Ed has never produced any evidence of this and the NRA have never published anything
UK REACH lead ammunition review announced
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
Ed has never produced any evidence of this and the NRA have never published anything
8x57
Distinguished Member
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.
Cambridge Pimpernel
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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
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.
E.g. Lead in shot, bullets and fishing weights - ECHA
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
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.
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
You typed what I was thinking!
everyone with a 22 RF goes bunny busting to they think of ricochet every time they go out?
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
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.
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
Have your shot copper in the quarry?
Not yet, too ‘feart it bounces back....
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
Christ must be plenty of deer out your wayNot yet, too ‘feart it bounces back....
I’m surprised you even pull the trigger with all your worrying I’d prefer not to perform the “300 yard knock”....on someone’s door/window!Christ must be plenty of deer out your way
@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.
