Is anybody bothered

[Sinistercr0c]

HDAV, you make a valid point. Is steel shot any safer than lead? In fact, have any long term studies been undertaken to show that substitutes for lead shot are in fact environmentally friendly over the long term?

 

At least with lead the studies have been done and the position is known. In my view that alone provides us with some basis for keeping lead shot as the primary component in cartridges until long term studies have been completed that prove alternatives to lead shot are less harmful to wildlife and the environment in general.

 

A case of better the devil you know........

[poontang]

My point about I don't buy it, tbh, is mainly aimed at lead in deer stalking. I just don't accept that this is a problem, and copper bullets are rare and the evidence I've seen (RSPB) says they're not that good either.

 

In terms of lead shot, I am more open minded. Personally I shoot mainly rifle in the field, and shotgun at clays. For pigeons and things, the only alternative is steel due to cost (from what I've seen, an afternoon with bismuth is going to cost the earth!). Obviously there is the steel shot proof issue, but thereafter it should be OK.

 

For clays, I shoot a lot of skeet, and I am switching to steel anyway - I get a shed load more pellets, and they cost me about 50 quid less per thousand than lead do. Breaks the clays like nobody's business. I'll reserve judgement on the sporting side of things for now. Not bothered about DTL as I'd rather cover my balls in petrol and light them than shoot that again...

 

I don't know a huge amount about deer stalking but what happens to the gralloch? From what i can gather it's often left in the field? It's the gralloch which is then predated by carrion eaters, including birds of prey. According to Christopher earlier in the thread he says that 'feedback from the Forestry Commission and stalkers experience of non tox ammunition is all positive'. So who do we believe? The RSPB or the BASC?

 

The cost of non-tox ammunition is high at the moment due to it's limited use. Like everything it's a case of supply and demand. If and when lead is banned the cartridge manufacturers will be looking at ways to improve performance and price of non-tox ammunition, it'll be that or they'll go out of business!!

 

I'll be using lead for as long as possible and i'm really hoping that ALL shooting organisations manage to get together and pool their resources to fight any proposed ban. However, it will be very difficult for them to defend lead against the overwhelming evidence against it's use. In another post we were told to read all the evidence, pro's and con's and make informed opinions based on fact. I've read loads of evidence aginst the use of lead (plenty of links on here) but have yet to find anything extoling its virtues. To be honest i'm not really sure how it can be defended, apart from it's superior ballistic qualities, which won't cut much ice when it comes to the crunch. You might call me defeatist if i say that i reckon a ban on lead will be announced in about 18 months/2 years but i've seen very little so far to convince me otherwise.

 

For once in my life i hope i'm wrong, but only time will tell.

[swift4me]

We fought the same battle in the US. Steel or non-toxic for waterfowl since 1984-85 season, and more recently in California, lead ban in the Condor zone for all hunting including squirrels, coyotes and big game. There are many good non-toxic bullets, but of course they don't work well in every rifle.

 

We, (every hunting organization in the state and many national groups), tried to stand up to the ban, but they had alot of science and an amount of financial support that dwarfed that of the hunting associations. It would have been a waste of resources to fight more than we did.

 

I'd say get used to it.

 

Pete

[Vince Green]

I'm very interested in muzzle loading, although not shotguns personally, but I know a lot of people who do shoot shotguns well over 100 years old. Muzzle loaders and BP proof cartridge guns. How will they get on?.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Vince Green

[Mr_Logic]

The gralloch is generally left in the field, and will be eaten by many predators. The amount of lead left is tiny though, almost always the bullet goes straight through. Therefore the heart and lungs may have tiny fragments of lead but the rest is fine.

 

There may also be the occasional fragment in the meat from that area, but the amount is tiny.

[anser2]

Yes steel is safe if a bird swallows it and a lot of work has been done feeding tame mallard steel without any problems.

[Christopher Graffius]

A very sensible debate developing with some good points made.

 

A specific question was asked about BASC's discussions with the cartridge manufacturers. I haven't been part of those, but I know that they are doing R&D. The one comment I've heard - and that second hand - was the opinion of one manufacturer that if we are legally obliged to shoot non-toxic the manufacturers and the market will respond.

 

One area that hasn't been touched on in the debate is the effects of lead ingestion on humans. There are a number of declared safety limits and the British Food Standards Agency's current view is that no one in Britain eats enouigh game to exceed them. But the latest scientific comments on this are that there are no safe limits for humans. Before anyone asks about human deaths its important to realise that the effects of lead on humans are sub-clinical - in other words it manifests itself in damaged development in children and the babies of pregnant mothers and lower IQ scores and poor health all round. The scientific research as it applies to the effects of lead on humans is extensive and worrying. The research directly related to lead ammo is slight and mostly concerns levels exceeding the declared safety limits in Inuits who eat a lot of caribou. This seems to me to be a key area of the debate. It's one thing to argue that there should be a balance between the deaths of birds which don't endanger their overall population viability and the need for effective ammunition that kills cleanly. It's quite another to balance the need for such ammo and a person's desire to use an old gun against any damage to humans, particularly children.

 

Any thoughts on this aspect of the debate? For example what rules do you follow when it comes to eating birds with large amounts of shot damage? Do any of you cut out obvious wound channels before eating?

 

Christopher

[BlaserF3]

Christopher,

 

Where does your water come from?

 

Blaser.

[mudpatten]

The potential for change is in the wind but I`m happy to go with Christopher Graffius comment that there is no immediate threat to the use of lead.

 

Although as a wildfowler as well as pigeon shooter, and being able to read the writing on the wall, over a period of time I traded all my guns up to those proofed for use with steel.

 

It might be worth mentioning that historically there have been a number of seismic events in technical matters relating to guns which affected values and caused inconvenience to some.

 

The flintlock was rendered obsolete overnight by the percussion cap. The percussion gun was superceded by the pinfire breechloader. The pinfire was overtaken by the centrefire. Manufacturers dropped odd cartridge sizes like the 14 bore and nitro powders and proof condemned black powder guns to an early retirement. There are probably many more examples.

 

Two points emerge. This is the heads up to get a gun that is future proof. And that the Victorians who were used to riding a technological tidal wave relating to guns simply moved with the times, something that we seem to have lost the ability to do.

[BlaserF3]

It might be worth mentioning that historically there have been a number of seismic events in technical matters relating to guns which affected values and caused inconvenience to some.

 

The flintlock was rendered obsolete overnight by the percussion cap. The percussion gun was superceded by the pinfire breechloader. The pinfire was overtaken by the centrefire. Manufacturers dropped odd cartridge sizes like the 14 bore and nitro powders and proof condemned black powder guns to an early retirement. There are probably many more examples.

 

At the moment all these type of obsolete guns can still fire lead shot and there are shooters who enjoy doing so.

[Christopher Graffius]

Christopher,

 

Where does your water come from?

 

Blaser.

 

 

Perhaps the best way to think about the debate is as a risk management process. There are risks associated with the use of lead in an activity: shooting. The risks have to be weighed up against all other factors and a series of actions taken to manage them. As anyone knows who's gone through this process it doesn't necessarily mean abandonning the material or the activity, and in many cases one can conclude that the risk is so negligible that no action needs to be taken. The fact that you've done the risk management process can actually underpin what you do and give confidence to those doing it.

 

Christopher

[BlaserF3]

Christopher,

 

You are now sounding like a politician, why not just answer the question?

[anser2]

Chris , on your point about the effect of lead on humans. My dad had some xrays done for cancer . In his appendix they showed there were 6 lead pellets ( from dinners I had provided ). Still they were not thought to be doing him any harm so the doctors left them there. But there is a world if difference about the effects of lead in body tissues and lead in your digestive system. The former tends to stay where it is inert while the latter is absorbed into the body cells where its starts to effect the Rna and other cell organelles.

 

I guess the problem about lead pides in the plumbing systen is we do not yet know about its long term effects. But all new plumbing has to be done with non toxic pipes , ie plastic. Its probable that lead is not very soluable in water otherwise would not have a problem with waterfowl enjesting the pellets as they would simply disolved away.

 

Mudpatten is right , plan ahead and start thinking about making your next gun a steel proof one. I suspect most of the middle and low market gun makers are already thinking that way.

 

Quote "At the moment all these type of obsolete guns can still fire lead shot and there are shooters who enjoy doing so. " You are right , I love to use some of my older guns and I expect that a lot of pistol shooters felt the same , but the world moves on.

Edited April 5, 2010 by anser2

[BlaserF3]

Quote "At the moment all these type of obsolete guns can still fire lead shot and there are shooters who enjoy doing so. " You are right , I love to use some of my older guns and I expect that a lot of pistol shooters felt the same , but the world moves on.

 

I cannot comprehend why you are so selfish regarding other shooters!

[Tank]

Chris , on your point about the effect of lead on humans. My dad had some xrays done for cancer . In his appendix they showed there were 6 lead pellets ( from dinners I had provided ). Still they were not thought to be doing him any harm so the doctors left them there. But there is a world if difference about the effects of lead in body tissues and lead in your digestive system. The former tends to stay where it is inert while the latter is absorbed into the body cells where its starts to effect the Rna and other cell organelles.

 

Hi,

 

As far as I'm aware, the main problem with wildfowl is that they use small pebbles to grind up food in their gizzards. Shot is just the right size, so they unwittingly pick this up instead of pebbles. The grinding action breaks up the shot and gives it a much greater surface area of chemical breakdown and absorption. I could be totally wrong, but that is my understanding of it.

 

regards,

 

Tank

[wymberley]

Christopher's remark about the "forseeable future" is heartening. I just hope that his crystal ball is not the same model as that used by the Met. Office! For some reason which I can't explain, I have a feeling that he is right and also that things may turn out to be not as bad as we all fear. However, that doesn't mean that we should not prepare for the worst.

I have never used steel (iron) but some years ago when all this kicked off with the wildfowl, the manufacturer asked me to field test some zinc (before the material was abandoned). Within its range it worked (also had to try some for clays; the first two shots were a pair of springing teal which I hit but promptly packed it in as had I been a few ounces lighter I'd have been on my backside about three yards back from where I was when I first pulled the trigger. Afterwards I was told that, yes, recoil was a problem. Before would have been good). Consequently, although I can't use it in my Churchill, I am happy that current steel loads do the job within their limitations.

Having asked Christopher about affordability and given him the opportunity to say that it's not advisable to give a figure in advance, that BASC has yet to define it and the fact that he will not agree that it is eminently sensible to prepare what you are going to say prior going to a meeting where affordability is on the agenda, I can only conclude that barring the advent of an innovative new material, the reason that BASC is not too conerned about affordability, which is probably a critical consideration for the vast majority of we grass roots shooters, is because they have already decided that steel is the way forward.

Cheers

[BlaserF3]

Your last sentence says it all wymberley

 

There's more spin on here than a ball at a cricket match.

[Christopher Graffius]

Christopher's remark about the "forseeable future" is heartening. I just hope that his crystal ball is not the same model as that used by the Met. Office! For some reason which I can't explain, I have a feeling that he is right and also that things may turn out to be not as bad as we all fear. However, that doesn't mean that we should not prepare for the worst.

I have never used steel (iron) but some years ago when all this kicked off with the wildfowl, the manufacturer asked me to field test some zinc (before the material was abandoned). Within its range it worked (also had to try some for clays; the first two shots were a pair of springing teal which I hit but promptly packed it in as had I been a few ounces lighter I'd have been on my backside about three yards back from where I was when I first pulled the trigger. Afterwards I was told that, yes, recoil was a problem. Before would have been good). Consequently, although I can't use it in my Churchill, I am happy that current steel loads do the job within their limitations.

Having asked Christopher about affordability and given him the opportunity to say that it's not advisable to give a figure in advance, that BASC has yet to define it and the fact that he will not agree that it is eminently sensible to prepare what you are going to say prior going to a meeting where affordability is on the agenda, I can only conclude that barring the advent of an innovative new material, the reason that BASC is not too conerned about affordability, which is probably a critical consideration for the vast majority of we grass roots shooters, is because they have already decided that steel is the way forward.

Cheers

 

Not so - BASC would say that affordability is a key issue. We don't want to see anyone forced out of the sport. Of course it's eminently sensible to prepare what you're going to say in advance, but it's not sensible - on a publicly accessible forum - to brief the opposition in advance of saying it! BASC hasn't decided that steel is the way forward, though we've looked at it closely because of its popularity as a non-toxic alternative for fowlers.

 

I'm not on the the Committee, but I expect the first meeting to be taken up deciding an agenda. At some point early on a range of sub-committees will be formed to look at specific areas. All this is going to take time. Even when the process is concluded, and with many of these things they often run into the sand rather than conclude, the result will be a paper to Ministers with no obligation on anyone to do anything. I don't even know - if the next month brings a change of government - if a new administration will want the thing to continue. What I'm saying is that it's premature to say what will happen about anything here, and that's why I'm confident that we're not going to see anything happen fast. An incoming government, of whatever colour, is going to have this issue rather low on its priorities. Hence my comment about the forseeable future.

 

Sorry if I sound like a politician - it must result from talking to so many of them - but I mean what I say, the committee is asked to consider an issue and advise, it hasn't been asked to consider if lead ammo should be banned and I suspect that the subject is far more complicated than black and white statements like that.

 

Christopher

[BlaserF3]

Christopher,

 

You still have not replied to my question about your water, or is it not on your agenda?

 

Blaser.

[TonySmith]

Just to clarify about 'lead water pipes' most water utilies add orthophosphoric acid before the water goes into supply, this constantly 'coats' lead pipes to stop lead contaminating the water.

 

 

ATB

 

Tony

[wymberley]

Christopher,

Re your remark about the "publically accessible forum" in your last post. You are absolutely correct. Which is why in my final sentence of post #92 I gave you that very option which you did not take - but, too late, you do so now. Consequently, what else was I to think?

Cheers

[Guest topshot_2k]

im yet to see a decent alternative to lead.

 

Steel is not dense enough, needs wads that litter the countryside and take ages to break down. Its dangerous for shooters due to ricochets of water, trees, hard ground etc. It doesnt kill as cleanly as lead. Not to mention the majority of guns can even use it.

 

People bang on about new guns all being steel shot proofed but the fact is it just cant match lead and any ban on lead will result in many more birds being injured from shot that isnt upto the job.

Edited April 5, 2010 by topshot_2k

[BlaserF3]

topshot,

 

Can you get an invitation to go to the meeting on the lead shot ban?

 

You would be a good spokesman for all PW members, I like someone who speaks the truth.

[anser2]

Topshot modern steel will do the job as long as people do not shoot out of range ( 40 yard with standard loads) and up the shot size to at least a no 4. If you want to shoot beyond that steel will kill well out to 50 yards if you use high performance cartridges no 3 + pellets and the right choke system. I patterned some high performance shells ( gamebore mammoths no 3s ) a few months ago against thick polythene bags on a very cold day. The pellets ripped through 2 layers of the sacks and embedded themselves almost out of sight into the wooden back plate. The range was 50 yards . Pellets going at such speeds to do this are more than a match for any duck , pheasant or pigeon at that range.

 

The patterns steel produce are much tighter and more even than lead shells of the same load and I suspect they would probably out perform some of the lighter lead loads some use for pigeons on the forum , ie 7 1\2 28 gr loads.

 

The cost at the moment is a bit more than some lead 32gr shells and a bit less than others .

 

Blazer in what way am i being selfish if I choose not to use steel some on my own guns that are not suitable for steel ? I would consider it much more selfish if I insisted in using lead against public opinion which might result in tighter controls for everyone and maybe the final nail in the coffin for shooting. I want to see my grandchildren given the chance to take up this sport and if that means a minor sacrifice in terms of cost or performance in the shells then so be it.

[anser2]

Blazer can i ask you a question . Have you used steel shells in the past year now the good quality shells are available such as gamebore 32 gr loads ?