Smellydog
Well-Known Member
How about under the table....
Steel on the crows today.
- Thread starter Smellydog
- Start date
Crunchy Peanut Butter
Well-Known Member
on, under or even near the table
Only if A) people are right, and often they are wrong, and B) plastic is much better and fibre is inadequate, which it certainly isn't.
They would be wiser to not completely.exclude what has proven to work perfectly well for over 200 years in favour of something which is scientifically incapable of being as good.
Actually it is an option.
Indeed. We seem to have thrown the cards away through erroneously following the half-witted advice who want everyone to use inferior ammunition for PR reasons, because they believe that using less humane ammunition will endear us to antis.
Crunchy Peanut Butter
Well-Known Member
might be useful to share your experience of inhumane ammunition. Strangely, I find most ammunition pretty humane provided I stick it in the right place.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
My findings, posted on here this winter demonstrated that steel is no where near as humane. I tested 4 types over many days out, driven and walked up.
I lost more birds than I did with lead by a significant amount.
I consider it unethical, I will NOT be buying more. I will become an outlaw not through my choice but through my freedom of choice being stolen from me so the tweedies from the city banks can have their jolly slaughter days!
Crunchy Peanut Butter
Well-Known Member
What species, ranges, conditions are we talking? Have you patterned like of like? what comparisons did make in terms of lead cartridge for steel? This is not a challenge, I am genuinely interested as my own experience has showed that I can tell no difference between natures and my experience wildfowling hasnt provided a comparison (as I don't use lead) but has given me impressive reference points.
There are a set of physical and scientific facts which are completely beyond any possibility of dispute - the laws of physics. Assuming you're not going to attempt to dispute them, then it follows as a necessary consequence that lead-filled ammunition is superior to all sensible alternatives. It is possible that some as yet unidentified gold or rare element alloys may match it, but I don't include those because it is ludicrous. Everything else said to the contrary on the topic is simply guff, in exactly the same way that all opinions based on the earth being flat are.
On the other hand, if you are going to dispute them, then everybody is wasting their time.
Ammunition stuck in the right place with the right energy and physical characteristics is pretty humane. However, the unavoidable scientific fact is that lead ammunition is superior at doing that. It has more energy, it is more accurate and it has better physical characteristics.
I find it strange to say the least that other people in favour of getting rid of lead ammunition often claim that they favour it because their opinion is formed by "the science" - which so far as lead ammunition causing significant goes, is pretty tenuous - and yet they are prepared to passionately deny the existence of fundamental laws of the universe.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
All normal species of game and vermin except ducks, geese and grouse.
It's not as good and physically impossible.
Crunchy Peanut Butter
Well-Known Member
I dont think anyone is denying physics, hence my question of what loads were used and under what conditions. If I had asked what the best material is for a ballistic projectile then yes, lead is very dense so it is up there. However in the context of this discussion it also has the unfortunate characteristic of being toxic.
So I ask again, what were the comparable loads used? Did smelly dog go for an exact like for like or did he go up in size and speed? All my testing has showed considerable improvements in patterns and when pushed fast enough have sufficient energy so in conjunction the results have been good.
The loads and the conditions frankly make no difference to the physics.
It is not just up there but quite clearly significantly superior all round.
There are some caveats to observe here. Yes, lead compounds are extremely toxic. Lead metal isn't significantly toxic until it has reacted. That toxicity is only ever a problem is something is exposed to the toxic particle. To stick closely to the science here, the fact is that metallic lead is pretty inert, and that there is "little evidence" GWCT of it causing significant harm to wildlife under the current set of laws. (Conor at BASC has completely taken leave of his senses over this and keep presenting tenuous fringe ideas, "suggestions" and "links" as representing the reality and denying the conclusions of e.g. GWCT which he acknowledges to be more expert than him. )
If he's gone like for like, and it's inferior, then he's correct, it's inferior. If you're going up in size and speed, then the load isn't comparable, it is different and you're making an invalid comparison.
The argument that you can make an apple behave like an orange if pushed hard enough is neither logical nor compelling. The facts of the matter are that no expert thinks non-lead ammunition is as good or better - that's why no manufacturer claims it is, why no leading shots in any field use it unless required to and why the market favours the better product. Going back to your comment I replied to, it is not "progression" if you're selecting something inferior and making its use compulsory because of a set of spurious claims which amount to "little evidence" in the opinion of experts.
Why is the status quo not an option in your view, when the facts are that it is the optimal solution as the facts currently stand?
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
The GWCT has reviewed the science and that evidence is what underpins the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting that organisations including BASC, CA, GWCT and NGO have been encouraging for over 5 years. I have taken the time to share details from some of those studies and maybe that is where I have taken leave of my senses given it's largely fallen on dear ears and even been misconstrued as me advocating a lead shot ban (that's what the HSE is recommending).
Below is the advice from GWCT - take it or leave it - it's your choice.
Also here is an article from GWCT last year on the use of steel shot.
And here is a video from hunter and researcher Niels Kanstrup talking about the Danish experience of shooting without using lead shot at the GWCT 2020 Game 2020 Conference.
Here is a recent study just from Illinois on crippling rates for lead vs steel shot:
The effect of a ban on the use of lead ammunition for waterfowl hunting on duck and goose crippling rates in Illinois (2022)
Globally, there is increasing effort to transition away from the use of lead ammunition to mitigate its known risks to wildlife and human health. Whenever this transition is stated hunters frequently cite concerns about the effectiveness of non-lead ammunition, how it will result in greater crippling rates, and associated animal welfare costs. This area has been little studied, but recent studies have found no differences in crippling rates using lead and steel ammunition. Using segmented linear regression we evaluated 37 years of waterfowl harvest data in Illinois, United States, overlapping the transition to non-lead shot for waterfowl hunting in order to assess how crippling rates changed following the ban. The average crippling rate prior to the lead shot ban was 23% for both ducks and geese and reduced to an average of 15% and 11% for ducks and geese (respectively) following the ban. In addition, the annual trend in the proportion of ducks and geese crippled reversed following the ban, from a significant annually increasing to a significant annually decreasing trend. We offer hypotheses on behavioural and technological changes which may explain these changes and predict that crippling losses will not increase in Europe following a ban on the use of lead ammunition over wetlands in 2023.
https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wlb3.01001
Last edited:
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Thank you very much. I could not of put it better.
I tried four types. One was high pressure. That was slightly better but not better as in a suitable replacement! The fact it has to be high pressure is admission that it is inferior ! That the law of physics thing revealing itself.
Besides all this I can not use steel in my muzzleloaders and no one gives a hoot so err neither shall I!
SD if you consider it unethical and no where as near as humane - after your winter testing - then why are you using it to shoot crows now ?
Im with you CPB - we used steel as a "shoot" this season and have kept records for circa the last 20 years
Our ratios were very slightly better than last year with the same guns shooting - "the same" or similar birds
I was in a hide last week with a couple of lads and they shot lead me steel and i certainly held my own (shot better)
I do believe a lot of it is the man behind the gun whilst fully accepting the physical deficiencies against lead - could it be with steel and more pellets some of us are finding pattern is beating just outright penetration ? Some of my kills on crows last week were certainly at the range of my ability as i was using a 5 shot semi auto meaning occasionally shots 4 and 5 were at range limits
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
To use the bloody things up.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
That sounds odd, how many birds were coming in at a time?
Lots of jackdaws SD - and sometimes up to half a dozen crows
Its a dairy farm mate and over the last 2 years me and a pal whos permission it is have accounted for close to 2500 corvids
We are getting on top of them though now - some of the morning we had were brilliant - worthwhile and tbh fun
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
This is exactly why we’re likely to end up with a total ban rather than a limited one, some of us just can’t be trusted to comply with legislation.
Genuine question, why can’t you use steel or bismuth in your muzzle loader? I always thought that whatever you could fit down the barrel could become a projectile?
Similar threads
