Interesting article on 243, BASC magazine
- Thread starter RM100
- Start date
I don't own a 243 but reading SD there does seem to be plenty of options to get non lead to stablise.
This campaign by BASC seems to be a unnecessay fight and crying wolf.
The 243 has always needed the right bullet and is perhaps not as Catholic as say a 308 in its choice of bullets.
This campaign by BASC seems to be a unnecessay fight and crying wolf.
The 243 has always needed the right bullet and is perhaps not as Catholic as say a 308 in its choice of bullets.
I'll make it clear from the start that I lost all faith in BASC many years ago.
I have used non toxic bullets to very good effect for many years, like all bullets they need testing to see what works best in your particular rifle and with very little trial and error working with the knowledge that copper bullets seem to work better when pushed faster than lead I have got very capable non toxic factory loads for both my 270 and 243 (both more accurate than the best equivalent lead factory loads I could find). 80gr 243 bullets pushed at appropriate speed are just as capable of clean kills on deer as 100gr lead.
What we do not need is a body who set themselves out as representing shooters to be spouting nonsense that is now not at all relevant as the law on minimum bullet weight in Scotland has already been changed and is clearly based on personal prejudice and inaccurate hearsay and testing of now outdated loads in a minimal number of rifles of questionable condition that they happened to have laying around. For instance the load that they tested that did not meet minimum requirements is no longer even made.
I have used non toxic bullets to very good effect for many years, like all bullets they need testing to see what works best in your particular rifle and with very little trial and error working with the knowledge that copper bullets seem to work better when pushed faster than lead I have got very capable non toxic factory loads for both my 270 and 243 (both more accurate than the best equivalent lead factory loads I could find). 80gr 243 bullets pushed at appropriate speed are just as capable of clean kills on deer as 100gr lead.
What we do not need is a body who set themselves out as representing shooters to be spouting nonsense that is now not at all relevant as the law on minimum bullet weight in Scotland has already been changed and is clearly based on personal prejudice and inaccurate hearsay and testing of now outdated loads in a minimal number of rifles of questionable condition that they happened to have laying around. For instance the load that they tested that did not meet minimum requirements is no longer even made.
Yes, you can get bullets to stabilise. The issue is, said bullets aren't exactly effective and are certainly not effective past a couple of hundred yards because they've got the BC of a brick. Usually the minimum velocity for lead free expansion is around the 2200fps mark and said bullets will drop off below that before 250 or so (barrel length dependent).
Im trying load development currently for a 1:8 tikka. Ive got the benefit of a fast twist barrel but im really struggling to get anything under inch and a half. My usual lead load will literally put a bullet through a bullet hole (pretty sure I've actually got a video of it somewhere).
Not all rifles are equal. The majority of lead free bullets aren't the right choice for much over 200, especially in 6mm.
There are still currently loads being produced that are a ways off the requirement. Same for lead though.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
Indeed and before that the BDS that at a stroke advised the then government such that the old 160 grain 6.5x54mm Mannlicher and the old 215 grain .303" Lee Speed load became unlawful as they failed the minimum velocity that this deer lobby advised. I am just old enough to remember the Shooting Times "Notes from the Hill" where some were using the .220" Swift in the 1960s.
Yet when I asked the BASC contributor on here about 22" Rimfire and 9mm Rimfire shotguns and their future after a ban on lead the response was dismissive and unconcerned. The same as it has been in respect of the more mainstream .410".
Last edited:
I suspect a lot of lead factory loads don't reach the 'requirements' when fired from the currently trendy 20.5" barrels. I specified 22.5" for that reason but am seriously considering shorter when the time comes for a fresh barrel.
BASC are quoting 'facts' based on the original Sako non toxic load that was discontinued and replaced with a faster load ages ago. (Pity because they were brilliant for Muntjac). You need current and accurate facts to present a legitimate argument.
Why do you need to shoot deer at over 200yards?
Ah you're one of those are you. In that case you won't like my answer so I won't bother
don't want you getting your panties in a twist
8x57
Distinguished Member
I'm not sure but I have a feeling that it's quite some time ago when I originally read this article, hence my question about when the article was first published.
As you so rightly say seedawood what is required is current and accurate facts, not information that has long been superseded.
Shooting UK something or other did a test recently and found the same
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
Sticking with what works for me and those who share my venison. It’s a welfare thing for me, but ‘à chacon son gôut’
I don't know whether this is a case of "better late than never" or "too little, too late". I'm inclined to think the latter.
Maybe if BASC hadn't jumped so eagerly onto the anti-lead bandwagon before it had even got rolling, they wouldn't feel obliged to make this kind of token gesture today.
BTW, BASC, if you want to campaign on anything, please put vintage guns - not just shotguns, but also rifled arms - at the very tippy-top of your list. Everything pre-1945, or at the very least, everything designed to shoot cast bullets. And please don't play the elitist "oh, just use bismuth!" (a.k.a. "le them eat cake!") card - especially in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis.
Back to .243 and copper. Not useless from the .243, but also not as accurate, not as destructive, and shorter in reach than conventional jacketed lead bullets.
As you will gather, I have yet to be persuaded that institutionalising plumbophobia makes the world better in any measurable or meaningful way.
If your view differs, please tell me how, in - say - 10 years' time, you would expect to be able to demonstrate that all the strife, cost and loss to shooting was worth it? What benefits are you expecting to see, and if you don't see them, how will you feel about that?
Maybe if BASC hadn't jumped so eagerly onto the anti-lead bandwagon before it had even got rolling, they wouldn't feel obliged to make this kind of token gesture today.
BTW, BASC, if you want to campaign on anything, please put vintage guns - not just shotguns, but also rifled arms - at the very tippy-top of your list. Everything pre-1945, or at the very least, everything designed to shoot cast bullets. And please don't play the elitist "oh, just use bismuth!" (a.k.a. "le them eat cake!") card - especially in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis.
Back to .243 and copper. Not useless from the .243, but also not as accurate, not as destructive, and shorter in reach than conventional jacketed lead bullets.
As you will gather, I have yet to be persuaded that institutionalising plumbophobia makes the world better in any measurable or meaningful way.
If your view differs, please tell me how, in - say - 10 years' time, you would expect to be able to demonstrate that all the strife, cost and loss to shooting was worth it? What benefits are you expecting to see, and if you don't see them, how will you feel about that?
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
BASC to the use of lead and lead shot reminds me of thee cases of an arsonist who starts what they think will remain as a small fire. Who then panics and tries to claim the credit for trying to call for help when that fire becomes a blaze.
As we now see with this 6mm/.243" matter.
Initiating the problem with their February 2020 announcement on lead and now trying to mitigate the blame rightly due for the conflagration that they themselves set.
Did they not see that campaigning for the end to the use of lead shot on feathered game would not lead to a call to end the use of lead bullets on cloven footed game?
A proposal directed foolishly without a consultation to the a broader and wiser membership. A failure to think through that when you play with matches you should be careful of what also then gets burned.
Last edited:
I don’t shoot .243 but suspect it’s ability to use copper will be the least of our problems in 3 years time. Has anybody spoken to Reform about this legislation? Seems to be the sort of thing they are keen to erase from our lives and something else for them to get stuck into.
Yes, I'm interested in deer and habitat welfare and how public perception of "sporting ethics" will impact all of our sport/professions.Ah you're one of those are you. In that case you won't like my answer so I won't bother
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Often necessary, especially on the hill.
Similar threads
