Lead update.
- Thread starter gixer1
- Start date
Crowstalker
Well-Known Member
Abouslty mental what this will mean for shooters of any discipline. The amount of any environmental damage from shooters using lead is miniscule compares to water companies pumping millions of litres of sewerage into the waterways. Why go after the small man?
This^
You mean disposed of / destroyed
Old english guns that can’t fire steel etc
Won’t be anymore “good reason” to own them
Nickb
Well-Known Member
It will take years and years, then Labour will be out , we will be at war and it will be put on the back burner
Utectok
Well-Known Member
I'm probably in a minority here but I'm not too bothered. Shot copper CF ammunition for years and steel for wildfowl through some pretty ancient guns also never had a problem at sensible ranges. If I had a 100 yr old Purdey I'd cough up for the odd box of bismuth to shoot it? Presumably if I could afford the gun I could afford the bismuth? Shooting will be a bit more expensive but not horrendously so. Plenty more awful things going on in the world to worry about... But hey ho each to his own.
They can still bee used with alternatives for a low number of shots. A 12g pump may bee the new traditional UK shotgun.
Yes. With regret I acquired a year or so back a 1960s Browning A-5 in 16 bore 2 3/4". If I have to go single barrel and steel for vermin and the odd rough shitt day I decided I might as well go classic blued steel and walnut single barrel in true classic design. And being in 16 bore the thing doesn't weigh the half a ton of its 12 bore brothers. Plus for the present shoots 67mm 1 ounce equivalent lead loads without a stutter so I can use it on clay grounds with a 28 gram limit.
Malxwal
Well-Known Member
If you're "personally not too bothered", you're not looking at the bigger picture.
Utectok
Well-Known Member
Which is "their all out to get us?" if so I don't buy it...... some legislation I believe to be badly thought out and politically motivated, hunting with hounds, snare ban, hare shooting ban and so forth but these lead proposals seems more measured. I realise I'm in a minority but I do get tired of the "their all out to get us?" angle.
This will be like building the 1.5million new houses not enough tradespeople to do the job, there will likely not be enough steel shot to replace the 6,961 tonnes used every year. Given It takes considerable more time and energy to make steel shot than lead shot, with China being the biggest exporter and India.
Last edited:
Malxwal
Well-Known Member
I'm not of the mindset "they're all out to get us". It's the mindset that bans everything on a whim, removing freedoms without any real, solid scientific evidence of direct correlation. I'd ban motorcycles, far more dangerous, and that's easily quantifiable. Another freedom gone, and so it continues.
Are there non-lead options for my martini henry?
Just Cartridges | Shop The Cartridge Range
Over 3 million shotgun cartridges in stock from the biggest brandswww.justcartridges.com
Just Cartridges | Shop The Cartridge Range
Over 3 million shotgun cartridges in stock from the biggest brands
12 gauge clay steel loads almost the same price as lead (plastic wad). Game as loads about £40 -£70 a thousand more then lead I’m told the bio wad increases prices. Bismuth about 5 times the price.
In my view this is not the end of the shooting world. Others may have different opinions.
And copper prices are going to make shooting monolithics great for the pocket…and it’s only getting worse as we put in all this so called eco friendly infrastructure for more electricity…
Nickb
Well-Known Member
Yep ban cars, alcohol and tobacco too , they kill more people than a bit lead shot.
As I see it, the re write of the HSE lead recommendation is basically a white wash by those who are against all forms of shooting and hell bent on pushing an agenda.
It is full of contradictions and what I view as inaccuracies. They have referred to firearms legislation, but not to the Deer Act ( England and Wales) and have made wide ranging accusations against the shooting community which basically suggests we can not be trusted ( references to non expanding ammunition being used for deer / quarry).
They claim that these recommendations are to protect health and the environment, but contradict themselves.
According to the recommendations, it is ok to use lead ammunition of <6.17mm for live quarry, so am I to assume that, under these recommendations, the lead in these projectiles is less harmful than larger calibres??
As I read it, I’m OK to shoot CWD / Muntjac / Rabbits / Hare with lead projectiles in my .22 centrefire or .22 rimfire and put them into the food chain and to leave carcasses of fox / crow etc for “natural recycling” without having to worry about pubic health / environmental risk, BUT not with anything larger than 6.17mm ??? I would argue that the most prolific calibre used in the UK for vermin / pest control is probably the good old .22RF, with a lead bullet, but according to these recommendations, that’s ok!!
Then there’s “Humane Dispatch”, no derogation for this, so no matter what type of firearm you use, it will have to be non lead. So anyone using free bullet / shot for this, such as race course vets, knackermen, hunt staff, HAD operatives etc will all have to change. Personally Im not over enthusiastic of the increased risk of pass through or ricochet, especially in confined areas.
They also recognise that there are firearms that may need to be altered or replaced in order to be able to use non lead projectiles. Will there be any compensation for this, as was done when the law was changed regarding “ small firearms” ( handguns) or semi - auto centrefire rifles and were generally prohibited ???
I would like to think that reasoned debate and challenge using scientific evidence, will prevail within parliament, but I’m not going to hold my breath with the present government, as it helps fulfill some of their aims and will most likely pass through parliament due to having a large majority within parliament.
It is full of contradictions and what I view as inaccuracies. They have referred to firearms legislation, but not to the Deer Act ( England and Wales) and have made wide ranging accusations against the shooting community which basically suggests we can not be trusted ( references to non expanding ammunition being used for deer / quarry).
They claim that these recommendations are to protect health and the environment, but contradict themselves.
According to the recommendations, it is ok to use lead ammunition of <6.17mm for live quarry, so am I to assume that, under these recommendations, the lead in these projectiles is less harmful than larger calibres??
As I read it, I’m OK to shoot CWD / Muntjac / Rabbits / Hare with lead projectiles in my .22 centrefire or .22 rimfire and put them into the food chain and to leave carcasses of fox / crow etc for “natural recycling” without having to worry about pubic health / environmental risk, BUT not with anything larger than 6.17mm ??? I would argue that the most prolific calibre used in the UK for vermin / pest control is probably the good old .22RF, with a lead bullet, but according to these recommendations, that’s ok!!
Then there’s “Humane Dispatch”, no derogation for this, so no matter what type of firearm you use, it will have to be non lead. So anyone using free bullet / shot for this, such as race course vets, knackermen, hunt staff, HAD operatives etc will all have to change. Personally Im not over enthusiastic of the increased risk of pass through or ricochet, especially in confined areas.
They also recognise that there are firearms that may need to be altered or replaced in order to be able to use non lead projectiles. Will there be any compensation for this, as was done when the law was changed regarding “ small firearms” ( handguns) or semi - auto centrefire rifles and were generally prohibited ???
I would like to think that reasoned debate and challenge using scientific evidence, will prevail within parliament, but I’m not going to hold my breath with the present government, as it helps fulfill some of their aims and will most likely pass through parliament due to having a large majority within parliament.
Nickb
Well-Known Member
Don't be ridiculous, Keir and his cronies want the countryside destroyed.
I note a lot of mention of the Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) and I am just happy that BASC has chosen to award a Life Membership of BASC to one of the leading figures in the LAG...John Swift. I left BASC over the Ali fiasco and am happily with CPSA who offer insurance for all my rifle and shotgun shooting be that target or stalking or clay pigeon or live quarry PLUS legal protection of an SGC is revoked or refused renewal).
Some thirty-five plus years ago when I was in BASC I proposed a motion at the AGM to expel MP John Farr from BASC over his support for the Thatcher self-loading rifle ban. This prompted Farr to resign in fact from BASC rather than await the result of the motion. Might I suggest that any BASC members propose similar at the next BASC AGM in relation to John Swift?
Some thirty-five plus years ago when I was in BASC I proposed a motion at the AGM to expel MP John Farr from BASC over his support for the Thatcher self-loading rifle ban. This prompted Farr to resign in fact from BASC rather than await the result of the motion. Might I suggest that any BASC members propose similar at the next BASC AGM in relation to John Swift?
Similar threads
