Is there really a good reason that US based powders are banned in the UK?

Game Larder - Your reliable choice for Game Larder solutions - www.gamelarder.com
A Guy Out West

A Guy Out West

Well-Known Member
I can't remember the name of the ruling that banned the import of N. American powders into the EU, but is there really any reason for it? I looked it up when I first heard about it and from what I remember, it was stated for safety reasons and economic advantage for EU companies, something to that notion. I have been using IMR and most of the other powders available here for over 40 years, never had any problem with them. If the Brexit thing ever goes through, would you be able to get them again?
 
ALL items which involve combustion produce carcinogens. As a scientist who deals with carcinogenesis it makes little sense. Essentially the research has found that a component of some powders is carcinogenic. If they looked at all powders they would find carcinogens. I think this is a bit of smoke and mirrors and there is more too this than simple carcinogens. As the OP states I would believe there is economics involved as amazingly European powders are OK!

BE
 
I am sure there are a lot of people in the same boat, most of my loads are IMR ones, so when my stock runs out I will need to move to an available powder, likely RS Swiss, which seems to be good.
 
In a word, no. It is typical bureaucracy added to bureaucracy and then on top of a little more bureaucracy. In essence, the REACH compliancy standards are fair enough. After all, they protect European citizens from many bad and hazardous materials but obviously smokeless powder bans are rubbish. When you can cane your way through a 20 pack of Marlboro's whilst swigging on hard spirits but you cannot use a small amount of powder to do something productive, you know the limits of logic have been reached. Aha, maybe that is where the wording came from.
 
It's EU bureaocracy.
A ruling under the REACH designation affecting some, but not all US manufactured propellants.
As a member state of the EU, the UK is obliged to abide by the ruling and I suspect, will still abide by it once we leave the EU.
You can google REACH to find exact explanations.

Personally, it's a pain in the arse and forces many of us to develop new loads.

Frankly I believe it's a useless piece of legislation doing nothing for health and safety reasons, but plenty for EU economy reasons by giving EU propellant manufacturers an advantage in Europe, over US ones.
I haven't ever heard of anyone dying from exposure to fired firearm propellants.
Death from the bullet they drive is a different matter entirely :coat:
 
Meanwhile you lot are all ingesting the remnants of the Chernobyl drama..I know without being a scientist which is more carcinogenic.
 
johngryphon said:
Meanwhile you lot are all ingesting the remnants of the Chernobyl drama..I know without being a scientist which is more carcinogenic.
Click to expand...
It’s not that long since the last restrictions on some areas where lifted. With regard to the radiation spread from Chernobyl.
I think there’s probably far bigger things to worry about than the chemicals in propellants. But they don’t give any exceptions, well not when it doesn’t affect EU companies.
 
Perhaps someone should tell the Reach people that you guys are not eating the powder, or do you put that on your fish and chips? Reloaders know not to touch the powder as it contaminates it, plus who wants that on their skin. Sounds like it must be the money angel, too bad as competition is the best innovator.
 
REACH covers particular chemicals (Nonylphenols) that are found in a lot of products that are carcinogenic. One of the most widely used by individuals are in nail polish/varnish but they are used widely in manufacturing of rubber tyres, detergents, lubricants etc

This is another case of firearms holders getting all defensive over powders and the interfering government/EU picking on hunters/shooters. The chemicals are deemed hazardous to health so have been banned in everything they are found in, the fact they are found in modern ammunition powders is a tiny insignificant proportion of where they are found and are simply collateral damage so to speak.

Mercury is one of the things banned by REACH so there are probably a few people kicking up a right fuss about not being able to buy thermometers with mercury in any more and how they'll have to make do with the red chemical variants which "aren't as good" etc but failing to see that the tons of mercury previously used in batteries, pesticides, fluorescent lights and wide scale preservatives which all ended up in the environment somewhere are now being stopped.

Its the wider scale use that is of concern, the tons of powder used by reloaders in the EU is insignificant compared to the amounts used in other industries.
 
NUNHUNTER brings good clarity to the discussion. It is one of those good ideas that should have been adopted but not with the vigour and encompassing the broad stroke that it did. It is also illogical. There's a lot of nasty stuff in the banned powders yet there's the same nasty stuff in the same banned powders that is inside the cartridge cases of the factory loaded ammunition that is still being imported.

And as COTTIS rightly says I can load all day with Vihtavouri powder whilst drinking cheap vodka made from industrial alcohol and smoking cigarettes as if they are going out of fashion. What it isn't is a trade protection measure for European powder makers masquerading as a health initiative.

Why doesn't if affect European powders? The answer is because they have responded at a much earlier stage to problem. by being proactive not reactive to the use of carcinogenic chemicals and foresaw the problem needed a solution earlier. Within the next ten years these banned US powders will also be banned in the US I predict.

But the problem is that the most cost efficient way for both those that have to enforce the law and those manufacturers that have to then abide by it is a total ban. That way gives clarity and certainty which for both parties...enforcers and manufacturers...is the best route as it is the one that is absolute. But, yes, I do miss "old school" Nitromors for stripping stocks.
 
Last edited:
nun_hunter said:
REACH covers particular chemicals (Nonylphenols) that are found in a lot of products that are carcinogenic. One of the most widely used by individuals are in nail polish/varnish but they are used widely in manufacturing of rubber tyres, detergents, lubricants etc

This is another case of firearms holders getting all defensive over powders and the interfering government/EU picking on hunters/shooters. The chemicals are deemed hazardous to health so have been banned in everything they are found in, the fact they are found in modern ammunition powders is a tiny insignificant proportion of where they are found and are simply collateral damage so to speak.

Mercury is one of the things banned by REACH so there are probably a few people kicking up a right fuss about not being able to buy thermometers with mercury in any more and how they'll have to make do with the red chemical variants which "aren't as good" etc but failing to see that the tons of mercury previously used in batteries, pesticides, fluorescent lights and wide scale preservatives which all ended up in the environment somewhere are now being stopped.

Its the wider scale use that is of concern, the tons of powder used by reloaders in the EU is insignificant compared to the amounts used in other industries.
Click to expand...

They could quite easily of written in exceptions to the rules.
You are correct that we don’t want nasty chemicals released into the environment. But it is always the case of what suits.
 
Sonicdmb73 said:
They could quite easily of written in exceptions to the rules.
You are correct that we don’t want nasty chemicals released into the environment. But it is always the case of what suits.
Click to expand...

There are some exceptions, whereby lower percentage chemicals are allowed for necessary industries (rubber tyre making). I would imagine that the people who decided on the lists of products and chemicals decided that as there were plenty of powders available that are REACH compliant already that do the same job there was no need to allow certain powders that aren't compliant to carry on being imported.
 
I would imagine that the people who decided on the lists of products and chemicals decided that as there were plenty of powders available that are REACH compliant already that do the same job there was no need to allow certain powders that aren't compliant to carry on being imported.
Click to expand...

Or maybe BASC who are the UK's members of FACE (European Federation for Hunting and Conservation) were all too occupied with the Richard Ali fiasco to be able to do the job of being the voice of shooting and make that very point? And then persuade FACE to lobby for an exemption for the said powders?

But as a counter I suppose that the European powder makers would argue why can stuff be legally imported containing substances that we, in Europe, cannot legally use? By that argument the ban on those particular US powders does have logic that why should stuff made outside the EU avoid a ban that applies to stuff made in the EU?

As that might then lead if the economics were favourable to the nonsense of European makers setting up factories outside the EU and the EEA to make powder to import into the EU and EEA whilst then closing corresponding factories within the EU and EEA. The logic of the asylum.
 
Your economic assumptions are rubbish. The manufacturers and high consumption users (millitary) have spent considerably longer than you are aware and large sums of money developing and qualifying alternative reach compliant propellants.
 
I might be wrong but I think when REACH first came into existence chemical manufacturers had to apply for certification and registration of chemicals and products if they wanted them to still be available. The registration was quite involved and therefore very expensive, because of this a number of products were not put through the registration process and that's why they are now banned. Companies simply didn't think the cost of registration was worthwhile when compared with the return that they make on the product
 
im not sure but with pesticides, most arent banned just not tested then cant be registered the most recent one that this applies to are things like cymag, strycnene, calcifarol.( not sure on my spelling) if the cost of testing cant be offset against the value of sales smaller items will be lost, id bet most american powder manufactures didnt want to test as the eu market is probably alot smaller than us. i think with most things it boils down to money not health and safety
shakey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Second introduction
Replies
2
Views
130
pmtguntrading
P
Knives in the Wild to a Wider Audience? Good or Bad Idea..?
Replies
12
Views
907
Heym SR20
Heym SR20
Where are the John Brown Gun Club Equivalents in the UK and EU?
Replies
4
Views
569
Drum123
D
Are there any Builders amongst us who can give me a little advice regarding some pointing please?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
charlie222
C
Considering taking a job in the UK: firearms lawyer? (and more)
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
5K
GBR66
G
Browning X Bolt 2 Cashback
Back
Top