EU ban on lead ammunition for airguns, shotguns and rifles
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
- Status
Pontfathew
Well-Known Member
There are alternatives in this, but not restricted to the periodic table only. Not everything needs to be made from single element materials.
See this patent for a metal filled polymer bullet, for example.
Innovation!
CA2445073C - Lead-free projectiles - Google Patents
A lead-free projectile having a metal jacket (10) with a tip in the form of a truncated parabellum. The metal jacket (10) is partially filled with cold-pressed metal powder (18), the remainder of the metal jacket being filled with metal-filled polymer (26). The metal-filled polymer (26) extends...
patents.google.com
CarlW
Well-Known Member
Of course. That is what Tungsten Matrix was, for instance. However, you ain't going to produce a (useful) bullet (or shot) that doesn't contain one of those elements.
Is this a cost-effective solution? It looks to be fairly complex = costly. What cost per varmint round?
Secondly, it contains man-made plastics. How is spraying synthetic material into the environment going to pass muster?
I do wonder if condemning/banning what works now [lead] because we hope it will provoke industry to redouble efforts to find a viable option is wisdom.
Lets see the scalable and cost-effective production of viable alternatives first.
[per my earlier posts, I am converted to Cu for deer calibers and above. I remain utterly unpersuaded that a viable lead replacement option is available for varmint control]
Pontfathew
Well-Known Member
I wont, but someone is obviously trying to!
I think here where opinions differ. I believe that the restriction of one thing does lead to the innovation / development / improvement of another. If theres no motivation to improve, there likely wont be much innovation. Not to say ideally we would have all alternatives ready right now, but thats just not how these things work.
Reality is lead is toxic. We may argue that the way we injest it may have no / limited impact on our health, but to others it is poison that they dont want anything to do with. Surely it can only help the "shooting community" to be happy to embrace change on this specific subject? Less lead = more viable markets for the product = more exposure / accessibility to game = better outlook by the public on shooting in general.
Not expecting the switch to non lead will "solve" peoples perceptions of shooting, but it certainly helps us and our health.
From my own perspective I'm actively looking for what shotgun catridges that I can switch to for the next time I stock up that can be plastic and non lead friendly. This will be my first step into transitioning to non lead / eco alternatives.
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
You boys should read the Guardian.
You'd be so much better informed.
Green shoots: Spanish firm tackles plastic waste from shotgun cartridges
BioAmmo aims to make 50m of its plastic-free, biodegradable cartridges this year
www.theguardian.com
Hunting - Bioammo Technologies
Nuestros cartuchos biodegradables para caza y tiro deportivo están fabricados con materiales de origen natural 100% biodegradables.
bioammo.es
Was done several years back called T shot but never classified as non-toxic, I guess like nickel plating lead shot it is
still lead.
Bottom line as was said before all metals in appropriate dose are toxic.
Last edited:
CarlW
Well-Known Member
If and when they do, and if it performs well, people may well buy it. I might even buy it. That should be our choice. However, the removal of other choices in the mistaken belief that it will pacify anti-shooters, or bring about some golden new age of ballistic innovation, defies all logic.
You boys should read the Guardian.
You'd be so much better informed.
Green shoots: Spanish firm tackles plastic waste from shotgun cartridges
BioAmmo aims to make 50m of its plastic-free, biodegradable cartridges this year
Hunting - Bioammo Technologies
Nuestros cartuchos biodegradables para caza y tiro deportivo están fabricados con materiales de origen natural 100% biodegradables.
Started with a big EU grant just like the also made in Spain wads eley are using, guess the eu want their grant money back by banning lead. Plus the bioammo wads still take months to a year to decompose so landowners who do not allow non biodegradable wads are not wanting them.
Even 50 million cartridges is small numbers compared to the requirements of the U.K. and EU.
Each U.K. cartridge maker do around that number or more each per year.
You boys should read the Guardian.
You'd be so much better informed.
Green shoots: Spanish firm tackles plastic waste from shotgun cartridges
BioAmmo aims to make 50m of its plastic-free, biodegradable cartridges this year
Hunting - Bioammo Technologies
Nuestros cartuchos biodegradables para caza y tiro deportivo están fabricados con materiales de origen natural 100% biodegradables.
If the price of being informed is reading the Guardian, I shall remain blissfully ignorant but thank you.
I've read that doc forward by BASC
Now I'm a fan of BASC - unlike some on here
However there is NO information contained within that FACT summary that is new
I speak as someone who had had to set up safety protocols and conducted hygiene surveys for Industries that use lead at work
I'm familiar with the Lead at Work Regs - my company used to undertake blood lead sampling of employees on behalf of industrial clients
My dear old dad wrote his master's thesis as a medical doctor (whilst working on the lead mines in Zambia) on lead poisoning and placental transfer of lead - he went on to work for the HSE before establishing our consultancy together
I can see a clear argument for the restriction of shotgun pellets in wetlands.
I understand the cumulative effects of heavy metals on wetland birds and their effects on predatory species
I remain entirely unconvinced of the need to control lead in rifle rounds on game animals on the basis of ingested lead in the food chain
It is, in my opinion, a political decision in search of scientific justification
Now I'm a fan of BASC - unlike some on here
However there is NO information contained within that FACT summary that is new
I speak as someone who had had to set up safety protocols and conducted hygiene surveys for Industries that use lead at work
I'm familiar with the Lead at Work Regs - my company used to undertake blood lead sampling of employees on behalf of industrial clients
My dear old dad wrote his master's thesis as a medical doctor (whilst working on the lead mines in Zambia) on lead poisoning and placental transfer of lead - he went on to work for the HSE before establishing our consultancy together
I can see a clear argument for the restriction of shotgun pellets in wetlands.
I understand the cumulative effects of heavy metals on wetland birds and their effects on predatory species
I remain entirely unconvinced of the need to control lead in rifle rounds on game animals on the basis of ingested lead in the food chain
It is, in my opinion, a political decision in search of scientific justification
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
It's scientifically impossible, either now or at any time in the future, to create a "lead-like" material that would be either non-toxic or remotely practicable. This is the big problem, and in fact the big lie at the heart of the campaign to move away from lead. They say we're ignoring the scientific evidence, yet trying to have us believe that if we give up lead some equivalent alternative material will magically become available. It won't and it can't. All materials contain elements, and there is no element that allows us to create an equivalent substitute for lead. That's a fundamental scientific truth and it cannot be altered in future.
There are some alternatives that are inferior in one or more important respect:
Bismuth - too rare to meet demand. Already excessively expensive. Allegedly does not store well.
Steel/ iron - ballistically inferior. Welfare issues. If it was viable, we'd have all taken to using it long ago. Suitable loads do not exist, and cannot exist.
Tungsten matrix - this is a mixture of tungsten and plastic. Misuse of a strategic and fairly rare metal. Pellets are made of plastic with heavy metal powder in. No evidence that littering the environment with these is environmentally acceptable. Expensive.
While I'm glad that you've had positive experience with steel, I have still not been able to find anybody who can state that they have experience of safely using steel shot to shoot game, to the equivalent effect of a lead load of 32g of 5 shot, which can be used in virtually any gun. The bare facts are that to replicate the effect of that load requires a steel load of over 40 grams of size 3, which cannot possibly be fitted into a shorter cartridge than 3.5" and is therefore not a possibility for any gun other than a super-magnum. The only load matching those parameters is £175/slab and has a plastic wad - which disqualifies it from use.
That point would be wholly incorrect. The limitations on developing alternatives to lead are not legislative, but the laws of physics. It is IMPOSSIBLE that an equivalent alternative to lead will ever exist. Innovation is always limited by the the laws of science.
Manufacturers will be very motivated to develop alternatives, but won't find any. Just like in the automotive sector, what you will find is companies cheating and lying to pretend that they do have products that meet the criteria, and a complete mess of well-intended measures having harmful effects.
Asked directly, no manufacturer believes that they will be able to develop a new type of pellet that ticks all the boxes. We're just going to be left with a choice between several options all of which are inferior in one or more regard, along with tens of thousands of guns rendered obsolete, serious quarry welfare issues - which will probably lead in short order to the end of shooting altogether.
There's no virtue in using wilful ignorance to shoot oneself in the foot.
+1.
To expand on this, any substitute for lead will require using at least one element with a bigger atomic number than lead. They're ALL radioactive except bismuth, which we already know to be unsuitable. There are no gaps in the periodic table; there is no space where an "innovative" or "technological" solution could ever be discovered or developed.
I hear what you are saying and its rather populist now for people to call for evidence-led policy development - but not to agree/believe in the evidence when it does not suit their agenda - this is happening across all sectors - not just in shooting and conservation.
The evidence of the impacts of lead ammunition on health and wildlife have been adding up for decades. Few of us will take the time to review the evidence - let alone to do so objectively - its just our human condition to go with our own personal experience/prejudices etc.
BASC has been fighting against disproportionate and unsubstantiated restrictions on the use of lead ammunition for 40 years, whilst investing in research and training on lead alternatives, but time is running out and the wolf is at the door.
Either the UK shooting organisations take a lead in encouraging a voluntary transition away from lead ammunition (that is not a voluntary 'ban') or we end up with people outside our sector making decisions for us; and the UK shooting organisations took the lead in February last year.
What we have seen with the new EU wetlands ban that will take effect from February 2023 in EU states, and possibly in Northern Ireland, is people outside our sector making decisions for us.
Most EU member states already have national laws in place restricting the use of lead shot in wetlands except for Poland, Ireland, Romania, Slovenia and Malta. The new EU regulations are in effect using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, albeit the 20-year intransigence in some countries against any form of legislation since the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) has certainly not helped matters.
For more context on the EU wetlands lead ban see:
Europe has received clear answer over claims of maladministration
Back in May, many national and European politicians expressed serious concerns over the European Commission’s (DG Environment) handling of the lead shot over wetlands restriction under REACH.www.face.eu
For more context on the EU near-total lead ban see:
Ban on lead in ammunition proposed
Today, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has published its proposal for further EU (and EEA)-wide restrictions on the use of lead in ammunition for hunting, outdoor sports shooting and fishing.
@Liveonce hope this helps address your comment also.
Many people would reasonably hold the opinion that BASC is itself guilty of the populism you describe. The facts are that in 2015, there was not sufficient scientific evidence to justify a ban on lead shot, and that in the intervening period between that point and when BASC decided to completely reverse its position no new evidence was published that could possibly be construed as sufficient to justify that reversal.
It seems far more likely that your policy development was driven by the pressure of external populists not science. After all, you've stated in this very post that the problem is that the "wolf is at the door", and the proposed restrictions are disproportionate and unsubstantiated. You can hardly criticise shooters and members for being "populist" and not agreeing with BASC's position, given that it's abundantly clear that science is not leading these developments, ignorance is.
- Status
Similar threads
