have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

[alexl]

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.

Its good progress is being made with suitable alternatives, at the end of the day we all need to live here so anything we can practically do to reduce the impact of our activities should be done in my opinion. While its not what I want, if the case was cartridge costs were a bit more than I currently need to pay, id do so, because this is an activity I enjoy.

 

I just cant understand why on forums people feel the need to resort to semi insults/ insulting tones when they feel they have been challenged in any way. TBH ive not seen any credible facts against the toxicity of lead presented here.

 

What is NTS im assuming its non toxic shot?

Edited July 28, 2013 by alexl

[Gordon R]

alexl - I don't feel the need to insult you nor feel superior to you - I am superior to you.

 

Perhaps you can supply some information about the number of guns affected by steel shot. Then again, I suspect not.

[alexl]

alexl - I don't feel the need to insult you nor feel superior to you - I am superior to you.

 

Perhaps you can supply some information about the number of guns affected by steel shot. Then again, I suspect not.

Wow, people on the internet truly are amazing. You keep telling yourself how superior you are, im not really bothered because my dad is bigger than yours.

 

No I cant provide figures as already stated, but steel is not the only alternative is it?

[al4x]

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.

Can you give us an idea how well steel works in your .22lr please anser?

[Scully]

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.

No one is disputing the toxicity of lead anser 2,but rather the methods used to gather the damning information and the impartiality of those gathering said information and how they arrive at their respective conclusions.

Laboratoire Garnier find their creams/lotions for example ALWAYS delay the signs of ageing! I don't think you'll find any scientific body with an agenda finding against desired results.

[spanj]

No one is disputing the toxicity of lead anser 2,but rather the methods used to gather the damning information and the impartiality of those gathering said information and how they arrive at their respective conclusions.

Laboratoire Garnier find their creams/lotions for example ALWAYS delay the signs of ageing! I don't think you'll find any scientific body with an agenda finding against desired results.

A point well made

[al4x]

No one is disputing the toxicity of lead anser 2,but rather the methods used to gather the damning information and the impartiality of those gathering said information and how they arrive at their respective conclusions.

Laboratoire Garnier find their creams/lotions for example ALWAYS delay the signs of ageing! I don't think you'll find any scientific body with an agenda finding against desired results.

I think we need to add no one doubts the toxicity to waterbirds, as they filter feed and are allegedly the ones affected. Hence why people don't get our current law.

 

Over land the issue is far more complicated as you get the oxide layer forming that seems to render lead inert. You also don't get filter feeding and the lead spread so thinly that its very unlikely to be an issue with birds gritting up. Crops don't take lead up from shot in any amount that can be measured and its a naturally occurring metal anyway, you don't have farming restricted in areas with high natural levels.

[gunsmoke]

 

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

 

You might like to see the Sneddon report. No take up of lead in wildlife or plants.

[wymberley]

 

 

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.

Perhaps the new skills that you developed reflect that your marksmanship ability is more suited to the shorter ranges applicable to steel as opposed to lead shot.

[David BASC]

Lead can be taken up by plants and there is loads of research going back over 40 years to support this. However, it’s true that may of the lead salts are not taken up by plants – the bioavailability of lead depends on the acidity of the soil.

 

As to the efficacy of the lead alternatives, well how far do you want to shoot ducks, pheasants, pigeons and partridges at? 35m? 40m? Beyond that are we sure we have the pattern / skill required?

 

David

[gunsmoke]

Lead can be taken up by plants and there is loads of research going back over 40 years to support this. However, it’s true that may of the lead salts are not taken up by plants – the bioavailability of lead depends on the acidity of the soil.

 

As to the efficacy of the lead alternatives, well how far do you want to shoot ducks, pheasants, pigeons and partridges at? 35m? 40m? Beyond that are we sure we have the pattern / skill required?

 

David

 

You have just proved eyeclass's post #239 to be correct. He was spot on with him comments regarding BASC and the science. Which Davebasc was this written by mk1, 2 or 3?

 

It is Appeasement there is no fight in this, how are you defending shooting taking this line? Oh there is no defence and no attack its just appeasment.

 

Before the trolls and sock puppets attack me on here please read the submission to ministers post by eyeclass.

Edited July 29, 2013 by gunsmoke

[David BASC]

Gunsmoke,

 

By quoting scientific fact that some lead salts can be taken up by plants in no way supports or endorses the tissue of misleading and inaccurate quotes made by Eyeglass as you suggest.

 

Also, now I see you to are claiming that more than one person writes on here under David BASC – and your evidence is what?

 

More childish accusations by you while repeatedly refusing to answer simple and polite questions asked - why?

 

I do wonder what your and Eyeglasses’ real agenda is by making up these silly claims?

 

Agian why are you not asking DEFRA about the submission you are so vexed about ? There is nothing at all odd or misleading as you would find out if you contacted DEFRA! Go on do it - do it before you bother posing on here agian.

 

David

Edited July 29, 2013 by David BASC

[wymberley]

Lead can be taken up by plants and there is loads of research going back over 40 years to support this. However, it’s true that may of the lead salts are not taken up by plants – the bioavailability of lead depends on the acidity of the soil.

 

As to the efficacy of the lead alternatives, well how far do you want to shoot ducks, pheasants, pigeons and partridges at? 35m? 40m? Beyond that are we sure we have the pattern / skill required?

 

David

David,

Now that Sporting Gun has picked up the gauntlet and we appear to be getting somewhere, it may just pay for you to stay 'on topic'.

 

The last thing that we need is someone saying that they think that 35m is a sensible shooting distance and which is the maximum effective range when shooting the dodo with lead #6 in their experience. At that distance, they point out, their existing lead shot gives an energy density figure of 0.36. To maintain the same shot size with steel, the range will have to drop down to less than 20m or to maintain that range, increase it to #1 (3.6mm) and how many of those pellets will fit in a 21/2" load and can you fire them through a non steel proofed gun? We don't need this just at the moment as we all realise that some compromise is necessary but that that material is perfectly viable.

 

No, mate, for everyone's sake, let's stay concentrated on stopping the illegal use of lead.

[Gordon R]

Which Davebasc was this written by mk1, 2 or 3?

 

 

eyeglass - both yourself and gunsmoke allege that David BASC is more than one person. David, who I believe - says he is just the one person.

 

Have you anything to substantiate what would appear to be libellous statements?

 

 

[David BASC]

I am most certainly one person and you all have my absolute promise and guarantee that no one else at BASC posts under my user name on this or any other forum.

 

I think we can all see how this persistent tissue of misleading accusations and total lack of responses to valid and polite questions asked totally undermines the posts made by these people, and shows them in their true colours.

 

Back to shooting… given the correct shot size and choke combinations all the shot types we have at our disposal work at what any of us would consider to be ‘normal’ hunting range.

 

Using the incorrect shot / choke combination at inappropriate ranges can lead to wounding, regardless of what shot type is being used.

 

As and when the 2 ½ standard steel are produced, I would expect them (in 5’s or 4’s) to work perfectly well out to ‘normal ranges’ on inland quarry, but most use larger shells for the foreshore – regardless of shot type

 

David

 

[anser2]

Al4x I am talking about using steel shot in a shotgun what i thought this post was all about , not in a .22.

Wymberly i regulary shoot geese most people regulary shoot. Shoot ing steel takes different skills that have to be learnt , but there is no longer any real excuse to continue using lead. If you realy have to streach your barrels then go for the other non toxic shells.

[wymberley]

I am most certainly one person and you all have my absolute promise and guarantee that no one else at BASC posts under my user name on this or any other forum.

 

I think we can all see how this persistent tissue of misleading accusations and total lack of responses to valid and polite questions asked totally undermines the posts made by these people, and shows them in their true colours.

 

Back to shooting… given the correct shot size and choke combinations all the shot types we have at our disposal work at what any of us would consider to be ‘normal’ hunting range.

 

Using the incorrect shot / choke combination at inappropriate ranges can lead to wounding, regardless of what shot type is being used.

 

As and when the 2 ½ standard steel are produced, I would expect them (in 5’s or 4’s) to work perfectly well out to ‘normal ranges’ on inland quarry, but most use larger shells for the foreshore – regardless of shot type

 

David

 

That's torn it!

 

I would describe "normal ranges" as those which were in effect for the majority of the 20th century.

 

This thread quickly changed to a sensible attempt to 'encourage' shooters to obey the law. Now, the sceptics among us might consider that this was just another attack on lead disguised as a reasonable course of action and you can now see why they would think that.

 

At the earliest possible moment David representing the BASC spotted the 'in' and took the opportunity to sing the praises of NTS. However, on this occasion, not just for use when 'fowling but now for all inland quarry species as well. Therefore it would now seem that what these 'sceptics' have been trying to tell us all along is that BASC is firmly in favour of NTS and sees no further requirement for the use of lead whatsoever is true.

 

The problem for everyone else is that we know that there has to be a 'middle ground/ compromise but these two opposing groups - the sceptics and BASC are apparently so entrenched in there respective positions that this will never be attained and we just end up floundering in the mire of their joint making and consequently at the mercy of the 'antis' and the associated groups.

 

It saddens me now to think that after over half a lifetime as a member who only shoots pigeon and the odd pheasant over land where there is no water, I now have just a couple of weeks to decide whether or not I renew my membership to BASC.

[David BASC]

BASC have always supported the use of non-lead shot where the law requires it to be used.

 

BASC have published countless times factual ballistic information from practical experimentation and testing about non lead shot to help those who want / need to use it to make an informed choice- oh yes and we have been ridiculed for doing this by some on here…

 

BASC have been at the forefront of keeping lead shot in use for longer than many of here realise and will continue to do so.

 

BASC have never ever said that because non lead shot can and does work given, as anser2 says, the need to adjust technique, that this mean’s there is no further requirement for the use of lead whatsoever.

Edited July 29, 2013 by David BASC

[al4x]

and what technique would one use on ground game with steel? considering hares up to foxes with others in the locality. Are we going to find SSG's etc are actually rather lethal to anyone in the locality if we get forced down that route of two sizes larger?

 

I've used lead ssg's in woodland and that has a ricochet risk that is a little un nerving

[David BASC]

Of course all shot can and will ricochet and I have dealt with many insurance claims on that very issue.

 

Techniques would include pattering your gun and assessing its pattern at given ranges, and in some cases altering the shot size you would usually use…the same of course applies to all shot types as I suspect you know…

 

An ssg shot of lead, steel, bismuth ...will be 'rather lethal' as you put it.

[Penelope]

.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Penelope

[Kes]

Wymberley has explained what I have felt and seen.

I agree with AL4X that lead and water dont mix for the benefit of wildfowl and the law, to be sensible, should reflect that - if there is no doubt.

I also agree we have to be seen to observe even a bad law but I feel, as a number do, that BASC's grip on this issue is a bit loosey goosey and rather blindly misdirected - no real planned strategy just reaction.

I am now absolutely out - thank you for listening.

[David BASC]

It always makes me chuckle when people make comments like this, mildly provocative to say the least in my view, and then ends with a ‘I won’t be back to answer to this’

 

No one at BASC has been ‘blindly lead’ anywhere, and you can’t prove or substantiate this statement, which is probably why you have chosen (again) to duck out of the discussion.

 

We have to have a range of scenarios planned and ready to roll out when we know what the report says. Then and only then can we deliver on the scenarios planned for

 

Taking pot shots at BASC won’t help the situation at all will it, indeed it probably does more harm than good, but I guess some people just don’t care about that do they?

 

I am glad we can agree that compliance is important, it was always going to be ever since 1999, regardless of whether we operate under the English or Scottish systems

Edited July 29, 2013 by David BASC

[Guest cookoff013]

and what technique would one use on ground game with steel? considering hares up to foxes with others in the locality. Are we going to find SSG's etc are actually rather lethal to anyone in the locality if we get forced down that route of two sizes larger?

 

I've used lead ssg's in woodland and that has a ricochet risk that is a little un nerving

 

just use big pellets. there is always going to be a ricochet risk. if there is anyone near or beyond the target area, then i wouldnt shoot.

as for your comment about the forced 2 sizes bigger, no-one is forcing you at all to use 2 sizes bigger, no one is forcing you at all. the 2 sizes bigger rule is a pile of poo anyways. as UK donot stick to US shotsizes and always maintained a smaller shotsize for the equivalent number. a uk #5 steel pellet is identical to US#6 steel pellet. it is identical in both size and shotcount per ounce. no-one is forcing you to use 2 sizes bigger. you can shoot 9s at geese if you want to. no-one here can stop you at all.

i remember an article of somoene shooting geese with 1/2oz 7s in a 28gauge.

but...

you are well advised to go up to a minimum (us sizes) of 2s for mallard, and BBs for geese, both loads will kill game cleanly "dead right there" which for a discription, is dead or fatally immobilised.

even at relatively slow 1400fps loads. probly pattern a great deal too.

 

secondly, because the density of steel is lower, the shot simply dont travel over large distances, even BBs have a limited range, i think its ~60% of the range of lead. so 9s have a range of 100yards, steel 9s have a range of 60yards. that would be at the tradiional speeds of 1400fps or 1300fps at 2.5M. hardly extreme distances.

 

thats the best advice i can give you. love or hate it, its here to stay.

[Kes]

It always makes me chuckle when people make comments like this, mildly provocative to say the least in my view, and then ends with a ‘I won’t be back to answer to this’

 

No one at BASC has been ‘blindly lead’ anywhere, and you can’t prove or substantiate this statement, which is probably why you have chosen (again) to duck out of the discussion.

 

We have to have a range of scenarios planned and ready to roll out when we know what the report says. Then and only then can we deliver on the scenarios planned for

 

Taking pot shots at BASC won’t help the situation at all will it, indeed it probably does more harm than good, but I guess some people just don’t care about that do they?

 

I am glad we can agree that compliance is important, it was always going to be ever since 1999, regardless of whether we operate under the English or Scottish systems

I have tried to let other points of view have a place and thus said "I'm out" it does not mean I am not reading the responses but - others need to have their say. So David dont try an humiliate me in the way you have others without due cause - I will come back anytime but I dont feel I have to monopolise a discussion to play a part in it. Sarcastic comments are therefore unnecessary and offensive - please dont fall to a level which is unworthy of you and possibly BASC.