COuntryfile article on lead shot and ammunition

[David BASC]

OK no problem list the 'uncomfortable' questions I am avoiding and then please do the courtesy of answering the questions I have asked, thanks

 

It is the fault of a small number of fools who blatantly ignore the law that have created the problems, not you, not me, not BASC. Yes as the recommendations asked and as I have said more than once, inland duck shooting will be the focus.

 

Understand this - we will NOT be in a position to change the law until we can show compliance., and please don't go around accusing the UK's largest shooting organisation of selling vermin shooting down the river - this statement is totally uncalled for, and totally false.

 

You me and the rest should be focusing out anger on those who have cocked up and dumped on the rest of us by sticking two fingers up to the law.

 

David

[sitsinhedges]

OK no problem list the 'uncomfortable' questions I am avoiding and then please do the courtesy of answering the questions I have asked, thanks

 

It is the fault of a small number of fools who blatantly ignore the law that have created the problems, not you, not me, not BASC. Yes as the recommendations asked and as I have said more than once, inland duck shooting will be the focus.

 

Understand this - we will NOT be in a position to change the law until we can show compliance., and please don't go around accusing the UK's largest shooting organisation of selling vermin shooting down the river - this statement is totally uncalled for, and totally false.

 

You me and the rest should be focusing out anger on those who have cocked up and dumped on the rest of us by sticking two fingers up to the law.

 

David

 

I pay a subscription to be represented, not policed. That a small number of individuals wish to ignore an illogical law, which frankly is quite understandable, it doesn't justify any restrictions on shooters who shoot other species away from wetlands and for who lead has no viable alternative due to the guns being used

Pandering to those who wish to restrict our activities will just encourage more restrictions. It wont just stop there.

It's only a short while ago that lead was seen to not even be on the agenda, now it's up and running again.

Ask away if you have any questions I have ignored.

[Guest cookoff013]

i kinda fear that the laws will be continually ignored.

 

the government cannot police the situation. so a blanket ban will be an option.

[David BASC]

SITS,

We are not policing members, we are advising what the law says, what we must do to comply with the law and ballistic info on the lead alternatives.

 

There is no justification for breaking the law. Regardless of what you , me, or others think of the law, ignoring it will see the banning of lead shot.

 

With all due respect, I don't know how long you have been shooting but lead has been on the agenda for many decades.

 

So to your last point:

1. if the results of the survey had come back saying that compliance was high would you have been equally critical?

2. have you read the report?

3. What are the uncomfortable questions I have not answered?

 

David

[Floating Chamber]

Does a 2.5 inch cartridge case, which many older guns will be restricted to, have enough volume to allow for an effective steel load?

The answer is YES.

 

Even the true 2.5 inch 16 gauge will hold 26 grams of steel shot and closed with a card and rolled turnover.

[RossEM]

If lead does eventually become banned, it won't be BASC's fault. It won't even be the idiots who flout the current laws, it'll be EU-wide.

 

It's just a real shame that the ducks purchased for the survey weren't more traceable; maybe the guns on those inland shoots would've got their certificates revoked, which is exactly what they deserve for wilfully breaking the law.

 

There is SO much misinformation and guesswork regarding steel shot. I would hazard a guess that 70% of guns used on inland duck have barrels suitable for standard steel shot - remember that only 'High Performance' steel loads (3" magnum or shot size bigger than No. 3) cannot be used in 2 3/4" guns. There are plenty of standard steel loads available in a 2 3/4" case, which can be used in ANY gun of the correct chamber length and choke. This fact is not publicised anywhere near enough.

 

If you intend to shoot game and wildfowl with a 2 1/2" chambered gun or damascus barrelled gun, is it a massive problem to invest in a few boxes of bismuth? Not really. Is it a massive problem to not shoot the odd duck on a pheasant drive? Not really. Is it a massive problem to invest in a gun suitable for steel? Not really.

 

Complying with the law is easy; I think there a lot of shooters out there that just won't - until they get caught out. In the meantime, I wish BASC was fighting for a change in the law. DavidBASC, can you explain, to the less politically-savvy of us, why we are in no position to argue for change when compliance is low? I would argue that the low compliance is good evidence of the current system being flawed.

The answer is YES.

Even the true 2.5 inch 16 gauge will hold 26 grams of steel shot and closed with a card and rolled turnover.

 

Are there any commercial loads available though? I searched all the manufacturer's websites and all the 12 bore steel loads are in a 70mm case...

[Floating Chamber]

If lead does eventually become banned, it won't be BASC's fault. It won't even be the idiots who flout the current laws, it'll be EU-wide.

 

It's just a real shame that the ducks purchased for the survey weren't more traceable; maybe the guns on those inland shoots would've got their certificates revoked, which is exactly what they deserve for wilfully breaking the law.

 

There is SO much misinformation and guesswork regarding steel shot. I would hazard a guess that 70% of guns used on inland duck have barrels suitable for standard steel shot - remember that only 'High Performance' steel loads (3" magnum or shot size bigger than No. 3) cannot be used in 2 3/4" guns. There are plenty of standard steel loads available in a 2 3/4" case, which can be used in ANY gun of the correct chamber length and choke. This fact is not publicised anywhere near enough.

 

If you intend to shoot game and wildfowl with a 2 1/2" chambered gun or damascus barrelled gun, is it a massive problem to invest in a few boxes of bismuth? Not really. Is it a massive problem to not shoot the odd duck on a pheasant drive? Not really. Is it a massive problem to invest in a gun suitable for steel? Not really.

 

Complying with the law is easy; I think there a lot of shooters out there that just won't - until they get caught out. In the meantime, I wish BASC was fighting for a change in the law. DavidBASC, can you explain, to the less politically-savvy of us, why we are in no position to argue for change when compliance is low? I would argue that the low compliance is good evidence of the current system being flawed.

 

 

Are there any commercial loads available though? I searched all the manufacturer's websites and all the 12 bore steel loads are in a 70mm case...

[Floating Chamber]

The answer is YES.

Even the true 2.5 inch 16 gauge will hold 26 grams of steel shot and closed with a card and rolled turnover.

If lead does eventually become banned, it won't be BASC's fault. It won't even be the idiots who flout the current laws, it'll be EU-wide.

 

It's just a real shame that the ducks purchased for the survey weren't more traceable; maybe the guns on those inland shoots would've got their certificates revoked, which is exactly what they deserve for wilfully breaking the law.

 

There is SO much misinformation and guesswork regarding steel shot. I would hazard a guess that 70% of guns used on inland duck have barrels suitable for standard steel shot - remember that only 'High Performance' steel loads (3" magnum or shot size bigger than No. 3) cannot be used in 2 3/4" guns. There are plenty of standard steel loads available in a 2 3/4" case, which can be used in ANY gun of the correct chamber length and choke. This fact is not publicised anywhere near enough.

 

Are there any commercial loads available though? I searched all the manufacturer's websites and all the 12 bore steel loads are in a 70mm case...

 

The 2.5 inch 16 gauge 26 gram steel load that I described IS a commercial load. I have them in 2.5mm and 3.00mm steel.

[sitsinhedges]

SITS,

We are not policing members, we are advising what the law says, what we must do to comply with the law and ballistic info on the lead alternatives.

 

There is no justification for breaking the law. Regardless of what you , me, or others think of the law, ignoring it will see the banning of lead shot.

 

With all due respect, I don't know how long you have been shooting but lead has been on the agenda for many decades.

 

So to your last point:

1. if the results of the survey had come back saying that compliance was high would you have been equally critical?

2. have you read the report?

3. What are the uncomfortable questions I have not answered?

 

David

 

1, You exist not to be fair unbiased or independant, but to be very biased in the favour of those who pay subscriptions to be represented by you and shooting in general. Sending out surveys without fully explaining the implications of any answer they may include and acting in a manner akin to a coppers nark does not support or protect shooters or shooting. The survey should never have existed for this purpose and the BASC should not have taken part in it because nothing good could have come from it.

2, All I have read is on this thread.

3, You haven't answered, among others, the question as to what us with guns that can only use lead as an effective pellet in our cartridges are to do if it is lost. Not to mention the extra millions of thick plastic wads that will be spread over the countryside for stock to ingest.

 

Ironically the BASC were out in force at Kibworth SG today, I wonder what they made of the large pond that we shoot over, often with rather healthy looking ducks sitting there watching?

[RossEM]

The 2.5 inch 16 gauge 26 gram steel load that I described IS a commercial load. I have them in 2.5mm and 3.00mm steel.

 

Sorry, I meant are there ready-loaded steel cartridges in 2 1/2" case length available in shops

[wymberley]

 

Sorry, I meant are there ready-loaded steel cartridges in 2 1/2" case length available in shops

Could I also ask if 12 bore is available in addition to the 16?

Many thanks.

[David BASC]

I take your point about standard steel, it’s been on our info sheets for years, but I agree, many don’t seem to know about it and seem to think only Super Steel is available.

 

 

Changing the law – Non-compliance lays us open to claims that current regulation is inadequate and enforcement can only be achieved by introducing yet more laws. We have seen before, in many areas of public life, that regulators often see total bans as the easy option. So to push government into this course, and achieve a total lead ban, those opposed to shooting are trying their hardest to portray shooters as persistently breaking the law.

 

 

As you say Floating Chamber, compliance is easy – and that’s the first argument that we will be hit with – If it’s easy to comply with then why do you want it changed?

 

 

Take another example from fieldsports. Hunting – if hunts regularly and blatantly ignored the law this would not put them in a good position to change the current laws – thankfully for them compliance has been high and consequently they are in a strong political position to have the law reviewed.

 

 

The English system has been criticized – but let’s break it down to see where the real issues are:

•It bans the use of lead on the foreshore – no one argues with that do they?

•It bans the use of lead on almost 300 key wetland habitats – no one argues with that do they?

•It bans the use of lead for all wildfowl wherever they are found – why? Because you will typically see most duck in areas of permanent wetland – that’s their habitat so it helps keep lead out of these wetlands without having to designate every wetland as a SSSI that can’t be shot over with lead. This seems to be the key rubbing point within the English system as far as I can see.

 

The English system has not gone so far as to ban lead on all wetland habitats regardless with whether they typically hold wildfowl or not like in Scotland, however, that does not mean that it is compulsory to shoot lead into or over wetlands in England and Wales – far from it!

 

 

 

Sits -

 

 

You have still not answered Q1 and I guess you never will.

 

 

If you read the report you will see a copy of the survey sent to members the covering letter, not on the DEFRA site as far as I know, made it clear why we were asking the questions and what the purpose of the survey was. As I said, if there is a problem there is no point ignoring it - we have to find out what it is and do something about it.

 

 

I have answered the point about other alternatives available as best I can, ie there is standard steel, there are others materials such as nice shot, the cartridge boys are working on propellant developments.

 

 

You say 'among others' so what are the 'others'

 

 

I am no fan of plastic wads, but I have never in almost 20 years of handling insurance claims; hears of any livestock being harmed by wads - plastic or other.

Edited July 14, 2013 by David BASC

[Floating Chamber]

Sorry, I meant are there ready-loaded steel cartridges in 2 1/2" case length available in shops

The cartridges I have were loaded for export to the Continent where the 16 gauge is very popular.

[-Mongrel-]

 

.

3, You haven't answered, among others, the question as to what us with guns that can only use lead as an effective pellet in our cartridges are to do if it is lost. Not to mention the extra millions of thick plastic wads that will be spread over the countryside for stock to ingest.

 

 

I do have to wonder why this comment keeps getting repeated when the answer is so bloody obvious! If you can only use lead in your gun and you don't have/can't get another, you'll have to stop shooting.

 

Which is why most of the to-ing and fro-ing and bull that has been thrown around this thread for the last dozen pages is irrelevant! It's so simple it's untrue! As has been said once or twice, compliance is where we are at, simple as that!

 

If you shoot lead, don't shoot ducks and geese. If you want to shoot ducks and geese, don't use lead. If you know someone else is using lead to shoot ducks and geese, get it stopped or reported so someone with a pair can get it stopped. There will be an awful lot of mightily peed off rough/pigeon shooters if lead is banned because game shooters can't get their house in order. If you wanted to fragment shooters, I can't think of a better way. There is a law in place, it needs to be adhered to, simple as that.

Edited July 14, 2013 by -Mongrel-

[sitsinhedges]

I take your point about standard steel, it’s been on our info sheets for years, but I agree, many don’t seem to know about it and seem to think only Super Steel is available.

 

 

Changing the law – Non-compliance lays us open to claims that current regulation is inadequate and enforcement can only be achieved by introducing yet more laws. We have seen before, in many areas of public life, that regulators often see total bans as the easy option. So to push government into this course, and achieve a total lead ban, those opposed to shooting are trying their hardest to portray shooters as persistently breaking the law.

 

 

As you say Floating Chamber, compliance is easy – and that’s the first argument that we will be hit with – If it’s easy to comply with then why do you want it changed?

 

 

Take another example from fieldsports. Hunting – if hunts regularly and blatantly ignored the law this would not put them in a good position to change the current laws – thankfully for them compliance has been high and consequently they are in a strong political position to have the law reviewed.

 

 

The English system has been criticized – but let’s break it down to see where the real issues are:

•It bans the use of lead on the foreshore – no one argues with that do they?

•It bans the use of lead on almost 300 key wetland habitats – no one argues with that do they?

•It bans the use of lead for all wildfowl wherever they are found – why? Because you will typically see most duck in areas of permanent wetland – that’s their habitat so it helps keep lead out of these wetlands without having to designate every wetland as a SSSI that can’t be shot over with lead. This seems to be the key rubbing point within the English system as far as I can see.

 

The English system has not gone so far as to ban lead on all wetland habitats regardless with whether they typically wildfowl or not like in Scotland, however, that does not mean that it is compulsory to shoot lead into or over wetlands in England and Wales – far from it!

 

 

 

Sits -

 

 

You have still not answered Q1 and I guess you never will.

 

 

If you read the report you will see a copy of the survey sent opt members the covering letter, not on the DEFRA site as far as I know, made it clear why we were asking the questions and what the purpose of the survey was. As I said, if there is a problem there is no point ignoring it - we have to find out what it is and do something about it.

 

 

I have answered the point about other alternatives available as best I can, ie there is standard steel, there are others materials such as nice shot, the cartridge boys are working on propellant developments.

 

 

You say 'among others' so what are the 'others'

 

 

I am no fan of plastic wads, but I have never in almost 20 years of handling insurance claims; hears of any livestock being harmed by wads - plastic or other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice shot is something like £80/kg. How is that an alternative when I might use 3kg for a days pigeon shooting besides the cost of all the other components?

 

And of course if a survey came back without a detrimental result of course it wouldn't have been criticised, how could it have been.

 

How many other organisations encourage their members to admit breaking the Law I wonder

Edited July 14, 2013 by sitsinhedges

[sitsinhedges]

 

I do have to wonder why this comment keeps getting repeated when the answer is so bloody obvious! If you can only use lead in your gun and you don't have/can't get another, you'll have to stop shooting.

 

Which is why most of the to-ing and fro-ing and ******** that has been thrown around this thread for the last dozen pages is irrelevant! It's so simple it's untrue! As has been said once or twice, compliance is where we are at, simple as that!

 

If you shoot lead, don't shoot ducks and geese. If you want to shoot ducks and geese, don't use lead. If you know someone else is using lead to shoot ducks and geese, get it stopped or reported so someone with a pair can get it stopped. There will be an awful lot of mightily peed off rough/pigeon shooters if lead is banned because game shooters can't get their house in order. If you wanted to fragment shooters, I can't think of a better way. There is a law in place, it needs to be adhered to, simple as that.

 

I don't shoot ducks bar one brace once a year and I use impact tungsten matrix for that at £1.50 a pop. I comply with the law. That's the point.

 

What I do mainly is shoot a lot of subsonics thru a moderated gun on property where a normal shotgun would not be tolerated. If I can't use larger shot with the density of lead to compensate for the lack of speed then all I can expect is a load of crippled birds to chase after.

[-Mongrel-]

 

I don't shoot ducks bar one brace once a year and I use impact tungsten matrix for that at £1.50 a pop. I comply with the law. That's the point.

 

What I do mainly is shoot a lot of subsonics thru a moderated gun on property where a normal shotgun would not be tolerated. If I can't use larger shot with the density of lead to compensate for the lack of speed then all I can expect is a load of crippled birds to chase after.

 

I fully understand and accept that, but the nuts and bolts is that if lead is banned by the selfish actions of others, you're screwed, simple as that. There'll be no arguing the merits of the Scottish system/inadequacies of ours, it'll be banned, gone, defunct.

 

All the chewing the cud and arguing the finer points on here is going to make sod all difference if compliance doesn't go through the roof this season though.

 

Personally I wouldn't be that concerned if lead did go. I use steel, know how to use it and have two guns both steel proof, I'd just start shooting pigeon with steel. It would create me bigger problems at the clay ground to be honest with potential ricochets, and, at the end of the day, lead is a better all round shot and I'd rather use it where I can.

Edited July 14, 2013 by -Mongrel-

[wymberley]

Someone has already mentioned the red line. There is another problem facing BASC and as we know the Association can at times be somewhat blinkered by getting dragged away fom the possibility of any secondary event because of sole concentration on the primary one.

 

"First of all, fly the plane."

 

Unfortunately, I was not able to generate any real enthusiasm for the two NTS Polls so I don't know how many more shooters there are like me. There is no water on the land I shoot over. I do not wish to shoot wildfowl. I only shoot vermin except for a few pheasant (the forbears of which were left when two small syndicates ceased to exist and then the tenant farmer took the game rights as well as the farming tenancy which he allows me to shoot in return for the vermin control). I have no wish to see the value of my guns severely diminished. I cannot afford expensive NTS for vermin control. I do not wish to put my guns at risk by using steel. I concede that I could save and possibly afford another gun for use with steel but I do not wish to. Therefore, if our case is lost, it's of no consequence to me who was to blame, the fact that my line in the sand has been crossed is enough. I will simply concentrate on my other interests and will have no further need of BASC.

 

As somebody has also said, keeping an eye on the WWT and the LAG is pointless if someone is not constantly watching what Europe is planning for us.

Edited July 14, 2013 by wymberley

[RossEM]

If you shoot lead, don't shoot ducks and geese. If you want to shoot ducks and geese, don't use lead. If you know someone else is using lead to shoot ducks and geese, get it stopped or reported so someone with a pair can get it stopped. There will be an awful lot of mightily peed off rough/pigeon shooters if lead is banned because game shooters can't get their house in order. If you wanted to fragment shooters, I can't think of a better way. There is a law in place, it needs to be adhered to, simple as that.

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

As you say Floating Chamber, compliance is easy – and that’s the first argument that we will be hit with – If it’s easy to comply with then why do you want it changed?

 

 

(Actually that was my comment DavidBASC!)

Because the current legislation does not have the effect it was intended to have - to protect wildfowl from ingesting lead. Surely if lead was blanket banned on wetlands only, that would be the ideal situation for both shooting and conservation interests.

[David BASC]

Sorry Ross!

 

Wymberley - I am sure you could get you hands on a low cost steel proofed gun if you wanted to but as you say you don't want to - that's your choice of course.

 

SITS - can you use standard steel in your guns?

 

David

[motty]

I take your point about standard steel, it’s been on our info sheets for years, but I agree, many don’t seem to know about it and seem to think only Super Steel is available.

 

 

Changing the law – Non-compliance lays us open to claims that current regulation is inadequate and enforcement can only be achieved by introducing yet more laws. We have seen before, in many areas of public life, that regulators often see total bans as the easy option. So to push government into this course, and achieve a total lead ban, those opposed to shooting are trying their hardest to portray shooters as persistently breaking the law.

 

 

As you say Floating Chamber, compliance is easy – and that’s the first argument that we will be hit with – If it’s easy to comply with then why do you want it changed?

 

 

Take another example from fieldsports. Hunting – if hunts regularly and blatantly ignored the law this would not put them in a good position to change the current laws – thankfully for them compliance has been high and consequently they are in a strong political position to have the law reviewed.

 

 

The English system has been criticized – but let’s break it down to see where the real issues are:

•It bans the use of lead on the foreshore – no one argues with that do they?

•It bans the use of lead on almost 300 key wetland habitats – no one argues with that do they?

•It bans the use of lead for all wildfowl wherever they are found – why? Because you will typically see most duck in areas of permanent wetland – that’s their habitat so it helps keep lead out of these wetlands without having to designate every wetland as a SSSI that can’t be shot over with lead. This seems to be the key rubbing point within the English system as far as I can see.

 

The English system has not gone so far as to ban lead on all wetland habitats regardless with whether they typically hold wildfowl or not like in Scotland, however, that does not mean that it is compulsory to shoot lead into or over wetlands in England and Wales – far from it!

 

 

 

Sits -

 

 

You have still not answered Q1 and I guess you never will.

 

 

If you read the report you will see a copy of the survey sent to members the covering letter, not on the DEFRA site as far as I know, made it clear why we were asking the questions and what the purpose of the survey was. As I said, if there is a problem there is no point ignoring it - we have to find out what it is and do something about it.

 

 

I have answered the point about other alternatives available as best I can, ie there is standard steel, there are others materials such as nice shot, the cartridge boys are working on propellant developments.

 

 

You say 'among others' so what are the 'others'

 

 

I am no fan of plastic wads, but I have never in almost 20 years of handling insurance claims; hears of any livestock being harmed by wads - plastic or other.

That may well be the case, but i shoot a fair few duck over stubbles, too. And what about geese? Last year i shot around 30 geese on stubbles - the very same fields that i've also shot thousands of pigeons with lead.

Edited July 14, 2013 by motty

[sitsinhedges]

Sorry Ross!

 

Wymberley - I am sure you could get you hands on a low cost steel proofed gun if you wanted to but as you say you don't want to - that's your choice of course.

 

SITS - can you use standard steel in your guns?

 

David

 

No unless it were the size of cannon balls. You need a size 5 to retain enough energy with lead as is plus you need a cupless wad to get through the baffles.

 

I can't make my own steel shot either like I do with lead, to make loading the smaller guages viable.

[gunsmoke]

Dear Gunsmoke,

 

Its not hearsay evidence at all. Hearsay would be based on rumour and gossip, word of mouth…this survey of BASC members was conducted under full scientific survey protocols

 

The information we sent to DEFRA was based on the membership survey, and we never ever said it was the whole shooting community.

 

4% said they never used alternatives when they should, 41% said they sometimes did not.

 

As I keep saying, harping on about the 2010 report is NOT going to help the situation going forward the sooner you accept this the better.

 

 

I will keep on about the wwt/basc report called the cromie report because it is being used against us. the WWT have used it to call for a total lead ban. the Steering group added the compliance of the lead ban to the LAG references. It is important for every shooter to point out the misleading and false facts of the cromie report.

 

BASC are not in a position to fight against the WWT as they where paid for their part in that every report.

 

The British shooter is like a MUSHROOM, they have been keep in the dark and feed on bull**** for far to long.

[David BASC]

Morning Motty, I do take your point.

 

Sits - if 'cupped' ammo is not suitable for your guns then obviously any form of steel is a non-runner so it’s down to the other alternatives I agree.

 

I will be asking the main cartridge manufacturers about shorter case ammoo developments to see what they say

 

Gunsmoke, BASC was paid for the survey of members that’s all. We have never ever denied it. It was and still is very important to understand if shooters are fully aware of the issues, and what their legal obligations are – do you not agree?

 

 

You are aware of the recommendations from the report just as I am, the main emphasis is on increasing efforts to get the message on compliance out to shooters.

 

 

Are you suggesting that there is not a problem with noncompliance in some areas of shooting?

 

 

What are you doing to help push the compliance message forwards?

 

 

Could you please show me where here: http://www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/reference.html it says the LAG are looking to advise on compliance?

 

David

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest cookoff013]

 

No unless it were the size of cannon balls. You need a size 5 to retain enough energy with lead as is plus you need a cupless wad to get through the baffles.

 

I can't make my own steel shot either like I do with lead, to make loading the smaller guages viable.

 

thats the key word,

quoting £80-90 / kg of niceshot is a sticky wicket, it states the alternative is there, but it just costs a fortune. i have to agree with you sits, that it is not an alternate to your setup.

steel needs to be 1400fps minimum or really really big shot. neither are sub gauge, moderator, wads /applicable. if lead is banned, subsonic ammo will be a joke, i love the stuff, make my own and have fun.

 

from what i`ve heard, eley lightning steel issues are apparent. they have recalled some ammunition because it exceeded (supposedly) the proof pressures. it it isnt suitable. is this what we are to expect? ammo playing the hokey kokey on the market? there isnt enough decent ammo on the market as it is.

 

as for the 2.5" issue, then the only option would be 24gram loads, but seriously slow, there isnt any room for much powder, let alone the superslow burning powder needed to push steel at 1500fps. that would rattle a little sxs to pieces.