Lead update.

BASC lobbied for large calibres to be set at 6.5mm and will continue to do so.

Why will you not continue to lobby for lead shot for clay shooting?

It’s an insult to allow olympic athletes to continue to use lead shot and not all, on the very small amount of land used for clay shooting and the lead already deposited on the land will not suddenly disappear.

The only logical conclusion for you not to lobby is because BASC want a total ban on lead shot, to ensure it is not used on live quarry.

I was thinking about what I posted, then realised may be a reason BASC are not wanting to continue to lobby for lead shot for clay shooting is because of the not insignificant financial commitment, pain, cartridge manufactures have had to take to come up with their so called biodegradable wads. They need the volume of cartridges sold all year round for clay shooting to make it pay.
Remember when the voluntary transition was announced the cartridge industry were horrified at the idea.
Having now invested lots of money as a consequence BASC do not want to upset them again.

UK GAME CARTRIDGES

Joint statement by the Directors of the UK’s leading shotgun cartridge manufacturers


Statement: Friday 28th February 2020

From: Rodrigo Crespo of Eley Hawk, Paul James of Gamebore, David Bontoft of Hull Cartridge and Roger Hurley of Lyalvale Express

We, the UK’s leading shotgun cartridge manufacturers, hereby address the announcement made by BASC and other organisations on Monday 24th February, stating their “wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used by those taking all live quarry with shotguns within five years”.

Firstly, BASC and their fellow organisations had NO consultation with the UK cartridge manufacturers prior to the announcement being made.

The UK manufacturers have now discussed the matter collectively. We believe the organisations have looked at a limited amount of products and assumed that these are a viable answer to the issue at hand. Unfortunately, this is not the case. This is a major concern to us for a number of reasons, reasons we would have explained to the organisations prior to the publication of their announcement, had we been given the opportunity to do so.

Europe is currently experiencing a steel shot shortage. A move from lead to steel shot for the majority of UK’s shotgun ammunition will inevitably put more pressure on the market for raw material. This would create further shortages in the short term and push up the price as the steel shot industry invests to increase capacity.

The examples of overseas markets successfully transitioned to steel shot such as Denmark and the USA water-fowling sector, should not be used as proof of a solution. This is because the steel loads used in these markets in any significant volume are loaded with plastic wads. In addition to this, the US and Danish regulations allow steel cartridges to be loaded to a much higher level of performance than here in the UK, to increase the lethality of the pellet.

Limitations to performance levels of steel ammunition currently allowed in the UK mean that we are already facing tougher challenges when developing an effective steel load compared to those used overseas. Couple this with the move away from plastic wads and we are even further limited on performance. We would like to see an increase in the performance levels allowed before we can begin to develop loads effective enough to produce clean, humane kills in the various types of shooting carried out in the UK.

There are indeed a handful of non-lead ammunition options with biodegradable wads currently on the market however, at this stage it is simply impossible to make these commercially viable. We cannot make a complete switch over to these products within a five year period without substantial investment into the industry. BASC and its fellow organisations do not have an understanding of the manufacturing processes involved and are therefore in no position to determine the length of time required to evolve.

Tungsten and Bismuth materials are very limited in their availability and significantly more costly to produce than steel. This will result in huge increases in costs, based on raw material prices, for smaller gauge shooters who cannot use steel. This may price many shooters out of the sport.

Right now, we need to decide which to eliminate– lead or plastic? We cannot avoid using both. At present the only commercially available options are lead shot with fibre wads, steel with plastic wads or unaffordable premium non-lead shot. Shooters and land owners will need to consider these options and then decide which option is preferable going forward.

We must be clear and educate the organisations as to what is realistic and achievable. Although the development of non-lead, non-plastic alternatives are in the early stages of development, it will be considerable time before a full range of options are available to shooters. This process is a long one that will require vast research, development and investment.

Collectively, we do agree that the industry needs to evolve to become more environmentally friendly. We anticipate this happening as larger industries continue to invest in plastic alternatives which will naturally filter down to ours and other smaller industries. These major industries are in a better position to develop the alternatives, the smaller industries such as ours will then follow. It is unrealistic to expect a relatively small industry such as ours to be at the forefront of the development of such materials.

Moving forward we will continue to encourage the use of steel shot where required, but at this early stage we have no alternative option but to support the use of lead with fibre wads as the solution to the issue of plastic pollution. Where non-lead shot is needed, we encourage the shooters to collect their used plastic wads where possible and dispose of them accordingly, as we know many already do so.

Lastly, we are committed to investing into the alternatives. Our collective goal is to develop high performance ammunition for all shotguns and gauges using sustainable materials and therefore secure the future of shooting. We simply ask that the organisations and individual shooters understand that doing this within a five year window without significant support is IMPOSSIBLE.


Published 28th February 2020
 
Rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting

A restriction has been recommended on the sale and use of large calibre ammunition with a timeline of three years. Large calibres have been reclassified as .243 (6.17mm) and above. No restrictions have been proposed on small calibres below .243. Ammunition will need labelling for live quarry or target shooting after the transition period.

For accuracies sake, yes I’m a pedant, the recommendation does not use an imperial measurement, it clearly states equal to or greater than 6.17mm for large calibre lead bullets and less than 6.17mm for small calibre lead bullets.
 
Rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting

A restriction has been recommended on the sale and use of large calibre ammunition with a timeline of three years. Large calibres have been reclassified as .243 (6.17mm) and above. No restrictions have been proposed on small calibres below .243. Ammunition will need labelling for live quarry or target shooting after the transition period.

For accuracies sake, yes I’m a pedant, the recommendation does not use an imperial measurement, it clearly states equal to or greater than 6.17mm for large calibre lead bullets and less than 6.17mm for small calibre lead bullets.
All it needs is a tight barrel for 243 and you can shoot lead
 
Out of interest, has anyone heard anything about the new wonder shot Hortonium? It appears to have gone very quiet on that front, or have I just missed it?
 
I was thinking about what I posted, then realised may be a reason BASC are not wanting to continue to lobby for lead shot for clay shooting is because of the not insignificant financial commitment, pain, cartridge manufactures have had to take to come up with their so called biodegradable wads. They need the volume of cartridges sold all year round for clay shooting to make it pay.
Remember when the voluntary transition was announced the cartridge industry were horrified at the idea.
Having now invested lots of money as a consequence BASC do not want to upset them again.

UK GAME CARTRIDGES

Joint statement by the Directors of the UK’s leading shotgun cartridge manufacturers


Statement: Friday 28th February 2020

From: Rodrigo Crespo of Eley Hawk, Paul James of Gamebore, David Bontoft of Hull Cartridge and Roger Hurley of Lyalvale Express

We, the UK’s leading shotgun cartridge manufacturers, hereby address the announcement made by BASC and other organisations on Monday 24th February, stating their “wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used by those taking all live quarry with shotguns within five years”.

Firstly, BASC and their fellow organisations had NO consultation with the UK cartridge manufacturers prior to the announcement being made.

The UK manufacturers have now discussed the matter collectively. We believe the organisations have looked at a limited amount of products and assumed that these are a viable answer to the issue at hand. Unfortunately, this is not the case. This is a major concern to us for a number of reasons, reasons we would have explained to the organisations prior to the publication of their announcement, had we been given the opportunity to do so.

Europe is currently experiencing a steel shot shortage. A move from lead to steel shot for the majority of UK’s shotgun ammunition will inevitably put more pressure on the market for raw material. This would create further shortages in the short term and push up the price as the steel shot industry invests to increase capacity.

The examples of overseas markets successfully transitioned to steel shot such as Denmark and the USA water-fowling sector, should not be used as proof of a solution. This is because the steel loads used in these markets in any significant volume are loaded with plastic wads. In addition to this, the US and Danish regulations allow steel cartridges to be loaded to a much higher level of performance than here in the UK, to increase the lethality of the pellet.

Limitations to performance levels of steel ammunition currently allowed in the UK mean that we are already facing tougher challenges when developing an effective steel load compared to those used overseas. Couple this with the move away from plastic wads and we are even further limited on performance. We would like to see an increase in the performance levels allowed before we can begin to develop loads effective enough to produce clean, humane kills in the various types of shooting carried out in the UK.

There are indeed a handful of non-lead ammunition options with biodegradable wads currently on the market however, at this stage it is simply impossible to make these commercially viable. We cannot make a complete switch over to these products within a five year period without substantial investment into the industry. BASC and its fellow organisations do not have an understanding of the manufacturing processes involved and are therefore in no position to determine the length of time required to evolve.

Tungsten and Bismuth materials are very limited in their availability and significantly more costly to produce than steel. This will result in huge increases in costs, based on raw material prices, for smaller gauge shooters who cannot use steel. This may price many shooters out of the sport.

Right now, we need to decide which to eliminate– lead or plastic? We cannot avoid using both. At present the only commercially available options are lead shot with fibre wads, steel with plastic wads or unaffordable premium non-lead shot. Shooters and land owners will need to consider these options and then decide which option is preferable going forward.

We must be clear and educate the organisations as to what is realistic and achievable. Although the development of non-lead, non-plastic alternatives are in the early stages of development, it will be considerable time before a full range of options are available to shooters. This process is a long one that will require vast research, development and investment.

Collectively, we do agree that the industry needs to evolve to become more environmentally friendly. We anticipate this happening as larger industries continue to invest in plastic alternatives which will naturally filter down to ours and other smaller industries. These major industries are in a better position to develop the alternatives, the smaller industries such as ours will then follow. It is unrealistic to expect a relatively small industry such as ours to be at the forefront of the development of such materials.

Moving forward we will continue to encourage the use of steel shot where required, but at this early stage we have no alternative option but to support the use of lead with fibre wads as the solution to the issue of plastic pollution. Where non-lead shot is needed, we encourage the shooters to collect their used plastic wads where possible and dispose of them accordingly, as we know many already do so.

Lastly, we are committed to investing into the alternatives. Our collective goal is to develop high performance ammunition for all shotguns and gauges using sustainable materials and therefore secure the future of shooting. We simply ask that the organisations and individual shooters understand that doing this within a five year window without significant support is IMPOSSIBLE.


Published 28th February 2020
Why post something that is 4 years old?

Jocker seem to be doing fine in wad development, maybe home based makers want high tech options not low tech paper solutions.

Go help us if the organisations wanting an immediate ban suceed, high time some folk stopped BASC bashing and got real .

A ban on lead is coming we need to make sure if we can that we influence its introduction.

As a matter of interest how many 22 and 9mm shot shells are sold annually?
 
Why post something that is 4 years old?

Jocker seem to be doing fine in wad development, maybe home based makers want high tech options not low tech paper solutions.

Go help us if the organisations wanting an immediate ban suceed, high time some folk stopped BASC bashing and got real .

A ban on lead is coming we need to make sure if we can that we influence its introduction.

As a matter of interest how many 22 and 9mm shot shells are sold annually?

4 years old, but demonstrates the financial investment that has gone into getting the biodegradable wads we currently have, which if their only use is live quarry shooting, then a limited market and mainly for a few months of the year.
Compared to clay shooting.

Jocker wads are just an evolution of the gamebore cardboard tube wads, is manufacturing them scalable at a cost that competes with injection moulding. Given the quantity that will be needed to replace all lead shot cartridges with steel shot. Probably not given gamebore moved on from them.

Yes a ban on lead is very likely still coming, but possibly still opportunity to influence the scope of the ban, BASC obviously think that is possible otherwise why are they suggesting spending members money on trying to keep lead for .243 so why not try and keep lead for clay shooting?

Agree the market for 22 and 9mm shot shells will be tiny therefore if olympic athletes can continue to deposit tonnes of lead shot then what impact would 22 and 9mm shot shells have?

A lot of the criticism of BASC is due mainly of their own doing.
 
It doesn't change the fact BASC sold all of us down the river over lead and please don't try and silence me as I'm not a member of anything you approve. I'm entitled by the owners of this brilliant forum to express my opinion. I don't need to reflect on anything your organisation has done.
The only ones that can silence me here are the site owners, why don't you have a word with them, see if you get me removed, that is what you would like is it not?
The thing is that your opinions are not facts and there is no lead ban. Your fixation on BASC in the derogatory comments made on this and other threads is bizarre given BASC's efforts in challenging the HSE during its lead ammunition review since 2021, which is outlined in the link below and is worth a read:


In short, you are benefitting from the work of BASC and other shooting organisations, for example being able to shoot woodcock, yet you do not support any organisations, in fact you seek to undermine their work - and BASC in particular. You might reflect on that.
 
The thing is that your opinions are not facts and there is no lead ban. Your fixation on BASC in the derogatory comments made on this and other threads is bizarre given BASC's efforts in challenging the HSE during its lead ammunition review since 2021, which is outlined in the link below and is worth a read:


In short, you are benefitting from the work of BASC and other shooting organisations, for example being able to shoot woodcock, yet you do not support any organisations, in fact you seek to undermine their work - and BASC in particular. You might reflect on that.
Thanks, I'll go and reflect...........
Ok done.
Oh and I still don't think your organisation is the voice of shooters. Shooting for the elite yes, all shooters, no.
And for your record as you are so interested I haven't pursued a single woodcock this season as I'm not seeing enough to make it ethical for me.
I didn't need a committee to tell me or suggest not shooting them this season.
I worked it out for myself!
 
These are the experts that HSE consulted, some you may recognise and not for good reasons.


The odds were stacked up against continuing with lead from the start, even if the voluntary transition for live quarry shooting had been a total success I doubt it would have made any difference. Lots of agendas at work to arrive at the HSE proposal. e.g. lead shot on clay grounds is banned unless from an olympic athlete… go figure.
 
Unfair with respect to which points? We've gone back and forth on this, and you've not demonstrated that any part of my criticism is at all inaccurate or incorrect. I entirely accept that you may find yourself in an uncomfortable situation trying to argue both sides of the coin at the same time, but there's nothing unfair I have said.
I'll tell you something that is unfair - gaslighting your members. The reasons put forward at the time for this ludicrous transition you initiated were A) to benefit nature - yet there is no proper evidence of it having benefitted nature on shoots where the change has been made, nor was there ever proper evidence if lead shot harming nature, and B) to improve the market for shot game particulaely for export- which is irrelevant to the majority of shooters who eat what they shoot anyway. Further claims made im supportnof the policy were that it would lead to magical improvements in non-lead ammunition - and the laws of physics have not obliged you by changing, that non-lead alternatives would be price competitive and widely available - neither of which are true. I have considerably more justification for feeling disgruntled over this topic than you.

While campaigning for the end of lead ammunition use at the same time. BASC has also encouraged and aided antis since 2019.

An interesting update, which entirely omits to mention that BASC agrees that lead ammunition ought to be phased out, despite the absence of proper scientific evidence to underpin such a view. That is the critical error you have made, both in fact and in strategy. The only essential difference between BASC's position and that of people who want lead ammunition banned is that you believe it should be done via a voluntary transition, and antis think that legislation is necessary.
BASC unwisely started a voluntary transition off its own initiative, and it has now almost ended. Lead ammunition still being the large majority of ammunition used for a variety of reasons, notably including the unavailability of sufficient alternatives,
It is now logically impossible for you to effectively counter the argument that legislation is necessary.
It's almost 5 years since the shooting organisations started encouraging a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. There is no lead ban. The voluntary transition continues. There is no compulsion on you to move away from lead shot for your live quarry shooting. However, if you wish to look into alternatives to lead shot BASC staff can advise, there are events that can be attended and staff may also be available to come out to your shoot.

The 2021 post-Brexit HSE reviews of various hazardous substances to ensure continued trade with the EU on chemicals is a different kettle of fish and based on your comments in this thread and many others it seems that all the updates of the last 5 years cannot square the circle for you in terms of your views and concerns and perhaps a conversation could be a new approach? Let's chat in the new year and see if that helps?
 
Shooting orgs started encouraging a voluntary move away from lead.....

Is that your interpretation about what BASC did ?

Was it not more that your organisation agreed with no consultation with either your members or any of the shooting ammunition manufacturers that we would all voluntarily do this .....what gave you the right?
 
You wouldn't have had to if you hadn't initiated it....good figure.
BASC did not initiate the HSE review.

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. These HSE reviews came about following Brexit to ensure continued trade in chemicals with the EU post-Brexit. Northern Ireland is excluded due to the NI protocol and continues to be subject to EU REACH regulations.

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. Nothing has happened since.

Lead in ammunition was the second substance subject to review and the next one is the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams.

This is a new process in the UK and there have been no legislative changes as yet.

Defra and the Scottish and Welsh Governments will review the December 2024 HSE report and decide whether to propose legislation (noting the substances in tattoos and permanent make-up were at this stage of review in June 2023 and nothing has happened).

If laws on lead ammunition are proposed this could be the same 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. The devolved governments have always had the power to bring in further restrictions (subject to public consultation) regardless of the HSE review.

A BASC update on all of this is here:

 
Thanks, I'll go and reflect...........
Ok done.
Oh and I still don't think your organisation is the voice of shooters. Shooting for the elite yes, all shooters, no.
And for your record as you are so interested I haven't pursued a single woodcock this season as I'm not seeing enough to make it ethical for me.
I didn't need a committee to tell me or suggest not shooting them this season.
I worked it out for myself!
And you would not be able to pursue those woodcock was it not for the hard work of the shooting organisations successfully arguing for them to be kept on the quarry list due to research and encouraging voluntary restraint which has been proven to work.


You do not support any organisation, which is fair enough, but to make so many comments seeking to castigate those organisations - and BASC in particular when you benefit from their work - is unjust and unethical.
 
Shooting orgs started encouraging a voluntary move away from lead.....

Is that your interpretation about what BASC did ?

Was it not more that your organisation agreed with no consultation with either your members or any of the shooting ammunition manufacturers that we would all voluntarily do this .....what gave you the right?
It's your choice whether to try alternatives to lead shot for live quarry shooting. There is no lead ban. Which organisation (s) are you a member of?
 
Back
Top