HSE lead ammo proposals - FAQs and updates

Conor O'Gorman

Well-Known Member
Official Member
Today BASC has published a list of FAQs about the Health and Safety Executive proposals to restrict lead ammunition in England, Wales and Scotland. Click the weblink below for the FAQs and other updates.

www.basc.org.uk/lead/

In summary what is proposed is as follows:
  • ban on the sale of lead shot
  • ban on the use of all types of lead ammunition for live quarry shooting including lead shot, shotgun slugs, lead bullets and airgun pellets
  • ban on the use of lead shot for outdoor target shooting with possible exemptions for licensed athletes at licensed ranges with appropriate environmental protection measures
  • ban on the use of lead bullets and airgun pellets for outdoor target shooting with possible exemptions for shooting at licensed ranges with appropriate environmental protection measures
  • mandatory labelling of the packaging of lead ammunition regarding the hazards and risks of lead.
The proposed transition periods for the above restrictions to take effect would vary from 18 months to five years. Buy-back schemes for lead shot cartridges and rifle ammunition have been proposed.

The FAQs are a first draft and further updates will follow so if you think anything is missing or needs better explanation on the proposals please comment below, DM or email me at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk
 
Last edited:

Woodenbeam

Well-Known Member
Absolute joke………these proposals should be being fought tooth and nail!

Far more damaging things to be worried about than lead but hey ho I suppose too many of us have just rolled over & had it stuck up us. Well done to the woke’s & anti’s for getting this one going forward and shame on the likes of BASC for being a driving force behind this change that the majority of the shooting community feel is unwanted, unnecessary and unjustified.
 

Night òwl

Active Member
Absolute joke………these proposals should be being fought tooth and nail!

Far more damaging things to be worried about than lead but hey ho I suppose too many of us have just rolled over & had it stuck up us. Well done to the woke’s & anti’s for getting this one going forward and shame on the likes of BASC for being a driving force behind this change that the majority of the shooting community feel is unwanted, unnecessary and unjustified.
Totally agree.
I begrudgingly renewed my basc membership this year after many years due to basc rolling over with the lead free debate .
Unfortunately some landowners insist on me having basc membership, I wonder what their thought will be once the ban comes into play and they realise basc was driving it forward
 

Kevgun

Well-Known Member
Well looking at that "call for evidence" please explain how us as individual shooters, how can we answer any of the questions, It has been written so that we won't be able to answer it, so won't bother and then it will go through unopposed. So BASC how do we /should we respond to those questions I have no issue going lead free, but it needs researching thoroughly, Isn't this what we pay a membership fee for.

What about those of us who use Air rifles and carry out extensive unpaid pest control of Rats etc, I imagine that the Rat population will be breathing a sign of relief because there are no viable alternative s to lead, Thousands of people who go out weekly and carry out this free service won't be able to do it, if these proposals are brought in too quickly.

It appears that all of the organisations are just rolling over and letting it happen.

I don't think it's worth being a member of any organisation other than for the insurance, and then they try and wriggle out of it, when you try and make a claim ( I have a friend who was shot in a Pigeon hide , he tried to make a claim against the other member who belonged to one of the Shooting bodies and they tried to wriggle out of it ) So we are on our own I'm afraid.

The people who are asking the questions , no nothing of what we do.
 

Kevgun

Well-Known Member
Totally agree.
I begrudgingly renewed my basc membership this year after many years due to basc rolling over with the lead free debate .
Unfortunately some landowners insist on me having basc membership, I wonder what their thought will be once the ban comes into play and they realise basc was driving it forward

I feel the same, we don't get much for our £85

BASC is not fit for purpose, I can't see them doing anything for shooting only looking after the Toffs
 

mollydog

Well-Known Member
The gun trade will be struggling with these proposals , who’s going to be buying air guns or .22lr rifles with the prospect of having no suitable ammo in the Near future
 

Liveonce

Well-Known Member
I completed the call for evidence, just ignore the questions you are unable to answer, plenty of opportunity to leave comments.
Some of the questions say more about how little accurate data the HSE was unable or unwilling to get.
 

timbrayford

Well-Known Member
Absolute joke………these proposals should be being fought tooth and nail!

Far more damaging things to be worried about than lead but hey ho I suppose too many of us have just rolled over & had it stuck up us. Well done to the woke’s & anti’s for getting this one going forward and shame on the likes of BASC for being a driving force behind this change that the majority of the shooting community feel is unwanted, unnecessary and unjustified.
You can't hold the shooting organisations responsible for EU & UK REACH!
 

timbrayford

Well-Known Member
I completed the call for evidence, just ignore the questions you are unable to answer, plenty of opportunity to leave comments.
Some of the questions say more about how little accurate data the HSE was unable or unwilling to get.
Having read most of their document it appears to be full of opinions unsubstantiated by citations from peer reviewed research and displays a woeful ignorance of shooting activities both here and abroad. Do they really expect UK shooters to turn up for a driven day on one of our premier shoots armed with a 5 shot semi-auto 12 bore chambered in 3.5" magnum? If not why the comparison drawn with the use of steel shot in the USA?
 

Rewulf

Well-Known Member
The inevitability of a lead ban has been clear for a long while
Has it, how long?
Because forgive me if I'm wrong, but did not the UK government, with BASC nipping at their heels, declare in 2016, that there was no need for a lead ban on shooting?
BASC only took its current position in 2019/20, so it has hardly been 'inevitable' for a long time.

The call for evidence should also include at least some evidence of detrimental effect in human health caused by shooting, or by eating lead shot meat, from what I can gather, there is no such evidence.
We do have some vague rubbish, about desert condors, in a state 6000 miles away, that has been trying to ban guns for many years, so I suppose that's pretty concrete 🤔
 

Bowland blades

Well-Known Member
Today BASC has published a list of FAQs about the Health and Safety Executive proposals to restrict lead ammunition in England, Wales and Scotland. Click the weblink below for the FAQs and other updates.

www.basc.org.uk/lead/

In summary what is proposed is as follows:
  • ban on the sale of lead shot
  • ban on the use of all types of lead ammunition for live quarry shooting including lead shot, shotgun slugs, lead bullets and airgun pellets
  • ban on the use of lead shot for outdoor target shooting with possible exemptions for licensed athletes at licensed ranges with appropriate environmental protection measures
  • ban on the use of lead bullets and airgun pellets for outdoor target shooting with possible exemptions for shooting at licensed ranges with appropriate environmental protection measures
  • mandatory labelling of the packaging of lead ammunition regarding the hazards and risks of lead.
The proposed transition periods for the above restrictions to take effect would vary from 18 months to five years. Buy-back schemes for lead shot cartridges and rifle ammunition have been proposed.

The FAQs are a first draft and further updates will follow so if you think anything is missing or needs better explanation on the proposals please comment below, DM or email me at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk
Now the airgun one is interesting because lead pellets from 177 or 22 cal are too large to take in for grit by say duck or geese and do not break up like a CF round into fragments .
I note NZ has retained 22 rf on this basis and also 410 in view of the fact that so little is used around wet areas to be insignificant
I understand fighting is costly and winning and keeping lead could present shooting in a very negative thing in the eyes of the public at large . That said are we (basc ) literally roll over and show our bellies on everything? Serious question here btw
 

Utectok

Well-Known Member
The sad fact is that the ammunition manufacturers particularly for shotguns have done very little in terms of developing viable alternatives? Eley has a bio wad steel (in 20-12g) but there is hardly a flood of new steel cartridges?
 

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
Now the airgun one is interesting because lead pellets from 177 or 22 cal are too large to take in for grit by say duck or geese and do not break up like a CF round into fragments .
I note NZ has retained 22 rf on this basis and also 410 in view of the fact that so little is used around wet areas to be insignificant
I understand fighting is costly and winning and keeping lead could present shooting in a very negative thing in the eyes of the public at large . That said are we (basc ) literally roll over and show our bellies on everything? Serious question here btw
I am not a BASC member but two questions need to be asked.
1) Why is the New Zealand model not being proposed?
2) Why as BOWLAND BLADES says is an exemption not made for projectiles over a certain size or weight. UK law on fishing lead weight bans those of weight between 0.06 grams to 28.35 grams? This would exempt #9 shot used for English Skeet and also dust shot such as #12 used for small calibre rimfire pest control shotguns and exempt those lead 12 bore slugs used under the deer exemption.

Finally I'll post this comment, again:

So this unqualified ban that HSE has proposed shouldn't go ahead unlike the at the time unqualified ban that BASC proposed? Because be clear when in February 2020 BASC led this call for a voluntary ban it was published with no derogations, exceptions or exemptions proposed. Yet now is BASC saying that there should be derogations, exceptions and exemptions? That BASC saw fit not to mention two and a half years ago?

And again will BASC insist that if there is another MP's day at Catton Hall that non-lead shot is used and, indeed, as they say it even works in Bill Harriman's gun that further ONLY STEEL SHOT IS USED?

Or is steel at that event only for "the little people"...those that can't afford bismuth...and not for MPs at Catton Hall?
 

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
Thank you for clarifying this. I followed the links and found myself reading a 16 page BASC pdf entitled "Moving away from lead shot". I was surprised to see that the advice about using steel shot in guns had changed really quite significantly since probably last year. The lack of objectivity in the writing is also a concern because it leads to conclusions which cannot be supported by the available facts or data.
Could you comment? Is there some explanation for this?
E.g the advice you previously published said one should go up two shot sizes e.g. lead 6, steel 4. Now it says one shot size.
It now recommends no more than 21g in pre1954 guns. This equates to 116 pellets of 3 for pheasants, something of a drastic reduction from 250 pellets in current lead load used, even allowing for the "superior patterning" of 1/4 choke steel over 3/4 choke lead.
The half choke recommendation appears to only apply to standard steel loads with pellets over 4mm in the table on page 7 which is perhaps dangerously poorly labelled. Can I really now use size 2 standard steel shot in a fully choked gun without damage?
Etc.

I have previously raised questions about the scientific impossibility of some of the spurious claims made for steel cartridges, questions which have been ignored.

This sort of nonsense is probably the single factor which accounts for what you may view as slow progress in the voluntary transition. You cannot bullsh!t your members and expect widespread enthusiasm.

I am also at a loss to understand how BASC plans to make effective interventions on the HSE proposals for implementation timetables which you claim present serious problems, when you have previously published similar schedules in your 5 year voluntary transition?

In your blog on the BASC website about these proposals, you wrote:
“Over the coming months the UK REACH process will involve scientific scrutiny of the HSE findings and proposals through an independent panel of experts.

BASC has been approved as an accredited stakeholder by HSE and we will have opportunity to observe, engage and challenge the internal scrutiny process.”

Could you explain this, please? Are there two separate processes - one involving an independent panel of experts, and an internal scrutiny process? Or Are you using the two very different phrases to describe the same thing?

Who is on the independent panel of experts? How is their independence and expertise vetted? For example, there is a well known group of people (e.g. Prof. Pain etc.) who purport to be independent experts, but are not independent - most particularly in this case. Has BASC received assurances from the HSE about the impartiality of the process and the panels? Who else has been approved as accredited stakeholders? Is the stakeholder group properly balanced?

Does BASC intend to uphold its longstanding assurances that it will defend to the fullest extent possible the freedom to use lead ammunition for all applications where the shooter feels it is most appropriate? I’m a little confused by BASC saying on the one hand it supports a complete move away from lead in the medium to long term, that it intends to seek derogations from these proposals in limited cases, and that it opposes all new legal restrictions on lead. What is actually going on?

There’s a very strong impression that BASC is complaining about having wet feet now, after having pulled the plug out of the boat.
 

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
The sad fact is that the ammunition manufacturers particularly for shotguns have done very little in terms of developing viable alternatives? Eley has a bio wad steel (in 20-12g) but there is hardly a flood of new steel cartridges?
Who can be surprised by this? There was never any rational reason to suppose anything else would happen. The manufacturers are the leading experts in making decent ammunition. If alternatives don’t exist, it is because they are not good enough. All the bullsh!t excuses about supply chains, and claims by the likes of BASC that new alternatives will be developed are deliberately ignorant nonsense. The “voluntary 5 year transition“ was a brain-dead abortion of an idea, apparently resting on the spurious assumptions that new technology which violates fundamental scientific principles can be simply willed into existence, that people could be made to believe that inferior substitutes are equivalent, that the enormous costs created by the plan don’t exist, and that the large groups of people and activities screwed by the inadequacies of this plan don’t matter.

There seems to be an extraordinarily stupid underlying assumption held by the various proponents of lead replacement: that the overwhelming majority of people who shoot decide to use lead out of a preference for using potentially toxic material. This is completely brainless. People ONLY use lead ammunition because there are not suitable alternatives for their purposes.
 

Bowland blades

Well-Known Member
I am not a BASC member but two questions need to be asked.
1) Why is the New Zealand model not being proposed?
2) Why as BOWLAND BLADES says is an exemption not made for projectiles over a certain size or weight. UK law on fishing lead weight bans those of weight between 0.06 grams to 28.35 grams? This would exempt #9 shot used for English Skeet and also dust shot such as #12 used for small calibre rimfire pest control shotguns and exempt those lead 12 bore slugs used under the deer exemption.

Finally I'll post this comment, again:

So this unqualified ban that HSE has proposed shouldn't go ahead unlike the at the time unqualified ban that BASC proposed? Because be clear when in February 2020 BASC led this call for a voluntary ban it was published with no derogations, exceptions or exemptions proposed. Yet now is BASC saying that there should be derogations, exceptions and exemptions? That BASC saw fit not to mention two and a half years ago?

And again will BASC insist that if there is another MP's day at Catton Hall that non-lead shot is used and, indeed, as they say it even works in Bill Harriman's gun that further ONLY STEEL SHOT IS USED?

Or is steel at that event only for "the little people"...those that can't afford bismuth...and not for MPs at Catton Hall?
Honestly, I am not knocking BASC but am seriously asking regards the strategy. The use of lead is as much a poison challis to shooting today as a ballistic advantage. One should never fight a battle that cannot be won , unlike many i get that ! however i am genuinely asking . There is lots of areas full of lead naturally occurring and less than ten shots with a 12 bore will be equal to 500 or more 22 airgun ( and like i say its too big to be taken in as grit). The 410 is rarely used but good for younger and disabled shooters, pest control and is this being presented to the Government as immaterial amounts as towards whats already out there. 22RF again too big for grit essential quiet pest control
 
Top