Lead ban date announced

Our passion is your passion... stalk with us!
ashray said:
so i still dont know if i will be using lead legally in my .243 rifle. can any one show me where its written that a .243 must use monolithic bullets ?
Click to expand...
No - .243 will be non lead only and it will be illegal to even hold lead bullets for it as far as I understand.

Still not just quite sure what the purpose of this lead bad actually is when they are banning it for targets as well because it’s obviously not meat damage / contamination
 
Heym SR20 said:
Manufacturing of Copper Bullets.

Two main methods. Stamping and Swaging - using large stamping machines with dies, a piece of copper is bashed into the shape of a bullet over several steps. This is how the vast majority of bullets ate produced on an industrial scale. With traditional bullets, part of the process includes feeding in a lead wire and then swaging the jacket around the core.

This is a capital intensive process with very expensive dies being made for each bullet type, but these last for a few million bullets produced.

This is how military, and most cheap ammunition is produced.

Expensive to set up, but low cost per unit produced, especially once all the assets have written right down.

Very capital intensive to set up a new production run, or to introduce a new shape or design of bullet. And it probably takes a few days to switch from one product to another when running a production run.

2) small scale machining. Much easier to do with a monolithic bullet than a two dissimilar cored bullet, but you start with a rod of copper or brass (an alloy of Copper with Zinc), chuck it in a lathe and turn up a bullet. It is no more or less difficult than mass producing other parts such as a bolt. With a simple copying jig on a basic lathe and a machinest to run it, you can make very good bullets. Cost of labour would be high though per unit.

Most monolithic bullet manufacturers will use an automatic CNC controlled lathe. Such machines are readily available and not a huge cost. Bullets are designed on CAD, translated into a CNC File and loaded into the system. It takes very little time to switch production across from say a 130gn 7mm bullet to a 120gn 6.5mm bullet.

But most of production has been to date relatively small scale production in small designer owned businesses with all the design work being recouped in the first years of production.

When you buy a cup and core bullet, it was designed 60 years ago, probably made on machinery 60 plus years old and fully depreciated.

When you buy a copper bullet you are still paying for all the design work and testing that went into the bullet. You will also be paying for CNC tooling as this will yet to be depreciated.

As always as volumes go up, prices will come down. At the retail end, RFDs are currently having to carry all types of ammunition, so you are paying for cost of such ammo sitting in the warehouse and on dealers shelves.

The UK is not a large market, but it’s a significant market for ammunition. At present copper is a premium product and price accordingly.

Now that are definitive dates and certainty, manufacturers and suppliers can start investing for the future demand.

Some will stick their heads in the sand, whinge hugely and go out of business.

Others will make good decisions and see the opportunity.
Click to expand...
The tooling required to leave a finish as good/smooth as swaging on the copper bullets surface would have to be PCD or even MCD, that's then extremely expensive.

You also need a very good accurate lathe with minimum artefacts in the finish. Now we are not looking at simple copy lathes. You're looking at machines with a belt driven spindle and isolated motor/gearbox to not transfer the vibrations into the workpiece.

You can't have a standard turned surface on a bullet it would be like the surface of the moon under 10x magnification.

Diamond turning lathes or very high quality Swiss lathes do not run cheap.
 
Dan Newcombe said:
No - .243 will be non lead only and it will be illegal to even hold lead bullets for it as far as I understand.

Still not just quite sure what the purpose of this lead bad actually is when they are banning it for targets as well because it’s obviously not meat damage / contamination
Click to expand...
Lead will still be "legal" for the 243 and larger calibres, but for range use only where lead capture etc is in place.
Will be hard justifying possession of ballistic tips or even soft points though.
 
Crowstalker said:
Who's going to catch anyone? In theory your right but in practical reality i cant see how this is being enforced, would most sensible members of the public rather the police go after actual criminals or spend their time driving around the countryside looking for shooter and checking their ammunition?
Click to expand...
“They” that being the police , used to get told “ah I had that lead cartridge in the gun by accident , here’s my steel shot cartridges”

That was fine till plod started taking carcasses for testing and finding them filled with lead.

Quite obviously that’s foreshore.


All people who try and bypass the ban being clever and trying to outwit the law ….


Well all they do is make it harder for everyone else to continue owning guns.
 
Dave_45 said:
“They” that being the police , used to get told “ah I had that lead cartridge in the gun by accident , here’s my steel shot cartridges”

That was fine till plod started taking carcasses for testing and finding them filled with lead.

Quite obviously that’s foreshore.


All people who try and bypass the ban being clever and trying to outwit the law ….


Well all they do is make it harder for everyone else to continue owning guns.
Click to expand...
They will actually be the Environment Agency and HSE and you will be prosecuted under REACH laws for environmental pollution etc. These not allow affect the user / operator, but also those who do not take appropriate measures to prevent such chemicals getting into the wider environment.

So a shoot organiser and the estate could be held liable if lead cartridges continued to be used on shoots after the date of the ban, in exactly the same way as farmer can be held liable if prohibited insecticides are used on the land, or the chemical store leaks.
 
Heym SR20 said:
They will actually be the Environment Agency and HSE and you will be prosecuted under REACH laws for environmental pollution etc. These not allow affect the user / operator, but also those who do not take appropriate measures to prevent such chemicals getting into the wider environment.

So a shoot organiser and the estate could be held liable if lead cartridges continued to be used on shoots after the date of the ban, in exactly the same way as farmer can be held liable if prohibited insecticides are used on the land, or the chemical store leaks.
Click to expand...

Quick question about REACH / UK REACH - as I know precious little about it other than it relates to the regulation of chemicals, etc.

My (very brief) skim through of the HSE website, legislation, guidence, etc suggests to me that REACH / UK REACH does not apply to consumers, it relates instead to manufacturers, importers and those who use the the regulated chemicals or whatever in a professional capacity.

Obviously that knocks on the head anyone selling lead ammunition, but there could be a potential loop hole insofar as makeing bullets / lead shot for yourself with a shot maker, or using up lead cartridges / bullets after the deadline - just as long as you are not useing them in a professional capacity (I could see potential issues with culling deer for a Farmer / Landowner, or doing 'pest control' under the general licences - but not for game shooting or recreational stalking)

If that's true, then the law that comes into play in 2029 is open to judicial reveiw on account of it being a peice of secondary legislation and potentially ultra vires as far as the blanket ban of lead (I know it's not a blanket ban in the sense that there are derrogations, but it would be a blanket ban in the sense it does not differentiate between consumer use and professional use).

Like I said, my knowledge of REACH / UK REACH is minimal, so it could well be that I'm completely wrong about this.
 
Last edited:
PeterHenry said:
Quick question about REACH / UK REACH - as I know precious little about it other than it relates to the regulation of chemicals, etc.

My (very brief) skim through of the HSE website, legislation, guidence, etc suggests to me that REACH / UK REACH does not apply to consumers, it relates instead to manufacturers, importers and those who use the the regulated chemicals or whatever in a professional capacity.

Obviously that knocks on the head anyone selling lead ammunition, but there could be a potential loop hole insofar as makeing bullets / lead shot for yourself with a shot maker, or using up lead cartridges / bullets after the deadline - just as long as you are not useing them in a professional capacity (I could see potential issues with culling deer for a Farmer / Landowner, or doing 'pest control' under the general licences - but not for game shooting or recreational stalking)

If that's true, then the law that comes into play in 2029 is open to judicial reveiw on account of it being a peice of secondary legislation and potentially ultra vires as far as the blanket ban of lead (I know it's not a blanket ban in the sense that there are derrogations, but it would be a blanket ban in the sense it does not differentiate between consumer use and professional use).

Like I said, my knowledge of REACH / UK REACH is minimal, so it could well be that I'm completely wrong about this.
Click to expand...

possibly read the legislation, no loop hole.

The REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2026

These Regulations amend Annex 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (EUR 2006/1907, “UK REACH”), to include the draft amendment proposed in the decision of the Secretary of State made on 25th June 2025 in...
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
 
Liveonce said:
possibly read the legislation, no loop hole.

The REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2026

These Regulations amend Annex 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (EUR 2006/1907, “UK REACH”), to include the draft amendment proposed in the decision of the Secretary of State made on 25th June 2025 in...
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
Click to expand...

Sorry, you have missed my point - that's a statutory instrument, and so therefore secondary legislation. That means it's created by a government minister on account of the powers the relevant peice of primary legislation grants. So, if the primary legislation the statutory instrument is created off the back of does not concern itself with non professional use, then the statutory instrument in this case is too broad because it imposes itself on all non professional use, and so therefore oversteps the powers granted to the minister who has created it. If that's the case, the statutory instrument would be ultra vires / beyond the power of the minister to create.

Edit - this is the scope page for the piece of primary legislation that the statutory instrument you linked to is created by / governed by the rules of - note how it talks about importers, manufacturers and downstream users - not consumers. That suggests to me that it does not concern itself with private use.

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation...
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
 
Last edited:
PeterHenry said:
Sorry, you have missed my point - that's a statutory instrument, and so therefore secondary legislation. That means it's created by a government minister on account of the powers the relevant peice of primary legislation grants. So, if the primary legislation the statutory instrument is created off the back of does not concern itself with non professional use, then the statutory instrument in this case is too broad because it imposes itself on all non professional use, and so therefore oversteps the powers granted to the minister who has created it. If that's the case, the statutory instrument would be ultra vires / beyond the power of the minister to create.

Edit - this is the scope page for the piece of primary legislation that the statutory instrument you linked to is created by / governed by the rules of -

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation...
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
Click to expand...
And indeed, in Parliament, what is known as "a prayer" can be laid against such by MPs or by members of the House of Lords. It remains to be seen how if any of those MPs hosted by BASC on Catton Hall driven days, and still in Parliament, will do this.

 
Last edited:
KimE said:
What?? Most bullet manufactorers have both C&C and monometal production lines already. Norma has once again got military orders for ammunition and they still have production of hunting bullets c&c , monometal and tin and copper bullets. Lapua, S&B, RWS, PRVI they have monometal and lead based options.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, I heard it second hand. Volume seems to be the issue
 
PeterHenry said:
Sorry, you have missed my point - that's a statutory instrument, and so therefore secondary legislation. That means it's created by a government minister on account of the powers the relevant peice of primary legislation grants. So, if the primary legislation the statutory instrument is created off the back of does not concern itself with non professional use, then the statutory instrument in this case is too broad because it imposes itself on all non professional use, and so therefore oversteps the powers granted to the minister who has created it. If that's the case, the statutory instrument would be ultra vires / beyond the power of the minister to create.

Edit - this is the scope page for the piece of primary legislation that the statutory instrument you linked to is created by / governed by the rules of - note how it talks about importers, manufacturers and downstream users - not consumers. That suggests to me that it does not concern itself with private use.

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation...
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
Click to expand...

Indeed i did miss understand you, you have indeed raised an interesting issue.

Are we not downstream users?

But don’t expect any of the shooting organisations rush to use the JR process after all they all want a lead ban.

edit to add

downstream user: means any natural or legal person established within [F8Great Britain] , other than the manufacturer or the importer, who uses a substance, either on its own or in a [F2mixture] , in the course of his industrial or professional activities. A distributor or a consumer is not a downstream user. A re-importer exempted pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) shall be regarded as a downstream user;
 
Last edited:
I think that any SD members on Scotland need to immediately contact their MPs and say that this will remove the ability of crofters to lawfully shoot deer using shotguns as NO non-lead buckshot and no expanding non-lead 12 bore slug or the require weight exists. And ask that a "prayer" be laid until that is addressed.

This also needs to be considered by all about an exemption for .22 R/F, 9mm R/F and possible two inch (2") and two and a half inch (2 1/2") .410" shoguns throughout the UK. I will be contacting my Mid Leicestershire MP on Monday. I hope that others here will contact theirs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

.303 British lead free for deer
Replies
8
Views
519
25 Sharps
25 Sharps
  • Locked
Lead ammunition restrictions - government announcement
53 54 55
Replies
1K
Views
47K
sikamalc
sikamalc
Lead ban and 6mm creedmoOR
Replies
6
Views
551
Twodogs
T
UK Forestry Certification and non lead ammunition
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
co’den
co’den
Use of shotguns on deer under Deer Act 1991 in England and Wales to become de facto illegal under lead shot ban.
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Nickb
Nickb
The No1 App in Europe for Hunting Area Management - MyHunt
Back
Top