wymberley Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) However, with Damascus barrels there is the issue of what happens further down the tubes, especially with the potential issue of occasional elevated pressures with steel shot due to the reduced pressure dampening effects of steel wads which could lead to failure in Damascus barrels further down from the chamber. If that it right, then the advice should be that these cartridges should not be used in any standard proofed gun, Steel or Damascus. The fault is with the cartridge not the gun. Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Whereas nothing can be done to prevent future occurances or to rectify those instances where ring bulges have already occured to/on existing guns. Surely, a good idea would be to research this phenomenon and determine the area in the barrel where it could occur and then design the barrel with the bulge already in place. After all, the knowledge and technology is already known and has been successfully used in the past in earlier shotguns. All that would be necessary to bring this earlier design up to a modern standard would be to convert it from muzzle to breach loading. Although its name is Dutch in origin, we know the gun well and our name for it is...... Obvious really, isn't it? Edit: PS Just thought of another advantage - no more ****, drivel, or more **** discussions about choke! Mind you, if this bulge occurs just prior to the choke cone, the use (re-use?) of recess choke may prevent its occurance. Edited May 10, 2012 by wymberley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Gunsmoke, You accused me of being wrong in the statement about Damascus barrels, I have proven that it did not come from me but the Proof Master, if you have an issue with that take it up with the Proof Master!! Will you be calling him a ‘joke’ as well? To suggest BASC staff are working under the remit of a comment made in a research advisory meeting rather than the direction of the elected Council of members is just plain wrong. Can you prove any of the accusations you make in that post? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) So I possibly got the reason how the CA came into being wrong,and for that I apologise(no denials concerning the NGO and SRA?)but I will contact them,as you suggest.Perhaps I should also contact D.Pain to clarify exactly what J.Harradine said,the answer isn't forthcoming elsewhere. Apart from that the remainder of your post is spoken like a true politician;if all else fails don't directly answer any questions but quote party policy. So Philip Guard wasn't making proposals eh?Again,from the minutes taken from the same meeting at Rossett Hall:'PG urged council to put a timescale on lead substitution'.Sounds like a proposal to me,but then I'm not a 'clever scientist',so perhaps it isn't.Also from the same minutes,but not necessarily proposed by PG. 'It was agreed that the following recommendations be given to council'. 'In light of the growing evidence of problems with lead ammunition the committee believes that the use of lead ammunition in shooting and stalking is becoming increasingly unsustainable.As a result.......committee recommends that council prepares members and other shooters for early change away from lead'. If the evidence exists which proves lead shot in the environment is having a detrimental effect on that environment and it's wildfowl,then surely this is enough to legislate against it.If this evidence is so compelling,then WHY are the WWT and other interested parties now pushing for further restrictions on the spurious claim that lead shot in eaten game has serious health implications for humans?Are there substantiated cases of anyone who has died,or even suffered critical health implications from eating game killed with lead shot? Sorry David,but the smell isn't getting any better. Edited May 10, 2012 by Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 By all means contact who ever you want to. The formation of the SRA / Sportsman’s Association may have been to fill the gap left by the NPA for example as once they shut full bore pistol shooting had no home as it were, and pistol shooters needed a dedicated voice and who can blame them? Frankly BASC never put itself forward as experts on full bore pistol target shooting, full bore or small bore rifle target shooting, or clay target shooting. The NGO wanted to see more specific representation for gamekeepers, fair enough, but then we saw the SGA was formed too…. So what? What on earth this has to do with WWT / lead shot I am still not clear. So as I keep saying lets keep this thread on track, please. What Mr Guard said, was a comment on how things are typically banned not a proposal in any way shape or form. Where did Mr Guard say it WAS a proposal? WHERE in the minutes did is say Mr Guards statement was a proposal? No where! So stop saying it was! Recommendations to Council are just that recommendations - it’s up to Council to decide what direction BASC will take. There is evidence that lead is detrimental to wildfowl for example and that’s why legislation is in place. The effects / risks on with lead in foods / the environment are still being reviewed so I can’t answer your points about human poisonings form game etc shot with lead at the moment You may have read in these weeks Shooting Times that BASC has publically blasted the WWT, maybe this will be picked up by other magazines too. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 lets just hope that the "evidence" doesn't come from the USA. Like most I think BASC attitude has changed since this first came out and the negative press hit them. In business terms it was bad news so the official line did get made to stand up for lead. Much as I like to think its not just for the membership numbers benefit I can't help but have my doubts. Having been out throwing lead AAA's about a few weeks ago at foxes perish the thought of having to go two sizes bigger at ground vermin in company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 David BASC, Re your remark about other magazines picking up on the BASC item in the ST. Yep, some may but they'll be in the "preaching to the converted" category and as such of no consequence. I don't suppose BASC has done anything to assist the editorial staff of other non country sports type publications in selecting articles of general interest which may actually do some good. I'm thinking along the lines of, Woman, Womans Own or even Knitting and Crochet. These countless thousnds of good ladies are besieged by the literature from the RSPCA, RSPB and the Cats League and are therefore utterly biased in their opinion purely and simply because they've never been presented with an alternative point of view. "BAS..who, what?" These ladies also cook and once someone explains the benefits of organic game.... I'll stop, you've got the gist, no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 David, You`re doing a great job on behalf of thinking BASC members by stoically and openly promoting BASC`s absolutely logical position in the whole lead debate against an orchestrated cacophony of half truth,innuendo,insinuation,and misdirection. I see also that Gunsmoke, having laid low since his last drubbing for rudeness has drawn some courage from a handful of adverse comments from the usual Bascerbators, and re entered the fray but is not yet man enough to apologise. David,you are winning the argument hands down and making your tormentors look foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRDS Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Research into compliance was conducted in 2009 /10. A survey was sent to inland and coastal shoots, the results are valid, and checked by Defra’s people. It showed a very high level of compliance within wildfowling clubs. It showed a very low level of compliance among inland shoots. Non compliance will damage all of us; we must comply with the law. David Maybe be the Inland Shoots know a totally farcical law when they see one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Edit: Have no idea what happened here. Forget. Edited May 10, 2012 by wymberley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Al4x – a very valid point, the latest minutes of the LAG have been posted and one statement is VERY pertinent: ‘’The Group was reminded that the geographical scope of the Group was limited to England and Wales, though the FSA has a whole UK remit. The Group’s objective is to give advice to DEFRA and FSA on significant risks as set out in the Terms of Reference and what might be done about them’’ Wymberely – yes I take your point of course, but it’s important that the shooting community know that BASC has publically spoken out against the WWT’s actions. JRDS -regardless of what you me or any one else thinks, the law is the law and saying its farcical is no defence. The non compliance warning that BASC has been telling shooters about for the last 10 years has not been listened to and this has, unfortunately, simply given those how oppose us fuel for their fight. Those who try to excuse their own stupidity of non compliance with the law by saying they simply don’t agree with it are doing the sport no good at all. Similarly, while I am on the subject, those who try to discredit the non lead alternatives are totally misguided if they think by doing so they will protect the continued use of lead shot – they will not. David Edited May 10, 2012 by David BASC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Steady on, mudpatten old chap. If you want totalitarianism then you should have joined the LACS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Gunsmoke, You accused me of being wrong in the statement about Damascus barrels, I have proven that it did not come from me but the Proof Master, if you have an issue with that take it up with the Proof Master!! Will you be calling him a ‘joke’ as well? To suggest BASC staff are working under the remit of a comment made in a research advisory meeting rather than the direction of the elected Council of members is just plain wrong. Can you prove any of the accusations you make in that post? David So you are saying I can use steel shot, No4 or under in my Gibbs Hammer gun with steel barrels that is standard proofed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 So you are saying I can use steel shot, No4 or under in my Gibbs Hammer gun with steel barrels that is standard proofed? Not if it has 21/2" chambers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Correct wymberley! I can’t find any 2 1/2'' standard steel shells for sale in the UK, but if anyone knows where you can get them please let Gunsmoke know... As far as I know the Proof Master has not made any comment on not using standard steel on non Damascus barrels, but I am sure as a qualified gunsmith with 40 years experience you will be fully up to speed with all the proofing issues and the advice from the Proof Master, so not sure why you are asking me, flattered though I am! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRDS Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Al4x a very valid point, the latest minutes of the LAG have been posted and one statement is VERY pertinent: The Group was reminded that the geographical scope of the Group was limited to England and Wales, though the FSA has a whole UK remit. The Groups objective is to give advice to DEFRA and FSA on significant risks as set out in the Terms of Reference and what might be done about them Wymberely yes I take your point of course, but its important that the shooting community know that BASC has publically spoken out against the WWTs actions. JRDS -regardless of what you me or any one else thinks, the law is the law and saying its farcical is no defence. The non compliance warning that BASC has been telling shooters about for the last 10 years has not been listened to and this has, unfortunately, simply given those how oppose us fuel for their fight. Those who try to excuse their own stupidity of non compliance with the law by saying they simply dont agree with it are doing the sport no good at all. Similarly, while I am on the subject, those who try to discredit the non lead alternatives are totally misguided if they think by doing so they will protect the continued use of lead shot they will not. David Has BASC ever tried to get the farcical position of having to use Lead and Non Toxic on the same peg challenged, whoever though that one up was totally mindless and to prove its totally farcical nature could not be too hard surely. I remember a similar theme a couple of years ago with the I think DEFRA investigation into Lead Shot use and the late great John Humphries got very agitated in ST over BASC's stance to a Lead ban after the leaked memo saga and I must say I 100% agreed with him at the time, the evidence was damning. Has your position of closet supporters of a Lead Ban changed then because that certainly appeared to be your organisations stance back then? Edited May 10, 2012 by JRDS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Yes we have challenged it and that, in no small part is why the law is different in Scotland. We also got some of the original restrictions lifted in England. Defra made it clear compliance would be investigated from time to time and we kept telling shooters just that, shame some ignored it and are now some seem to be trying to justify their illegal action that have given our opponent the ammunition to attack us. What leaked memo are you referring to? Not the frank and open discussion by our research committee surely? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 You're correct David,splits in the shooting community have nothing to do with the WWT and lead,I was responding to a comment YOU made in a previous post about 'splits in the shooting community',and those you felt may be responsible for them. If I have got it wrong about the term 'proposal',as I gather from talking to others it has a different implication when used in the context of a committe meeting,perhaps you could give us a link to the actual minutes of the meeting in question,then we can all see for ourselves? I don't mind being proved wrong at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 David, You`re doing a great job on behalf of thinking BASC members by stoically and openly promoting BASC`s absolutely logical position in the whole lead debate against an orchestrated cacophony of half truth,innuendo,insinuation,and misdirection. I see also that Gunsmoke, having laid low since his last drubbing for rudeness has drawn some courage from a handful of adverse comments from the usual Bascerbators, and re entered the fray but is not yet man enough to apologise. David,you are winning the argument hands down and making your tormentors look foolish. Hi mudpatten, David has put his head above the parapet,by choice I'm assuming,so on this forum he is BASC's representative and therefore represents 'the voice of shooting'. David has claimed BASC has 'looked at the alternatives (to lead shot)and reported on our findings'.Fair enough,but he still hasn't told me where I can find this report. He has also claimed that J.Harradine did not say what D.Pain claims he said,yet cannot tell me what he did say.Why? You may see this as some sort of competition....'you are winning the argument'.....I don't.Shooting is my passion,my life,and I will not tolerate anyone who attempts to enforce their ideals on me and my way of life under the guise of spurious claims of detrimental issues of health.Neither will I leave unchallenged any party which claims to be acting on my behalf,yet acts in such a way as to cause doubt and suspicion as to the commitment of that act.I fully understand the science(though not totally convinced) against lead regarding the welfare of wildfowl,and that is why I shoot wildfowl with steel,but while you may think this is a 'cacophony of half truth,innuendo,insinuation and misdirection',make no mistake the truth will emerge,and that's what I'm after.I couldn't care less if BASC prove me wrong and come out of this smelling of roses(I am a BASC member incidently),but I am no fool,and judging by the number of PM's I'm receiving about this issue I'm not alone. BASC are in a position that out of necessity brings them into very close contact with leading politicians,and relationships,both on a personal and professional level,develop.A double-edged sword perhaps?This stinks of politics!But that's just even more insinuation isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRDS Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Yes we have challenged it and that, in no small part is why the law is different in Scotland. We also got some of the original restrictions lifted in England. Defra made it clear compliance would be investigated from time to time and we kept telling shooters just that, shame some ignored it and are now some seem to be trying to justify their illegal action that have given our opponent the ammunition to attack us. What leaked memo are you referring to? Not the frank and open discussion by our research committee surely? David The one that prompted this face saving article and JH's resignation from your organisation. http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/news/449593/Lead_shot__BASC_Were_robust_on_lead.html Just like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 This was simply a statement from BASC reaffirming our robust stance on lead. Our position on lead had been posted on our web site for years, but some, who evidently had not visited our web site, were questioning our position. Fair enough. So we took the opportunity when asked by ST to set the record straight. Yes JH resigned one of his memberships, kept the other and of course re-joined BASC as an individual a little over a year later, but let the man rest in peace OK? As far as I know, the statement by WWT in regard to John Harradine is not based on any single statement he made. John has for years said that all the current shot types, including lead will work, but all shot regardless of what it’s made of, will have its limitations. This has been extrapolated by some to read ‘BASC says all the alternatives work’ True, we have said that but we dont say because of that we should not use lead! BASC never has and never will be ‘closet supporters of a lead ban’ as some may accuse; what would be the benefit to BASC of BASC being in any way anti lead? As to the work we have done looking at the alternatives, well this started long before the bans came in and as the different alternatives came out we tested them, patterned them etc we have published information and finding from time to time in Shooting & Conservation mag. There was a full report on the first season with the different alternatives in England in the 2nd issue of S&C in 2000 for example. Here members of different clubs had tried different alternative shot and they gave their views on their findings. Since then we have published other articles on the alternatives in S&C and in the wider shooting press. Here is a link to the info sheet section of the research pages on the BASC web site, where some of the latest documents are posted, one or two are in the process of being updated by the way. http://www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/research/publications/information-fact-sheets.cfm The truth about lead will emerge, and that’s what the LAG is all about, and as I may have said, the latest meeting minutes were posted on the LAG web site this week. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) BASC never has and never will be ‘closet supporters of a lead ban’ as some may accuse; what would be the benefit to BASC of BASC being in any way anti lead? The truth about lead will emerge, and that’s what the LAG is all about, and as I may have said, the latest meeting minutes were posted on the LAG web site this week. On the first part I don't think anyone thinks BASC is anti lead more that they think its inevitable. Thats how it sounded to most people about the time the shooting times piece went out, The uproar and people voicing their opinions by cancelling membership to my mind caused BASC shockwaves and put the proverbial boot up the backside to get the association to show a bit of backbone. lots of us though just don't know if its a going through the motions as every statement refers to evidence and if the evidence is there for a ban. As for the second it stands a cat in hells chance of coming out as the research isn't there to support it and stands no chances of being funded. The simple facts are to my knowledge no one in the UK has been poisoned by lead from eating game and for some reason inland ducks are healthier than ever despite the fact we can fill their ponds with lead while shooting pheasants on the same drives. The whole thing is a load of ******** Edited May 11, 2012 by al4x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimfireboy Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 On the first part I don't think anyone thinks BASC is anti lead more that they think its inevitable. Thats how it sounded to most people about the time the shooting times piece went out, The uproar and people voicing their opinions by cancelling membership to my mind caused BASC shockwaves and put the proverbial boot up the backside to get the association to show a bit of backbone. lots of us though just don't know if its a going through the motions as every statement refers to evidence and if the evidence is there for a ban. As for the second it stands a cat in hells chance of coming out as the research isn't there to support it and stands no chances of being funded. The simple facts are to my knowledge no one in the UK has been poisoned by lead from eating game and for some reason inland ducks are healthier than ever despite the fact we can fill their ponds with lead while shooting pheasants on the same drives. The whole thing is a load of ******** Well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Al4x I understand exactly what you say. Ultimately our stance on lead had not changed, but the ‘leaked’ document in 2010 was taken by some that our stance had changed. You know as well as I do that on many issues around shooting there will be many different views, but as far as BASC is concerned, it’s the elected members of BASC Council that make the decisions on the strategy’s BASC must follow to meet our objectives. Having said all that it does not hurt for us to get a shot across the bows from time to time and be given the opportunity to put the record straight or to restate our position on an issue. We have moved on and must look forward to face the current issues and threats. We have in the UK the LAG, with the WWT messing about on the side lines, and of course the ECHA threat on a European level. But, without trying to sound boring, compliance with the law is vital. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 compliance is vital and I must say I do however inland wildfowl there is no way of showing if there is a benefit or not to being lead free while the law is a donkey. If it made sense and stopped lead entering ponds then fine you could see if it made a difference but while you can shoot over water with lead thats not going to happen. However its kept the twitchers happy for years and the numbers of swans etc with lead poisoning keep going down so the figures are happy with little compliance and to me that shows a thing or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Maybe so, but the issue is that we, as shooters, will be judged on our compliance. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts