UK REACH lead ammunition review announced

CDSG Shooting Sports

25 Sharps

Well-Known Member
It depends upon which grounds the mono metal ban was based...according to Edinburgh Rifles when they were tested at Bisley there was no difference in mono metal and jacketed lead from a danger point of view but they still chose not to lift the ban.

But given that the lead free EP ball ammo in the BAE link is gilding metal jacketed steel core, it is not mono metal....even if the hardened steel core is armour piercing and ricochet prone...

So if they do maintain the mono metal ban it will only be the frangible jacketed lead free bullets that can be used following a range lead ban...Evo Green, Hornady MPG, Brenneke TUG and etc.

Unlikely?

Alan

Ed has never produced any evidence of this and the NRA have never published anything
 

8x57

Distinguished Member
Considering mono metal bullets are banned at Bisley will they not need to change the backstop configuration completely to accommodate.
They are not entirely banned, this is what the rules say regarding prohibited ammunition at Bisley-

"Projectiles that are not constructed of pure lead, lead alloy, or a lead core with a jacket of gilding metal or soft iron. Lead-free mono-metallic bullets may be used during specific events that are controlled and planned by the NSC. They are otherwise forbidden."

So lead free mono metal bullets could possibly be used for specific events controlled by the national shooting centre.
 
Interesting observation: 17m people are admitted to hospital every year, of which 20 on average are for lead poisoning (incl. those in the smelting industry). That is a .0001% chance of being admitted for lead poisoning. Funnily enough, that is almost exactly the same percentage chance of getting a blood clot from the Astra Zeneca jab (.000095%) - and yet all the medicos are telling us to keep jabbing. Just saying.....
 

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
Considering mono metal bullets are banned at Bisley will they not need to change the backstop configuration completely to accommodate.
Almost certainly.
I suspect MoD will have to pay for some/all of that, once the EP rounds are in use
Given that the Ramblers' Association are seeking to have footpaths listed at Bisley, including right across the main range, there could be another agenda at work there too.
It's increasingly clear that these types of changes are occurring by conspiracy, rather than transparency.
 

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
Interesting observation: 17m people are admitted to hospital every year, of which 20 on average are for lead poisoning (incl. those in the smelting industry). That is a .0001% chance of being admitted for lead poisoning. Funnily enough, that is almost exactly the same percentage chance of getting a blood clot from the Astra Zeneca jab (.000095%) - and yet all the medicos are telling us to keep jabbing. Just saying.....
Somewhat misleading. Zero each year are admitted for lead poisoning derived from lead ammunition, so the probability is precilsely zero. You're overstating the risks by a significant margin.
 

Sharpie

Well-Known Member
The lead toxicity concern in ammunition is not that of acute poisoning leading to medical treatment, hospitalisation or even death.

Of course such events are rare. Those attributed to lead in ammunition, probably zero.

The concern about lead in meat, eaten by humans and scavengers, and that sprayed the environment to be e.g. eaten directly by birds, is quite different, occurring at levels that are only detectable by specialist testing when there is reason to go looking for them, or during mass screening surveys for research.

Trying to argue otherwise, on anecdotal things like "zero people have been hospitalised due to lead in ammunition, QED there is zero risk" or comparisons with poorly understood mass vaccine side effects, is spurious. It demonstrates either total ignorance of the subject, stupidity, even mendacity.

Totally unhelpful to the real debate.
 

fineyoungbuck

Active Member
I would simply ask why would it matter using non-lead to shoot vermin? There are plenty of people who have used non-lead options while shooting foxes or other vermin, the Barnes Varmint Grenade or the standard TTSX for example.

At some point we have to realise this is happening, no matter what you feel about it, and maybe it's time to start looking for solutions rather than problems?
There are many products out there which can be explored to suit your personal uses.



I would agree, if we are seen to be progressive and proactive in our move to non-lead, then we will have far more of a say in the certain circumstances where we CAN still use lead where there isn't the risk to the environment or the end consumer (eg. Target shooting as mentioned), however the backlash we see from people on here just demonstrates why unfortunately we as a community may be treated like an insolent child having a tantrum and have it removed entirely with a blanket ban rather than a more liberal ban on just the use of lead on game.

Ben
What will happen is the shooting organisations have introduced a voulantary ban which will then be followed up by a compulsory ban. In the article above by the BASC member, a member of Wetlands trust has quoted back that shooting organisations are on board. Surely the point of a self imposed restriction is to avoid an outright ban. I believe where lead can be harvested from the soil (clay ranges , ranges , etc) we should be able to continue to use it while manufactures and supply lines develop.
 

Conor O'Gorman

Well-Known Member
Official Member
It means that it has knelt to the transversal political will in wanting to eliminate lead, FACE also includes nations where small avian species are hunted (60% of the hunts) where lead is and will remain the only possibility of ammunition, it would be illogical and economically unsustainable to shoot to thrushes with bismuth or tungsten at 4 euros per cartridge, this will automatically lead to the end of traditional hunts in many Mediterranean countries, weight / cost ratio is impossible. This is a way to eliminate certain types of hunting, leave the pheasants (commonly called colored chickens here), partridges and partridges farmed in the paid reserves, completely close the migratory .. point where the anti are most pressing. The excuse of health is a puppet where to hide, the announcement hides a specific intent to limit hunting because many people in the face of the need to change weapons, suffer higher costs for ammunition will abandon the hunt. Unfortunately this is a speech not relegated to my or your country, but the amazing thing is that thousands of used pro-lead guns are exported to countries like Lebanon where they will continue to shoot down everything that flies with lead while we are under strict control. for anything. We are the sacrificial lamb and FACE has done nothing to prevent it

Indeed, I will tell you more, you are undergoing, despite you have come out of this crap of Europe, the dictates of the European Commission, because nowhere else in the world is lead questioned (except wetlands).
I repeat here in Italy on 7/8 hunting associations only the one adhering to FACE is selling the tender as the cure-all of hunting, the others are fighting it (even if they will not succeed unfortunately) and not only in Italy they do not share this is happening, l order comes from above and everyone is silent
Thanks. You have not given any detail to evidence your assertion that FACE "has knelt to the transversal political will in wanting to eliminate lead" and that "we are the sacrificial lamb and FACE has done nothing to prevent it".

FACE has been fighting all of the EU proposals and has been communicating extensively about its work. Since December FACE has also been running a multi-lingual online survey to gather the views of hunters on lead to help inform its work in facing the challenges ahead. Almost 20,000 hunters completed this. The survey is now closed so I hope you took the time to have your say. I should add that FACE policy is set by its Members, which are the national hunting associations in 37 European countries.

FACE is also working on a myriad of other policy issues for all hunters in Europe - including to ensure the continued diversity of quarry species we are allowed to hunt in various countries under the EU directives (including your thrush shooting).

 

Sharpie

Well-Known Member
FWIW, the intended timescale for this to become EU law is stated in my previous posts. At the risk of repetition, for those who have not informed themselves I repeat.

E.g. Lead in shot, bullets and fishing weights - ECHA

1617886612723.png

Regarding the current consultation, already started, some snippets:


It is necessary to provide supporting evidence to justify the information submitted in the consultation, otherwise ECHA’s Committees may not be able to independently evaluate the information submitted. • Information should be submitted as early as possible in the process (see the plenary plan below). • Information arriving after the closing date or via other channels than the web form will not be taken into account by ECHA’s Committees

Respondents are also encouraged to take into account when certain aspects of the proposal are planned to be discussed in the Committees’ plenary meetings (see table below) and time their submissions accordingly (multiple submissions are possible throughout the consultation).

...

Information on the hazards of the substance(s) and the costs of the proposal would make the most impact if submitted by month two and exposure/risk, benefits and derogations by month four of the consultation. This early submission would also allow the information to be considered at the appropriate time. This timing takes into account that stakeholders have access to the dossier much earlier than in the past, as it is pre-published approximately two weeks after submission or more than six weeks in advance of the start of the consultation. It is possible to submit more than one consultation response during the six-month period. Please take this into account when deciding when to submit information.


This is no time to continue fannying about talking amongst yourselves, not "breaking ranks", presenting one consolidated and agreed "front". You've been told, in no uncertain terms. Focus. You've got about twelve weeks left to put in your submissions in a timely manner that may receive proper consideration. Do not delay until the September deadline.

Somewhere on their website I read something like a phaseout period for centrefire rifle ammo, and components, might be as little as 18 months from a decision by Council and EU parliament, projected for Q2 2023. Longer for other ammunition types.

Being cynical I expect that to drag an a bit, but that's no excuse for dithering, inability to get your act together. Organisations have been asked/told to get their input in by month four, which is about 12 weeks away. You've had since October 2019 to get your ducks in a row, now you have been given a second bite of the cherry. Please don't blow it. Again.
 

Attachments

  • 1617886700233.png
    1617886700233.png
    96.9 KB · Views: 3

gixer1

Well-Known Member
I am not against anyone using lead, but I’m with @Alantoo in sharing my many positives in shooting copper and non lead bullets, what i am against is all excuses and non truths to try and deter others from using it.
Try shooting in igneous rock areas Lee! See if people are as quick to shoot copper that retains its weight under those circumstances as it’s a major consideration in some areas...and I have seen very little data on it other than the material side which does indicate copper will ricochet far more than lead.
 

Alantoo

Well-Known Member
I have seen very little data on it other than the material side which does indicate copper will ricochet far more than lead.

Any idea why that may be? Or can you share the source for that info?

I have only ever found general discussions on ricochet which concluded that a bullet (of whatever material) will bounce rather than destroying itself as a function of velocity, angle of incidence and hardness of substrate relative to bullet material.

The fact that 22LR is renowned for ricochet with its soft lead bullets and low velocities was attributed to those factors coming together within earshot rather than further away as they do with centre fire and the 17HMR bullets.

The other interesting part was the ricochets we hear travel less distance than the ones we don't due to the energy used up in creating the noise through air displacement of tumbling or by being misshapen.

Alan
 

Norfolk Deer Search

Well-Known Member
Any idea why that may be? Or can you share the source for that info?

I have only ever found general discussions on ricochet which concluded that a bullet (of whatever material) will bounce rather than destroying itself as a function of velocity, angle of incidence and hardness of substrate relative to bullet material.

The fact that 22LR is renowned for ricochet with its soft lead bullets and low velocities was attributed to those factors coming together within earshot rather than further away as they do with centre fire and the 17HMR bullets.

The other interesting part was the ricochets we hear travel less distance than the ones we don't due to the energy used up in creating the noise through air displacement of tumbling or by being misshapen.

Alan
You typed what I was thinking!

everyone with a 22 RF goes bunny busting to they think of ricochet every time they go out?
 

gixer1

Well-Known Member
Any idea why that may be? Or can you share the source for that info?

I have only ever found general discussions on ricochet which concluded that a bullet (of whatever material) will bounce rather than destroying itself as a function of velocity, angle of incidence and hardness of substrate relative to bullet material.

The fact that 22LR is renowned for ricochet with its soft lead bullets and low velocities was attributed to those factors coming together within earshot rather than further away as they do with centre fire and the 17HMR bullets.

The other interesting part was the ricochets we hear travel less distance than the ones we don't due to the energy used up in creating the noise through air displacement of tumbling or by being misshapen.

Alan
Alan,

the info I was referring to was the hardness of copper vs lead...the 22LR is (I imagine) down to velocity and mass of the bullet.

regards,
Gixer
 

gixer1

Well-Known Member
You typed what I was thinking!

everyone with a 22 RF goes bunny busting to they think of ricochet every time they go out?
Yup...I certainly consider the shot, which I do with a centrefire too however I have shot a centrefire into stone in a quarry and all there is remaining to be found is an impact point and fine particles.
 

Conor O'Gorman

Well-Known Member
Official Member
This is no time to continue fannying about talking amongst yourselves, not "breaking ranks", presenting one consolidated and agreed "front". You've been told, in no uncertain terms. Focus. You've got about twelve weeks left to put in your submissions in a timely manner that may receive proper consideration. Do not delay until the September deadline.

Somewhere on their website I read something like a phaseout period for centrefire rifle ammo, and components, might be as little as 18 months from a decision by Council and EU parliament, projected for Q2 2023. Longer for other ammunition types.

Being cynical I expect that to drag an a bit, but that's no excuse for dithering, inability to get your act together. Organisations have been asked/told to get their input in by month four, which is about 12 weeks away. You've had since October 2019 to get your ducks in a row, now you have been given a second bite of the cherry. Please don't blow it. Again.

@Sharpie please visit the FACE website for more information on the work that has been taking place on these proposals. Also, the meaningful deadline for submissions is 5 May.
 
Leica Amplus 6
Top