Non-toxic ammo TOXIC

[gunsmoke]

I see that DEFRA and the FSA have asked John Swift to chair the Lead Ammunition Group

 

From the LAG web site:

The purpose of the Lead Ammunition Group (the Group) is to bring together relevant stakeholders and experts to advise Defra and the FSA on:

(a) the key risks to wildlife from lead ammunition, the respective levels of those risks and to explore possible solutions to any significant threats;

(B) possible options for managing the risk to human health from the increased exposure to lead as a result of using lead ammunition.

 

Im not going to say that there is no risk with lead, what Im saying is that the long term risks of lead is less that the health risks for the alternatives.

 

I read some time ago on the Cope Cod Online web site that in Camp Edwards they where using the new Tungsten-nylon bullets and had to stop, It was reported on the web site that: the tungsten bullets may not be as green as everyone had hoped. And federal health officials are studying whether exposure to large amounts of tungsten causes childhood leukemia.

 

They have now stopped making the ammunition in the USA. So now the greeenies are trying to get us to use this co-called no-toxic ammunition.

 

At one country fair this year someone on a well know shooting stand told me, lead is dead and you have to get use to it .

 

Is no one fighting this treat to shooting. Are we just going to roll over like the wildfowling did?

Edited June 27, 2011 by gunsmoke

[Scully]

I think J Swift has been the chair of the LAG for over a year at least,but found the 'tungsten' article interesting.

[casts_by_fly]

tungsten would never be the standard replacement for lead for 2 reasons- global supply and cost. The first is was too low and the second way too high.

 

Steel is the direct replacement(for shotguns, copper for riles) and there is no health hazard with it. Yes I want to use lead. But I can see why we should consider the alternatives.

 

thanks

rick

[mudpatten]

You really need to calm down and pay more attention mate. This debate has been on the boil for the last twenty five years.

 

At present there is nothing to "fight". Some proposals have been put forward which are currently being researched.

 

BASC is chairing the LAG, the best place for it to be,right in the driving seat,and is partnered by a number of other shooting groups including the aggressive Countryside Alliance who like to talk a good fight.

 

Even the CA are not "fighting" anyone over this issue which reinforces my original point, that, as yet, there is nothing to fight over.

 

Where on Gods earth do you get the nonsensical idea from that "wildfowling rolled over" on non toxic shot.

 

BASC fought a twenty five year campaign, during which incidentally the CA was nowhere to be seen,to stave off the inevitable switch to NTX which was nothing to do with being green but everything to do with international politics.

 

In the end, the government simply ignored all the protests and banned lead for fowling. At no time did fowling "roll over" and many fowlers will be insulted that you suggest they did.

 

I`m very surprised that, as a paid up member of a shooting organisation you know so little on this subject as it is routinely updated by all the organisations either online or in their magazines.

 

Could it be that you are so ignorant because you don`t actually belong to one,in which case your comments about "who is fighting this" are a trifle hollow since you are most certainly not but appear to want to make a lot of noise whilst some one else pays for the fighting.