimfire and 9mm Rimfire shotguns will become unusable.
Perhaps the manufacturers and importers of these might give a figure for the numbers sold in Great Britain each year? As I am sure it will be less that the proposed allowed 1.25 million cartridges of one ounce of lead (thus 38 tons) that Olympic shooters will be permitted to fire off?
If there is no exemption will BASC be pushing for a compensation scheme for these calibre guns. As .22 Rimfire shotgun and 9mm Rimfire shotgun are not used by clay pigeon sports shooters (but are used by people who may be BASC members) such a question would be outwith the remit of the CPSA.
Namman
Well-Known Member
Heaven help us in Wales then.Firstly, as regards the process taking place it's important to remember that the reason for the HSE review of 'lead in ammunition' is Brexit.
Lead in ammunition, and some hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent makeup, were the first areas to be reviewed in 2021 under post-Brexit legislation called UK REACH on the control of hazardous chemicals. Northern Ireland is excluded due to the NI protocol and continues to be subject to EU REACH regulations.
Secondly, in June 2023 the HSE proposed its recommendation for a restriction on hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent make-up in England, Wales and Scotland. This was the first restriction HSE has proposed since it took on the role of regulatory agency for UK REACH at the start of 2021. See here for more details:
Will the UK’s ban on tattoo inks and permanent make-up be as protective as the EU’s?
In June the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) proposed its recommendation for a restriction on hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent make-up. This is the first restriction HSE has proposed since it took on the role of regulatory agency for UK REACH at the start of 2021. A restricchemtrust.org
As far as I know there have been no legislative proposals arising from the HSE recommendations for hazardous substances in tattoo inks/permanent make-up or any other substances the HSE has made recommendations for thus far.
Thirdly, since 2021, many more substances have been subject to HSE reviews, again mirroring similar reviews for those substances in the EU (including lead in ammunition). All of this is to ensure continued trade in chemicals with the EU post-Brexit.
This is a new process in the UK and as far as I know there have been no legislative changes as yet.
Fourthly, the following report looks at prioritisation of various hazardous substances reviewed by HSE:
Fifthly, legislative powers to regulate the sale and use of lead ammunition are devolved and there are already lead shot regulations in place in each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The devolved governments have always had the power to bring in further restrictions (subject to public consultation) regardless of the the HSE review - which only came about because of Brexit.
As per UK REACH process, Defra and the Scottish and Welsh Governments will review the HSE report and decide whether to propose legislation. There is no precedent for the wider UK REACH process being enacted, as far as I know, so this could be the same legislative proposal for England, Wales and Scotland or we could see different laws in different countries - as happened when the lead shot regulations for wildfowl and/or wetlands came into force over 20 years ago.
Do we really want time wasted on focusing on something specific that next to no one uses? I’d rather they focused on stopping the ban on commonly used bullets and cartridges!
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
Im not sure they could do much worse at the moment.
@enfieldspares I think you will find that Clay targets are now all eco friendly, regardless of manufacturer, this is what CCI say.
Following the recent ban of coal tar pitch clays, market leading manufacturer CCI International has launched its revolutionary Eco Clay target which is not only kinder on the environment but performs as well as coal tar. After eight years of research and development experimenting with various different binders, CCI finally opted for a modified natural resin that will future proof the sport of clay pigeon shooting.
The Eco Clay has been independently certified by Bureau Veritas as PAH free as verified by Exeter University providing all Eco Clays with ECHA-REACH Classifications as:
Following the recent ban of coal tar pitch clays, market leading manufacturer CCI International has launched its revolutionary Eco Clay target which is not only kinder on the environment but performs as well as coal tar. After eight years of research and development experimenting with various different binders, CCI finally opted for a modified natural resin that will future proof the sport of clay pigeon shooting.
The Eco Clay has been independently certified by Bureau Veritas as PAH free as verified by Exeter University providing all Eco Clays with ECHA-REACH Classifications as:
I have used them in my .223 with satisfactory results on fox.
I use 9 mm
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
What size steel shot did you try?
The advice is to go up 2 shot sizes, but I can’t see myself firing an ounce of steel 3’s at anything other than pterodactyls.
Maybe 4’s ….
The fact remains though - shot shell in 22 and 9mm is rarely used in comparison, and if they asked for a priority list - they would be well down the list of most people.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
No restrictions have been proposed on small calibres below .243. Ammunition will need labelling for live quarry or target shooting after the transition period.
Whilst it’s positive that the HSE is not recommending restrictions on small calibre rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting BASC does not support the HSE definition of large calibre to include .243 for restriction proposals.
There is sufficient evidence to show stabilisation issues with .243 calibres, supported by a technical report presented by BASC. As a result, potentially 60,000 people who use .243 for deer management will have to re-barrel their rifles (80 grain .243 bullets do not stabilise in predominantly older rifles with a 1 in 12 twist as they need to be 1 in 8).
BASC lobbied for large calibres to be set at 6.5mm and will continue to do so.
We will be funding research and gathering evidence to underpin further lobbying of ministers and officials on this and other issues that arise as this policy issued moves into the political arena.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
I don’t think so but I will pass it onto colleagues for consideration as we go through the final report and policy developments ahead. The HSE has recommended a longer transition period (increase from 3 to 5 years from onset of any change in law) and no buy-back scheme. There are no proposed exceptions for lead shot for live quarry shooting. There is a proposed exception where use of lead shot could still be used for outdoor target shooting for athletes training for international competitions, such as the Olympics and Paralympics, where the use of lead shot is mandated.
Druid
Well-Known Member
I couldn’t get them to group in a 1/10” twist 243.
Too long a bullet for the twist rate it seemed.
Even if the 243 is passed as a large calibre, will lead bullets still be made available for the 243 for vermin?
If people find that their rifle is now not fit for purpose, will there be a compensation package?
Similar threads
