Pros and cons of a lead ban for stalking

purdeydog

Well-Known Member
I was just reading shooting times in sainsburys (too tight to buy it and I dont like it anyway) and they had an article about the deer management conference which dicussed a ban on the use of lead bullets for stalking following concerns over their effect on human health and pollution. *

I know nothing about the pro's and con's of this. I suppose less lead about is a good thing. How would a ban effect ballistics, anyone have any views on this matter?*

Cheers John
 
I was just reading shooting times in sainsburys (too tight to buy it and I dont like it anyway) and they had an article about the deer management conference which dicussed a ban on the use of lead bullets for stalking following concerns over their effect on human health and pollution. *

I know nothing about the pro's and con's of this. I suppose less lead about is a good thing. How would a ban effect ballistics, anyone have any views on this matter?*

Cheers John

We have been trying the Hornaby GMX with good groupings of 1/2" and not as much copper fowling as Barnes X, the vote is still out on the bullet expanding of the GMX on Roe, has anyone tried the GMX on roe if so what are your thoughts.
 
I think a lead ban will have a lot less impact (no pun intended) on stalkers compared to shotgunners.

We already have good mono-copper bullets available, if the use of these goes up significantly, and there is a bit of competition from other makers, the price will come down quite a bit.

If there is a general ban on lead shot, guys who shoot volume shotgun shells are going to suffer.

Why do I find it suspicious that this agenda is being pushed by people who are opposed to our way of life? Death by a thousand cuts is the agenda....:rolleyes:
 
I personnaly have no issue with a lead ban. As long as there is a equally (if not more) efficiant alternative that does not cost the earth. After all IMO the most important factor in a stalking bullet is its ability to kill quickly and humanely, meat damage comes later. I have started to look into alternative heads, as much as of interest as practicallity.

I imagine that if/when we have no legal alternative to non-lead bullets they will skyrocket in price though :(

Sam
 
this whole lead thing is a pointless waste of time.

people have been using lead for hundreds of years, most of the water pipes are still lead!

there is no alternative to lead which is as effective and cost effective.

the problems come when lead was in petrol. lead balls dont do any harm. one guy i read about had a lead bullet stuck in him since WW2 and didnt affect him in the slightest.

for gods sake please never say you dont have a problem with lead bans just cus it doesnt affect you personally!
 
Interesting that this all comes out of the DI conference where the RSPB where bigging up the risk of lead poisoning of eagles through consumption of contaminated gralloch left on the hill. Apparently they got a heads up from some American raptor group doing studies in Arizona or someplace. The tone of the piece in ST was that a lead bullet ban is inevitable. Reading the piece was most informative in that the RSPB blurb was all about "could", "might" and "possibly" etc whereas Peter Green of BDS produced the latest research data which included the fact that some Greenlanders eating 30 lead shot duck a month - as in one every day! - still have body lead levels below the EU recommended limit. He pointed out that if you are talking about the relative health risk to humans of lead consumption we would be better of banning supermarket pies before contemplating a lead bullet ban for deer stalking. However he also recognises that this isn't about science, but about politically motivated agendas, so he reckons we can kiss lead bullets goodbye in the not too distant future.
I do wonder who invited the swivel eyed raptor fascists to a DEER conference in the first place. Anybody complained about the inherent 'cruelty' of eagles driving hinds over cliffs and then feeding on the still living animal?
 
Pros and cons?
Cons: more expense, potentially inferior ballistics, waste of tax payers' money changing things that don't need to be changed
Pros: if you happen to eat nothing but the meat from directly around the bullet strike all your life and you live to 150 you have less chance of getting lead poisoning

Needs to be filed alongside the 'bent banana ban' :rolleyes:

Alex
 
There were some very bad tempered exchanges between the scientists. Peter Green presented logical and (as far as I understood) peer reviewed science whereas the RSPB presented pseudo science. There were no controls in the RSPB data and quite how anyone measures 'accuracy' on a live target with a kill zone the size of a dinner plate is beyond me...

What was most worrying was that BASCs Dr John Harradine (he's the one pictured in ST looking wrong footed and confused) was wrong footed and confused at the conference by a Norwegian chap and his questions. These were roughly based on the differences in bullet construction and their consequent performance on target.

Dr Harradines reply was muddled and showed an appalling lack of knowledge at the most basic level. Problem is that he's one of the guys who will be at the forefron of any emerging policy. Deep joy:(

The other big problem was that John Swift (head of the supposed voice of shooting) stifled debate.
A very pertinent point was raised by David Kenyon of BDS which roughly paraphrased asked why BASC were in support of a movement to ban lead based on an animal rights agenda (presumably reffering to RSPB and RSPCA). Mr Swift was quick to gloss over this question....

At the end of the session there were a good number of us who were quite simply incandescent.

Quite what any of us will be able to do about it is another matter?




It seems that with the RSPB setting the precedent we have had the rug pulled out from under our feet. There have been no objective studies of the performance of the various bullets on deer. No comparison between bonded bullets, hollowpoints, gmx barnes etc.

There has been no proven need to change, yet here we are with an agenda being promoted by the RSPB and seemingly BASC.

Chances of a fair hearing?

Virtually zero.
 
The big concern about this is that the green vermin are putting big money into research aimed at getting lead banned for use in sporting shooting. There have recently been a raft of papers looking at the effects of lead in backstops at shooting ranges and setting the agenda that this lead leaches into drinking water and kills babies on Christmas day. The fact that lead is mined from the ground seems to pass them by.

As Brian said it is death by a thousand cuts and that is exactly what the vermin like Greenpeace/FOE/WWF/RSPB are doing and they have BIG BIG piles of cash to do it with, Greenpeace and FOE spent £10 billion over a 10 year period on PR/publicity for their "man made warming" lie for example. There is no welfare or conservation agenda, they don't like shooting and they want it stopped and £10 billion buys you a lot of politicians, a lot of scientists and a lot of airtime.

So, it doesn't matter if you already use Barnes X bullets and never intend to shoot a lead bullet again, you have to stand up and defend a whole way of life against the agenda being pushed by the green nutters. Believe me, once lead is banned your Barnes X bullet will be next.

One big concern is if there is a hung Parli after the election then the green vermin will be running around trying to see if they can get infulence well beyond that they would be entitled too in view of the small number of loonies that vote for them. So, should someone come looking your vote don't just ask what their position on shooting and field sports is but be sure that they are not going to let the green vermin have a say in government.
 
Having just done some non lead research. I have a major problem with a lead ban!


:O

Sam
 
It costs a great deal more than lead.
It doesnt seem to be nearly as good (with the exception of Barnes stuff, which I shall be buying and testing myself I think).

Sam
 
The other big problem was that John Swift (head of the supposed voice of shooting) stifled debate.
A very pertinent point was raised by David Kenyon of BDS which roughly paraphrased asked why BASC were in support of a movement to ban lead based on an animal rights agenda (presumably reffering to RSPB and RSPCA). Mr Swift was quick to gloss over this question....

At the end of the session there were a good number of us who were quite simply incandescent.

And there was me wondering why a publicly funded charity was charging so much for folk to attend the conference ....... if a few more of us had been there they might have had a riot - sorry, 'public order situation' - on their hands?

I'm afraid this has simply put the final nail in my BASC membership - it looks very much like their idea of being the "voice of shooting" is to buddy up with the opposition on the basis that they can "influence the debate". Such a naive view, flying in the face of all recent evidence, simply beggars belief. It looks more and more as if Swift simply enjoys being the man in the centre at the top table and less and less about actually supporting shooters. :(
 
Sam,

I've been using Sako loaded 165gn Barnes TSX in my .308 for the past couple of years and found them accurate, clean and effective. Three shot clover leaf groups at 100yds on occasions, despite my own inadequacies, and that's just using the ordinary TSX, not the ballistic tipped version. Sellier & Bellot load the 180gn TSX in .308 which I have yet to try but will do so just as soon as I can.

Do bear in mind that while the Barnes TSX (and the Hornaday GMX?) 'petal' on impact there are also wholly solid non-lead bullets produced which are designed for the largest of species where deep, effective penetration might be a problem for more malleable lead bullets. Such bullets are, of course, totally unsuitable for any species found in the UK.
 
Back
Top