EU ban on lead ammunition for airguns, shotguns and rifles

BRACES of Bristol - Mauser M12 with Schmidt & Bender 2.5-10x56 Illuminated Scope

dunwater

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
Ehh, nnoooo,
I don’t like it, I don’t even agree with it but I’m a practicing pragmatist, once I figured out that it’s going to go ahead anyway I decided I might as well jump on the wagon while there’s still a bit of room ( that’s a bit of thinking for myself).
I do love a good regulation though, I read them carefully and then read them again, that way I can work out the loop hole I’m going to exploit so that they won’t apply to me.
That’s more thinking, if I keep it up I may even get good at it.
Safe shooting, us minorities should stick together 😎
 

Liveonce

Well-Known Member
So far it is only a voluntary ban for live quarry shooting by the shooting organisations and we are out of the EU.
So don’t panic yet! Lot’s in the House of Parliament shoot with their very expensive family heirlooms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JTO

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
So far it is only a voluntary ban for live quarry shooting by the shooting organisations and we are out of the EU.
So don’t panic yet! Lot’s in the House of Parliament shoot with their very expensive family heirlooms.
Sadly both Houses are increasingly full of urbanite, utter w#nkers who have absolutely no regard for personal liberty, no common-sense, and no capacity for rational or critical analysis. In most cases, they can't even be trusted to wipe their own arses without getting their heads jammed up there too. The staff of the Home Office and DEFRA are even worse.
 

dunwater

Well-Known Member
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.
I’m a bit concerned about the .22 myself, but it won’t change anything, regardless of facts, science, opinion polls or weather warnings the EU is successfully ploughing ahead with its policy of banning lead ammunition. National and international organisations have fought the ban for 30 years and now it’s over, we’ve lost.We lost because there aren’t enough of us to force the politicians to listen.
Maybe if we adopted a more focused approach to particular aspects of the ban we might win some concessions but blanket opposition at this stage is about as useful as tits on a boar.
Let’s just focus on the issues with rim fires, if we can’t squeeze some concessions there we’ve no chance anywhere else.
 

kes

Well-Known Member
I’m a bit concerned about the .22 myself, but it won’t change anything, regardless of facts, science, opinion polls or weather warnings the EU is successfully ploughing ahead with its policy of banning lead ammunition. National and international organisations have fought the ban for 30 years and now it’s over, we’ve lost.We lost because there aren’t enough of us to force the politicians to listen.
Maybe if we adopted a more focused approach to particular aspects of the ban we might win some concessions but blanket opposition at this stage is about as useful as tits on a boar.
Let’s just focus on the issues with rim fires, if we can’t squeeze some concessions there we’ve no chance anywhere else.
Isnt this what we are members of orgs. to avoid - strategic threats; but I wonder when and why they all saw the 'light' , writing on the wall', whatever at the same time and never asked their members views.
An odd view of representation and attempts to call it leadership are laughable.

Remember the LAG .
 

dunwater

Well-Known Member
Isnt this what we are members of orgs. to avoid - strategic threats; but I wonder when and why they all saw the 'light' , writing on the wall', whatever at the same time and never asked their members views.
An odd view of representation and attempts to call it leadership are laughable.

Remember the LAG .
I think the organisations got blindsided.
Last September the Czechs derailed the process by demanding that it was referred back to committee stage, which would mean at least a 5 year delay and a possibility that the proposal would be lost. There were a number of press releases telling us that we could relax, nothing to worry about.
And then the EU lost its rag and smacked the table, there was already a lead ban over wetlands so they extended the definition to include just about anywhere that’s ever been wet.
No more discussion, no more lead.
And that’s when I concluded that we were royally screwed.
 

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
I think the organisations got blindsided.
Last September the Czechs derailed the process by demanding that it was referred back to committee stage, which would mean at least a 5 year delay and a possibility that the proposal would be lost. There were a number of press releases telling us that we could relax, nothing to worry about. And then the EU lost its rag and smacked the table, there was already a lead ban over wetlands so they extended the definition to include just about anywhere that’s ever been wet.
And that’s when I decided that we were royally screwed regardless.
Democracy in action innit?

Well we're out of the EU, and I really don't subscribe to the view that what the EU decides is inevitable. The fact is that the dominant market is the US, and the UK market for shotgun cartridges must be one of the largest, given the scale of driven shooting and relatively high density of quarry.
So, no, I don't agree that the EU makes anything inevitable.
The move to ban lead is driven by a tiny clique of no more than 500 people in europe, so the idea that we're outnumbered is nonsense.
 

dunwater

Well-Known Member
Well we're out of the EU, and I really don't subscribe to the view that what the EU decides is inevitable. The fact is that the dominant market is the US, and the UK market for shotgun cartridges must be one of the largest, given the scale of driven shooting and relatively high density of quarry.
So, no, I don't agree that the EU makes anything inevitable.
The move to ban lead is driven by a tiny clique of no more than 500 people in europe, so the idea that we're outnumbered is nonsense.

The EU is using the Habitats and Birds directives, both of which you’ve signed, so like it or not you’re coming along.
There’s also the little matter of Waitrose not accepting game contaminated with toxic shot, they’re the first but you’re already beginning to see the FC and some estates moving that way too.
At EU level the lead ban is official policy, so it’s not just a few zealots pursuing it, they all are and they’re very close to achieving it.
Non toxic shot is becoming the norm in the US for all game shooting and there’s quite a range of it available, if U.K. cartridge producers expect to export their wares they’ll have to produce the non toxic variants the market demands, leaving the U.K. the only market for lead and probably a minority of the home market at that, since if there’s a non toxic load available at a similar price to the lead then I’d just as soon have it. That doesn’t look like a great business plan.
I’d prefer to have a choice, but a ban won’t really impact on my sport, except for the .22, I can work with/around most of the rest.
If the loss of lead was a serious issue for more people, you’d be getting a lot more support for your position, but it’s a done deal either way.
The war is lost, just a few more skirmishes while we negotiate the surrender, but we’ve definitely lost this one.
 

kes

Well-Known Member
The EU is using the Habitats and Birds directives, both of which you’ve signed, so like it or not you’re coming along.
There’s also the little matter of Waitrose not accepting game contaminated with toxic shot, they’re the first but you’re already beginning to see the FC and some estates moving that way too.
At EU level the lead ban is official policy, so it’s not just a few zealots pursuing it, they all are and they’re very close to achieving it.
Non toxic shot is becoming the norm in the US for all game shooting and there’s quite a range of it available, if U.K. cartridge producers expect to export their wares they’ll have to produce the non toxic variants the market demands, leaving the U.K. the only market for lead and probably a minority of the home market at that, since if there’s a non toxic load available at a similar price to the lead then I’d just as soon have it. That doesn’t look like a great business plan.
I’d prefer to have a choice, but a ban won’t really impact on my sport, except for the .22, I can work with/around most of the rest.
If the loss of lead was a serious issue for more people, you’d be getting a lot more support for your position, but it’s a done deal either way.
The war is lost, just a few more skirmishes while we negotiate the surrender, but we’ve definitely lost this one.
I'm afraid I cant see our forebears just throwing in the towel.
However for almost all the shooting organisations capitulating and lauding evidence that was not there just before they waved their flag of surrender, anything will be an uphill struggle but worth it for all that.
I for one have not seen the dead ducks etc or (even one, anywhere) suffering the classic poisoning symptoms attributable to lead.
 

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
The EU is using the Habitats and Birds directives, both of which you’ve signed, so like it or not you’re coming along.
There’s also the little matter of Waitrose not accepting game contaminated with toxic shot, they’re the first but you’re already beginning to see the FC and some estates moving that way too.
At EU level the lead ban is official policy, so it’s not just a few zealots pursuing it, they all are and they’re very close to achieving it.
Non toxic shot is becoming the norm in the US for all game shooting and there’s quite a range of it available, if U.K. cartridge producers expect to export their wares they’ll have to produce the non toxic variants the market demands, leaving the U.K. the only market for lead and probably a minority of the home market at that, since if there’s a non toxic load available at a similar price to the lead then I’d just as soon have it. That doesn’t look like a great business plan.
I’d prefer to have a choice, but a ban won’t really impact on my sport, except for the .22, I can work with/around most of the rest.
If the loss of lead was a serious issue for more people, you’d be getting a lot more support for your position, but it’s a done deal either way.
The war is lost, just a few more skirmishes while we negotiate the surrender, but we’ve definitely lost this one.

An interesting and well-reasoned reply predicated on several assumptions that are not valid.
1. We left the EU, and are not under the jurisdiction of that directive.
2. The commercial game market in the UK accounts for very little of the shooting done in the UK. Perhaps it should account for more, but it doesn't. Most game is consumed without passing through a commercial food chain.
3. At EU level, might be important in Ireland but really is not relevant outside the EU.
4. Non-toxic shot may be the direction of travel in the US, but it certainly is not the norm. The majority of products in the US are lead shot and that is despite over 40 years of going non-toxic. The UK has a fairly large domestic market for shotgun cartridges and evidently is sufficiently large to be viable. I doubt UK manufacturers export much anyway. You then go on to say that lead shot would be a minority of UK sales, but it isn't - and that is for the sole reason that there is no equivalent non-toxic load. Which brings you back to my point that this whole lead-replacement campaign is a fraud. What you describe doesn't look like a great business plan because you've used a whole lot of bull to construct it.
5. I'd prefer to have a choice too, and I really don't see any good reason at present for not having a choice.
6. The loss of lead is a serious issue for many people, but having not yet been hit by it - too many are accepting at face value the PR spin put out by the likes of BASC, and supporters of this absurd policy - important elements of which are entirely factually false and misleading. While people believe lies they tend not to be displeased with them, it's only when the truth sinks in......
7. You're probably right that we've lost this one. And consequently we'll see the loss of cartridge manufacturers, a significant amount of game shooting and the economy that supports, significantly increased cost of ammunition and shooting, and quite possibly as a consequence of the increase of maimed quarry, a much higher probability of an outright ban on all live shooting. Nice work. This doesn't leave any shooter, rifle or shotgun in as safe a position as they were previously.
 

dunwater

Well-Known Member
An interesting and well-reasoned reply predicated on several assumptions that are not valid.
1. We left the EU, and are not under the jurisdiction of that directive.
2. The commercial game market in the UK accounts for very little of the shooting done in the UK. Perhaps it should account for more, but it doesn't. Most game is consumed without passing through a commercial food chain.
3. At EU level, might be important in Ireland but really is not relevant outside the EU.
4. Non-toxic shot may be the direction of travel in the US, but it certainly is not the norm. The majority of products in the US are lead shot and that is despite over 40 years of going non-toxic. The UK has a fairly large domestic market for shotgun cartridges and evidently is sufficiently large to be viable. I doubt UK manufacturers export much anyway. You then go on to say that lead shot would be a minority of UK sales, but it isn't - and that is for the sole reason that there is no equivalent non-toxic load. Which brings you back to my point that this whole lead-replacement campaign is a fraud. What you describe doesn't look like a great business plan because you've used a whole lot of bull to construct it.
5. I'd prefer to have a choice too, and I really don't see any good reason at present for not having a choice.
6. The loss of lead is a serious issue for many people, but having not yet been hit by it - too many are accepting at face value the PR spin put out by the likes of BASC, and supporters of this absurd policy - important elements of which are entirely factually false and misleading. While people believe lies they tend not to be displeased with them, it's only when the truth sinks in......
7. You're probably right that we've lost this one. And consequently we'll see the loss of cartridge manufacturers, a significant amount of game shooting and the economy that supports, significantly increased cost of ammunition and shooting, and quite possibly as a consequence of the increase of maimed quarry, a much higher probability of an outright ban on all live shooting. Nice work. This doesn't leave any shooter, rifle or shotgun in as safe a position as they were previously.
Good morning,
First point, the directives are binding international agreements, you signed up, they apply to the UK and they will continue to apply. That’s been confirmed, I have an idea that there are a couple of others that you’re stuck with too, water and nitrates maybe? You’re stuck with them.
Secondly, the commercial shooting market in the UK is what supplies the game market and sale of game as a green, ethical alternative to farmed meat is what’s driving that market. The market isn’t small and its not confined to the UK either, a lot of your game is exported to the EU and the EU is going lead free, therefore anything you export will also go lead free as will your domestic market, the transition is already happening. So the EU will remain relevant for the foreseeable future. I also don’t see your game meat industry producing non toxic product for export and selling lead harvested game on the home front either, so whether its for home consumption or export, if you’re selling it, its going non toxic.
Now lets go clay shooting....the directive will apply so expect most grounds to go lead free, the new definition makes almost any land that’s exposed to the rain a wetland, so steel loads. Steel actually works fine and most clay guns are of modern manufacture and steel compatible, no issues there and steel is comparable to lead price wise so what’s to protest about?
The cartridge manufacturers will gear up for non toxic in a heartbeat and trumpet their green credentials from the rooftops.
Finally, you’re right, this whole campaign started with a couple of tree hugging anti’s and plan to disrupt shooting, but it developed traction and the science does actually back them up, and its the science bit added to the growing anti hunting bias that’s been so effective. BASC et al did their best, but its over, we lost.
 

dunwater

Well-Known Member
I'm afraid I cant see our forebears just throwing in the towel.
However for almost all the shooting organisations capitulating and lauding evidence that was not there just before they waved their flag of surrender, anything will be an uphill struggle but worth it for all that.
I for one have not seen the dead ducks etc or (even one, anywhere) suffering the classic poisoning symptoms attributable to lead.
Times have changed and the organisations capitulated because they’d been outmanoeuvred and fought to a standstill.
The basic science is that lead is a persistent neurotoxin and we shouldn’t be throwing it about. Hard to argue with.
Then you get the Green/ Climate change agenda with politicians of all stripes galloping around looking for a crusade to support.
Enter the lead ammo debate, its an absolute Godsend. Undeniably green and with zero political fallout because unlike hiking carbon taxes or banning diesel it wont affect most of your constituents.
Enhanceyour green credentials at zero cost?
That’s a no brainer.
As for our forebears, they were actually a very progressive lot, they moved from match lock to flint to percussion to breech loaders in jig time, particularly the transition from cap to cartridge.
Its this generation that’s resisting change.
 

kes

Well-Known Member
Times have changed and the organisations capitulated because they’d been outmanoeuvred and fought to a standstill.
The basic science is that lead is a persistent neurotoxin and we shouldn’t be throwing it about. Hard to argue with.
Then you get the Green/ Climate change agenda with politicians of all stripes galloping around looking for a crusade to support.
Enter the lead ammo debate, its an absolute Godsend. Undeniably green and with zero political fallout because unlike hiking carbon taxes or banning diesel it wont affect most of your constituents.
Enhanceyour green credentials at zero cost?
That’s a no brainer.
As for our forebears, they were actually a very progressive lot, they moved from match lock to flint to percussion to breech loaders in jig time, particularly the transition from cap to cartridge.
Its this generation that’s resisting change.
Sorry,
I dont agree with your analysis.
 

Conor O'Gorman

Well-Known Member
Official Member
Much of the discussion in this thread and others online around lead ammunition are perhaps less about the evidence and more about people's individual views/position. Which is very understandable. Change is difficult and for lead ammunition the personal perspectives aspect has been researched as follows:


As for the evidence, the GWCT has reviewed it and and a lead shot Q&A is outlined here:


Nine UK organisations stated their position in February 2020. That position is as follows:

In consideration of wildlife, the environment and to ensure a market for the healthiest game products, at home and abroad, we wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used by those taking all live quarry with shotguns within five years. The shooting community must maintain its place at the forefront of wildlife conservation and protection. Sustainability in our practices is of utmost importance.

Many years ago, wetland restrictions demanded a move away from lead shot and we believe it is necessary to begin a further phased transition. Recently, there have been significant developments in the quality and availability of non-lead shotgun cartridges, and plastic cases can now be recycled. For the first time, biodegradable shot cups for steel shot, with the necessary ballistics to ensure lethality, are available. These welcome advances are continuing at an ever-quickening pace, in response to demand from a changing market. Such advances mean that, over the coming years, a complete transition is achievable.

We are jointly calling for our members to engage in this transition and work with us, the Gun Trade Association and the cartridge manufacturers to ensure that further viable alternatives are developed for every situation involving live quarry. This is an opportunity to take the initiative and ensure the reputation of the shooting community, as custodians of the countryside, is both maintained and enhanced.


We are now almost one year into a transition process and so much has already changed, despite Covid, and this consultative process will continue.

A diversity of options for plastic-free and non-lead ammunition will continue to be innovated. The development of new products has seen a surge in enquiries about non-lead shot from BASC members and our regional teams are reporting more and more discussions about non-lead alternatives. In a recent BASC membership survey, 70% of respondents stated “phasing out the use of lead and plastic shotgun ammunition” as either very or somewhat important.

It's been stated before and perhaps needs stating again that BASC will continue to fight against disproportionate and unsubstantiated restrictions on the use of lead ammunition - after all we have been leading this fight for 40 years.

At the same time, together with eight other UK organisations, we are encouraging a smooth voluntary transition away from the use of lead shot for live quarry over the next five years.

These areas of work are not mutually exclusive.

In summary we are working to prevent bad laws from entering into force whilst encouraging a five year research and development period for viable alternatives to lead shot for live quarry shooting.
 

Frank Homes

Well-Known Member
Much of the discussion in this thread and others online around lead ammunition are perhaps less about the evidence and more about people's individual views/position. Which is very understandable. Change is difficult and for lead ammunition the personal perspectives aspect has been researched as follows:


As for the evidence, the GWCT has reviewed it and and a lead shot Q&A is outlined here:


Nine UK organisations stated their position in February 2020. That position is as follows:

In consideration of wildlife, the environment and to ensure a market for the healthiest game products, at home and abroad, we wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used by those taking all live quarry with shotguns within five years. The shooting community must maintain its place at the forefront of wildlife conservation and protection. Sustainability in our practices is of utmost importance.

Many years ago, wetland restrictions demanded a move away from lead shot and we believe it is necessary to begin a further phased transition. Recently, there have been significant developments in the quality and availability of non-lead shotgun cartridges, and plastic cases can now be recycled. For the first time, biodegradable shot cups for steel shot, with the necessary ballistics to ensure lethality, are available. These welcome advances are continuing at an ever-quickening pace, in response to demand from a changing market. Such advances mean that, over the coming years, a complete transition is achievable.

We are jointly calling for our members to engage in this transition and work with us, the Gun Trade Association and the cartridge manufacturers to ensure that further viable alternatives are developed for every situation involving live quarry. This is an opportunity to take the initiative and ensure the reputation of the shooting community, as custodians of the countryside, is both maintained and enhanced.


We are now almost one year into a transition process and so much has already changed, despite Covid, and this consultative process will continue.

A diversity of options for plastic-free and non-lead ammunition will continue to be innovated. The development of new products has seen a surge in enquiries about non-lead shot from BASC members and our regional teams are reporting more and more discussions about non-lead alternatives. In a recent BASC membership survey, 70% of respondents stated “phasing out the use of lead and plastic shotgun ammunition” as either very or somewhat important.

It's been stated before and perhaps needs stating again that BASC will continue to fight against disproportionate and unsubstantiated restrictions on the use of lead ammunition - after all we have been leading this fight for 40 years.

At the same time, together with eight other UK organisations, we are encouraging a smooth voluntary transition away from the use of lead shot for live quarry over the next five years.

These areas of work are not mutually exclusive.

In summary we are working to prevent bad laws from entering into force whilst encouraging a five year research and development period for viable alternatives to lead shot for live quarry shooting.
Please inform us of the complete results of the Basc survey (which i responded to but found it very poorly worded) and don't just cherry pick the one that suits your purpose.
 

kes

Well-Known Member
Why do I complain about BASC so much ?
Because patronising rubbish or convenient stupidity and silence are their stock in trade.

"BASC will continue to fight against disproportionate and unsubstantiated restrictions on the use of lead ammunition (until 4 years from now)- after all we have been leading this fight for 40 years."

Tragic.
 

Liveonce

Well-Known Member
Much of the discussion in this thread and others online around lead ammunition are perhaps less about the evidence and more about people's individual views/position. Which is very understandable. Change is difficult and for lead ammunition the personal perspectives aspect has been researched as follows:


As for the evidence, the GWCT has reviewed it and and a lead shot Q&A is outlined here:


Nine UK organisations stated their position in February 2020. That position is as follows:

In consideration of wildlife, the environment and to ensure a market for the healthiest game products, at home and abroad, we wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used by those taking all live quarry with shotguns within five years. The shooting community must maintain its place at the forefront of wildlife conservation and protection. Sustainability in our practices is of utmost importance.

Many years ago, wetland restrictions demanded a move away from lead shot and we believe it is necessary to begin a further phased transition. Recently, there have been significant developments in the quality and availability of non-lead shotgun cartridges, and plastic cases can now be recycled. For the first time, biodegradable shot cups for steel shot, with the necessary ballistics to ensure lethality, are available. These welcome advances are continuing at an ever-quickening pace, in response to demand from a changing market. Such advances mean that, over the coming years, a complete transition is achievable.

We are jointly calling for our members to engage in this transition and work with us, the Gun Trade Association and the cartridge manufacturers to ensure that further viable alternatives are developed for every situation involving live quarry. This is an opportunity to take the initiative and ensure the reputation of the shooting community, as custodians of the countryside, is both maintained and enhanced.


We are now almost one year into a transition process and so much has already changed, despite Covid, and this consultative process will continue.

A diversity of options for plastic-free and non-lead ammunition will continue to be innovated. The development of new products has seen a surge in enquiries about non-lead shot from BASC members and our regional teams are reporting more and more discussions about non-lead alternatives. In a recent BASC membership survey, 70% of respondents stated “phasing out the use of lead and plastic shotgun ammunition” as either very or somewhat important.

It's been stated before and perhaps needs stating again that BASC will continue to fight against disproportionate and unsubstantiated restrictions on the use of lead ammunition - after all we have been leading this fight for 40 years.

At the same time, together with eight other UK organisations, we are encouraging a smooth voluntary transition away from the use of lead shot for live quarry over the next five years.

These areas of work are not mutually exclusive.

In summary we are working to prevent bad laws from entering into force whilst encouraging a five year research and development period for viable alternatives to lead shot for live quarry shooting.

Conor did you do the sums re world capacity to produce steel shot vs that required for shooting world wide?
 
PSE Composites Limited
Top