Interesting article on 243, BASC magazine

[enfieldspares]

As I understand things it will be by statutory instrument so there will be no 'vote' or discussion.

I see. Thank you. So any lobbying must be done now rather than later. Before any ink is dry on any draft of any such "instrument"?

I would hope that at the very least on the grounds of not adding to the number of rifles in circulation that Scottish MPs might be mobilised to fight for lead buckshot and lead slug for use by crofters and farmers under the "deer defence"? Plus those Liberal Democrat MPs who represent Scottish constituencies? I know of no bird in the UK that ingests a 7/8th of an ounce .729" diameter slug as grit.

The benefit would be, as said, that an unintended consequence of this lead ban is increasing the number of rifles in circulation by those who can no longer use shotguns as I know of no iron buckshot and no expanding non-lead slugs that meet the requirement in part c), b) or a) below and so would then request to have "good reason" for rifles.

Nor indeed of SSG size buckshot.

Of AAA size buckshot I have never seen anything of that size in the gizzard of any partridge, pheasant, duck, grouse or goose that I've ever shot. But others may know better.

The Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985

4. Where an occupier of agricultural land or of enclosed woodlands has reasonable grounds for believing that serious damage will be caused to crops,pasture, trees or human or animal foodstuffs on that land if the deer are not killed, it shall be lawful for any of the persons described in paragraphs (c), (d)and (e) of section 33(3) of the Act to use a shot gun whose gauge is not less than 12 bore and which is loaded with the following lawful ammunition:-

(a) for shooting deer of any species, a single rifled non-spherical projectile weighing not less than 380 grains (24.62 grams); or

(b) for shooting deer of any species, a cartridge purporting to contain not less than 550 grains (35.64 grams) of shot, none of which is less than0.268 inches (6.81 millimetres) in diameter, that is to say size SSG; or

(c) for shooting roe deer, a cartridge purporting to contain not less than450 grains (29.16 grams) of shot, none of which is less than 0.203inches (5.16 millimetres) in diameter, that is to say size AAA,

 

[cjm1066]

If that is so it's perhaps beneficial as we know the future. The thought of numerous amendments would surely mean even more onerous restrictions.

 

[Liveonce]

If that is so it's perhaps beneficial as we know the future. The thought of numerous amendments would surely mean even more onerous restrictions.

do we know the future? if so why is BASC arguing to keep lead for the .243 and increase the transition period from three years to five?

The future is far from certain the government can yet alter the HSE proposal.

 

[enfieldspares]

do we know the future? if so why is BASC arguing to keep lead for the .243 and increase the transition period from three years to five?

The future is far from certain the government can yet alter the HSE proposal.

Then we must know when it will be too late to act. And act well before that date. I will be writing to my association to ask them to get this in motion. In strong terms.

 

[WW.]

Nobody is telling anyone what to do. You are now basically saying we should not be using copper bullets due to the risks to livestock, people and wildlife. Making things up about copper bullets or steel shot or plastic wads etc is not going to change the direction of travel - the government has announced its intention to ban the use of lead rifle ammunition in larger calibres for live quarry shooting from 2029. BASC has successfuly argued for exemptions for smaller calibres during the HSE review (the orginal proposals were a complete ban) and BASC is lobbying for an exemption for .243 as detailed in the article shared in the OP 10 pages ago.

I'm saying the arguments applied to lead bullets can equally be applied to copper and to think 10 years down the line or you'll find copper kicked out for the same reasons applied to lead and steel shot kicked out for entirely predictable reasons. The lead issue is anti shooting dressed in the virtue of protecting the environment. The correct response should be 'yes there is risk, but the risk and harm done is considered acceptable relative to the benefits provided.' If lead is toxic, it is toxic regardless of calibre.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I'm saying the arguments applied to lead bullets can equally be applied to copper and to think 10 years down the line or you'll find copper kicked out for the same reasons applied to lead and steel shot kicked out for entirely predictable reasons. The lead issue is anti shooting dressed in the virtue of protecting the environment. The correct response should be 'yes there is risk, but the risk and harm done is considered acceptable relative to the benefits provided.' If lead is toxic, it is toxic regardless of calibre.

In fairness, issues with lead shot ingestion by birds has been written about and researched for over 100 years. There has been decades of use of alternatives to lead ammunition in shotguns and rifles and no reported issues. As regards arguments to retain lead ammunition, its depends on the type of ammunition and how it is used. Some uses will continue and some are being restricted. Some uses have greater risks than others. Many of the risks can be mitigated effectively some cannot. That was all looked at in detail during the 3 years HSE review. Its not all or nothing. Indeed there are two ends of the spectrum on this - those that seek to continue the status quo forever regardless of the evidence and public attitudes; and those that seek a complete lead ammunition ban regardless of the evidence or the damage to shooting that would cause. The HSE review navigated all of this, and the subsequent decision by Westminster govt, Scottish and Welsh govts was a further distillation of that. None of this is ideal but that's often the way policy development works and this is where we find ourselves.

 

[Whitefront]

I doubt copper is vulnerable to exactly the same arguments as lead. The shelves of pharmacies are stocked with myriad health food supplements that claim to boost your level of copper (and others are designed to increase your iron, zinc and magnesium). But you won't find anything on the shelves that proudly claims to boost your lead level...

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I doubt copper is vulnerable to exactly the same arguments as lead. The shelves of pharmacies are stocked with myriad health food supplements that claim to boost your level of copper (and others are designed to increase your iron, zinc and magnesium). But you won't find anything on the shelves that proudly claims to boost your lead level...

Believe it or nor there was a short-lived campaign in 2018 that "lead makes you beautiful and healthy".

 

[Whitefront]

Believe it or nor there was a short-lived campaign in 2018 that "lead makes you beautiful and healthy".

It's still going - on SD!

 

[Chris Richardson]

Believe it or nor there was a short-lived campaign in 2018 that "lead makes you beautiful and healthy".

I hope you “ fought “ to keep it going

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I hope you “ fought “ to keep it going

That was a European campaign, I was busy back in that era fighting global ban proposals for lead shot, and some SD folk continued to be unhappy with BASC on lead. Go have a look

 

[Chris Richardson]

That was a European campaign, I was busy back in that era fighting global ban proposals for lead shot, and some SD folk continued to be unhappy with BASC on lead. Go have a look

Nice try just my little joke Connor

 

[Heym SR20]

I was talking today with my former clients that include leading scientists in field of toxicology of metals.

1) all metals are toxic if there an excess of them. However many metals including iron, copper, magnesium, zinc as well as many trace elements are all fundamental to animal and plant physiology abd the associated biochemical processes. Steel, is a compound of iron and carbon. Iron is fundamental constituent of haemoglobin which captures oxygen in lungs, transports it to your cells so that the cells can do work and the transport the waste CO2 back to the lungs. Zinc supports protein structures, Copper is fundamental part of enzyme action and the immune system, magnesium is import to growth in the synthesis of proteins and release of energy.

In other words without these core metals you really don’t function very well.

2). Lead, there is no function known to science where lead has a beneficial input to animal or plant physiology. There is no process within the body that needs lead.

Lead pretty much messes up you metabolism, in particular the function of the immune and neurological pathways.

 

[hendrix's rifle]

I was talking today with my former clients that include leading scientists in field of toxicology of metals.

1) all metals are toxic if there an excess of them. However many metals including iron, copper, magnesium, zinc as well as many trace elements are all fundamental to animal and plant physiology abd the associated biochemical processes. Steel, is a compound of iron and carbon. Iron is fundamental constituent of haemoglobin which captures oxygen in lungs, transports it to your cells so that the cells can do work and the transport the waste CO2 back to the lungs. Zinc supports protein structures, Copper is fundamental part of enzyme action and the immune system, magnesium is import to growth in the synthesis of proteins and release of energy.

In other words without these core metals you really don’t function very well.

2). Lead, there is no function known to science where lead has a beneficial input to animal or plant physiology. There is no process within the body that needs lead.

Lead pretty much messes up you metabolism, in particular the function of the immune and neurological pathways.

Thats all well and good except no-one in the UK has died from eating lead shot meat. If it was really that bad and the risk was that high to ban it, it would be nice to see the evidence to back it because currently, there really isn't any.

We can all argue till we're blue in the face and it won't change anyone's opinions. Lead is bad in certain forms, along with practically anything else in our ecosystem, from excessive heavy metals to exhaust fumes. Its about mitigating risk but except the current risk of lead is frankly minimal as it stands. Vehicle manufacturers put "world saving" emissions limiting devices in place (not that they work mind, it all gets burnt out one way or another but it looks good on paper ). If they want to mitigate said 'risk', only lead free shot game to go in to the commercial food chain, allowing people to still shoot what they like and eat it if they so desire. Boosh, risk gone. That's ultimately what its about, risk to humans (getting over the anti's side of it anyway and wanting to ban shooting altogether).

What we all need to agree on is BASC sold us out to suit their own agenda and it somewhat backfired and that's something people aren't going to get over.

 

[Smellydog]

Smoking tobacco should be right up there on stuff to ban but hey it's not....how strange!

 

[Chris Richardson]

Smoking tobacco should be right up there on stuff to ban but hey it's not....how strange!

Same with alcohol refined sugar etc

 

[WW.]

I was talking today with my former clients that include leading scientists in field of toxicology of metals.

1) all metals are toxic if there an excess of them. However many metals including iron, copper, magnesium, zinc as well as many trace elements are all fundamental to animal and plant physiology abd the associated biochemical processes. Steel, is a compound of iron and carbon. Iron is fundamental constituent of haemoglobin which captures oxygen in lungs, transports it to your cells so that the cells can do work and the transport the waste CO2 back to the lungs. Zinc supports protein structures, Copper is fundamental part of enzyme action and the immune system, magnesium is import to growth in the synthesis of proteins and release of energy.

In other words without these core metals you really don’t function very well.

2). Lead, there is no function known to science where lead has a beneficial input to animal or plant physiology. There is no process within the body that needs lead.

Lead pretty much messes up you metabolism, in particular the function of the immune and neurological pathways.

Yes, this is correct. However just because a trace amount is needed for various pathways doesn't mean it's not toxic over those levels. Aerosolisation of copper is one to watch.

 

[Smellydog]

Yes, this is correct. However just because a trace amount is needed for various pathways doesn't mean it's not toxic over those levels. Aerosolisation of copper is one to watch.

Absolutely.
Cheap jewellery whereupon the plated metal is electroplated to a coppered base can leach copper and turn green in a damp environment like a body piercing. It can go on to inflame the skin and turn nasty.
I wouldn't want a shirred piece of copper bullets trapped in my gut and also, being much harder may remain sharper for longer than a piece of lead.
I'm sticking to lead thanks

 

[ejg]

I was talking today with my former clients that include leading scientists in field of toxicology of metals.

1) all metals are toxic if there an excess of them. However many metals including iron, copper, magnesium, zinc as well as many trace elements are all fundamental to animal and plant physiology abd the associated biochemical processes. Steel, is a compound of iron and carbon. Iron is fundamental constituent of haemoglobin which captures oxygen in lungs, transports it to your cells so that the cells can do work and the transport the waste CO2 back to the lungs. Zinc supports protein structures, Copper is fundamental part of enzyme action and the immune system, magnesium is import to growth in the synthesis of proteins and release of energy.

In other words without these core metals you really don’t function very well.

2). Lead, there is no function known to science where lead has a beneficial input to animal or plant physiology. There is no process within the body that needs lead.

Lead pretty much messes up you metabolism, in particular the function of the immune and neurological pathways.

That's why I never understood why they don't use non toxic lead to make bullets, the type of lead they use in water pipes.......
edi

 

[Heym SR20]

Thats all well and good except no-one in the UK has died from eating lead shot meat. If it was really that bad and the risk was that high to ban it, it would be nice to see the evidence to back it because currently, there really isn't any.

We can all argue till we're blue in the face and it won't change anyone's opinions. Lead is bad in certain forms, along with practically anything else in our ecosystem, from excessive heavy metals to exhaust fumes. Its about mitigating risk but except the current risk of lead is frankly minimal as it stands. Vehicle manufacturers put "world saving" emissions limiting devices in place (not that they work mind, it all gets burnt out one way or another but it looks good on paper ). If they want to mitigate said 'risk', only lead free shot game to go in to the commercial food chain, allowing people to still shoot what they like and eat it if they so desire. Boosh, risk gone. That's ultimately what its about, risk to humans (getting over the anti's side of it anyway and wanting to ban shooting altogether).

What we all need to agree on is BASC sold us out to suit their own agenda and it somewhat backfired and that's something people aren't going to get over.

You are free to carry on believing that lead is not harmful, no one has died from eating lead, and that it doesn’t do any harm to wild life.

However the vast majority of Scientific, Medical and Government opinion takes the completely opposite view.