An huge own goal by the Shooting Organizations - the lead farce

[Crunchy Peanut Butter]

I'd also be interested, so make that four!

I assume plastic wadded TSS?

I frequently use a moderated .410 to control squirrels in noise sensitive areas so I'm waiting for something subsonic and non-plastic wad. Now I do reload, and am currently waiting for the Jocker .410 wads but it's not cheap for everyone to do and so I doubt many will.

Looking at some of the links posted up about lead I would think you'd get far more environmental benefit from clearing up the lead spread over the large scale shoots than stopping people using .410s for pest control.

I am afraid I do not have the recipe to hand but it is a lil shot load of 14g (7s or 8s) of TSS in a TPS wad (I find no need for a wrap). Due to the weight of the TSS you need fillers but instead of using plastic I have switched to buffering with ground walnut. Makes a difference with the pattern.

for those unfamiliar with a TPS wad, they are incredibly heavy duty and probably take 8000 years to biodegrade so I just pick them up which is pretty easy to do as they don't go far and also it is good to check what they look like post firing.

Works out about £1 a shot so not exactly breaking the bank

 

[Smallholder]

Works out about £1 a shot so not exactly breaking the bank

Thank you. I know about the TPS wads, load data is available on Clay and Game's site and I have a copy. Sadly the wads have been out of stock for a number of years.

Cost wise £1 a shot isn't bad for me but then I can load lead for about 10p, if I ignore the few hundred I spent on a press. I'm unlikely to be able to recover the wads so will see what the paper cups are like when they come out.

 

[Mike L]

Sorry, I don’t call £1 a shot cheap for shotgun

 

[Liveonce]

I am afraid I do not have the recipe to hand but it is a lil shot load of 14g (7s or 8s) of TSS in a TPS wad (I find no need for a wrap). Due to the weight of the TSS you need fillers but instead of using plastic I have switched to buffering with ground walnut. Makes a difference with the pattern.

for those unfamiliar with a TPS wad, they are incredibly heavy duty and probably take 8000 years to biodegrade so I just pick them up which is pretty easy to do as they don't go far and also it is good to check what they look like post firing.

Works out about £1 a shot so not exactly breaking the bank

not sure how you are making them for £1.00 unless not buying components in the U.K. as wads and TSS shot is £1.39 and you also need primer and powder, (primer if not using new cases). So likely closer to £2 a shot.

TSS £87.30 per kg, TPS wads £32.00 per 200 but been unavailable for quite a long time.

 

[Crunchy Peanut Butter]

What steel shot do you use for your pigeons and corvids?

Tim,

I am afraid that I rarely shoot pigeons or corvids nowadays as I never get the time so I can only comment on Game (Pheasant and Grouse) and wildfowl.

For Pheasant and grouse I either use Eley Eco steel or Gamebore Blackgold Steel (or whatever it is called). I have done very well with 5s but would generally opt for a 4. Partly as it would have more energy at longer range but also because I may end up using them on the foreshore. In my gun I seem to do better with Eley Eco steel. I would suggest if they can dump long crosser on the moor then they can kill a pigeon or crow.

For wildfolwing, I find myself in the position that I enjoy doing it more than I necessarily enjoy eating it. As such I am pretty selective, part of the reason I use a 410. For the 410 I have 2 loads, a 12g Bismuth home load which seems capable of killing up to mallard cleanly out to 25-30yds. And TSS which I think will kill a long way out (provided you can hit). I have shot pinks which I estimated to be about 40yds with exit holes in their back (and that is using 7s). I have tried to homeload 410 steel but never managed to make it very effective and you are forced to use small shot due to the capacity of the case. I know others who do well with it and I believe Winchester offer factory steel but I have never used it.

If I do use my 12 bore I would either use eco steel 4s or I would default to my all round choice of a gamebore super steel 36g 1s. My experience shows these to be incredibly effective on ducks and geese. When I have patterned them they seem to do better than the larger 42g offerings but I am sure this will vary from gun to gun. Obviously these kick out a big plastic wad, so I just make sure I pick them or at least walk off the marsh with more wads than I fired. By the end of the season my game bag is a rusty muddy mess of rubbish I have picked up.

I wouldn't bother loading TSS in a 12 bore as to fill the shot cup it would be very expensive. I have tried to load very fast light loads of big steel shot but have never managed to make it pattern well.

So my point is, there are plenty of factory loads available which are capable of tackling every conceivable sporting target the UK has to offer. I simply do not buy that non toxic is inhumane, ineffective, dangerous or too expensive.

Oh and I have shot a fair few rats with tin air rifle pellets.

 

[Tim.243]

Tim,

I am afraid that I rarely shoot pigeons or corvids nowadays as I never get the time so I can only comment on Game (Pheasant and Grouse) and wildfowl.

For Pheasant and grouse I either use Eley Eco steel or Gamebore Blackgold Steel (or whatever it is called). I have done very well with 5s but would generally opt for a 4. Partly as it would have more energy at longer range but also because I may end up using them on the foreshore. In my gun I seem to do better with Eley Eco steel. I would suggest if they can dump long crosser on the moor then they can kill a pigeon or crow.

For wildfolwing, I find myself in the position that I enjoy doing it more than I necessarily enjoy eating it. As such I am pretty selective, part of the reason I use a 410. For the 410 I have 2 loads, a 12g Bismuth home load which seems capable of killing up to mallard cleanly out to 25-30yds. And TSS which I think will kill a long way out (provided you can hit). I have shot pinks which I estimated to be about 40yds with exit holes in their back (and that is using 7s). I have tried to homeload 410 steel but never managed to make it very effective and you are forced to use small shot due to the capacity of the case. I know others who do well with it and I believe Winchester offer factory steel but I have never used it.

If I do use my 12 bore I would either use eco steel 4s or I would default to my all round choice of a gamebore super steel 36g 1s. My experience shows these to be incredibly effective on ducks and geese. When I have patterned them they seem to do better than the larger 42g offerings but I am sure this will vary from gun to gun. Obviously these kick out a big plastic wad, so I just make sure I pick them or at least walk off the marsh with more wads than I fired. By the end of the season my game bag is a rusty muddy mess of rubbish I have picked up.

I wouldn't bother loading TSS in a 12 bore as to fill the shot cup it would be very expensive. I have tried to load very fast light loads of big steel shot but have never managed to make it pattern well.

So my point is, there are plenty of factory loads available which are capable of tackling every conceivable sporting target the UK has to offer. I simply do not buy that non toxic is inhumane, ineffective, dangerous or too expensive.

Oh and I have shot a fair few rats with tin air rifle pellets.

That is fine, shooting a flood tide then the plastic wads (just the same as at low water) will float off or be unretrievable from the mud flats which is a shame as the 36g loads have plastic wads at the moment so only half as friendly.
You will get birds that are never picked in all forms of shooting regardless of what you use.
Don't shoot geese any more so 32gm 4/5 for decoying teal/wigeon bottom barrel 36gm 3 in the top when they tower and you need a bit more reach.
You won't be picking any plastic out from these mudflats.

 

[Ruger#1]

Tim,

I am afraid that I rarely shoot pigeons or corvids nowadays as I never get the time so I can only comment on Game (Pheasant and Grouse) and wildfowl.

For Pheasant and grouse I either use Eley Eco steel or Gamebore Blackgold Steel (or whatever it is called). I have done very well with 5s but would generally opt for a 4. Partly as it would have more energy at longer range but also because I may end up using them on the foreshore. In my gun I seem to do better with Eley Eco steel. I would suggest if they can dump long crosser on the moor then they can kill a pigeon or crow.

For wildfolwing, I find myself in the position that I enjoy doing it more than I necessarily enjoy eating it. As such I am pretty selective, part of the reason I use a 410. For the 410 I have 2 loads, a 12g Bismuth home load which seems capable of killing up to mallard cleanly out to 25-30yds. And TSS which I think will kill a long way out (provided you can hit). I have shot pinks which I estimated to be about 40yds with exit holes in their back (and that is using 7s). I have tried to homeload 410 steel but never managed to make it very effective and you are forced to use small shot due to the capacity of the case. I know others who do well with it and I believe Winchester offer factory steel but I have never used it.

If I do use my 12 bore I would either use eco steel 4s or I would default to my all round choice of a gamebore super steel 36g 1s. My experience shows these to be incredibly effective on ducks and geese. When I have patterned them they seem to do better than the larger 42g offerings but I am sure this will vary from gun to gun. Obviously these kick out a big plastic wad, so I just make sure I pick them or at least walk off the marsh with more wads than I fired. By the end of the season my game bag is a rusty muddy mess of rubbish I have picked up.

I wouldn't bother loading TSS in a 12 bore as to fill the shot cup it would be very expensive. I have tried to load very fast light loads of big steel shot but have never managed to make it pattern well.

So my point is, there are plenty of factory loads available which are capable of tackling every conceivable sporting target the UK has to offer. I simply do not buy that non toxic is inhumane, ineffective, dangerous or too expensive.

Oh and I have shot a fair few rats with tin air rifle pellets.

It’s reassuring that options exist and I recognise the effort gone into selecting and loading the ammunition for wetland use where lead is no longer an option. I have relied on my 10 bore and 3 1/2 inch 12 for my foreshore shooting with bismuth and steel and although it doesn’t have the capabilities of the old lead Winchester XX loads I used to use.,selective use allows me to enjoy time flighting wildfowl on the shore.
The crux of the matter in the thread however is ,does the evidence of harm by lead shot inland justify an irreversible move to non lead shot use. As what is considered “inexpensive” is linked to disposable income would you have sportsmen priced out of their sport because they are unable to justify the extra expense of ammunition, or having to replace a family gun with something more modern, based on inconclusive studies that seem to be aimed at providing a link to environmental harm and an impact on game bird populations but have failed to do so.
That some may well afford to bank roll the extra expense goes without saying but surely our aim should be to promote the inclusivity of our sport to ensure its continuation and to ensure those long standing participants in our sport are able to continue to enjoy what to many is more than a hobby and not just an alternative to golf or other such sports.

 

[Crunchy Peanut Butter]

It’s reassuring that options exist and I recognise the effort gone into selecting and loading the ammunition for wetland use where lead is no longer an option. I have relied on my 10 bore and 3 1/2 inch 12 for my foreshore shooting with bismuth and steel and although it doesn’t have the capabilities of the old lead Winchester XX loads I used to use.,selective use allows me to enjoy time flighting wildfowl on the shore.
The crux of the matter in the thread however is ,does the evidence of harm by lead shot inland justify an irreversible move to non lead shot use. As what is considered “inexpensive” is linked to disposable income would you have sportsmen priced out of their sport because they are unable to justify the extra expense of ammunition, or having to replace a family gun with something more modern, based on inconclusive studies that seem to be aimed at providing a link to environmental harm and an impact on game bird populations but have failed to do so.
That some may well afford to bank roll the extra expense goes without saying but surely our aim should be to promote the inclusivity of our sport to ensure its continuation and to ensure those long standing participants in our sport are able to continue to enjoy what to many is more than a hobby and not just an alternative to golf or other such sports.

I base this next comment on experience and observations. Anyone who game shoots who can keep up with the rising costs, I would expect, can afford the marginal difference between lead and steel. If they cannot, maybe they could shoot less often or make other sacrifices to pursue their sport, I certainly do. I doubt HSE feel duty bound to make shooting affordable. BASC have to work to that reality, if they purely represented the affordability argument they would be flogging a dead horse and not serving the long term interests of its members.

I think I have scratched my itch on this subject so I may stop responding. But as my last word (unless I have another). Argue away over whether you think there is enough evidence as to whether lead poses a risk, (I think it speaks for itself). But, these other arguments about how un-affordably it is, how it doesn't work, how unethical it is and how vital it is that people have the freedom to use outdated weapons whenever they have the whim just doesn't wash and portrays an image of a self interested out of touch shooting community.

Do you remember when pubs almost became extinct because we banned smoking inside..................move with the times or get left behind.

 

[Smellydog]

What a load of malarkey...the world is on the brink of economic collapse, there is a war going on in Europe. There is war in the med. We've got an idiot government and we are crawling with illegals.
But we need to stop using lead shot.
FFS.

 

[Tim.243]

I base this next comment on experience and observations. Anyone who game shoots who can keep up with the rising costs, I would expect, can afford the marginal difference between lead and steel. If they cannot, maybe they could shoot less often or make other sacrifices to pursue their sport, I certainly do. I doubt HSE feel duty bound to make shooting affordable. BASC have to work to that reality, if they purely represented the affordability argument they would be flogging a dead horse and not serving the long term interests of its members.

I think I have scratched my itch on this subject so I may stop responding. But as my last word (unless I have another). Argue away over whether you think there is enough evidence as to whether lead poses a risk, (I think it speaks for itself). But, these other arguments about how un-affordably it is, how it doesn't work, how unethical it is and how vital it is that people have the freedom to use outdated weapons whenever they have the whim just doesn't wash and portrays an image of a self interested out of touch shooting community.

Do you remember when pubs almost became extinct because we banned smoking inside..................move with the times or get left behind.

Smoking is banned in many areas, work trains planes buses restaurants shops factories but they haven't banned the out of date shooting community from using them! Covid brought the world to a halt but we got past that and went back to close to normal as we can. Once the lead ban people have their way then it won't ever be the same and people will be stuck with what we have unlike getting back to normal post covid people carry on. Who said lock down worked but we had to comply
twice. They will only ban lead once.

 

[Ruger#1]

I base this next comment on experience and observations. Anyone who game shoots who can keep up with the rising costs, I would expect, can afford the marginal difference between lead and steel. If they cannot, maybe they could shoot less often or make other sacrifices to pursue their sport, I certainly do. I doubt HSE feel duty bound to make shooting affordable. BASC have to work to that reality, if they purely represented the affordability argument they would be flogging a dead horse and not serving the long term interests of its members.

I think I have scratched my itch on this subject so I may stop responding. But as my last word (unless I have another). Argue away over whether you think there is enough evidence as to whether lead poses a risk, (I think it speaks for itself). But, these other arguments about how un-affordably it is, how it doesn't work, how unethical it is and how vital it is that people have the freedom to use outdated weapons whenever they have the whim just doesn't wash and portrays an image of a self interested out of touch shooting community.

Do you remember when pubs almost became extinct because we banned smoking inside..................move with the times or get left behind.

But not everyone game shoots and in many areas the percentage of locals who shoot game is outnumbered by those who rough shoot , shoot rabbits bolted by ferrets and decoy pigeons and crows many who don’t have the luxury of the disposable income to finance extra shooting costs.
I don’t understand your comment regarding BASC having to “ work to that reality” and “serving the long term interest of its members” . I believe BASC as the self proclaimed voice of shooting is obliged to represent all shooters not solely the middle classes with an excess of disposable income and as a long time WAGBI/BASC member I would hope that my organisation would have the best interests of lower income shooters at heart.
I hardly think doing without in some areas of excess expenditure to afford the luxury of being able to take part in grouse shooting bears comparison to for example a pigeon shooter having to cut back on ammunition expenditure as there are simply no funds to available to afford the extra expenditure of non lead shot ammunition. Don’t you think any increase in the affordability of shooting will have a negative effect on recruitment of youngsters into shooting or is your reference point the individual who comes to shooting sports later in life with sufficient income to support the expense of his new hobby.
Hopefully ,as you consider the evidence regarding the use of lead shot speaks for itself , you can enlighten us with your reasoning as to date all those promoting the use of non lead shot based on a conclusive scientific basis have failed to do so. On the basis of evidence available in 2016 both DEFRA and BASC concluded that justification for further lead shot restrictions did not exist. Are you aware of any post 2016 studies that contain conclusions sufficient to reverse that decision ?
As regards self interest I think your own post demonstrates that to a degree and your lack of appreciation for the British gunmakers work of the last 150 years or more is your loss and perhaps indicates a shallow perspective.
I would suggest therefore that your own self interest and seemingly out of touch perspective regarding the history of fieldsports and appreciation of the British gunmakers work trade leaves you open to accusations of being part of a “self interested and out of touch community “.

 

[Ruger#1]

Do you remember when pubs almost became extinct because we banned smoking inside..................move with the times or get left behind.

Hardly a strong argument for accepting lead shot restrictions especially considering the quality of data provided to support such a move. Perhaps the future will see you catch up and embrace a fuller appreciation of shooting sports, failure to do so may see you being the one left behind.
The use of TSS in the .410 for gathering the odd goose is a step forward in that it introduces other options especially relevant to older fowlers once used to lugging large bore wildfowling pieces onto the shore pre lead ban but it’s hardly on a par with the extensive experience of fifty years and more of shooting that many forum members have enjoyed.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I base this next comment on experience and observations. Anyone who game shoots who can keep up with the rising costs, I would expect, can afford the marginal difference between lead and steel. If they cannot, maybe they could shoot less often or make other sacrifices to pursue their sport, I certainly do. I doubt HSE feel duty bound to make shooting affordable. BASC have to work to that reality, if they purely represented the affordability argument they would be flogging a dead horse and not serving the long term interests of its members.

I think I have scratched my itch on this subject so I may stop responding. But as my last word (unless I have another). Argue away over whether you think there is enough evidence as to whether lead poses a risk, (I think it speaks for itself). But, these other arguments about how un-affordably it is, how it doesn't work, how unethical it is and how vital it is that people have the freedom to use outdated weapons whenever they have the whim just doesn't wash and portrays an image of a self interested out of touch shooting community.

Do you remember when pubs almost became extinct because we banned smoking inside..................move with the times or get left behind.

Your contributions are a welcome fresh perspective from a younger generation of people that shoot.

The vitriol and doom and gloom comes mainly from an older generation of shooters that predict the end of shooting because they seek the status quo, which is understandable, but unrealistic.

This natural human condition in society to fear change and play the 'blame game' as one gets older is well understood by us all, we become our parents, and for the shooting community a good example is when older shooters in WAGBI 100 years ago saw the automobile as a threat to 'their' local wildfowling interests.

When I started working for BASC two decades ago older members were predicting the end of shooting, yet shooting is still going strong and will continue to do so, not exactly as now, but continue nonetheless.

As regards lead shot, we await a government response to the HSE recommendations to ban the sale and use of lead shot within 5 years in England, Wales and Scotland.

The CA response to those recommendations: "The removal of lead from shooting will confirm the status of game shooters and wildlife managers amongst the foremost conservationists in the UK".

The NGO response to those recommendations: "Lead exposure poses serious risks to wildlife, domestic animals, and humans, particularly children. This move supports conservation and aligns with existing efforts across Europe".

BASC's response is here:

HSE recommendations on lead restriction proposals explained

Read our explanation of the HSE's proposals on restrictions for lead ammunition in more detail, plus BASC's position on each.

basc.org.uk

 

[Ruger#1]

It doesn’t seem that long ago since BASC stated that their position was to oppose any legislated lead shot restrictions. At the time I wrote on forum that reading the predominantly emotionally based information appearing on forums , BASC sourced, that it appeared that BASC were changing their position from opposition to acceptance of further lead shot restrictions. This was denied and the position stated on a few occasions that BASC continued to stand by its voluntary move from away from lead shot use and that they would continue to oppose legislated restrictions. It appears that that change has occurred and BASC now backs a legislated lead shot ban. Hopefully i am mistaken as I have not noticed any BASC sourced press releases to that effect but I may have missed them.

 

[Apthorpe]

I don't mean to be patronising on this and I say it knowing I will get kick back but............... Shooting and cleanly killing a high goose is a challenge however a good steel cartridge (of which there are many factory loads) is more than capable of doing this.

Could you give us an example or two of such cartridges?

When I hear complaints from game shooters, vermin shooters and clay shooters I honestly cant see what their problem is. A pheasant, partridge, crow, clay are comparatively VERY easy to kill and quite frankly any competent shot should be able to do so with almost any brand of non toxic. For those who rejoice in poking at "Extreme" pheasants I would question the kill to cartridge ratio with lead anyway as nothing works on out of range birds.

The difference is that "out of range" is very considerably closer when steel shot is used than lead. There is not one single manfacturer who claims otherwise.

3. Performance of non-toxic shot. - If you care about performance you should be shooting TSS anyway.

Why? You just said steel was more than good enough at long range?

Having done extensive testing and from experience I rate a good steel cartridge over lead in most applications.

4. English tradition of keeping historical firearms viable. - In 50 years time a browning cynergy will be a historic firearm.

No it won't. It will be an old gun produced with zero craftsmanship.

No one is making you get rid of it but if you genuinely care about performance I would expect you to be on a modern firearm.

Nonsense. The very large majority of firearm failures I've witnessed on shoots have been with modern firearms, and that's with traditional guns being the norm. The performace of a gun has nothong to do with its age.

I bet you are not tipping up on your shoot with a historic blunderbuss rather a pretty modern gun that was made in the past 100 year.

Sometimes. I use a rifle which is 118 years old, two shotguns which are slightly over 100 years amd sometimes one which is about 50years old.
There is precisely no difference in performance whatsoever between an old shotgun and a new one. The same shotnemergesnat the same speed

5. End of small gauges I now do the vast majority of my wildfowling with a 410, this is on the foreshore at high geese. If you care about small gauges take the very small step to learn to home load.

I would be grateful for a decent non-lead, fibre-wadded home load in 2.5 inch .410, size 5, about 12gm then.

6. plastic pollution - Fiber protective wads exist and are suitable for smaller steel. Demand will drive development. Aside from fibre alternatives there is the option to leave from where you are shooting with at least as many picked plastic wads as you fired.

Hoe do you find every wad you've fired? Particularly over marshes at dusk?

For clay shoots this is even easier. For game shooting fiber protective wads can be used as you are not shooting big shot sizes.

7. end of subsonic cartridges - If you care about performance you are unlikely to be using subsonics so I will loose little sleep on this point.

8. affordable alternatives. - Steel is cheaper than lead.

Absolutely not the case in any of the half-dozen or so RFDs I use, nor Just Cartridges.

I just don't buy into these arguments at all.

Of course you don't, you're operating from a rather spurious set of presumptions.

 

[63]

Hang on, science gets it very very wrong some times with people still living with the affects of this so please tell me the science was correct?
No it was not.
You are 65 and me 64 so could have easily been ones affected had my Mother taken it and she spoke to me about in in later life but carried on and got past the morning sickness.
Also the people affected with the infected blood the science was wrong also.



In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the use of thalidomide in 46 countries was prescribed to women who were pregnant or who subsequently became pregnant, and consequently resulted in the "biggest anthropogenic medical disaster ever," with more than 10,000 children born with a range of severe deformities, such as phocomelia, as well as thousands of miscarriages.

Then the infected blood scandal
The UK Infected Blood Scandal refers to the tragic event where thousands of patients were infected with HIV, hepatitis C, and other blood-borne illnesses after receiving contaminated blood transfusions and blood products between the 1970s and early 1990s. This resulted in over 3,000 deaths and thousands more living with long-term health complications. The scandal led to an independent inquiry, the Infected Blood Inquiry, which recommended compensation and other measures. The government has since announced a compensation scheme and made interim payments to those affected.

In fairness Tim, science is demonstrably right more often than it is wrong, otherwise the last 200 years or so would not have seen all the technical and medical improvements that they have.

Thalidomide and the blood scandals were both emotive disasters, but it is easy to forget all of the medical advances of the 1970's and 1980's that are now routine and daily save lives. Both my ex-wifes successful pregnancies, and several of her miscarriages would have been fatal to her (and my daughters) had they occurred before the 1970's. As it is, in the mid 2000's all of it was very medically manageable.

Unquestioning faith in science isn't great, but arguing we should never trust science because occasionally it gets it wrong is specious. For those of us who still have plenty of other things to do with our, trusting the scientific consensus on any particular topic is a reasonable 'rule of thumb'.

 

[Ruger#1]

Your contributions are a welcome fresh perspective from a younger generation of people that shoot.

The vitriol and doom and gloom comes mainly from an older generation of shooters that predict the end of shooting because they seek the status quo, which is understandable, but unrealistic.

This natural human condition in society to fear change and play the 'blame game' as one gets older is well understood by us all, we become our parents, and for the shooting community a good example is when older shooters in WAGBI 100 years ago saw the automobile as a threat to 'their' local wildfowling interests.

When I started working for BASC two decades ago older members were predicting the end of shooting, yet shooting is still going strong and will continue to do so, not exactly as now, but continue nonetheless.

As regards lead shot, we await a government response to the HSE recommendations to ban the sale and use of lead shot within 5 years in England, Wales and Scotland.

The CA response to those recommendations: "The removal of lead from shooting will confirm the status of game shooters and wildlife managers amongst the foremost conservationists in the UK".

The NGO response to those recommendations: "Lead exposure poses serious risks to wildlife, domestic animals, and humans, particularly children. This move supports conservation and aligns with existing efforts across Europe".

BASC's response is here:

HSE recommendations on lead restriction proposals explained

Read our explanation of the HSE's proposals on restrictions for lead ammunition in more detail, plus BASC's position on each.

basc.org.uk

A quick Google search provided the following information posted on the Pigeonwatch forum last year . It concerns a link posted by a BASC representative stating BASC policy regarding proposed legislated restrictions on lead shot use. The link lead to the following
“BASC review of the HSE Annex 15 opinion on lead ammunition restrictions.”

“December 2023”

“2. BASC position on lead ammunition
BASC is opposed to any further regulation on the use of lead ammunition in the UK “


Can we have some clarification on the present BASC policy on any further regulation on the use of lead ammunition in the UK and if that policy has changed since December 2023 when was it brought about and what were the reasons for doing so ?

 

[Ruger#1]

Anyone requiring confirmation or further detail regarding my last post refer to
Pigeonwatch forum to a thread started on April 3 2024 in General Shooting Matters titled
BASC update on voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry
The thread is 23 pages long and eventually locked but is a good read and states the then view that BASC was opposed to further legislated restrictions on the use of lead shot for quarry and clay pigeons. Hopefully this is still the case and I have misread the detail contained in the links posted by Conor O’Gorman in his last post on this thread.

 

[Tim.243]

In fairness Tim, science is demonstrably right more often than it is wrong, otherwise the last 200 years or so would not have seen all the technical and medical improvements that they have.

Thalidomide and the blood scandals were both emotive disasters, but it is easy to forget all of the medical advances of the 1970's and 1980's that are now routine and daily save lives. Both my ex-wifes successful pregnancies, and several of her miscarriages would have been fatal to her (and my daughters) had they occurred before the 1970's. As it is, in the mid 2000's all of it was very medically manageable.

Unquestioning faith in science isn't great, but arguing we should never trust science because occasionally it gets it wrong is specious. For those of us who still have plenty of other things to do with our, trusting the scientific consensus on any particular topic is a reasonable 'rule of thumb'.

I never said it was wrong just sometimes it is, and the past seems oh to be soon forgotten does not make it right.

There are 2 if's in this debate with only one outcome.
If the science is right the lead ban will go ahead.
If the science is wrong the ban will go ahead and they will never reverse it as they will not test it long term, meanwhile bird flu will kill at will when it comes around again so then you can't blame it on the lead.

When I was an apprentice in Chelmsford 1977 the town was awash with good engineering companies,
now only but a couple of small ones carry on.
We hardly make anything anymore, the countryside is turning into a wildbird habitat and houses are growing like black grass, if that and the lead ban is progress well you are welcome to it.

I like science and marvel at the medical progress made, however some of it is flawed and mistake are made look at covid as a good example point out to me what started that off!

 

[Ruger#1]

BASC's response is here:

HSE recommendations on lead restriction proposals explained

Read our explanation of the HSE's proposals on restrictions for lead ammunition in more detail, plus BASC's position on each.

basc.org.uk

In the above link there is no mention of BASC opposition to the introduction of further lead shot legislation.

On the pigeonwatch forum thread that you initiated on February 17th 2025 in the Bullets, Cartridges and Reloading section titled “ Lead shot ingestion in birds” you stated
“We have been challenging all the HSE proposals to restrict lead ammunition since the review started. That includes arguments against a ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting”

Is it BASC’s policy to no longer challenge the HSE’s proposals concerning a lead shot ban and is it BASC’s intention to no longer oppose any introduction of further lead shot restrictions for both quarry shooting and clay pigeon shooting.

The “Lead shot ingestion in birds thread “illustrates the reassurances given by BASC that any suggestion that BASC was not intending opposing further legislation were false scaremongering . Is it now the case that all the posters on the thread raising concerns about BASC’s intentions were correct ?

Isn’t it beyond time that BASC members were consulted to ascertain support for BASC’s management’s handling of the lead shot issue and in light of the apparent latest decision taken by BASC on their behalf even more important to gauge whether BASC is considered to be acting in the best interests of their members by the membership.