Lead shot

Reloader708

Well-Known Member
Interesting article on lyavales website...its not as simple as basc is making out! Just copied and pasted.

Statement: Friday 28th February 2020

From: Rodrigo Crespo of Eley Hawk, Paul James of Gamebore, David Bontoft of Hull Cartridge and Roger Hurley of Lyalvale Express
We, the UK’s leading shotgun cartridge manufacturers, hereby address the announcement made by BASC and other organisations on Monday 24th February, stating their “wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used by those taking all live quarry with shotguns within five years”.

Firstly, BASC and their fellow organisations had NO consultation with the UK cartridge manufacturers prior to the announcement being made. The UK manufacturers have now discussed the matter collectively. We believe the organisations have looked at a limited amount of products and assumed that these are a viable answer to the issue at hand. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

This is a major concern to us for a number of reasons, reasons we would have explained to the organisations prior to the publication of their announcement, had we been given the opportunity to do so.

Europe is currently experiencing a steel shot shortage. A move from lead to steel shot for the majority of UK’s shotgun ammunition will inevitably put more pressure on the market for raw material. This would create further shortages in the short term and push up the price as the steel shot industry invests to increase capacity.

The examples of overseas markets successfully transitioned to steel shot such as Denmark and the USA water-fowling sector, should not be used as proof of a solution. This is because the steel loads used in these markets in any significant volume are loaded with plastic wads. In addition to this, the US and Danish regulations allow steel cartridges to be loaded to a much higher level of performance than here in the UK, to increase the lethality of the pellet.

Limitations to performance levels of steel ammunition currently allowed in the UK mean that we are already facing tougher challenges when developing an effective steel load compared to those used overseas. Couple this with the move away from plastic wads and we are even further limited on performance. We would like to see an increase in the performance levels allowed before we can begin to develop loads effective enough to produce clean, humane kills in the various types of shooting carried out in the UK.

There are indeed a handful of non-lead ammunition options with biodegradable wads currently on the market however, at this stage it is simply impossible to make these commercially viable. We cannot make a complete switch over to these products within a five year period without substantial investment into the industry. BASC and its fellow organisations do not have an understanding of the manufacturing processes involved and are therefore in no position to determine the length of time required to evolve.

Tungsten and Bismuth materials are very limited in their availability and significantly more costly to produce than steel. This will result in huge increases in costs, based on raw material prices, for smaller gauge shooters who cannot use steel. This may price many shooters out of the sport.
Right now, we need to decide which to eliminate– lead or plastic? We cannot avoid using both. At present the only commercially available options are lead shot with fibre wads, steel with plastic wads or unaffordable premium non-lead shot. Shooters and land owners will need to consider these options and then decide which option is preferable going forward.

We must be clear and educate the organisations as to what is realistic and achievable. Although the development of non-lead, non-plastic alternatives are in the early stages of development, it will be considerable time before a full range of options are available to shooters. This process is a long one that will require vast research, development and investment.

Collectively, we do agree that the industry needs to evolve to become more environmentally friendly. We anticipate this happening as larger industries continue to invest in plastic alternatives which will naturally filter down to ours and other smaller industries. These major industries are in a better position to develop the alternatives, the smaller industries such as ours will then follow. It is unrealistic to expect a relatively small industry such as ours to be at the forefront of the development of such materials.

Moving forward we will continue to encourage the use of steel shot where required, but at this early stage we have no alternative option but to support the use of lead with fibre wads as the solution to the issue of plastic pollution. Where non-lead shot is needed, we encourage the shooters to collect their used plastic wads where possible and dispose of them accordingly, as we know many already do so.

Lastly, we are committed to investing into the alternatives. Our collective goal is to develop high performance ammunition for all shotguns and gauges using sustainable materials and therefore secure the future of shooting. We simply ask that the organisations and individual shooters understand that doing this within a five year window without significant support is IMPOSSIBLE.
 
The truth is out there but not on basc press releases .Thanks reloader however i cant wait for David from the aforementioned org,s response.
Its going to be a big flannel to clean this mess up.
 
The truth is out there but not on basc press releases .Thanks reloader however i cant wait for David from the aforementioned org,s response.
Its going to be a big flannel to clean this mess up.
Don't hold your breath waiting for anyone from BASC coming on here to address this, they are fully aware that they have been caught out lying over this issue, they don't have the balls to admit it.
 
This was 4 months ago. There has been a reply from the shooting associations. I can't remember the exact words, but it seems the "Cartridge makers Association" or whatever their Trade association is called, did attend the meetings, and was consulted, and should have kept the Makers informed.
 
This was 4 months ago. There has been a reply from the shooting associations. I can't remember the exact words, but it seems the "Cartridge makers Association" or whatever their Trade association is called, did attend the meetings, and was consulted, and should have kept the Makers informed.
Well that one has gone under the radar which is surprising considering the flak BASC have had over it, I suspect you may be referring to one conversation between the parties that BASCtried to argue constituted consultation but if you can find something and post it that would be good. At present the full statement from the cartridge manufacturers that categorically denies any consultation has not been refuted by BASC to my knowledge.
 
I am still trying to find a definitive answer to why BASC et al changed their stance - no new studies, no new evidence, no explosion of anti-lead feeling anywhere else, no seemingly relevant issues other than the commercial shoots angle. Apart from that there was only the historic link to John Swift and the RSPB nuts on the LAG.
I know we will never find out, as with the legal advice not to judicial review after much 'flapping'.
we are left with the fact that any organisation which will lie to its members, or conceal the truth is unfit.

Its a bit like the John Wayne style of management which says - " dont apologise - its a sign of weakness", "dont even acknowledge errors, most people just want the insurance". I doubt he said the latter but it sounds true to the first saying.
 
Clue: There is a whiff of possible commercial conflicts of interest on the part of some of the cabal involved in BASC's extraordinary escapade.

Of course, there is not the slightest suggestion that anybody involved in brazenly shafting their membership could possibly have had any ulterior financial incentive.
 
My understanding from a conversation last week with Conor O'Gorman of BASC (and I have to admit I am a little hard of hearing so I may have misheard) is that BASC do not know the difference between a "consultation" with someone and merely "informing" them.
 
I said it on another thread on this topic - initially I was in favour of what BASC were touting on this one but its clearly been a total balls up and I've changed my view. If theres no sensible alternative to lead shot then this is a non starter.

Personally between plastic and lead right now I would argue the plastic is the bigger problem, and frankly I've never understood the logic of banning lead shot only to have the countryside littered with plastic wads instead. I'd have thought the lead was far less of an issue.
 
This was 4 months ago. There has been a reply from the shooting associations. I can't remember the exact words, but it seems the "Cartridge makers Association" or whatever their Trade association is called, did attend the meetings, and was consulted, and should have kept the Makers informed.
Well that one has gone under the radar which is surprising considering the flak BASC have had over it, I suspect you may be referring to one conversation between the parties that BASCtried to argue constituted consultation but if you can find something and post it that would be good. At present the full statement from the cartridge manufacturers that categorically denies any consultation has not been refuted by BASC to my knowledge.

The shooting organisations never claimed to have consulted directly with the Cartridge Manufacturers so are unlikely to refute it.

At the time (see below) I did point out that the joint shooting organisations' statement only claimed they had consulted with the Gun Trade Association. This was confirmed by the fact that GTA published their guide to shooting non lead on the same day (Monday 24. February) as the Shooting Organisations' statement and stated that it was in response to that. The flak and mob chant that BASC and the shooting organisations lied was such that few wished to hear or accept this.

If the Cartridge Manufacturers were not involved, it is down to their own Gun Trade Association choosing to produce that guide to non lead without consulting its Cartridge Manufacturing members.

All the cartridge manufacturers who produced the OP's subsequent statement of denial are members of the GTA. But do note that the cartridge manufacturers' statement only claims that they were not consulted by the shooting organisations...they do not deny being consulted by their own trade association, the GTA

Weasle words are not the sole prerogative of the shooting organisations.

Alan

I don't quite understand where you are all seeing a monstrous lie by the shooting insurers/organisations in their joint statement?

The statement calls for the GTA and ammunition manufacturers to work towards a move away from lead.

According to SACS the shooting insurers/organisations consulted with the Gun Trade Association [and they in turn were presumed to engage with their members the Ammunition Manufacturers]. This is apparently true to the extent that the GTA provided a guidance document in conjunction with the shooting Organisations statement...

"It is SACS’ understanding that the trade and cartridge manufacturers were consulted about the proposed transition and that the Gun Trade Association itself had engaged with its relevant trade members. Furthermore, the GTA provided the organisations with a guidance document, which we shared with our members and community at the time of the announcement on Monday. SACS signed the joint statement on this basis."

The Ammunition Manufacturers say they were not consulted by Shooting insurers/organisations but they did not deny being consulted by their Trade Association....Eley, Gamebore, Hull and Lyalvale are all members of the GTA....so it looks like a bit of ducking and diving by them rather than anybody else.

The GTA seems to be the one in the middle which maybe did...or maybe did not...consult with its ammunition manufacturer members. The GTA undoubtedly were consulted by the shooting organisations, and received and have subsequently published information [presumably gleaned from the ammunition manufacturers] to coincide with the shooting insurers/organistions joint statement.


"Monday 24th February 2020
In recognition of the shooting organisations' statement on lead ammunition, the GTA has produced a guide on alternatives. While many are aware of the availability of bismuth and tungsten based ammunition, standard steel cartridges offer an affordable and useful solution to many old guns. This guide is available here."

[Quoted from the GTA website... News - GTA ]

This is the link to the GTA guidance document to accompany the shooting insurers/organisations statement if you haven't already seen it...


Alan
 
Last edited:
The shooting organisations never claimed to have consulted directly with the Cartridge Manufacturers so are unlikely to refute it.

At the time (see below) I did point out that the joint shooting organisations' statement only claimed they had consulted with the Gun Trade Association. This was confirmed by the fact that GTA published their guide to shooting non lead on the same day (Monday 24. February) as the Shooting Organisations' statement and stated that it was in response to that. The flak and mob chant that BASC and the shooting organisations lied was such that few wished to hear or accept this.

If the Cartridge Manufacturers were not involved, it is down to their own Gun Trade Association choosing to produce that guide to non lead without consulting its Cartridge Manufacturing members.

All the cartridge manufacturers who produced the OP's subsequent statement of denial are members of the GTA. But do note that the cartridge manufacturers' statement only claims that they were not consulted by the shooting organisations...they do not deny being consulted by their own trade association, the GTA

Weasle words are not the sole prerogative of the shooting organisations.

Alan
From what you have provided it seems there is some confusion over who has consulted who and on what basis. Assuming your explanation is correct, and I will accept it because I am not going to spend time trawling over every word in past correspondence, this does not exonerate BASC in culpability over this debacle. The “mob chant” as you put it, is in reality is the very real concerns of shooters that guns they own will not be fit for purpose should lead be banned and I find it extremely arrogant that you seem to dismiss those concerns by referring to them in that way. Quite clearly BASC did not directly involve the cartridge manufacturers and you seem happy to completely skate over the fact that they decided to announce this proposal without having direct and full consultation with them. I assume that BASC either think it above them to directly get the facts or they were too lazy to do so instead relying on what seems very limited information from a third party that did not address if this was deliverable. Don’t forget no one knew that BASC were going to make this announcement and had it been circulated to interested parties beforehand AND proper direct consultation carried out they would have had the facts about delivering alternatives to meet BASCs proposal that also addressed everyone’s concerns. No matter what the detail with all this or how much you love BASC there is no getting away from the fact that they made this announcement on behalf of ALL shooters without wider consultation not least the end users. To my mind it is just utter bloody arrogance backed up by total incompetence but perhaps those in BASC think the members should not be consulted lest they get an answer they don’t want and they would be told to go and fight our corner. You can bet that in five years’ time if we have not all converted to lead the powers that be will soon after legislate to ensure we do. It would have been far better if BASC had at least laid the foundation for an exemption and stated that currently lead is the only affordable and suitable option for many guns and that if solutions are not found by the cartridge manufacturers in time there should be exemptions because in five years’ time back peddling on the statement will be extremely difficult and legislators will hold up the BASC statement and say we refer you to your document. The other option of course would have been to fight against any proposed lead ban for general use, however it seems giving ground on the issue is easier that actually fighting our corner.
 
Basc u-turn is about money, money they have invested in a company selling game, game from the very large commercial shoots (money again) that would have no future if they cannot ensure the shot game enters the food chain and more and more of the buyers are insisting on lead fee game.
Difficult to sell a food product that states this product contains lead a known poison.
But they then went one step further in also banning the use non biodegradable plastic wads a change the industry is just not ready for, biodegradable wads are very expensive, with very few manufacture with limited manufacturing capacity and only really available in 12gauge.
 
From what you have provided it seems there is some confusion over who has consulted who and on what basis. Assuming your explanation is correct, and I will accept it because I am not going to spend time trawling over every word in past correspondence, this does not exonerate BASC in culpability over this debacle. The “mob chant” as you put it, is in reality is the very real concerns of shooters that guns they own will not be fit for purpose should lead be banned and I find it extremely arrogant that you seem to dismiss those concerns by referring to them in that way. Quite clearly BASC did not directly involve the cartridge manufacturers and you seem happy to completely skate over the fact that they decided to announce this proposal without having direct and full consultation with them. I assume that BASC either think it above them to directly get the facts or they were too lazy to do so instead relying on what seems very limited information from a third party that did not address if this was deliverable. Don’t forget no one knew that BASC were going to make this announcement and had it been circulated to interested parties beforehand AND proper direct consultation carried out they would have had the facts about delivering alternatives to meet BASCs proposal that also addressed everyone’s concerns. No matter what the detail with all this or how much you love BASC there is no getting away from the fact that they made this announcement on behalf of ALL shooters without wider consultation not least the end users. To my mind it is just utter bloody arrogance backed up by total incompetence but perhaps those in BASC think the members should not be consulted lest they get an answer they don’t want and they would be told to go and fight our corner. You can bet that in five years’ time if we have not all converted to lead the powers that be will soon after legislate to ensure we do. It would have been far better if BASC had at least laid the foundation for an exemption and stated that currently lead is the only affordable and suitable option for many guns and that if solutions are not found by the cartridge manufacturers in time there should be exemptions because in five years’ time back peddling on the statement will be extremely difficult and legislators will hold up the BASC statement and say we refer you to your document. The other option of course would have been to fight against any proposed lead ban for general use, however it seems giving ground on the issue is easier that actually fighting our corner.

You make a lot of assumptions about my views and accuse me of arrogance. Do please at least read what I said above.

I did not exonerate BASC over this "debacle"...I simply pointed out that the recurrent claims that they lied about consulting the Cartridge Manufacturers are unfounded...it does not appear in their statement. Devil's advocate?

The BASC-bashing context of "mob chant" was clear. It was directly in reference to this constant repetition that there was a lie about consultation by the shooting organisations.

"Mob Chant" did not refer to the very real concerns of shooters about the possibility of a lead ban which of course I share. I have 7 shotguns, none of which are proofed for steel, two air rifles and and 22LR....of course I do not dismiss any fellow shooters concerns over a lead ban whether through arrogance or any other reason.

I do however take heart in the experience of those hunters in Denmark who have stated that they have not had a problem with steel shot in old shotguns and there has not been any associated ban on shooting which is what many seem to fear here.

What makes you think I am happy that the shooting organisations did not directly consult the Cartridge Manufacturers? I have simply pointed out that they did not claim to have done so, that it is a conclusion that others have jumped to erroneously.

I cannot be held responsible for the strategy that BASC adopts. But your idea that it would be better had they consulted the industry representatives more thoroughly, seems to assume that the GTA "shooting non lead" guidance (which does indeed touch upon the use of non lead alternatives in old guns) was compiled by the GTA in the hours before the announcements were made. Unlikely.

The politics/strategy of the long game which will enable us to keep shooting is unclear...the future is never certain. But I do see some value in the idea of pre-empting the calls for a national lead ban by reducing the use of lead and plastic voluntarily where we can.

My first reaction to the Shooting Organisations statement was that was what they were aiming for...it was a call to shooters and the industry to look for alternatives to prevent a blanket ban being forced upon us.

Alan
 
Last edited:
For any shooting organisation to make a proposal without consulting those who make one of two essential components of shooting is the highest level of incompetence and justified by nothing whatsoever. Some expalnation for the incompetence may come from their commercial interest but another, greater commercial interest is their membership. Failing to recognise their members interests above everything else should seal BASC's fate for all time as Swift should have and Ali etc ..................Boring to repeat all this. Anyone who tries to excuse this fails to engage brain and that includes any BASC officers who try to justify the indefensible.
 
On a slightly different tack, does anyone know if you can get older shotguns (without the Fleur de Lit mark) reproofed so as to be rendered suitable for steel shot (e.g. by opening out the chokes) - I have no idea if this would be practicable but, just a (perhaps stupid) thought
 
On a slightly different tack, does anyone know if you can get older shotguns (without the Fleur de Lit mark) reproofed so as to be rendered suitable for steel shot (e.g. by opening out the chokes) - I have no idea if this would be practicable but, just a (perhaps stupid) thought
In theory yes, not sure of the cost but you do risk the shotgun as it is alway possible it will be destroyed during proofing for HP steel. General assumption is that non HP steel shot cartridges are ok in modern guns but again you are using steel in a gun that was never designed or made for use with steel shot.
Could get very interesting if and when more and more shooters turn to steel in guns never proofed for steel and a serious accident occurs to a third party and they sue, how could anybody defend the use of the wrong type of cartridge being used in the gun? Would the manufacture simply say the gun was never designed for use of steel shot?
 
Before I get shot down in flames, I shoot lead bullets and lead shot in my shotguns, however it was not until i started flying Hawks for hunting did I realise how toxic lead is to raptors, if any hawk eats 2 pieces of number six shot in a discarded pigeon or crow, that is enough to kill it. So a lot of the dead raptors in the statics used by the anti’s could well have eaten discarded crows left in the field where they dropped. I think a lot of shooters don’t realise just how toxic lead is and some responsibility should be taken to dispose of contaminated carcass correctly, this will go in favour of keeping lead shot.
 
You make a lot of assumptions about my views and accuse me of arrogance. Do please at least read what I said above.

I did not exonerate BASC over this "debacle"...I simply pointed out that the recurrent claims that they lied about consulting the Cartridge Manufacturers are unfounded...it does not appear in their statement. Devil's advocate?

The BASC-bashing context of "mob chant" was clear. It was directly in reference to this constant repetition that there was a lie about consultation by the shooting organisations.

"Mob Chant" did not refer to the very real concerns of shooters about the possibility of a lead ban which of course I share. I have 7 shotguns, none of which are proofed for steel, two air rifles and and 22LR....of course I do not dismiss any fellow shooters concerns over a lead ban whether through arrogance or any other reason.

I do however take heart in the experience of those hunters in Denmark who have stated that they have not had a problem with steel shot in old shotguns and there has not been any associated ban on shooting which is what many seem to fear here.

What makes you think I am happy that the shooting organisations did not directly consult the Cartridge Manufacturers? I have simply pointed out that they did not claim to have done so, that it is a conclusion that others have jumped to erroneously.

I cannot be held responsible for the strategy that BASC adopts. But your idea that it would be better had they consulted the industry representatives more thoroughly, seems to assume that the GTA "shooting non lead" guidance (which does indeed touch upon the use of non lead alternatives in old guns) was compiled by the GTA in the hours before the announcements were made. Unlikely.

The politics/strategy of the long game which will enable us to keep shooting is unclear...the future is never certain. But I do see some value in the idea of pre-empting the calls for a national lead ban by reducing the use of lead and plastic voluntarily where we can.

My first reaction to the Shooting Organisations statement was that was what they were aiming for...it was a call to shooters and the industry to look for alternatives to prevent a blanket ban being forced upon us.

Alan

Just out of interest, and please don't take it the wrong way, but.....if any, how many of your shotguns have you been firing steel shot through and for how long?
Frankly, I'm not going to take the risk of possibly ruining one of my guns so I'd be glad to hear the experiences of anyone who's fired several thousand cartridges through a choked side-by-side and found them effective at range.
I know you're supportive of non-lead ammunition, and I'd be much encouraged too if I was able to discover that the consensus view of expert gunsmiths and the laws of physics were wrong and that switching from lead didn't have a downside.
 
Back
Top