HSE lead ammo proposals - FAQs and updates

grahamch

Well-Known Member
Am beginning to get tired of this thread. Too much BASC bashing, they are far from perfect but are our only representative body trying to engage in the process. CPSA etc are deathly silent.

Started my shooting career with lead then had to move to non lead for fowling when it was required. Have had no real issues other shot types other than tin shot l think loaded by Hull.

Jocker cartridges seem to a simple solution to the wad issue with a fibre cup wad in 12 and 10 bore. Surely that is scaleable to other bores? Seems easier than messing about with other biodegradable materials?

Time folk got real, accepted whats being proposed and engaged in the consultation process to try to influence the outcome instead of bickering and moaning on
 

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
I was surprised at the woolliness of the figures given for the amount of lead rifle ammunition used.
We have "world-class" gun laws, enforced by our "world-class" police. These record every single round of rifle ammunition. How is it then that our "world-class" civil servants can't work out the weight of it? Even for .22LR where all of it is lead, and damn near all of it is 40 grain.
What's the bloody point of our highly restrictive gun laws if the Police /Home Office haven't got the first idea how to use the data they collect?
 

timbrayford

Well-Known Member
I was surprised at the woolliness of the figures given for the amount of lead rifle ammunition used.
We have "world-class" gun laws, enforced by our "world-class" police. These record every single round of rifle ammunition. How is it then that our "world-class" civil servants can't work out the weight of it? Even for .22LR where all of it is lead, and damn near all of it is 40 grain.
What's the bloody point of our highly restrictive gun laws if the Police /Home Office haven't got the first idea how to use the data they collect?
More than one element of conjecture with the HSE document but the overall tone of it is that the Government will bring in a ban no matter how much of it is based on ignorance and prejudice
 

Sharpie

Well-Known Member
surly it’s not that difficult to ask the cartridge and ammunition manufactures plus the importers how many of each type they sell after all they are probably by CIP or law required to keep such records.
You'd have thought so, wouldn't you. I'm pretty sure that our indigenous manufacturers of shotgun, and rimfire ammo, to GB and the rest of the World know exactly how much lead, steel, bismuth and tungsten they are using. How much of that remains in the home market, in what proportion, and the rest exported.

Centrefire rifle ammo, and reloading components (projectiles), plus airgun pellets and other rimfire ammo is a trickier one, it is all imported. As is quite a bit of shotgun ammo, to fill a niche. Nevertheless the importers must know how much they bring in.

Has anyone bothered to ask the obvious questions and collate the responses ? If so, are they expecting any straight answers. It is not compulsory to answer, nor reveal current and future business plans.

OK let's take 8 million kilos of lead in shotgun cartridges at face value. Given a population of approaching 70 million inhabitants, that would be 110 grams of lead per person (adults to babes in arms) cast into the environment every year. But how many of us are actually using it, and how many eating the results of that endeavour. Does that still seem like the right thing to be doing, whilst taking our places in a well mannered society, which I still think we have.
 

dunwater

Well-Known Member
I think if your read the deal the whole point is that you lot did your best to ensure we are excluded from the 'same market'. Border in the Irish Sea, remember that? Your pals up North seem to be getting all exercised about that because they are not in the same market as us.
The border in the Irish sea is the only logical solution to the issues raised by conflicts between Brexit and the Good Friday agreements. There isn’t a solution acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland, the protocol is probably the least worst option but theres no perfect answer.
 

dunwater

Well-Known Member
And like bad neighbours everywhere, nothing but endless aggravation, anti-social behaviour, trouble and extra cost.

Residents’ association? The EU’s more like a f**king zoo.
As far as the rest of the EU is concerned you guys are the bad neighbours. Your unilateral threat to renege from an agreement you negotiated and signed won’t go down too well either.
 

dunwater

Well-Known Member
Yes we did. Your analogies are purile.

We are now free to amend legislation to suit ourselves as is our democratic right.
No your not, you’re still tied in to EU standards, agreements and directives, which is why your REACH proposals mirror the EU document.
 

Norfolk Deer Search

Well-Known Member
When are you lot going to wake up and smell the coffee!

The lead ban is coming - FACT

Get you head around it, all this winging and moaning ia going to get you all know where!!

Find a solution and carry on a bit longer, for those disciplines where there is no present solution, stick that gun the back of the cabinet and get it out when a solution is available!

Really is as simple as that.

The law makers DO NOT GIVE A FUK ABOUT US SHOOTERS AND NEVER WILL!
 

Liveonce

Well-Known Member
When are you lot going to wake up and smell the coffee!

The lead ban is coming - FACT

Get you head around it, all this winging and moaning ia going to get you all know where!!

Find a solution and carry on a bit longer, for those disciplines where there is no present solution, stick that gun the back of the cabinet and get it out when a solution is available!

Really is as simple as that.

The law makers DO NOT GIVE A FUK ABOUT US SHOOTERS AND NEVER WILL!

well having read conor’s last post i am not as pessimistic as you, yes I can see the end of lead shot for live quarry shooting, but that we may get exemptions as per conor’s post.

May be we will be congratulating them on a job well done, let’s hope so, time will tell.

by the way the HSE is the u.k. competent authority for explosives and they make a lot of money from that role, so possibly they may not want to see participation in shooting collapse anymore than we do.
 

caberslash

Well-Known Member
We are now free to amend legislation to suit ourselves as is our democratic right.

And have your goods sent back at the ports, be barred from entry and face sanctions or repercussion for reneging on trade agreements.

So much for integrity.... 🙄
 

caberslash

Well-Known Member
Am beginning to get tired of this thread. Too much BASC bashing, they are far from perfect but are our only representative body trying to engage in the process. CPSA etc are deathly silent.

Started my shooting career with lead then had to move to non lead for fowling when it was required. Have had no real issues other shot types other than tin shot l think loaded by Hull.

Jocker cartridges seem to a simple solution to the wad issue with a fibre cup wad in 12 and 10 bore. Surely that is scaleable to other bores? Seems easier than messing about with other biodegradable materials?

Time folk got real, accepted whats being proposed and engaged in the consultation process to try to influence the outcome instead of bickering and moaning on

To be frank, this is a rifle shooting forum for the most part (am aware that some shoot deer with a shotgun and a few really enjoy doing it) but the difference between steel and lead shot is negligible compared to monolithic vs. cup and core bullets.
 

muddy42

Well-Known Member
Am beginning to get tired of this thread. Too much BASC bashing, they are far from perfect but are our only representative body trying to engage in the process. CPSA etc are deathly silent.

Started my shooting career with lead then had to move to non lead for fowling when it was required. Have had no real issues other shot types other than tin shot l think loaded by Hull.

Jocker cartridges seem to a simple solution to the wad issue with a fibre cup wad in 12 and 10 bore. Surely that is scaleable to other bores? Seems easier than messing about with other biodegradable materials?

Time folk got real, accepted whats being proposed and engaged in the consultation process to try to influence the outcome instead of bickering and moaning on

No disrespect, but as said above, for air gunners, pest controllers and those with older guns etc, there is no viable, non-lead, proof-house approved ammo, therefore its quite hard to "get real."

Unlike fowling, there is no science to show that lead landing on land affects wildlife. Therefore with a ban, the right of those who eat what they shoot and are happy for lead to pass through their bodies is being severely restricted.
 

Robs

Well-Known Member
What seems clear is the gradual cynical and subtle changes in stance by our larger organisations (yes that includes BASC, NRA NSRA etc) and a complete absence of backbone. I assume it being done to save their own positions and to distance them from any responsibility. The threat to shooting disciplines other than deer stallking and suitable 12 gauge shotguns is so great and so obvious that to any normal person it would at least be a lever to help slow or defend lead against a full ban.

We have had years to get our arguments together in a clear way. At no stage have we had those "in charge" clearly say there are no alternatives in certain areas and get that across providing a campaign which is clear and concise. "No evidence no change" was a great soundbite but what about providing evidence of containment and mitigation at the same time. Seems we were asleep on the job. Even if lost it shames those when we can hold our heads high and say we told you that it was stupid. The BASC can easily say yes steel will work in shotguns, copper in centrefire, but what about the rest. Lets have Harriman et al freely evaluating the alternatives in other disciplines and giving evidence to the decision makers. Lets get the scientific officers studying fallout from stop butts and the succes of regular deleading. Bit late I think.

The NSRA should have got it's house in order years ago. All their rifle based activity relies on lead, from the disciplines themselves to the rifles through the buildings and ranges. It should have done all the work years ago to defend it's members, providing clear evidence of what measures protect people and wildlife from lead. If a total ban goes through the organisation is finished as the business model relies on grass roots shooters at the club level.

This threat to all shooting should be the only thing being published or campaigned about but when studying the rubbish in print it is as if there is nothing to see. It will all be alright when the manufacturers step up. For some it will not and cannot happen. As one review puts it with regard to .22LR "the search for a suitable non-toxic round goes on".

We have and are being badly let down.
 

countrryboy

Well-Known Member
Never truer words typed than the last 8.

its the way the lead issue has been handled and seemingly a complete lack of thought not the actual banning of it is my main gripe.

But it all comes down to a lack of back bone, and sorry to critise basc again but i can understand some of the small orgs not being able to really fight there corner many only have 1 or 2 office staff if they are very lucky and the more 'expert' advice is voluntary after tey have done a days work.

Lets ignore target shooting not our problem and let a 1 man band fight there corner all by himself at wknds
Trophy import ban, not out problem let SCI deal with that ( hardly ever heard of them) let their rep deal with that in his spare time.

Sorry basc but if u can't see the possible mission creep in other legislation, yes strictly speaking no entirely ur responsibility but it will affects some of ur members and has the very real potential to morph in the futur and affect a whole lot of ur members.

U have staff ( how many staff have basc actually got? is it in 3 figures yet?) sitting there a custom made media office doing bugger all and yet ur expecting others to fight battles in there spare time after they have came home from the day job.
Sometimes u just have to be the bigger org and do a bit more when u have the staff and equipment to do it
 

Dalua

Well-Known Member
The law makers DO NOT GIVE A FUK ABOUT US SHOOTERS AND NEVER WILL!
I'm afraid that this is a common misapprehension, certainly if we consider the Home Office and the Police as 'law-makers' in this context.

They care a good deal about lawful firearms users - but unfortunately for us this concern is from the perspective that anything at all which reduces our numbers, or makes our life more expensive/inconvenient is to be embraced regardless of any other considerations: which is a good deal more dangerous to us than their simply not giving a F.

We and our organisations will be left in the cold again if it is not recognised that any suggestions of neutrality, or hints at some kind of 'co-operation', from the law-makers need to be treated with the utmost caution, rather than 'welcomed'.
 

Kevgun

Well-Known Member
Yes but the absolute maddening fact is that our so-called shooting organisations are ALL letting this happen. In fact how I see it they are leading the charge to go lead free without any thought about the gun trade or their members. As said before NAIL IN COFFIN.
They need to be careful what they wish for, because if shooting is ended, then there won't be any need for any of the organisations! Lets just carry on and enjoy it whilst we can, because its looking pretty grim. Their coming for us from all angles what with the Police randomly snatching peoples guns, ammo components are getting harder to get hold of, we are jumping through one hoop after the other so it seems.
 

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
As far as the rest of the EU is concerned you guys are the bad neighbours.
That may be the message in an Irish or Brussels echo chamber, but
Your unilateral threat to renege from an agreement you negotiated and signed won’t go down too well either.
This just sounds like you don’t understand what the agreement provided for,

The actual effect of this EU-manufactured dispute is to bring the EU’s trade policies into disrepute globally. Neither the EU nor the Irish had anything like the same interest in border checks at the EU boundary prior to Brexit. It is an entirely manufactured policy disigned with one single objective which is to be as hostile as possible to the UK. A policy that may well pander to the more cretinous populists in Ireland and France, but is completely ridiculous to the rest of the world.

This is a border across which the Irish state has been entirely complacent about permitting the flow of entirely illicit goods for decades. It’s a tiny quantity of goods crossing the border, and you’re using the opportunity to create a great deal of hostility. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
 

Rewulf

Well-Known Member
Thanks @Rewulf from reading your comment I am not sure what your concern is assuming you have read the FAQs. Happy to discuss offline if that helps - please DM me. A summary timeline is as follows:
Im not sure why you continue to ask to take the conversation offline Conor, what could be said between us is surely a matter for public interest ?
My 'concerns' as clearly stated are , what changed BASCs position after 2016 ?
Why in less than 4 years, were you proposing to phase out lead shot for live quarry, with no new studies done, no government push (at that time ) to restrict it, completely off your own bat , YOU proposed it , why ?
You could say , 'Well the writing was on the wall, the EU were going to do it , so BASC decided to make it known , without consulting the 150,000 members , that we were going to be good Europeans and do it too' ?
In 2016, after a lengthy campaign by BASC and other shooting organisations , the UK government rejected proposals for a lead ban, , with the Secretary of State noting that the findings of the Lead Ammunition Group did not show the impacts of lead ammunition were significant enough to justify changing government policy.
What new studies are the UK government using to justify the pretty extensive ban, from what I can see , they are using the same (vague) studies that preceded 2016, that resulted in a refusal to ban lead ?
In 2021, proposals to ban lead ammunition in the European Union were published along similar lines to what has recently been proposed by the UK Health and Safety Executive for England, Wales and Scotland.
Are we simply following the EU in our laws , despite them being inapplicable to UK law now weve left ?
What are other EU countries doing to fight it, have any other European shooting orgs proposed a phase out ?
BASC is working with FACE to challenge the EU REACH proposals and working with UK shooting organisations to challenge the UK REACH proposals.
The language I have seen coming from yourself and BASC lately, suggests that you agree with many of the proposals.
You suggest lead is 'highly toxic' and needs removing from the human food chain, you agree with the 100,000 birds a year dying from lead poisoning report , despite there being NO evidence of its veracity.
Forgive me if I dont believe yourself or BASC, really have any faith in 'the fight'

In fact , Ill go as far as to say , BASC has been the trojan horse that has driven this legislation to the fore.....
A key principle we are following is that further restrictions on lead ammunition must not be imposed until effective and affordable types of sustainable ammunition are available in sufficient volumes to meet demand.
So you keep saying , yet what influence do you have on ammunition manufacture ?
The cartridge manufacturers in the UK have had no dialogue with BASC, they have stated fairly plainly they feel somewhat betrayed, and cannot develop and produce alternatives in the predicted time that we likely have.
So when you tell the government that they cant impose the ban until cartridge manufacturers catch up, what do you reckon are the chances of that happening ?

Lastly , are you willing to state how many members BASC have lost in the last couple of years ?
 

countrryboy

Well-Known Member
Must admit i have never understood the debate about the irish border, it should of been a hard border on the border between the 2 end off. No debate needed
Thats the rules a non EU to EU i can't see why anyone expcted anything different.

And it is a bonkers set up now free trade travel between Eire and NI but not between NI and UK which are part of the same country??

Really that issue was held as a bargining chip throughout the negotations and i can't believe the uk public didn't kick up a stink about it.

Any time scottish independence is mentioned ur all volunterring to rebuild the wall, just seems hypocritical to me.
And at the time of the independence referendum when uk was still in europe there should of been a hard border between eng/scot, thats the rules dunno why u would expect anything else
 

Conor O'Gorman

Well-Known Member
Official Member
Dear @Conor O'Gorman , I have looked at your webpage talking about this, and frankly found it pretty poor, borderline illiterate.

Who writes this stuff for you ?

I am a man who studies facts, data and evidence. Hopefully dispassionately. With a clear judgement.

So, let's unfold some of what you have just put up (literally unfold, you have to click on the down arrow to reveal it, so I can't post a direct weblink. Focussing on "Where is the evidence? What are the risks identified through UK REACH that led to the proposed restrictions?"

"Use title" what does that mean in proper English. Use case maybe. "Estimated release to the environment (tonner per year)" You might want to fix that speeling misteake. "shot shell ammunition" I'm sorry but hereabouts we shoot cartridges. For shotgun, or rifle, by prefix.

What is a "shot shell BTW, I'd like to know how to recognise such a thing to differentiate it from an expended casing made from "single use" but eminently re-cyclable plastic"? As opposed to shotgun plaswads, which by their nature are single use. Whether "bio" or not. Entirely necessary for steel (soft iron) shot, as opposed to felt and cork construction that works for lead.

There is dichotomy going on, the only realistic alternative to lead, steel, for shotgunners, mandates the use of fully enclosed shot cups, rather than traditional wads made from felt and cork. Such pieces have to be engineered, difficult enough, even before considering bio-eco credentials.

But then we get on to how "bio" are the bio/eco/green whatever things, really, in the natural environment rather than a test lab. I've done my own experiments and found all of them lacking, except for a shot-cup made from cardboard/wood pulp. Loaded over felt and cork. Problem is that you can't patent cardboard. Or give it a whizzy name to differentiate your offering. For superior performance you need highly engineered products, which means plastic injection moulding, using whatever feedstock.

Nevertheless let me summarise these figures:, as provided by BASC, in "tonner" per year: If indeed the author has divined this properly. But seems awfully precise, down to 0.01%

Hunting with "shot shell" 6,567 "tonner" per year
Sports shooting (clays?) 1,680. I'd say that was a drastic under-estimate, and little of it recovered and recycled.
Hunting with bullets small calibre inc. airguns 14.5
Hunting with bullets large calibre, no data provided WTF ? Isn't this rather important ? Though I do not expect it to be very much
Outdoor sport shooting with bullets, 26.8

So, who are the bad boys here ? Well I do not think that it is we rifle shooters, either hunting (minimal impact and some of us are already using non-lead alternatives for ethical, and indeed practical reasons such as wanting to sell it to AGHEs, or target (probably much more). So, pretty please, leave us alone.

BASC does not purport to represent rifle shooters AFAIK, indeed Conor, you have said so yourself, that's down to another, or others, organisation.

ISTM that UK REACH are jumping the gun with all this, possibly some personalities anti-everything at the core. EU REACH will slowly come to some conclusion, with which we will certainly have to align, but that is dragging on rather.

As for the BASC "voluntary transition period", sorry but that does not seem to me to be turning out well, nigh on two and a half years in, nor much supported except for lip service by the real players (manufacturers of shotgun ammunition).

18 months or five more years ?
Thanks @Sharpie

The text in the table is copy and pasted from the HSE document - it is their language not ours - but that said, its a good point and we will amend some of the refs - and correct the spelling mistake 'tonner'. We will continue to amend our FAQ based on feedback.
 
Last edited:
Top