The lead ban. A perspective

Ade8mm

Well-Known Member
Given the likely-hood of an eventual lead ban on shot (for shotguns) and with full respect for the pro's and cons of same - lack of scientific evidence or otherwise etc, I have given a great deal of thought to my position post a lead shot ban.

Will I use my 1876 S X side Damascus barrel shotgun? Will I still use (occasionally) my even much older muzzle loader shotguns?

Damn right I will. I will be forced to use bismuth , tungsten etc. Even at around £1.35 + per shot.

Thing is I don't shoot zillions of rounds. I shoot for the pot and then either flighting duck or rough shooting so never shooting a box of cartridges on any shooting day /evening.

(Not sure I will be happy shooting a squirrel at that cost though. Could I afford a few squizzers at that price ? Sure but it would grate.)

If I was an pigeon decoyer/ professional pest controller then clearly the cost would have a great bearing and be forced use steel an limit range or put my costs up and maybe lose business?

Perspective.

Two weeks a mate of mine enjoyed a driven day in Wales for high birds . A 10 man team. Cost £25,000.. (yes you read that correct)

A great day shooting by all accounts but damn challenging birds.

Let us suppose each gun fired (being generous) 200 cartridges. If they were shooting bismuth @ 1.35 + a pop that would equate to £270 a man for ammo.

Less the cost of lead at, (say 40 pence a cartridge) the cost of the days shooting with bismuth costs our man £190 more than if he had lead. (the bismuth ammo cost 7.6% more than lead.
NB none of the above not includes travel costs, tips and the ale after etc

I doubt that an increased cost of 7.6% (£190) on a £2500 /man day's shooting due to using bismuth / whatever, post lead ban will put our man off.

I think this is perhaps if BASC is (allegedly) mainly supporting large game shoots is why they don't see this as a problem (Kes ??)

I would, however add that any lead replacement (bismuth/tungsten) in my experience does not kill anywhere near as cleanly as lead... And that will be the next target for the antis.....:-|

As they say... Your mileage may vary
 
Timed out on edit. GRHHH

Meant to say the non lead alternative (bismuth/tungsten) extra cost equates to 7.6% of the cost per day per gun (not including tips and beer etc)

I didn't mean the lead replacement is 7.6% more than lead ! It is a hell of a lot more - about 330% more !!!!!!
 
The instant killing power of lead shot is not replicated when using steel, the shock factor is missing, a bit like shooting deer with solid ammunition -it will kill, eventually, but not as immediately effectively as lead; looming welfare issue?
 
Why do you think steel doesn't kill as well as lead. I have used both and with regards to lead, any shot I have removed from game (rabbits, pigeon, pheasant, ducks) shows any significant deformation that would imply that it is delivering more energy. The only shot where I have seen any significant deformation was Bismuth. That was a Roe and there were bits of shot all over the place. I'll stick to Steel next time. Yes you maybe have to think about taking those long shots but I wouldn't take 40m shots at pigeons anyway. Having used both I really don't think there is much in it.
 
I’ve been loading on these kind of days All over the West Country, 200 shots per gun is not uncommon, but of you can afford these kind of days, the extra cost of cartridges is nothing really.

admittedly though I can understand if the average working man had grafted to save up the money to go then yes it’s going to be a bit of a kick in the balls.
 
I have just been using steel with paper wads at clays, they are reminisiant of using a muzzle loader with all the confetti going down range.

Fact is they are cheaper than lead, if a few cartridges for geese are considerably more expensive, might my overall cartridge cost actually reduce?
 
Back
Top