Lead ban date announced
- Thread starter Mike L
- Start date
.224 is 5.69 not the 5.56 we know it as. Same with .264/6.5 is actually 6.71mm
Same with loads of others
No, it's saying less than 6.17mm is still OK for lead.
You can use lead for vermin control but not deer, is that right
No idea, or is it no ideer
I guess you could argue, if you reload, your buying 6mm projectiles. But if buying factory .243 ammo, bad luck.
I don't think so.
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
soapywatson
Well-Known Member
now dont be giving them ideas...
We use .311" bullets in or .303" Lee Enfield rifles and .308" bullets in .300" Savage calibre. Designation is done some by diameter measured across the lands, some by diameter measured across the grooves. There's no logic to it as such which is why a .240 Holland & Holland actually used bullets of .245" diameter and a .22 Savage High Power bullets of .228" diameter. It's just how it is.
Last edited:
big ears
Well-Known Member
Kind of shows the level of thinking they have
The range derogation doesn’t look too bad, and a lot better than it was initially proposed. By my reading, you could have a ‘backyard’ type zero range and use lead on it so long as you have a way to recover lead, record that in writing and tell whichever agency is determined.
It also doesn’t look like there’s an earlier ban on sale, so it’s 2028/2029 for sale and use - which is good (or perhaps not such bad) news for the trade.
On my reading though, FAC airguns of 6.17mm or more (so .25 and larger) must use lead free ammo.
It also doesn’t look like there’s an earlier ban on sale, so it’s 2028/2029 for sale and use - which is good (or perhaps not such bad) news for the trade.
On my reading though, FAC airguns of 6.17mm or more (so .25 and larger) must use lead free ammo.
Last edited:
Blaser1234
Member
This is the chart on the Backfire site
Rifle Cartridge Caliber to Metric Conversion Table
| Rifle Caliber Name | Common Metric Name | Bullet Diameter |
| .17 | 4.5mm | .172″ (4.32mm) |
| .204 | 5.2mm | .204″ (5.2mm) |
| .223 | 5.56mm | .224″ (5.7mm) |
| .22 (lr) | 5.6mm | .223″ (5.66mm) |
| .22 (not lr) | 5.6mm | .224″ (5.7mm) |
| .243 | 6mm | .243″ (6.17mm) |
| .257 | 6.53mm | .257″ (6.53mm) |
| .260 | 6.5mm | .264″ (6.71mm) |
| .270 | 6.8mm | .277″ (7.04mm) |
| .280 | 7mm | .284″ (7.21mm) |
| .30 | 7.62mm | .308″ (7.82mm) |
| .325 | 8mm | 3.23″ (8.2mm) |
| .33 | 8.6mm | .338″ (8.59mm) |
| .366 | 9.3mm | .366″ (9.3mm) |
| .375 | 9.5mm | .375″ (9.53mm) |
| .416 | 10.6mm | .416″ (10.57mm) |
| .450 | 11.4mm | .452″ (Bushmaster) or .458″ (Socom) |
| .50 | 13mm | .51″ (12.95mm) |
Smithyithy
Active Member
.243" converts to 6.1722 mm - is there an exact dimension (beyond 2 decimal places) for common 243 bullet diameters?
I think they've clearly chosen "6.17mm" as the line in the sand for a reason, whether that reason is to purposely include or exclude 243 calibre I guess depends n their literal interpretation of the calibre size..
We obviously know that the calibre nomenclature doesn't always exactly describe the bullet dimension - but do they, and will the rule be enforced as such?
Kinda glad I didn't only put .243 on my FAC application now..
I think they've clearly chosen "6.17mm" as the line in the sand for a reason, whether that reason is to purposely include or exclude 243 calibre I guess depends n their literal interpretation of the calibre size..
We obviously know that the calibre nomenclature doesn't always exactly describe the bullet dimension - but do they, and will the rule be enforced as such?
Kinda glad I didn't only put .243 on my FAC application now..
I'd rather keep the lead ban!
Sandy25
Well-Known Member
As a question, what are the issues with copper and other monolithic bullets?
I am currently using lead, but will move to copper when the time comes. There are a fair few studies out there and reviews by people such as Tim Pilbeam, Paul Childerley etc who aren't small names in rifle shooting, and they are happy with the lethality and stopping power of copper and other loads with some good testing on all deer and large game species. I know several keepers who use copper for everything, and seem to get very good results with ballistically and with stopping power.
Just interested to hear peoples views on the move over as after the info online I would be happy to use copper in all my rifles, and can't quite understand the backlash that copper seems to get!
EDIT: I know there a few on here who are quite vocal about the effectiveness of copper, I'm not looking to start a shouting match, just after genuine reasons why it isn't suitable
Sandy
I am currently using lead, but will move to copper when the time comes. There are a fair few studies out there and reviews by people such as Tim Pilbeam, Paul Childerley etc who aren't small names in rifle shooting, and they are happy with the lethality and stopping power of copper and other loads with some good testing on all deer and large game species. I know several keepers who use copper for everything, and seem to get very good results with ballistically and with stopping power.
Just interested to hear peoples views on the move over as after the info online I would be happy to use copper in all my rifles, and can't quite understand the backlash that copper seems to get!
EDIT: I know there a few on here who are quite vocal about the effectiveness of copper, I'm not looking to start a shouting match, just after genuine reasons why it isn't suitable
Sandy
So, what does this mean for shotgun cartridges? I assume they’ll all have to be non-lead, or are there exceptions for clay shooting grounds like there’s supposed to be for rifle ranges. I could endeavour to look it up, but if anyone can say, then that’ll save me time. And do feel free to call me lazy. 
Similar threads
