have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

[David BASC]

Scully,

 

I don’t see you as a BASC hater, just someone with a view and a willingness to be open and blunt. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Although nothing to do with this thread per se, I would like to respond to your point on Dunblane.

 

Target pistol shooting of course was under the remit of the NPA, and it was they who should have taken the lead, as BASC was and is a live quarry shooting org. But unfortunately when the disaster happened they were nowhere to be found, nor were any other org for that matter. So we stepped in, it most certainly was not a case of laryngitis by BASC!

 

If you recall, it was BASC and only BASC that went on TV live that very day and the next and the next arguing that this was a one off disaster and did not reflect pistol shooting as a whole, It was BASC alone who were in parliament speaking with the Home Office –, and responding to countless calls form the printed media. Within the week we were joined by a well known shooting writer - (for some reasons if I post his name I get asterisks...its Mike Y....) stepped up to the mark and did some excellent TV, radio and paper interviews and presentations

 

The government went for a formal review by Cullen, as we know, and the advice from our political advisors at the time was to say nothing publically while the review was going on – why? Look at the emotional background, 16 young children and a teacher had been murdered in their school in a quiet town in rural Scotland, running an overt pro pistol shooting campaign while the review was going on would have been tasteless and counterproductive. But that did not stop us from continuing dialogue within the Home Office.

 

Initially we kept 22target, and black powder guns, long guns and pistols for humane despatch.

 

Due to the political climate at the time with an election imminent the Conservatives could do nothing but ban large calibre pistols, no amount of lobbying would have changed that as public opinion was so high for a ban. Labour as we know over reacted and banned 22 - …. But we have gone to court since to secure pistols for humane dispatch.

 

However, back to lead…and the calls for a change in law.

 

As I said, now is not the time to lobby for a change with the LAG report still in production, DEFRA will not look to do anything within the current administration until the LAG report is published.

If the administration changes however, then DEFRA’s brief may change, and it’s already been said by Labour that they will look to ban lead regardless if compliance is not seen to improve – regardless of which system of restriction we operate under.

 

[wymberley]

Perhaps we should change our 'colours ' from green to blue.

 

Just out of interest, David, has anyone informally on one of the occasions when BASC and Defra been at the same 'do' ever even suggested to Defra that the people whom the law affects and who have to live with it are of the opinion that it's bad law, or does that organisation remain totally ignorant of the concern that their legislation is causing. The problem is even we can't be certain what we think as no one has ever thought to collectively ask us.

 

My problem is that now I'm starting to get the second phrase of the well know saying about," any body that never made a mistake" creeping up on me as increasingly, it is now seeming to me, that that is what we are being told about the Association by the Association.

[alexl]

To my mind, a full ban on lead shot seems inevitable.

A lack of compliance is sure to force the hand an may hasten the demise of lead shot, but ulitimately lead is a toxic metal, and can have severe effects on the whole environment. The fact that it is more readily ingested and released into the environment on wetlands and via duck, means the ban was inplimented there first, but i think in the not so distant future they will be looking for a full ban. Look at the trends lead has been removed from paint, petrol, solder, pipework and a whole host of other alloys used in manufacturing to name a few off the top of my head, all as a result of its toxicity, should we be spreading it around the countryside or anywhere else willingly?

 

Forgive me if it seems like ignorance but im new to shooting so cant speak from experience, but from what i read are there not alternatives which are now becoming just as effective, only more expensive? Newer steels, bitsmuth ect. can apparently perform nearly as well but are prohibitive because of cost. If these alternatives were widely adopted everywhere its simple manufactuing principle that the cost would significantly reduce as the quantities increased, making them much more feasable. Its not as if lead is even a particularly cheap material to buy. As i say i cant speak for there effectiveness from experience but there seems to be real opposition to switching over to using any alternative from a lot of people, surely if we could reduce the environmental impact of our sport it is worth even paying a little more to safeguard its future? There are enough battles to fight regarding peoples opinions on ethics and other matters without adding issues we could help ourselves.

 

Dont get me wrong i use lead shot myself on the clays but, as i say looking to the trends regarding lead use elsewhere i cant see its use anywhere unnecisarily for much longer, manufacturers need to start looking a vaible aternatives, maybe the community could take on some environmental responsiblity and give them a shove itself.

[Scully]

Good reply David,and thanks for clearing up one or two misconceptions.

I didn't mention the NPA nor the NRA as I can't really take either seriously as a shooting association following their reactions to respective threats.

I'll agree the emotional aspects of Dunblane were as high as they could be,but the handgun ban had nothing to do with handguns nor shooting but political expediency;as proved shamelessly by the Labour party by their cosying up to the Snowdrop (?) lobbying group in an obscene attempt to garner votes.

The Tories tried to placate their voters by keeping .22 but every shooter can remember their actions following Hungerford,and Labour counteracted by making a pledge to ban .22 also if voted into power.

The Conservatives were finished as a party at the time;in-fighting and sleaze did for them.

We still need to be more pro-active,despite what you say.How would BASC have responded if D.Bird had turned his .22 and 12 bore on his local primary school? The prospect is too awful to even contemplate,but what is to prevent such an event happening again? I can make this prediction with a cast-iron certainty;if it does happen again,with either a .22,a 12 bore or a high-powered stalking rifle(cos lets face it,the chances of it happening with a legally held handgun is now slim) then BASC is finished.

The old school tie,politicians,lords and ladies and the landed gentry will continue to shoot,as the likes of those do not need BASC nor any other shooting organisation,but shooting for the likes of you and I,will once again return to the preserve of the privileged and wealthy.

We need to get our act together;our organisations need to get a clear and high-profile message across to ALL shooters that if they continue to shoot fowl with lead then it will be banned,but you're in between a rock and a hard place I'm afraid as the legislation as it applies to England makes no logical sense whatsoever.

I admire your resilience and faith,but with this illogical legislation and an unconvincing statistical study method,and faced with incredibly wealthy opposing bodies,not to mention a hostile press and an unknowledgeable/gullible public, you are faced (unfortunately for all of us) with an uphill struggle,and knowing shooters as I do I wont be buying that traditional game gun anytime soon.

Our only hope for compliance is for every single one of us to instill in fellow shooters the importance of compliance,but as an example of how serious some shooters regard this matter,a few years ago when surrounding a flight pond a shooter turned to me and said 'I suppose I'd better seperate the lead from the steel' and rattled his pocket with a smile,on the understanding that the lead cartridges in his pocket,being heavier,would sink to the bottom.It isn't taken seriously because the legislation makes no sense.

[Gordon R]

Forgive me if it seems like ignorance but im new to shooting so cant speak from experience, but from what i read are there not alternatives which are now becoming just as effective, only more expensive? Newer steels, bitsmuth ect. can apparently perform nearly as well but are prohibitive because of cost. If these alternatives were widely adopted everywhere its simple manufactuing principle that the cost would significantly reduce as the quantities increased, making them much more feasable.

 

The alternatives are far more costly, but that is only one part of the equation. Steel shot would render many guns unusable, as they were never designed for such usage. What is you view on that?

[anser2]

Simple change your gun to one that will handle steel shot. Thats what I did and got rid of my old guns. After all no body in their right mind would be happy with a 1950s car for everyday use so why an old gun that will only use environmentaly damaging lead shot.

[wymberley]

Simple change your gun to one that will handle steel shot. Thats what I did and got rid of my old guns. After all no body in their right mind would be happy with a 1950s car for everyday use so why an old gun that will only use environmentaly damaging lead shot.

Just to clarify, are you talking about the particular applications under discussion or shooting across the board, ie, to include no wildfowl and no wetlands?

[wymberley]

 

 

Forgive me if it seems like ignorance but im new to shooting so cant speak from experience, but from what i read are there not alternatives which are now becoming just as effective, only more expensive? Newer steels, bitsmuth ect. can apparently perform nearly as well but are prohibitive because of cost. If these alternatives were widely adopted everywhere its simple manufactuing principle that the cost would significantly reduce as the quantities increased,

 

 

Bismuth. Total reserves of some 680,000 tonnes of which less than half is currently economic to produce. The current price is c13$ US a pound and has been on the rise for years. At current usage levels, which are actually on the increase (and obviously the price will rise as reserves drop), excluding that increase and any advance in recovery techniques the reserves will last for 60 years only.

 

Sadly, all is not always as straight forward as one would wish.

[Scully]

Simple change your gun to one that will handle steel shot. Thats what I did and got rid of my old guns. After all no body in their right mind would be happy with a 1950s car for everyday use so why an old gun that will only use environmentaly damaging lead shot.

Maybe its not as simple as you claim.

What if steel turns out to be not as environmentally friendly as some claim? What if clay pigeon grounds claim it is unsafe to use due to the risk of ricochets?Steel doesn't deform and lose its impetus as lead does on impact.

Do you know for a fact that lead shot is damaging the environment? Hasn't it been claimed that water forms some sort of oxidising laminate on contact with lead,hence why we still have it as gulleys and flashing in buildings? So it can't be a threat to waterways. Or can it? And if so do you think that your advice should extend to the owners of vintage and classic vehicles and their environmentally damaging vehicles? After all,it is claimed that lead in fuel is detrimental to the health of humans,yet these vehicles are in abundance.Lead is found naturally occurring in our soil,and is present in most foodstuffs;what do you propose we do about that?

What if some shooters simply enjoy using 'old' guns,as many do? I know,why don't we just ban 'old' guns? You're right,it's simple.

[David BASC]

Wymberley,

I dont know if DEFRA have ever reviewed or been asked to review the law, and as to asking members collectively, this would indeed be an interesting piece of research and something that I would personally support.

 

Scully,

Our political and media machine is massively different to what it was at the time of Dunblane back then we had one press/ political man (one person 2 jobs) and 1 junior press officer, and just three people who were media trained - i.e. trained to do live TV or radio interviews 9not as easy as you think!).

 

Now we have 3 people full time on politics, 3people on press, backed up by 2 people with BBC and National media experience in publications, and a firearms team twice the size it was and around 20 members of staff who are media trained. We also have no a very robust media / political action plan for disasters, which was rolled at for the Cumbria and Durham incidents.

 

I hope the alternatives will start to fall in price, some will, some wont, but I am confident that the lowest cost alternative steel will face further powder and wad developments. But you cant change physics or chemistry and a lead alternative that behaves just like lead is as cheap as lead but is non-toxic is not possible if it was we would see it on the market by now.

 

Who knows for sure the future of lead, not me but I agree its demise will be hastened if compliance is low.

 

Possible environmental impact of spend lead shot is one aspect that the LAG are researching

 

Lead water pipes form a calcium salt film on the inside quickly in areas of high calcium in the water, this protects the water from the lead. In areas of low calcium water companies treat the water to create the same effect. All water companies are looking to replace lead pipes though.

 

Lead flashings form lead oxides quickly and this prevents water contacting pure lead metal in the main so the amount of free lead in run off from buildings is tiny.

 

Lead in petrol was an organic lead. Organic lead compounds are very easily absorbed through the skin or lungs and even more so by children, and this caused neurological damage. So lead in petrol has been removed.

 

Lead levels in foods are being reduced.

 

David

Edited July 28, 2013 by David BASC

[alexl]

 

The alternatives are far more costly, but that is only one part of the equation. Steel shot would render many guns unusable, as they were never designed for such usage. What is you view on that?

They are more costly currently, i would imagine their limited current usage does greatly affect this, if for example an alternative was to be adopted by the majority of shooters as opposed to lead, the manufacturing costs of the product would reduce significantly (obviously materail availability dependant). Steel is not the only alternative, in honesty i dont know enough about alternatives without looking into it, but can other products not be used through barrels not proofed for steel? I understand people do like their older special guns, im not suggesting for a minuite we render them useless if there was no other viable alternative, but the majority of shooting is not done with this type of gun, old sxs generally come out on high days and holidays, and a day on the pigeons a lot of people have their cheap knock about. If attitudes towards alternatives were to change, and people were to use them where possible, our levels of lead consumption might well reduce to a more acceptable level without a compulsory ban.

[alexl]

Bismuth. Total reserves of some 680,000 tonnes of which less than half is currently economic to produce. The current price is c13$ US a pound and has been on the rise for years. At current usage levels, which are actually on the increase (and obviously the price will rise as reserves drop), excluding that increase and any advance in recovery techniques the reserves will last for 60 years only.

 

Sadly, all is not always as straight forward as one would wish.

I know it not quite as simple as that, and this may be the case with bismuth, but manufacturers spend lots of money studying markets, they will have research suggesting that there is a great deal of resistance to anything other that lead. Knowing full well that if they release a great product that is not lead there will be very little uptake they simply will not bother spending the money on researching alloys and other viabilitys untill they need to (when lead is banned completely i imagine)

 

There will be suitable materials to use but it will require investment, and manufacturers just wont plough money into it untill either they know they will make more money, or legislation forces them to, to continue making money.

Edited July 28, 2013 by alexl

[alexl]

.Lead is found naturally occurring in our soil,and is present in most foodstuffs;what do you propose we do about that?

What if some shooters simply enjoy using 'old' guns,as many do? I know,why don't we just ban 'old' guns? You're right,it's simple.

Generally underground with other ores, it poses a great deal less threat there where it is, than being introduced to our topsoil via shot, which then introduces higher concerntrations into our food and water supplies. Yes people do enjoy older guns, and i dont think anyone wants them banned, but alternatives exist but cost more, should the whole of socitey aswell as our wildlife suffer so peolpe can shoot cheaper cartridges?

 

Do you know for a fact that lead shot is damaging the environment?

Again not researched that, but is the damage that lead build up in all organsims well documented?

[eyeglass]

The AEWA and the Peregrine Fund so-called research material about ducks ingesting lead shot is junk science that is propaganda and agenda driven. It is not proven science in any way, shape, or form. It uses dodgy statistics and shaky biased conclusions to win political objectives.

 

BASC has said that it is accepted science, and that it (BASC) accepts it.

 

They believe, but not out loudly, that because of this lead should be banned. They believe that by sitting on their hands it will happen because they believe that the Government believe the same lie as they do. They also believe that if the matter can be drawn out to the election their problem will be solved if a Labour Government comes back.

 

The reason that we are in this mess is because BASC accepted the various American and European papers on Lead ammunition and its assumed effects on ducks etc without any scrutiny or critical judgement then or now.

 

They failed to test or probe. They did not challenge the claims on behalf of their members they just accepted all of this propaganda and junk science from the conservation industry as the truth.

 

When asked why, their ‘research’ department said because it was peer reviewed they did not need to challenge, examine or explore any possibility that it was biased even though it was written by animal rights groups and anti’s.

 

They did not review they accepted because they held the same views as the anti’s with one exception, they could not agree that shooting should be banned. So BASC has lived a lie all this time.

 

The WWT have never yet produced a duck dying of ingested lead from the wild. It has never yet done any valid research to back such a claim.

 

The background of threat from the anti’s suited BASC so that they could groom their membership at that time into given up lead on wetlands. BASC accepted the AEWA’s assertions without proof.

 

Just stop to think for a moment. We all know that the BASC/WWT 2010 report on Compliance is a classic piece of junk science, not even peered reviewed, they just rubberstamped it themselves. Yet all we have witnessed on this site is BASC staunchly defending it.

 

We are all able to draw conclusions from that I would say.

 

Unfortunately, BASC abandoned its responsibility to its membership in preference to a misguided deal with the WWT and the RSPB. It has cost all 650,000 of us a heavy price. We all know this now.

 

But because of that cop-out we are now 25 years later, in this mess. Again, we all know this now.

 

BASC twists and turns, swinging from scorn to belligerence when addressing any dissent on this thread. It is a sure sign of institutional panic.

 

There is more than one person writing under the DavidBASC Post, on this thread. Anyone who may have started out giving the DavidBASC writing team the benefit of the doubt, are certainly reconsidering their opinions.

 

A word about peer review. A researcher writes a paper, passes it to his friends in the same field. They write a review of it. It then gets published as a ‘peer reviewed’ paper. It does not mean that the paper proved anything at all. It means that the researchers peers (his colleagues) did not say it was rubbish and that it followed a methodology correctly. The prediction made in the paper is not proved. The outcome of the prediction is not proved. It is just a peer-reviewed paper. There are hundred of thousands of them a year. It is an industry. It is a grant driven industry.

 

Peer Group Review means, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

 

You see this junk science stuff daily in the newspapers. Coffee will kill you – Coffee is good for you. Red wine will kill you – red wine is good for you. 4 hours of sleep is healthy. 8 hours of sleep is bad for you. 10 hours of sleep is the only way to lose weight.

 

The so-called scientific papers on the LAG are just the same. But they got there because the research directors of BASC and the WWT put them there. Why? Read Eyeglass post No. 148 page 8.

 

The point is it is BASC that has caused these problems not shooters. It seems that it is BASC who is in denial not us members of the shooting public.

 

There is no UK evidence to show that lead ammunition has any effect on wildfowl except when it is fired directly at the bird. But BASC does not think there is any need to find out the truth it prefers to take the pre-packaged propaganda research of the conservation groups who hate shooting.

 

BASC could have challenged all of this stuff from the anti’s over the last 25 years. It did not then and it does not now.

 

Remember it was only a couple of years ago when BASC stabbed the shooting community in the back over raised cages. All of the shooting organisations had reached an agreed code for the breeding of Pheasant for release but BASC did not agree so it went behind every ones back and got 200 Labour MP’s to sign an Early Day Motion and the DEFRA Minister changed the code that was agreed to one that BASC wanted which put the entire game farm industry at total risk of not being able to operate. BASC said that they thought they had it right and that everyone else was wrong.

 

3 weeks later, we have a change of Government and the new DEFRA minister gives BASC 2 fingers and changes the code back, at the behest of the rest of the other shooting organisations.

 

BASC will never be forgiven for that betrayal just as they will never be forgiven for their betrayal over lead. If lead is saved it will not be because of anything BASC has done to save it. It will be saved by others despite the betrayal of BASC.

 

See the warning from America attached as a file to this post and copied below for you to read. Will BASC will try to do down this article recently published in Field Sport magazine?

 

BE WARNED – BY DONALD BUTTS – PUBLISHED IN FIELDSPORTS MAGAZINE, Spring 2013 *See attached PDF file

 

EYEGLASS POSTS: 75 page 4. – 99 page 5 – 119 page 6 – 130 page 7 – 148 page 8

– 196 page 10.

 

DONALD BUTTS.pdf

[Scully]

So basically David,it would appear there's no real viable reason to retain lead as shot and therefore no real incentive to continue fighting for it.it is a highly toxic aubstance which poisons our food nd environment by all accounts. A surefire 100 per cent guarantee of reducing lead shot in foodstuffs,for example,namely fowl and game,(despite its presence being proved as negligible)is to ban its use as shot.

A loss of incentive could create a cavalier attitude towards compliance,which would mean( if I was of a cynical persuasion!) that shooting organisations could retort with a 'don't blame us, we tried to tell you'.

As an aside,I am pleased to learn BASC now ha s agood compliment of media savvy professional staff. But bear in mind if faced with another Dunblane emotions will be on a par with last time,but responses will still be deemed as tasteless by our opponents and counter productive by BASC.lets hope it never occurs.

Unless gunsmoke or eyeglass can revive my

interest I think I'm just about done,and for what it's worth in my opinion, so is lead.

I think it's demise will possibly do so as much damage to shooters faith in their shooting organisations as its retention will do via our opponents.Perhaps it may be better if we kiss a fond and speedy farewell to lead and move on.Unfortunately I sincerely believe we are fighting a losing battle here

[Scully]

Very interesting eyeglass,I must admit,but I still fail to see what BASC has to gain from this alleged deceit.Care to elaborate?

[wymberley]

David BASC,

Thanks for your answer at Post #235 but that's not quite what I asked. Could you kindly re-read the second paragraph of my Post #227? What I'm after is simply is Defra aware of the grass roots shooters opinion of the relevant legislation for England.

[Gordon R]

There is more than one person writing under the DavidBASC Post, on this thread. Anyone who may have started out giving the DavidBASC writing team the benefit of the doubt, are certainly reconsidering their opinions.

 

Eyeglass - care to back up this rather provocative statement. Looking at your posts - if I was feeling less than charitable - I could well ask who was using the other family brain cell this week.

 

alexl - for a newby to shooting, you seem to have formed some fairly fixed ideas. Perhaps, with your vast research, you might enlighten me as to just how many of the existing shotguns would be able to safely use steel shot - without any damage occurring? You seem dismissive of the numbers involved.

[David BASC]

Eyeglass is not telling the truth if he claims BASC believes lead should be banned due to the peregrine research. We have never ever said this.

 

Nor do we believe nor have we ever said if the mater can be drawn to the next election it will solve our problems yet another made up claim by him.

 

Research into the effects of lead on vertebrates, and wildfowl in particular, are well documented and peer reviewed, so claiming its BASCs fault that these have been used as evidence is yet another red herring

 

Starting to notice a trend here.

 

The AEWA phase out of lead was accepted by various governments around the world again to claim it was BASCs fault that the UK government agreed with international scientific research is laughable

 

Eyeglass again claims the 2010 research was junk but has he taken this up with DEFRA, or indeed the WWT, or indeed with BASC no he just posts his unfounded clap trap on here.

 

Eyeglass claims there is a deal between BASC, WWT and RSPB no there is not, and he cannot produce any proof at all to back up his silly claim.

 

Only I write under David BASC and no one else, more unfounded allegations

 

Cages were and are a key issue and you may or may not be aware that there has been a lot of research done on cases and the results will be out soon. We have also had several meetings with the Game Farmers Association and others, and we have moved on, but evidently Eyeglass has not or cannot.

 

I cant be bothered to comment on the rest of this rubbish post as it is simply fantasy and fabrication, designed to attack BASC and all the work we have done and will continue to do to try and protect shooting sports,, I do wonder if Eyeglass is really on the other side.hard to believe not?

 

Scully,

the battle for lead is not dead, and there is demonstrably a will from members and the wider shooting sports public that we and the other organisations stick together to do our very best to keep it for as long as possible.

 

David

 

PS Wymberley, sorry I missed the point of the question, I don't know but I will ask.

Edited July 28, 2013 by David BASC

[alexl]

 

 

alexl - for a newby to shooting, you seem to have formed some fairly fixed ideas. Perhaps, with your vast research, you might enlighten me as to just how many of the existing shotguns would be able to safely use steel shot - without any damage occurring? You seem dismissive of the numbers involved.

CLEARLY stated in pretty much all of my posts I have not conducted research, I have mentioned that certain things seem to be the case from general reading, so your sarcasm is not really necessary or conductive any form of meaningful conversation. No my ideas are not fixed at all which is why, even throughout the course of this conversation I have asked questions and look to learn where my knowledge is lacking.

 

To be entirely frank, the number of shotguns is irrelevant, this is a leisure pursuit for most people, and do you think the general public will or should swallow the negative effects so we can maintain the enjoyment of our sport, just because people 'like' their older guns? Facts are facts, lead is bad for the environment, being rigid in reducing its impact will do nothing for anyone to maintain the time lead shot is allowed, or help the public opinion of the shooting community.In honesty im not in support of a full ban at all, but self regulation and people selecting suitable alternatives when feasible may well go towards reducing the impact to a more acceptable level.

[Gordon R]

alexl - it probably was sarcastic as your posts indicate little knowledge or research - merely sweeping generalisations.

 

You don't need to use upper case - I recognise poorly constructed posts without your visual aid.

[alexl]

alexl - it probably was sarcastic as your posts indicate little knowledge or research - merely sweeping generalisations.

 

You don't need to use upper case - I recognise poorly constructed posts without your visual aid.

clearly, trying to insult people on the internet makes you feel a superior person.

 

These sweeping generalisations are also made by lots of other people with no interest in others personal interests, and dislike people shooting things enough without the fact that its 'harming the environment' to boot.

 

I have no interest in getting involved in pettiness and pulling all sorts of absurd figures from the internet to try and prove a point. Im merely trying to get involved in conversation about something that interests me, I also clearly stated in new and inexperienced not talking from experience. You can be the internet victor go beat your chest or whatever you do to make yourself feel good. Time will tell what happens to lead, hopefully the decision involves careful analysis of the facts and the best decision for everyone is made.

[wymberley]

In honesty im not in support of a full ban at all, but self regulation and people selecting suitable alternatives when feasible may well go towards reducing the impact to a more acceptable level.

Well, damn me!

 

You may well have a lack of knowledge on the topic as you say and if I may, "out of the mouths of babes......" you've somehow managed to wrap the whole situation up in one sentence. David is after self regulation. Suitable alternatives are what we all want when appropriate and reducing the impact is the ultimate aim.

 

When you think about it, we're not all that far off. If the dolts that continue to shoot lead when they shouldn't didn't, we'd be closer still. It all revolves around, "suitable". Don't misunderstand people and their "older guns", that would be a big mistake.

 

David BASC has now twice, at least, mentioned research into powder and wadding with regard to steel shot. For the powder, we need to get the load velocity up and the charge pressure down. For the wads and apart from protecting the barrel walls, we need to build in some resilience to overcome the known problem with steel (which unlike lead has no 'give') in order to overcome the ring bulge problem which is totally unacceptable in the more expensive guns. If our cartridge makers can deliver on these points, we have the economic element we've been seeking for a high volume usage NTS cartridge which is the one thing we lack at present across the board.

 

Given satisfactory resolution of these points, perhaps, hopefully we can then retain lead where and when appropriate.

[Scully]

C'mon eyeglass,we're waiting,and I'm at work in the morning.

Your spasmodic appearances with repeated accusations of deceit and a total disregard for questions asked of you,and a reluctance to participate in debate of any kind are doing you no favours at all.

If you have proof of BASC's alleged deceit and can explain to me what they have to gain from such a course of action,then out with it.Failure to do so will inevitably lead to subsequent posts being treated with derision.

I ask again,what do BASC have to gain?

Cue Gunsmoke!

Edited July 28, 2013 by Scully

[anser2]

Eyeglass to suggest lead shot will not harm birds is complete rubbish. Ther is tones of reasearch out there to prove this. I provided dozens of links on lead shot research on this forum last year. I have said this before on the forum but here I go again. Mix an ounce of lead shot in a bowl of water with some wheat and see how many ducks you have alive at the end of the month. I will tell you the answer without having to do the experiment. Very few if any. Lead kills birds if they ingest it. Its proven science and I have lot of personal experience of it.

 

Wymberly I am suggesting that we should all be moving towards phasing lead shot , it does 90% of what lead can do , but most shooters cannot be bothered to learn the new skills needed to be effective with steel shot so the keep hanging onto a poison that pollutes our environment both on land and in water.

 

If you have not got a gun that will handle steel shot then get one , if you want to play with old guns that will only handle old fashioned shot then use Bismuth. The best policy for the future of shooting is to phase out lead quickly before we have a public backlash against lead and our use of it which could lead to the banning of shooting in the future.

 

I use steel for game , wildfowl , rabbits and pigeons and once I got used to steel found it produced cleaner kills and my shots of kills average has improved greatly.