EU ban on lead ammunition for airguns, shotguns and rifles

[Rory]

From reading broadly, I can't see empirical evidence that lead in rifle ammunition is harmful. You would think that with the centuries of lead ammunition there would be a pathology of the deliterious effects by now. All I have seen so far is (paraphrasing here) 'could contribute' 'may have serious effects' 'lead is dangerous'. But nothing that incontrovertibly shows that it will endanger life.
It's a belt and braces approach to a problem which doesn't exist as far as I can tell. Imagine of the same 'likelihood' was put onto driving a car. Driving cars would then be banned and we would be forced to drive bicycles (lower speeds, less likely to die a horrible death) but at reduced efficiency (can't transport as much or with the same speed).
Like non lead alternatives (copper and zinc are also poisonous btw, wait until they realise that..., more expensive, not going to be compatible with all rifles and increased chance of runners from shots which should have killed quicker).
I think it is a dangerous and incorrect move to be making based on assumptions and projections.

 

[Dave Lakes]

Air rifle sales in Europe just dropped to zero then...

 

[Bavarianbrit]

Elon Musk will do a joint venture with Blaser to develop laser weapons for hunters.

 

[andyk]

Yes ! If we actually show we have some fight in us then yes I truly do , sad thing is too many are all too willing to give up , as evidenced by all those going “ lead free “

Fair enough, I don't agree with you but you've answered my question. I'll answer yours when I get to Carl's comment.

Petition your shooting org to support the following:

• No restriction on the use of lead ammunition for target shooting in any caliber of rifle, air rifle or shotgun
• No restriction on the use of lead ammunition for pest control in any caliber of rifle, air rifle or shotgun
• Non-toxic ammunition to be used for all game not consumed by the shooter's immediate household

That seems perfectly reasonable and would avoid the issue of lead being present in game birds/venison being sold to the public in general. Personally, I'm not convinced of there being actual risks but can't deny that it gives Packham et al the means with which to undermine any drive to create a larger market for game meat.

Changing sides because the other side are winning is not a characteristic I can admire in a man or in an organisation.

I have two types of scouts working at our place: those that run and those that fight. I know which ones I want to be standing next to when the odds are against us.

I can respect that but do have to ask whether that is really in shootings best interests. If, as @Roestalker39 does, you truly think that any regulations can be avoided by a 'united front' then fair enough. Otherwise, it strikes me that such an approach is honourable but is also the equivalent of 'going down with the ship' by risking more aggressive regulation where accepting regulation in some areas might get a trade off and no regulation in others.

To use @zambezi's suggestion as an example. It would be more likely that the orgs could achieve that if they are willing to support concessions in other areas. If they fight to the bitter end and loose, they're likely to get no input in whatever regulations are later passed.

To continue the military analogy, isn't that the point of negotiating terms for surrender before being forced to accept an unconditional surrender?

I suppose the way I look at this is that I'd rather not have to use steel in my shotgun but if I have to do that as a trade off for not having to user non-lead at the range, or in my .22LR, it may be a price I'd grudgingly pay.

 

[CarlW]

I can respect that but do have to ask whether that is really in shootings best interests. If, as @Roestalker39 does, you truly think that any regulations can be avoided by a 'united front' then fair enough. Otherwise, it strikes me that such an approach is honourable but is also the equivalent of 'going down with the ship' by risking more aggressive regulation where accepting regulation in some areas might get a trade off and no regulation in others.

To use @zambezi's suggestion as an example. It would be more likely that the orgs could achieve that if they are willing to support concessions in other areas. If they fight to the bitter end and loose, they're likely to get no input in whatever regulations are later passed.

To continue the military analogy, isn't that the point of negotiating terms for surrender before being forced to accept an unconditional surrender?

I suppose the way I look at this is that I'd rather not have to use steel in my shotgun but if I have to do that as a trade off for not having to user non-lead at the range, or in my .22LR, it may be a price I'd grudgingly pay.

What you are failing to see is that we never agree terms. We just retreat. Again and again. And they move forward some more. And we retreat...again. This is not a negotiation, simply because at no point will it be concluded. There is no point at which the other side lay down their weapons. That is, of course, until shooting is dead.

 

[25 Sharps]

Got to say your response to my response actually seems to contradict itself speed is what creates energy in a given object . Two 40 grain objects one at a higher speed it ain't going to be tgecslower one with least energy. Two objects at different speeds the lighter one with a higher muzzle energy in tge case of tge 22 lr andvtge 17 hmr ? The hmr is the most dangerous in terms of a ricochet accident due to its kinetic energy. Thats just basic physics
I actually found the hmr quite ricochet prone , just never heard one because they where all supersonic . Not a one did I hear ! Actually offered to demonstrate to one feo in a safe area .
The answer to ricochet prevention is of course careful consideration of tge shot chosen or not . Energy is the measure of potential though . Any bullet fragile enough to " turn to dust " as they say would be utterly useless for killing stuff. Case in point the fairgrounds of Blackpool etc used to have special clay mix and powered lead rounds manufactured . Tge old Lancashire rfd network sold gazillions of them

Your response is really confusing to read and doesn't make sense on a lot of levels! So you couldn't hear your HMR ricochets because they were all supersonic? What is that sound you hear in the butts when rounds fly over your head then??

Where am I being contradictory? if 2 bullets of the weight are fired or bounce and one is of higher velocity than the other then obviously it is carrying more energy, where have I said that it does not?

What you are choosing to completely ignore is the effect of bullet construction on what happens to the bullet on impact with something solid like an animal or the ground when combined with high velocity. Bullets are jacketed because fired at high velocity and rotation lead would not hold together, the jacket is purely there to hold the lead together and has the added benefit of protecting the rifling. On impact if the copper jacket is thin, as is the case of varmint style bullets, then the kinetic energy ruptures the copper jacket and the lead breaks up into lots of pieces - velocity aids this process and if the velocity is too low for the bullet construction it doesn't happen at all. So at high velocity a thin jacketed bullet is completely disrupted and cannot ricochet as it is in tiny pieces, if those pieces ricochet they will carry very little energy for a short distance.

One only has to look at the fact that .22 LR sub which will pretty much always pass through a chest shot rabbit but 17 gr HMR or the 30 gr bullets I linked above don't exit, because of the fragile bullet construction combined with velocity means the bullet breaks up inside the animal. The bullet holds together enough to get inside the animal but breaks up inside. Case in point, the Barnes varmint grenade, a sintered powder bullet in a copper jacket with its origins in anti personnel ammunition for Air Marshalls, designed to hold together enough to penetrate and kill but nothing to pass through and damage the plane fuselage.

If using the ground as a backstop a suitable angle at soft ground will have the same effect, to shallow and angle or hard ground then of course the bullet may skim like a stone. This is what people get wrong with HMR, thinking it is fool proof and shooting it over longer ranges without enough elevation.

Does that make sense or do you still completely wish to ignore the impact of bullet construction combined with velocity?

I am not, for one second, saying anyone should rely on bullet disruption in place of a good backstop but even a good backstop can result in a ricochet with a buried stone for example, but if you have 2 bullets or the same weight fired at the same velocity at the same backstop which one is inherently safer, the one that holds together and retains its energy or the one that is constructed to break to pieces and lose its energy?

 

[Roestalker39]

Nice sentiment which I support but where are we going to source ammunition and reloading components from in the not too distant future if Europe has gone entirely lead free. Don't assume the U.S.A. because the American military have already started down the lead free route with some military ranges already being designated lead free and lead free small arms ammunition being developed.

Ultimately we will be dictated to by availability. I can't see there being too many ammunition manufacturers supporting just the limited U.K. market.

We’d better just give up then .....

 

[Pete1774]

What will the alternatives be for rimfire calibres?

I've been trying out lead free 17HMR (Hornady NTX) for a few months. For shooting rabbits it seems to be just as accurate and effective as the V-Max. The only problem I've had is finding a nearby supplier.

 

[Heym SR20]

From reading broadly, I can't see empirical evidence that lead in rifle ammunition is harmful. You would think that with the centuries of lead ammunition there would be a pathology of the deliterious effects by now. All I have seen so far is (paraphrasing here) 'could contribute' 'may have serious effects' 'lead is dangerous'. But nothing that incontrovertibly shows that it will endanger life.
It's a belt and braces approach to a problem which doesn't exist as far as I can tell. Imagine of the same 'likelihood' was put onto driving a car. Driving cars would then be banned and we would be forced to drive bicycles (lower speeds, less likely to die a horrible death) but at reduced efficiency (can't transport as much or with the same speed).
Like non lead alternatives (copper and zinc are also poisonous btw, wait until they realise that..., more expensive, not going to be compatible with all rifles and increased chance of runners from shots which should have killed quicker).
I think it is a dangerous and incorrect move to be making based on assumptions and projections.

I would beg to differ here. It is well known that lead in all forms is poisonous / toxic and harmful. It's why we no longer use lead in petrol, plumbing and paint. And there is a growing body of scientific literature that is showing very clear links between lead and other heavy metals in your blood and likelihood of developing many of the very nasty and as yet untreatable cancers.

The trouble with modern medicine is that define threshold levels and for lead the level to considered Toxic is really quite high. Taking a scale of 1 being lead level in stone age man, most of us now have a level of 1,000 and toxic level is 4,000 - ie you are suffering from accute lead poisoning.

Early forms of Chemotherapy actually used chelating drugs to remove heavy metals from the blood, but all the excitement and value of new chemo drugs rather superceeded all he early work and not much work has been done in this area until the last few years. One of my clients is working in this area so I have an inside knowledge of what is going on and how they are establishing a causal link between lead in the blood, blood cancers and treatment regimes on reducing. This article was published in 2017, my clients are working on the results of this work Pioneering Ground-Breaking Cancer Research | Cancer Recovery Foundation.

The results were published in early 2020 - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajh.25731 - you can download the full text of the article.

The worrying thing is, is the low concentration of metals that are causing issues. On the above scale we are talking levels of 1,500 to 2,000 causing major issues. Or put it another way, how many of your friends and family who shoot are suffering or have died from some form of blood or lung cancers?

The positive is that early pre-clinical studies are showing good results - if anybody is seriously interested in finding out more drop me a PM.

Given that there is now published scientific literature in major journals (such as the American Journal of Haematology) it will be very difficult, if not totally irresponsible for regulators to ignore such evidence.

 

[25 Sharps]

I've been trying out lead free 17HMR (Hornady NTX) for a few months. For shooting rabbits it seems to be just as accurate and effective as the V-Max. The only problem I've had is finding a nearby supplier.

As posted above fine for HV

But what about 0.22 LR and sub sonic which probably accounts for more rabbits than all other rimfire bullets put together . . . .?

 

[Roestalker39]

Even now the lead free mob are trying to make us think it’s not that bad , trust me gents we are doomed

 

[Bowland blades]

Your response is really confusing to read and doesn't make sense on a lot of levels! So you couldn't hear your HMR ricochets because they were all supersonic? What is that sound you hear in the butts when rounds fly over your head then??

Where am I being contradictory? if 2 bullets of the weight are fired or bounce and one is of higher velocity than the other then obviously it is carrying more energy, where have I said that it does not?

What you are choosing to completely ignore is the effect of bullet construction on what happens to the bullet on impact with something solid like an animal or the ground when combined with high velocity. Bullets are jacketed because fired at high velocity and rotation lead would not hold together, the jacket is purely there to hold the lead together and has the added benefit of protecting the rifling. On impact if the copper jacket is thin, as is the case of varmint style bullets, then the kinetic energy ruptures the copper jacket and the lead breaks up into lots of pieces - velocity aids this process and if the velocity is too low for the bullet construction it doesn't happen at all. So at high velocity a thin jacketed bullet is completely disrupted and cannot ricochet as it is in tiny pieces, if those pieces ricochet they will carry very little energy for a short distance.

One only has to look at the fact that .22 LR sub which will pretty much always pass through a chest shot rabbit but 17 gr HMR or the 30 gr bullets I linked above don't exit, because of the fragile bullet construction combined with velocity means the bullet breaks up inside the animal. The bullet holds together enough to get inside the animal but breaks up inside. Case in point, the Barnes varmint grenade, a sintered powder bullet in a copper jacket with its origins in anti personnel ammunition for Air Marshalls, designed to hold together enough to penetrate and kill but nothing to pass through and damage the plane fuselage.

If using the ground as a backstop a suitable angle at soft ground will have the same effect, to shallow and angle or hard ground then of course the bullet may skim like a stone. This is what people get wrong with HMR, thinking it is fool proof and shooting it over longer ranges without enough elevation.

Does that make sense or do you still completely wish to ignore the impact of bullet construction combined with velocity?

I am not, for one second, saying anyone should rely on bullet disruption in place of a good backstop but even a good backstop can result in a ricochet with a buried stone for example, but if you have 2 bullets or the same weight fired at the same velocity at the same backstop which one is inherently safer, the one that holds together and retains its energy or the one that is constructed to break to pieces and lose its energy?

Don't want to labour this point because we will go around and around ! Its obvious how I can demonstrate hmr ricochet , just put something behind tge target to catch what comes off ! Big pice of card will do ! With a very safe backdrop
What we cannot guarantee is not hitting anything on the way to the target or a rock in the grass etc . Wherevtge bullet dumps its energy while a paramount requirement it cannot ever be guaranteed in tge field on quarry , this is why we look at both backstop and backdrop
There comes a point someone has a fixed idea in thier head an neither science nor straightforward speaking from direct experience is taken on . There is a flat earth society to this day ( in fact its growing due to the way fb , twitter , Instagram etc works ) its doesn't mean the world if flat or tge moon landing was faked !

 

[andyk]

@CarlW indeed, and I'm not saying the orgs are always getting it right, I'm just interested to bottom out what peoples counter proposals are.

I don't ever think the 'other side' will stop until, as you say, shooting is dead and that's something which should always be at the forefront of any of the orgs decisions. Even so, I don't think the solution is always to hold fast and oppose all change where that might be more damaging than cooperating.

For example, if (and it is a big if) the orgs 'voluntary phase out' of lead shot over 5 years will mean that when those 5 years are up we only have to deal with, say, a ban on lead in shotguns then I would assess the success or failure of that policy based on where we would have been but for its introductions. If standing our ground would have otherwise got us another 10 years of lead then we would have capitulated to our own detriment. On the other hand, if that approach had seen government bring in a ban on lead for all shooting other than target shooting within 3 years then shooting would have done itself a favour.

The difficulty is having the foresight to know what the other outcomes might be. I just think that these situations aren't as black and white as we might wish they were.

I have no problem with the use of lead on a personal level but do think the political momentum to outlaw it has reached a point where regulation has become inevitable. As a community we have to choose whether to cooperate whilst seeking to ensure that regulation is as 'light touch' as possible or to stand fast. I fear opting for the latter we will simply see us get railroaded by politicians who will come up with something far more onerous than we otherwise would received.

 

[Bowland blades]

That doesn't answer my question though, do you think that the shooting community, if it chose to stand its ground on all aspects of lead ammunition, could successfully prevent any further restrictions?

If we did I would liken it to the goalkeeper saving a really difficult shot at goal , then dropping it in the net himself!
All we can do is have a level of control of tge process ! Sale of meat with lead in it is unfortunately an untenable situation, secondary poisoning of raptors by eating unhurried grallochs and unpicked game or vermin started this but the whole food thing ended it ! Hell we took lead out of petrol decades ago but we are thinking we can keep it in food ? Seriously I think we need pick a battle we can actually win
Control of tge process is all we will get , let's work towards what we can do not what we cannot

 

[CarlW]

@CarlW indeed, and I'm not saying the orgs are always getting it right, I'm just interested to bottom out what peoples counter proposals are.

I don't ever think the 'other side' will stop until, as you say, shooting is dead and that's something which should always be at the forefront of any of the orgs decisions. Even so, I don't think the solution is always to hold fast and oppose all change where that might be more damaging than cooperating.

For example, if (and it is a big if) the orgs 'voluntary phase out' of lead shot over 5 years will mean that when those 5 years are up we only have to deal with, say, a ban on lead in shotguns then I would assess the success or failure of that policy based on where we would have been but for its introductions. If standing our ground would have otherwise got us another 10 years of lead then we would have capitulated to our own detriment. On the other hand, if that approach had seen government bring in a ban on lead for all shooting other than target shooting within 3 years then shooting would have done itself a favour.

The difficulty is having the foresight to know what the other outcomes might be. I just think that these situations aren't as black and white as we might wish they were.

I have no problem with the use of lead on a personal level but do think the political momentum to outlaw it has reached a point where regulation has become inevitable. As a community we have to choose whether to cooperate whilst seeking to ensure that regulation is as 'light touch' as possible or to stand fast. I fear opting for the latter we will simply see us get railroaded by politicians who will come up with something far more onerous than we otherwise would received.

It doesn't work like that. The more onerous conditions are not excluded by surrender to the less-onerous ones. We just move closer.

Look what happened when BASC attempted to 'trade' a medical scheme for ten-year certificates. How about when John Swift switched sides during LAG deliberations thus emboldening the anti-lead (read shooting) brigade? How about when BASC described their position on trophy imports as 'a watching brief', thereby encouraging Goldsmith et al to step forward? How about when NE crashed the GLs into the wall, without mentioning it to BASC, who described themselves as 'disappointed'.

The policy of continuous appeasement has not worked and will continue not to work.

 

[zambezi]

In full agreement apart from the last point <non-toxic ammo for game sold on>

What you are failing to see is that we never agree terms. We just retreat. Again and again. And they move forward some more. And we retreat...again. This is not a negotiation, simply because at no point will it be concluded. There is no point at which the other side lay down their weapons. That is, of course, until shooting is dead.

I hear you gentlemen. I understand the merits of a position that declares "this far and no further". At its foundations that position identifies the truth that this will not end anti-shooting machinations.

But I am a first and foremost a pragmatist.

Lead is toxic if consumed. It remains utterly debatable how much risk attends consumption of lead bullet fragments.

However, many studies have produced data [including xray images] that show lead spatter spreads further from the bullet strike site than many realise. These images are in the public domain.

If we as the shooting fraternity acknowledge this information, and accept legislation that affords the public more confidence to eat game, then the resultant publicity can only be good for shooters and the viability of selling quality venison to a wider audience.

I utterly support a hunter's choice to despatch the food he eats using whatever projectile they are happy to use.

 

[Sika-Hunter]

Just wondering if this will reach from my highseat, cus thats all we are going to be allowed soon.

 

[Roestalker39]

I hear you gentlemen. I understand the merits of a position that declares "this far and no further". At its foundations that position identifies the truth that this will not end anti-shooting machinations.

But I am a first and foremost a pragmatist.

Lead is toxic if consumed. It remains utterly debatable how much risk attends consumption of lead bullet fragments.

However, many studies have produced data [including xray images] that show lead spatter spreads further from the bullet strike site than many realise. These images are in the public domain.

If we as the shooting fraternity acknowledge this information, and accept legislation that affords the public more confidence to eat game, then the resultant publicity can only be good for shooters and the viability of selling quality venison to a wider audience.

I utterly support a hunter's choice to despatch the food he eats using whatever projectile they are happy to use.

Copper is also toxic but nobody seems fussed about that

 

[CarlW]

If we as the shooting fraternity acknowledge this information, and accept legislation that affords the public more confidence to eat game, then the resultant publicity can only be good for shooters and the viability of selling quality venison to a wider audience.

Hey Vince,

As you know, that narrative has been around for a while. It's still false, mate. Lead isn't preventing consumers from eating game. They don't give a toss about lead. Most don't even know what shotshells or rifle cartridges contain. They just don't want to eat game because it is unfamiliar and 'icky'. In any event, it is up to any supermarket to specify non-lead-shot game, if they choose (a la Waitrose, at BASC's request). Let's see if the consumers eat it. Quite why the rest of us need to be compelled to do the same really escapes me.

Best,

Carl

 

[25 Sharps]

Don't want to labour this point because we will go around and around ! Its obvious how I can demonstrate hmr ricochet , just put something behind tge target to catch what comes off ! Big pice of card will do ! With a very safe backdrop
What we cannot guarantee is not hitting anything on the way to the target or a rock in the grass etc . Wherevtge bullet dumps its energy while a paramount requirement it cannot ever be guaranteed in tge field on quarry , this is why we look at both backstop and backdrop
There comes a point someone has a fixed idea in thier head an neither science nor straightforward speaking from direct experience is taken on . There is a flat earth society to this day ( in fact its growing due to the way fb , twitter , Instagram etc works ) its doesn't mean the world if flat or tge moon landing was faked !

You really are spouting nonsense!

At want point have I said HMR doesn't ricochet? I had one for a year and a half and part of the reason I got rid of it was the amount of audible ricochets I was getting compared to the previous WMR I had owned, I have said above that disruption of a bullet cannot be relied upon.

But you have chosen to ignore the 2 direct questions I have put to you above because you know the answers contradict your incorrect standpoint. I shoot a a lot of high velocity ammo in the field, I am very, very careful with angles of shot and backstop (enough to drive one shooting buddy to distraction with the shots I pass up!) so I am very aware of how bullets behave, I have skinned fixes before now to see how bullets perform.

As for your cardboard test that is nonsense, unless you physically catch the bullet after it has bounced there is no way you can prove that bullet has held together and has ricocheted, damage to a piece of card could be caused any a piece of lead or jacket or even dirt or stone kicked up by the bullet. The only exception being if it keyholes and you get a nice bullet shape outline but this would mean the bullet is tumbling and by your own admission bleeding energy very quickly.

But feel free to post a video and photo's of your test to prove me wrong.

(Oh and if anyone is a flat earther with an idea in their head on this thread it is you!)