Hogdon powder ban
- Thread starter rookstorm
- Start date
Buy 10-20lb from Edinburgh Rifles. Powder prices
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
REACH Regulations:
https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach
AFAIK, the following Hogdon powders may be affected:
Varget, Bench Mark, BLC2, H1000, H322, H335, H380, H414, H4198, H4350, H4831, H4831SC, H4895, H50BMG, LEVERevolution, Superformance, US869, Hybrid100V, Trail Boss and Retumbo.
https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach
AFAIK, the following Hogdon powders may be affected:
Varget, Bench Mark, BLC2, H1000, H322, H335, H380, H414, H4198, H4350, H4831, H4831SC, H4895, H50BMG, LEVERevolution, Superformance, US869, Hybrid100V, Trail Boss and Retumbo.
Once your H380 is finished, change to RS60 - it works brilliantly in my 22-250.
Cheers
Bruce
Yes, a lot of us are going to be affected by it....
Just treat it as an opportunity to trial a few new loads. Once we've all settled on new powders the next obstacle might hit us.... The EU want to ban the use of lead next!
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Bring on Brexit!
alberta boy
Well-Known Member
Wow , that just sucks
AB
AB
Tim,
REACH will still apply to all products after Brexit. It will be a UK law then, not an EU directive.
Stan
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Yes, but at least we will be getting to the end of these undemocratic directives issued by the European Commission. In future our own politicians will have to take responsibility instead of excusing themselves with compliance with the EU.
I don't know about 'undemocratic' as this is what the Common Market was always about - creating single technical standards and cross-community regulation for products. Putting one's views on the health & safety issues of REACH aside as to whether they are OTT or not (powders is only one of hundreds if not thousands of categories of products being so regulated and often compulsorily reformulated often with useless / ineffective replacements), there is without doubt more than a degree of backdoor protectionism at work here. Put a load of regulations and requirements on that non-EU countries don't need or want for their home markets and they won't try to sell them to us in competition with EU companies. Ultimately, we all pay in increased costs and reduced choice.
phaedra
Well-Known Member
The current powders won't be "banned" anything produced before the cut off date will still be able to be legally sold and used.
There are thousands of tonnes of powders sitting about waiting to be used. Unfortunately in the great scheme of things the UK market is a tiny, tiny drop in the ocean and we only get what we're given by the powder manufacturers.
European powders such as Ramshot (PB Clermont), Lovex, Vihtavuori, Reload Swiss and the Nobel group offerings etc. will be fully compliant and available.
There's an excellent (as usual) post from Laurie about this somewhere, well worth a read
There are thousands of tonnes of powders sitting about waiting to be used. Unfortunately in the great scheme of things the UK market is a tiny, tiny drop in the ocean and we only get what we're given by the powder manufacturers.
European powders such as Ramshot (PB Clermont), Lovex, Vihtavuori, Reload Swiss and the Nobel group offerings etc. will be fully compliant and available.
There's an excellent (as usual) post from Laurie about this somewhere, well worth a read
Last edited:
Druid
Well-Known Member
European powders such as Ramshot (PB Clermont), Lovex, Vihtavuori, Reload Swiss and the Nobel group offerings etc. will be fully compliant and available.
There's an excellent (as usual) post from Laurie about this somewhere, well worth a read
Here's the thread-
American powders
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Not sure about undemocratic and Europe. The whole point is that we can all vote for members of the European Parliament who oversea the legislation that creates the likes of REACH. The fact that in the UK nobody has ever been bothered enough to actually vote for their MEPs and to lobby them etc is not the fault of Europe, but wholly the fault of those who can't be bothered - they are also the first to whinge about Europe.
The whole point of REACH is to remove toxic and harmful chemicals from every day consumer use. If you were told to handle such such a powder and don't use protective masks so that you can breath in the contents regularly because it contains chemicals that have a known link to causing cancer - I don't think any of us would do it.
So the fact that manufacturers cannot or will not make their products REACH compliant and are unable to demonstrate that they do not contain harmful substances is to my mind a pretty good thing.
Likewise I am doing some work with aerosol technologies at the moment. If I suggested to go down to your kitchen, turn the gas tap on and have a good sniff you would think I was nuts. But every time you spray an aerosol deodorant under your arms, and an airfreshner in the loo after you have done your business that is exactly what you are doing - don't believe me - have a look at the contents an aerosol can - 50% are the propellants which are liquified propane, pentane or butane.
The whole point of REACH is to remove toxic and harmful chemicals from every day consumer use. If you were told to handle such such a powder and don't use protective masks so that you can breath in the contents regularly because it contains chemicals that have a known link to causing cancer - I don't think any of us would do it.
So the fact that manufacturers cannot or will not make their products REACH compliant and are unable to demonstrate that they do not contain harmful substances is to my mind a pretty good thing.
Likewise I am doing some work with aerosol technologies at the moment. If I suggested to go down to your kitchen, turn the gas tap on and have a good sniff you would think I was nuts. But every time you spray an aerosol deodorant under your arms, and an airfreshner in the loo after you have done your business that is exactly what you are doing - don't believe me - have a look at the contents an aerosol can - 50% are the propellants which are liquified propane, pentane or butane.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Going off topic a little but at UK General Elections the respective parties produce manifestos containing their legislative proposals, so at least you know what you are letting yourself in for. In contrast the EU it works differently. The unelected EU Commission drafts legislation for the EU parliament to vote on. In theory EU citizens can have an input on this under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty but this requires a petition of one million signatures and is not binding.
What exactly is the objection to Hodgdon powders anyway, is it something in the burnt or unburnt state?
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Sorry yes going off topic, but the European Commission is no different to all the civil servants who draft legislation which our parliament then vote on. REACH basically will have a set threshold of nastiness and you have to demonstrate that your product is not nasty in all aspects in which it is normally used. There will be different levels according on where the chemical is being used. Inside a controlled laboratory is very different to every day consumer use. I suspect propellants will at the everyday consumer end of the scale of lack of nastiness threshold.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
I've used Varget without apparently suffering any ill effect so I was wondering if it gave off some especially toxic vapour on combustion?
Regarding the drafting of EU legislation where this differs from the UK is that the EU Commission has the responsibility of initiating legislation whereas here the Governing party does this e.g in the Queen's speech.
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
This from ECHA (European Chemicals Agency):
REACH is a regulation of the European Union, adopted to improve the protection of human health and the environment from the risks that can be posed by chemicals, while enhancing the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry. It also promotes alternative methods for the hazard assessment of substances in order to reduce the number of tests on animals.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REACH, quite clearly, is not ALL about improving safety. Just because something currently is not officially REACH compliant, insofar as it holds no certification, does not necessarily mean that it wouldn't comply for import/export.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As with many EU legislative moves, it's as much about positioning EU member state businesses so that they are ahead of the EU game to benefit commercially as it is about safeguarding the final user. COSHH Regulations were, in theory, perfectly sufficient for many end users and organisations to have all the information needed in order to make rational decisions on use based in risk assessment and managing risks. Lets not pretend that REACH is purely about our safety. I won't get into the politics of whether the EU is a democratic organisation, save to say that they have a habit and a history of continually moving the goal posts to suit their federalist agendas.[/FONT]
REACH is a regulation of the European Union, adopted to improve the protection of human health and the environment from the risks that can be posed by chemicals, while enhancing the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry. It also promotes alternative methods for the hazard assessment of substances in order to reduce the number of tests on animals.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]REACH, quite clearly, is not ALL about improving safety. Just because something currently is not officially REACH compliant, insofar as it holds no certification, does not necessarily mean that it wouldn't comply for import/export.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As with many EU legislative moves, it's as much about positioning EU member state businesses so that they are ahead of the EU game to benefit commercially as it is about safeguarding the final user. COSHH Regulations were, in theory, perfectly sufficient for many end users and organisations to have all the information needed in order to make rational decisions on use based in risk assessment and managing risks. Lets not pretend that REACH is purely about our safety. I won't get into the politics of whether the EU is a democratic organisation, save to say that they have a habit and a history of continually moving the goal posts to suit their federalist agendas.[/FONT]
BOOM!
the first and only person I have seen asking the question on a forum
To my mind this issue dwarfs the powder issue.
We can load our choice of bullet and brass with other powders to get arguably the same or possibly better results
However, those who use Hornady, Remington, Federal, Nosler, Winchester, CCI, etc etc
All of those makers currently use US powders for their ammunition, many of which are on the REACH list......
This HAS to impact the possible import of US Ammunition post Jun 2018
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
Actually, plenty have raised that very same issue on many forums.
I doubt that this will, in the sort term, affect cartridge sales but time will tell. Many primers contain lead styphnate as that has been found to be the best compound for the duty, but alternatives such as diazodinitrophenol (DDNPs) have undergone extensive tests by NATO who have been looking at the viability of alternative compounds to replace the Styphnates. To date, these have proved unsuccessful in achieving the same blast wave propagation and muzzle velocities, so for now,NATO, including European force member states, will be continuing to use primers containing Lead Styphnate until a suitable alternative is discovered.
Despite what the EU protectionism/H&S bandwagon are trying to achieve, as with many of these things, the one-size-fits-all approach simply cannot fit all, at least not without far more extensive R&D in this case and that's some years off. Tackling propellant sales is an easier one to manage and to justify in the shorter term, so that is what is happening.
Last edited:
Similar threads
