EU ban on lead ammunition for airguns, shotguns and rifles

[Apthorpe]

The proposal is to ban the “ sale, use and possession” of lead ammunition post ban and transition period.
If this is backed up by a program of ammunition inspection during certificate renewals, implementation wont take long.


Had BASC’s “ voluntary transition” been accompanied by a ban on commercial sales of game harvested using lead ammunition we wouldn’t be still using it, just as we don’t use plastic wads anymore because most shoots ban them.

I was shown round an exemplar shoot recently which had transitioned to steel cartridges and the place was absolutely littered with plastic wads most of which had already been chewed or eaten by livestock (while covered in toxic lead-based primer residue!)

I have some sympathy for BASC,

I don't. It was bloody stupid at every level.

Tesco announced that they were going lead free at the beginning of the transition period, had that lead been followed by other supermarket chains, the pressure to change would have been driven by both dealers and the shoots supplying them.

Fine, but the fact is that most game shot does not pass through shops and the reality is that consumers don't give two hoots what it was shot with.

Without that poke, inertia ruled, nothing changed because there was no incentive to change.

Exactly. Because nobody wanted change, there was no benefit to change, whether at an environmental, food quality, technological, commercial or ballistic level; and the alternatives were inferior.

All that BASC has achieved is to bring into effect a ban which is scientifically unwarranted, by inexplicably and incorrectly validating the spurious propaganda of antis.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Well at least Conor’s last post was a more pro-lead than usual - and up to date as opposed to recycled reviews of archaic scientific papers from the 1800’s

Let’s hope Basic finds the balls to do a Starmer winter payment reversal to keep the masses appeased

As covered earlier in this thread, the EC proposed regulations are being challenged by some EU members for various reasons, and a key argument is the need for longer transition times than those being proposed for the various shooting disciplines impacted. FACE and its members have been briefing relevant MEPs and ministries, that lobbying continues, and BASC is part of a FACE working group that is coordinating this.

As regards the science.... well it is clear that bird species worldwide eat lead shot, mistaking various sizes of shot as grit or seed, with ill effects - those discoveries did indeed start in the 1800s and have grown in volume since then, especially since the 1960s. Nearly every study that looks for evidence of lead shot ingestion in a bird species finds such evidence. What that means is that on any piece of ground being shot over, where birds have free access to lead shot, multiple species are being poisoned by lead shot at the same time. Denying the science on lead shot ingestion by birds is unlikely to be a credible strategy in the face of the EC draft regulations.

Acknowledging and discussing science is not about being 'pro-lead' or anti-lead' and the voluntary transition in the UK has helped break down the taboo around lead/non-lead ammo since February 2020 and evidence of that can be seen on this very forum - discussions are are far more enlightened and mature than they used to be.

Hunters in the EU are beginning to hear about the EC proposed regulations and they are now starting on the same journey that was observed in Denmark. See a summary here:

Denmark was the first European country to completely ban lead shot for hunting and target shooting. This paper reviews the process behind this phase-out to document its history, successes, and pitfalls, and to make the Danish experiences accessible for the benefit of other countries, authorities, and stakeholders who face nature management challenges implementing similar change. A review of the content of magazines published by the three hunters’ organizations during the 1978–1992 transition period was carried out, to assess the general discourse and identify the primary concerns and attitudes during the phase-out of lead shot for hunting in Denmark. Hunters were initially negative towards the change. Resistance was driven by concern about the quality, safety issues, and expensive cost of non-toxic alternatives, compounded by lack of organizational leadership and tensions between stakeholders. As a result of the widening appreciation of the environmental effects of dispersed lead shot and the introduction of new generations of alternative shot types, hunter attitudes became positive and constructive. Change need not pose an obstruction to continued hunting opportunity. On the contrary, it is believed that the value from the enhancement of the public image of hunters resulting from the reduction in the environmental dispersal of a recognized contaminant is of paramount importance for the long-term political sustainability of hunting.

More info:

Lessons learned from 33 years of lead shot regulation in Denmark - PMC

Denmark was the first European country to completely ban lead shot for hunting and target shooting. This paper reviews the process behind this phase-out to document its history, successes, and pitfalls, and to make the Danish experiences accessible ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

All that BASC has achieved is to bring into effect a ban which is scientifically unwarranted, by inexplicably and incorrectly validating the spurious propaganda of antis.

Please could you explain how BASC has brought about a 'ban on lead ammunition'? I am not aware of any such ban.

 

[Dunwaters]

I was shown round an exemplar shoot recently which had transitioned to steel cartridges and the place was absolutely littered with plastic wads most of which had already been chewed or eaten by livestock (while covered in toxic lead-based primer residue!)

At least they tried, biodegradable wads are coming. I hope the livestock that consumed the lead residue contaminated plastic was safely disposed of in accordance with the strictest health and safety protocols.

I don't. It was bloody stupid at every level.

Really?
And doing absolutely nothing in the face of an existential threat would have been more sensible?

Fine, but the fact is that most game shot does not pass through shops and the reality is that consumers don't give two hoots what it was shot with.

Is this just your personal view or do you have some more authoritative source? Can you provide a link?

Exactly. Because nobody wanted change,

Wrong, change is being mandated, initially by EU and latterly by UK REACH policy.

there was no benefit to change, whether at an environmental, food quality, technological, commercial or ballistic level; and the alternatives were inferior.

You might be onto something, the initial move to remove lead was sponsored by a Green Swedish MEP with a strong antipathy towards shooting. Unfortunately the bloody scientists fell over themselves to support and validate her proposal.
You, and several others here, don’t agree with either the science or with the proposal, however, thus far, you have failed to repudiate the findings or to offer anything more than your own opinions as counter arguments.
We’ve tried that for decades, it hasn’t gone well.

All that BASC has achieved is to bring into effect a ban which is scientifically unwarranted, by inexplicably and incorrectly validating the spurious propaganda of antis.

BASC has achieved absolutely nothing, not even the square root of fook all during their transition. They have probably set the programme to replace lead ammunition back a generation.
The “ Voluntary transition” has been an abject failure at every single level, except possibly expenditure.
Maybe that counts as an achievement.

As for the propaganda of anti’s, once again, it’s up to you, propaganda is easy enough to dismiss, the science on which the propaganda is based is far more difficult to discount.
We’ve been trying for 50 years at European level and haven’t yet managed to find a single reputable source to counter the argument that lead is a toxic heavy metal with no safe level of exposure, therefore we need to use something else.
We don’t have to shoot and we dont have to shoot lead in most cases, that makes what we do largely optional.
Do you know of any other leisure user group arguing that their pastime requires them to distribute a toxic element in an uncontrolled and un constrained manner over the environment purely because they always have?

 

[timbrayford]

they are proposing to ban the supply and sale of lead ammunition. Shooters do not have an infinite supply of lead ammunition, and those who shoot regularly will run out.

In exactly the same way on the garage forecourt you can only buy unleaded petrol. You can, I understand, still buy leaded petrol from specialist suppliers for historic vehicles, but sources are few and far between and expensive.

Of course there will be those who will hoard their lead cartridge and belligerently continue to use it. I think you can only store up to about 15 kg of explosives / propellants without requiring an explosive licence and thats not a huge number of cartridges if you are the sort of shooter who shoots 250 cartridges on a days shooting. I am not sure the Police FEO will look too kindly on issuing an explosives licence to stock pile large numbers of lead cartridges if and when a ban is imposed.

Lead shot is relatively easy to make once you get the hang of it

 

[timbrayford]

I was shown round an exemplar shoot recently which had transitioned to steel cartridges and the place was absolutely littered with plastic wads most of which had already been chewed or eaten by livestock (while covered in toxic lead-based primer residue!)

I don't. It was bloody stupid at every level.

Fine, but the fact is that most game shot does not pass through shops and the reality is that consumers don't give two hoots what it was shot with.

Exactly. Because nobody wanted change, there was no benefit to change, whether at an environmental, food quality, technological, commercial or ballistic level; and the alternatives were inferior.

All that BASC has achieved is to bring into effect a ban which is scientifically unwarranted, by inexplicably and incorrectly validating the spurious propaganda of antis.

Precisely, have you seen the field sports channel on YouTube? Apparently some of the new wads for non toxic shot are ruining gun barrels, perhaps the voice of shooting would care to voice an opinion on this and confirm that they have already drawn the HSEs attention to it?

 

[Apthorpe]

At least they tried, biodegradable wads are coming. I hope the livestock that consumed the lead residue contaminated plastic was safely disposed of in accordance with the strictest health and safety protocols.

No. Absolutely not because nobody actually cares about this toxicity

Really?
And doing absolutely nothing in the face of an existential threat would have been more sensible?

No. Maintaining the previous position that this is not an existential threat, it is just a small group of activists bullshitting people out of anti-shooting prejudice. Nothing coukd be more stupid than what did happen which was to claim that all the antis claims were correct and ignore the fact which is th the real state of scientific knowledge is that there is very little evidence to justify a ban.

Is this just your personal view or do you have some more authoritative source? Can you provide a link?

Countryside Alliance/Savills study 2018 less than half of game shotnis sold and about half of that amount to game dealers or processors.

Wrong, change is being mandated, initially by EU and latterly by UK REACH policy.

Yes, you're correct. That was inexact. The large majority of people don't care and a small group of activists co-opted bureaucrats to regulate on this.

You might be onto something, the initial move to remove lead was sponsored by a Green Swedish MEP with a strong antipathy towards shooting. Unfortunately the bloody scientists fell over themselves to support and validate her proposal.
You, and several others here, don’t agree with either the science

This is incorrect. I do agree with the totality of the science, which does not contain sufficient evidence to justify a ban.

or with the proposal, however, thus far, you have failed to repudiate the findings or to offer anything more than your own opinions as counter arguments.

You are entrely incorrect on this point. I did, but oddly people who claim to be "following the science" stuck their head in the ground when the actual findings and methodologies are presented.

We’ve tried that for decades, it hasn’t gone well.

It has, because we're using lead ammunition ans there is still no real evidence of it doing widespread harm outside wetlands and one or two other specialist habitats.

BASC has achieved absolutely nothing, not even the square root of fook all during their transition. They have probably set the programme to replace lead ammunition back a generation.
The “ Voluntary transition” has been an abject failure at every single level, except possibly expenditure.
Maybe that counts as an achievement.

As for the propaganda of anti’s, once again, it’s up to you, propaganda is easy enough to dismiss, the science on which the propaganda is based is far more difficult to discount.

The state of the science is clear and the claims of antis are well beyond what the science can reasonabky be claimed to support. Much of what is cited is methodologically invalid, statistically invalid, circularly referencing other antis and their own work, produced by non-expertd and funded by anti-shooting activists.

We’ve been trying for 50 years at European level and haven’t yet managed to find a single reputable source to counter the argument that lead is a toxic heavy metal with no safe level of exposure, therefore we need to use something else.

This is misrepresentative. It is only in recent years that lead has been described as having no safe level of exposure. Be that as it may, if lead toxicity were the source of this, then we'd be looking at the banning of lead across the board not just specifically for ammunition. The use of lead instead of non-toxic alternatives is actually mandatory in some other uses, and toxic lead compounds used in road paints etcetc.It is not logically sustainable to pretend this is about the toxicity of lead

We don’t have to shoot and we dont have to shoot lead in most cases, that makes what we do largely optional.

We don't have to exist either, nihilist arguments about this are facile and stupid.

Do you know of any other leisure user group arguing that their pastime requires them to distribute a toxic element in an uncontrolled and un constrained manner over the environment purely because they always have?

FIrstly, your premise is wrong and secondly, yes. Rugby, fishing, motor sports, rambling etc etc If one is permitted to extend this to toxic compounds - virtually every human activity.

 

[Ruger#1]

Please could you explain how BASC has brought about a 'ban on lead ammunition'? I am not aware of any such ban.

Your previous post puts forward the case for supporting further lead shot restrictions which hardly supports the idea that BASC is sincere in its claim to be fighting further lead shot legislation.

In truth the argument about whether BASC has brought about a ban on lead ammunition is a red herring and the real issue is not whether BASC is responsible for bringing about a ban on lead ammunition the issue is that it’s failing and has failed to put up any credible resistance to a forthcoming ban and consequently has failed to negotiate a more favourable outcome on behalf of shooters it claims to be the voice of should a ban be introduced.

That their employee continues to justify a ban by posting information that favours further restrictions contradicts BASC’s own policy of resisting further legislative change and seems to indicate that BASC has given up and that their employee is following his own agenda. I’ve yet to see any support for retaining the use of lead shot under any circumstances expressed by C. O’G as per BASC’s stance of a voluntary move away from lead but I read reams of information promoting the negative impact of the continual use of lead in ammunition.

 

[Apthorpe]

Please could you explain how BASC has brought about a 'ban on lead ammunition'?

Whuch part of the explanation in that comment did you find unclear?

I am not aware of any such ban.

You're not aware of any REACH process? Pull the other one.

 

[Ruger#1]

Denying the science on lead shot ingestion by birds is unlikely to be a credible strategy

But arguing the extent of its impact would be.

 

[Apthorpe]

But arguing the extent of its impact would be.

Quite right. The science on lead shot ingestion is that it is extremely toxic to many types of bird but that there is very little evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild outside wetlands. There is a reputable study on partridges ingesting lead shot and being poisoned, I believe, off chalk fields in the South Downs. There is no evidence to support the idea that this occurs in most other habitats. Sources that @Conor O'Gorman stated were more authoritative than him said there was "little evidence". He remains in denial of the science.

 

[Liveonce]

The proposal is to ban the “ sale, use and possession” of lead ammunition post ban and transition period.
If this is backed up by a program of ammunition inspection during certificate renewals, implementation wont take long.
.

Given the FEO is no longer attending during certificate renewals that will be very unlikely.

 

[Dunwaters]

Given the FEO is no longer attending during certificate renewals that will be very unlikely.

OK, you’ll be fine. Just ignore it.
What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Woodenbeam]

As covered earlier in this thread, the EC proposed regulations are being challenged by some EU members for various reasons, and a key argument is the need for longer transition times than those being proposed for the various shooting disciplines impacted. FACE and its members have been briefing relevant MEPs and ministries, that lobbying continues, and BASC is part of a FACE working group that is coordinating this.

As regards the science.... well it is clear that bird species worldwide eat lead shot, mistaking various sizes of shot as grit or seed, with ill effects - those discoveries did indeed start in the 1800s and have grown in volume since then, especially since the 1960s. Nearly every study that looks for evidence of lead shot ingestion in a bird species finds such evidence. What that means is that on any piece of ground being shot over, where birds have free access to lead shot, multiple species are being poisoned by lead shot at the same time. Denying the science on lead shot ingestion by birds is unlikely to be a credible strategy in the face of the EC draft regulations.

Acknowledging and discussing science is not about being 'pro-lead' or anti-lead' and the voluntary transition in the UK has helped break down the taboo around lead/non-lead ammo since February 2020 and evidence of that can be seen on this very forum - discussions are are far more enlightened and mature than they used to be.

Hunters in the EU are beginning to hear about the EC proposed regulations and they are now starting on the same journey that was observed in Denmark. See a summary here:

Denmark was the first European country to completely ban lead shot for hunting and target shooting. This paper reviews the process behind this phase-out to document its history, successes, and pitfalls, and to make the Danish experiences accessible for the benefit of other countries, authorities, and stakeholders who face nature management challenges implementing similar change. A review of the content of magazines published by the three hunters’ organizations during the 1978–1992 transition period was carried out, to assess the general discourse and identify the primary concerns and attitudes during the phase-out of lead shot for hunting in Denmark. Hunters were initially negative towards the change. Resistance was driven by concern about the quality, safety issues, and expensive cost of non-toxic alternatives, compounded by lack of organizational leadership and tensions between stakeholders. As a result of the widening appreciation of the environmental effects of dispersed lead shot and the introduction of new generations of alternative shot types, hunter attitudes became positive and constructive. Change need not pose an obstruction to continued hunting opportunity. On the contrary, it is believed that the value from the enhancement of the public image of hunters resulting from the reduction in the environmental dispersal of a recognized contaminant is of paramount importance for the long-term political sustainability of hunting.

More info:

Lessons learned from 33 years of lead shot regulation in Denmark - PMC

Denmark was the first European country to completely ban lead shot for hunting and target shooting. This paper reviews the process behind this phase-out to document its history, successes, and pitfalls, and to make the Danish experiences accessible ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No Conor science should have moved on. All I read in the papers you continually post links to are scientific models, perceived risks & evaluations of decades old research. Where’s the millions of dead birds etc cause I ain’t seeing them - unless stood under a wind turbine.
As for Denmark stuff that, no you should be shouting from the rooftops about Norway. You have the gall to question those who post against your ideology and say BASIC are standing up for shooters - ya having a laugh.

 

[Liveonce]

OK, you’ll be fine. Just ignore it.
What could possibly go wrong?

Sorry I did not state I would ignore it, just that your view of how partly? it would be policed is very unlikely.

 

[Chris Richardson]

Back on topic, the EC draft regs contain an exemption for "the use and placing on the market of gunshot, or to the use of bullets, for muzzle-loading guns and historic firearms, including their modern replicas."

A PQ of interest from Pippa Heylings, Lib Dem MP for South Cambridge in April about "a derogation for vintage firearms that cannot safely use alternatives to lead shot in the proposed lead shot ban".

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-04-30/49526

Here is a letter from last week's Shooting Times on 'alternatives for muzzle-loaders'.

Hardly a comfort to those who don’t shoot muzzle loaders and didn’t in any way vote for this “ voluntary “ transition from lead shot

 

[Ruger#1]

Hardly a comfort to those who don’t shoot muzzle loaders and didn’t in any way vote for this “ voluntary “ transition from lead shot

The subject of seeking exemptions for Damascus barrelled breech loaders and .410s was brought up on forum previously on a few occasions BASC showed no interest at all in pursuing and seemed to accept that a legislated ban was inevitable with no room for concessions.
If it has accepted that clay shooting should cease using lead shot then there is little chance of a spirited fight to minimise the impact of future legislation on behalf of historic gun owners.
Of course according to Conor that opinion is a product of a BASC bashing troll minority ,especially myself ,rather than a reasonable view from concerned shooters with nearly a lifetime’s experience and an awareness of our shooting heritage who feel let down by the poor representation so far from BASC.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Whuch part of the explanation in that comment did you find unclear?

You're not aware of any REACH process? Pull the other one.

So when you assert that "All that BASC has achieved is to bring into effect a ban which is scientifically unwarranted, by inexplicably and incorrectly validating the spurious propaganda of antis" you mean the REACH process. Which REACH process do you blame BASC for, the EU REACH process or the post-Brexit UK REACH process?

 

[Dunwaters]

Sorry I did not state I would ignore it, just that your view of how partly? it would be policed is very unlikely.

How would you personally go about implementing and policing a ban?
Theres an excellent chance that you’ll be right, it’s not rocket science and we’re dealing with a section of the population already conditioned to compliance with many many rules and regs.
The EU plan on banning sale, use and possession post transition, you are currently in lock step with them, so likely to implement something similar. How you police it, and the penalties for non compliance, are down to you but there will be both monitoring and consequences.
One of the main reasons for the limited number of exemptions granted has been shooter intransigence, we have fought every single proposal to limit lead use since the 80’s and we continue to do it.
The authorities are well aware of both our resistance to change and the long shelf life of ammunition. They’ll be expecting stockpiling and plan accordingly.
Post ban, I would expect possible home inspections, routine sampling of game offered for sale and ammo inspections when shooters are pulled over at random road checks or following complaints.
You can be absolutely certain that the penalties for non compliance will be swingeing, with fines, loss of certs and confiscation of guns all on the cards.
Depending on your shooting discipline, is the risk worth it?
For most of us, steel shot is perfectly adequate for wildfowling and game shooting, bismuth is pricy but available, non lead full bore rifle ammunition for stalking is already available and in regular use.
Rimfire and air gun ammunition would be a problem, but there are moves to give them a derogation, there are also possible derogations for muzzle loaders.
My bet is that compliance will be close to 100%, that won’t stop random lead cartridges popping up for the next century, or the their use by Klingons for another decade or so, but widespread use of lead will stop.
Most of us don’t need it, the ballistic superiority of lead is undeniable, but the alternatives work well enough for most of us.

 

[Apthorpe]

So when you assert that "All that BASC has achieved is to bring into effect a ban which is scientifically unwarranted, by inexplicably and incorrectly validating the spurious propaganda of antis" you mean the REACH process. Which REACH process do you blame BASC for, the EU REACH process or the post-Brexit UK REACH process?

AS I have made unambiguously clear over a protracted period, including above, I don't blame BASC for either process, but for "inexplicably and incorrectly" accepting and even propagating the propaganda of anti-shooting activists. If you'd devoted half the energy to behaving properly over this - challenging erroneous claims, methodologically spurious and biased studies - that you'd devoted to promoting anti-shooting propaganda to your members and making scientifically illiterate claims about alternative ammunition to members of this site, then there is a fair probability that we wouldn't be where we are - which is looking down the barrel of draconian restrictions to the detriment of shooting.