Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
Ps you never said what your solution is to future threats to shooting .... I think safe to say bend over ?
EU ban on lead ammunition for airguns, shotguns and rifles
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
- Status
gerarddwatts
Well-Known Member
Now you are just being silly. And not making much sense.
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
In that case I’ll start an org , I know I’ll rely on your support
Roestalker39 and Gerard, you both know we are shafted whatever and no organisation can or will stand up to legislation. This has been going on for fifty years and will continue. A waste of time picking at one another, accept the inevitable sell out and enjoy whilst you can. It's a Foregone conclusion within the next twenty years,end of.
Alternatively many are not so simple as to believe that removes anything from the armoury of antis, but only from our armoury. Once we've conceded lead, not a single month will pass before they start to campaign against another aspect. They're engaged in a continual campaign of attrition.
A voluntary and managed move away from lead would be great. So the first thing to "manage" is for a proponent of this move to manage to sidestep the laws of physics to get a suitable alternative to lead shot. Once you've done that, then everyone will be delighted to drop lead shot like a hot potato. However, until you've managed to alter the fundamental laws of the universe, a "voluntary" move away from lead is nothing more than a fraud against shooters and against their quarry - a pretence that inferior substitutes are equivalent, when they aren't and never can be.
There seems to be no recognition of the ballistic facts, but instead a weird sort of superstitious claim that a larger, lighter object travelling slower is better than a denser, heavier object travelling faster. No matter how often this obvious falsehood is challenged, no lead-free proponent is ever able to offer any justification for this propaganda, yet nor will they desist from promulgating it. Since you're less simple than us, perhaps you would care to enlighten us?
Thanks - you are indeed touching on the complex mix of science, research, evidence, politics and conjecture regarding policy development on lead ammunition worldwide - this is not a phenomenon unique to the UK nor unique to lead ammunition.
Given your views and insights would you be interested in attending one of BASC's sustainable ammunition days? Hopefully we will be running more events soon and it would be an opportunity to try out some non-lead loads and have some face to face discussion with BASC staff, coaches and fellow participants on your views. You could then report back on your findings to this forum.
For some background on what's involved see:
Try BASC’s sustainable ammunition days
Dr Peter Marshall, BASC's head of training and education, writes about the new sustainable ammunition days and the recent trial event that took place.basc.org.uk
For more general information see:
Ammunition - BASC
Ammunition Read all of our latest advice and guidance on ammunition, whatever your chosen shooting discipline. Shotgun Rifle Airgun Lead ammunition restriction proposals The Heath and Safety Executive published the UK REACH restriction dossier for lead ammunition on 6 May. The document outlines...basc.org.uk
Thank you for the oblique admission.
I would be most interested in attending a BASC sustainable ammunition day, and considered trying one in the summer. However, they do not appear to have applicable relevance to the shooting of game, with the possible exception of snipe. I note from the report you kindly attached, and which I had read previously, that the trial involved the use of several loads yet none of them are loads that you'd recommend using on game. I've no doubt that they're adequate for clay shooting, but going on what BASC has previously published a 28g load of steel is substitute for size 9 lead shot. I don't use size 9 lead shot for game shooting and I very much doubt anyone at BASC ever did either. There are further question marks over safety of firing such cartridges in a standard proof, full-choked gun, and over what number of pellets is sufficient.
I will be delighted to use a lead alternative if it is equivalent. However, pretending that a cartridge four shot sizes too small is equivalent seems to be taking some liberties. Given that, I don't see what the point of these days is.
If, in future, you'll be running days where cartridges are loaded in loads that are conceivably appropriate for game (e.g size 3 in 2.75") and there is some way of demonstrating their lethality at e.g. 40yds - using pattern plates and some measure of penetration or pellet energy, rather than merely demonstrating that they can crack a clay, then count me in. Is this going to be the order of the day in future?
gerarddwatts
Well-Known Member
Everything you say is correct...
However, lead is toxic...fact. The battle WILL be lost, failure to acknowledge that will do nothing for our cause, and gives those opposed to our sport and way of life an easy victory.
Please don't mistake my posts...I use lead and would far prefer to continue with it as I do now, but that has no long term future....we MUST find and use alternatives, as many are already doing. Of course its not ideal, nor an outcome any of us would wish for, but it WILL be the only way forward. To burble on about 'fighting' and blaming it all on our organisations is childish and fruitless.
Didn't sound like it when Harradine got up at a wildfowling conference and said he had shot with lead and steel and couldn't tell the difference. Perhaps he missed with everything.
Everyone has known lead is toxic for centuries. That is not an argument to avoid lead ammunition. The battle will be lost ONLY if idiots concede it. Five years ago, a proper scientific review concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to justify banning lead. Since then, no compelling new evidence has been presented, so why must we go against the conclusions of experts?
That's all as may be. However, the fact is that there is no equivalent alternative to lead for shotguns, so why are you not saying that what you mean, which that we must give up a large proportion of shooting, in order to achieve nothing at all?
gerarddwatts
Well-Known Member
Read the headline properly..
'EU ban on lead ammunition....etc etc etc' Is it 'concession' if the legislators impose new rules? You may be sure that when the EU does ban lead, the UK will follow.
I'm afraid the 'idiots' are those who pretend its a battle we can win and burrow their heads further into the sand. But you are repeating yourself, and I am repeating myself. So I'll stop.
'EU ban on lead ammunition....etc etc etc' Is it 'concession' if the legislators impose new rules? You may be sure that when the EU does ban lead, the UK will follow.
I'm afraid the 'idiots' are those who pretend its a battle we can win and burrow their heads further into the sand. But you are repeating yourself, and I am repeating myself. So I'll stop.
Wildfowling was always seen as a hunter, gatherer occupation, carried out by low-paid workers to put meat on the table, but it has now degenerated into a 'sport'. How can the hunter, gatherer argument be put forward when people are willing to drive hundreds of miles to fire, perhaps £10 worth of cartridges to take home something worth less than £1?
You would command as much respect from the average person as a driven pheasant shooter/trophy hunter does.
You would command as much respect from the average person as a driven pheasant shooter/trophy hunter does.
That's your opiniom, but "burrowing heads in the sand" as you put it, or insisting on policy based on facts as the rest of us put it, has worked just fine for the last 45 years while this anti-camapign has been running.
You're presenting absolutely no upside to the approach you prefer, only the downside of bringing forward the date at which it impacts. No rational person could conclude that made sense. I just wish the irrational would stop trying to foist this on us.
Bans on lead are ONLY proceeding because people are conceding perfectly tenable ground to extremists.
Thanks - you are indeed touching on the complex mix of science, research, evidence, politics and conjecture regarding policy development on lead ammunition worldwide - this is not a phenomenon unique to the UK nor unique to lead ammunition.
Given your views and insights would you be interested in attending one of BASC's sustainable ammunition days? Hopefully we will be running more events soon and it would be an opportunity to try out some non-lead loads and have some face to face discussion with BASC staff, coaches and fellow participants on your views. You could then report back on your findings to this forum.
For some background on what's involved see:
Try BASC’s sustainable ammunition days
Dr Peter Marshall, BASC's head of training and education, writes about the new sustainable ammunition days and the recent trial event that took place.
For more general information see:
Ammunition - BASC
Ammunition Read all of our latest advice and guidance on ammunition, whatever your chosen shooting discipline. Shotgun Rifle Airgun Lead ammunition restriction proposals The Heath and Safety Executive published the UK REACH restriction dossier for lead ammunition on 6 May. The document outlines...
I've been re-reading your second link on lead ammunition information. It is reinforcing rather than dispelling my doubts about this move and BASC's position on it. For clarity, I've laid out the main areas below:
1. Scientific evidence justifying phasing out lead ammunition. As we know, the state of the science was inadequate to support this measure as at 2015-16. In reply to the question where is the evidence justifying this, BASC provides none after that date. Both this and your reply appear to confirm that BASC reversed position on lead without any science or evidence. There's really nothing to add, except that it is possible, yet far from certain that some adequately compelling evidence is discovered in future.
2. On the safety of using this in normal proofed shotguns.
"If your gun is nitro-proofed (i.e. it can fire modern lead loads) then it will be safe to fire standard performance steel. This is generally steel of size 4 or smaller." Yet, BASC recommends going two shot sizes larger than for lead. So BASC is not definitively saying that steel size 3 is safe.
"Tests have found that standard performance 24g steel loads did not cause any damage in thin-walled game guns, even after a thousand shots" This claim derived from a paper which also stated that guns used in the study were damaged by using no more than 50 cartridges of steel shot at loads appropriate for game. This study is however 30 years old, and no more recent study appears to exist on the subject of safety.
Surely BASC or cartridge manufactures could do a lot to assuage concerns on this critical point at modest cost by having somebody fire a couple of thousand steel cartridges (size 3, 32g) through, say, an old english boxlock, AYA Yeoman or no4 with half and full choke? Publishing the results, photos and posting a youtube video on this would do a lot more to advance a transition than any amount of insistence on what is currently a pretty spurious line of argument. Will this be done?
3. On the effectiveness of non-toxic shot.
BASC does not state that current alternatives to lead are suitable for "all normal game-shooting ranges" in normal proofed guns. They also indicate that in large steel shot sizes the density of the pattern is inadequate, while also claiming that in general the patterns and penetration are superior. However, there is no proper explanation for how a ballistically inferior pellet can have a superior result. It defies all we know about ballistics.
Yet, in the same webpage, relating to rifle ammunition, BASC says that where " is an absence of reasonable alternatives, we feel lead should continue to be used." To conclude, can BASC state that it is safe, effective and humane to fire relatively heavy steel loads of 32-44g in size 3 shot through a traditional English game gun with full choke, and do those loads have the same terminal effect at range? The answer appears to be "no", so why does BASC not stick to its own published opinion that lead should continue to be used?
Given, that BASC is allegedly acting on evidence, why is there no proper objective evidence as to the safety or effectiveness of these new cartridges? We need proper evidence that this stuff is safe and that it is ballistically equivalent. It's worrying that a full year after you've announced this nonsense that there is still no proper assurance that equivalent non-lead ammunition exists.
4. On the development of new cartridges.
Given that it is a scientific impossibility to produce a material with the same essential characteristics as lead, what is BASC doing claiming "further developments in cartridge manufacture will rapidly meet any remaining needs"?
What will BASC do when, at the end of this "phased transition", there is still no equivalent substitute for lead cartridges?
If you are suggesting they are offering 28ga and .410 in steel shot in biodegradable wads please point to the exact cartridges as I know I am getting old with not do good eye sight but I cannot see them listed.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Jeezz but you lead lovers are a funny bunch, 16 pages of impassioned arguments and you’re still looking at a ban, still making the same points still convinced that truth, science and justice are all on your side.
Maybe they are, but the ban will go ahead because the numbers of people who can’t or won’t shift to non toxic alternatives are a vanishingly small percentage of an already small minority group.
And that’s the problem, too few people see themselves as being seriously affected so are happy to jog along with the herd ( that’d be me too ).
There just aren’t enough of you to force a policy change, you’re being ignored because you have no political clout.
Sad I know, but that’s just how it rolls.
Maybe they are, but the ban will go ahead because the numbers of people who can’t or won’t shift to non toxic alternatives are a vanishingly small percentage of an already small minority group.
And that’s the problem, too few people see themselves as being seriously affected so are happy to jog along with the herd ( that’d be me too ).
There just aren’t enough of you to force a policy change, you’re being ignored because you have no political clout.
Sad I know, but that’s just how it rolls.
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
.
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
And this gents , this attitude of I’m alright jack , this inability to think for ones self and love of regulation is why shooting is F£&ked
Vanishingly small percentage? Really? Anyone who has a .22LR out of all rifle owners, I'd think that was a high percentage.
Anyone shooting game with a choked gun or at reasonable range, or using a .410 or 28g? I suspect that's a pretty big proportion too.
We're not looking to force a policy change, the vocal minority who for various reasons want to end the use of lead shot do.
Political clout has little to do with it because in reality 95% of people don't give a f@#$ either way.
- Status
Similar threads
