Lead Ammmunition Group

[wymberley]

a) Ballistics and effectiveness of steel shot in the field?

The Chairman put two questions to the meeting, on the strength of a publically available BASC information sheet on the use of lead alternatives which had been presented to the Mitigation Subgroup in May[1]; firstly, whether a standard lead shot cartridge customarily used for field shooting is replaceable with a comparably priced steel shot cartridge delivering a specified lethal number of pellet strikes in a 30 inch circle up to the recommended maximum distances for field shooting i.e. 40 to 50 yards? Secondly, he asked whether, subject to checking every cartridge gun combination, such standard steel alternatives are normally useable in standard proofed shotguns? (Noting that if greater performance were needed then a higher standard of gun and cartridge proof would be required). This was an important question bearing on whether the standard shooter might continue to pursue his activity using effective alternatives at little or no additional cost?

This led to considerable discussion over the nature of the evidence behind the BASC information paper, which specified the number of pellet strikes in a 30” circle required to ensure a lethal pattern.

Even though there might be standard steel loads useable in a standard proofed shotgun delivering the required number of pellet strikes at 40 to 50 yards the shooting representative argued that the differences between field shooting practices in the UK and the USA (where much of the evidence in the BASC information paper was from) caused him to disagree that steel might be a comparable field replacement for lead, and he requested a review of the evidence.

It was asked what age of gun could safely shoot standard performance steel shot. The Group was reminded that all cartridges (whether steel or lead) were for safety purposes “proved” to the same standard and so should be safe for use in any standard proofed shotgun. However, it was noted that older (pre 1920s), thin walled, English game guns with tight chokes might not be suitable for use with steel shot.

 

 

The above is taken from the minutes of the last published meeting of the Subject Group.

 

On the face of it, by asking those two questions (to which he probably already knew the answers - always a good idea), John Swift would appear to be doing us a favour. Unfortunately, it looks as though the answers didn't quite do the same.

 

Now, when it comes to the to the one species which is shot more than any other by the average Joe Bloggs shooter, you can bet your bottom dollar that no self respecting Home Office minister is going to knock on Motty's, Fenboy's or Pigeoncontroller's hide and ask what as experienced shooters they think. Sadly, no, they're going to want to base any decision on science.

 

So, lets give him/her some based on the middle of the road 11/16oz No 6 cartridge. Studies by the Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) reflects that in order to hit a wood pigeon with the required number of pellets (3) with each and every shot as opposed to doing so on average, a figure of c5 is required to give a c90% success rate as opposed to c60% using the 3 count. BASC states that 140 pellets in the 30" circle will ensure as far as is reasonable a clean kill. For our chosen cartridge this relates to IC choke performance at 40 yards. It is well known that shotgun external ballistics perform, as a rule, in accordance with the Gaussian Law of Distribution which reflects that a 30" pattern of 50% density will print on average 26.5% of the pellets in the inner 20" circle and the remaining 23.5% in the outer 20 to 30" ring. The recognised vital area of a pigeon is 16sq" so to ensure a c90% success rate some 98 pellets are required in the 20" circle. The BASC idea of what equates to the IC has a shortfall of over 20 pellets. Looking at the 20 to 30" ring, the shortfall is 56. This is not surprising as with the possible exception of TC, as soon as choke is introduced the 'central thickening' of the pattern increases proportionally and rarely if ever the effective pattern density exceeds a 25" diameter and possibly 20" for the tighter end of a choke selection. A quick calculation shows that a 60% pattern (1/2 at 40 yards) which prints 33.5% in the 20" meets the requirement. A further calculation reflects that as indicated the density in the 20 to 30" ring is insufficient to meet the requirement. Consequently, it can be seen that it was right - as the minutes indicate - that there was some discussion regarding the nature of the evidence behind the BASC paper which defined the number of pellets requred to ensure as far as is possible a lethal pattern.

 

The science dictates that a better method than energy alone in deducing effective ranges, is to use Energy Density (ED) which is a relationship between the pellet's energy and its diameter. If we stay with the maximum range specified in the minutes - 50 yards, could I among friends be forgiven for using 45 metres as an equivalent as it saves me a load of extra calculations? At that distance the ED for the No6 lead pellet is 0.27 assuming an MV of 400m/s. However, as it may just be possible to stretch the effective range of the No 6 lead a little and as we are discussing a maximum range of 50 yards, then it is only fair to compare the maximum range of the number 6 lead with the compatible ED figure for the maximum range of a steel pellet and for our 45 metres this equates to a No3 steel. In our 11/16oz load there are c200 steel pellets and even though the energy element is available, with No 3 steel, a 80% choke requirement is such that even allowing for the tighter patterning characteristics of steel, this density means that the effective range is going to be dramatically reduced. We know this. Using the same formulae as above and allowing for the fact that,generously,say, steel patterns 2 degrees tighter than lead, then using No 5 will give a sufficient pellet count assuming the steel 1/2 equates to a lead Full, but reduce the range to marginally over 30 yards due to energy considerations. We know this.

 

In view of the above and the fact that 11/16oz is as much as you really want in a light weight game gun for a full day's shooting, then whoever it was that said that only pre1920 light weight guns could not handle steel shot did not do the minority - but not an excessively small one - of shooters using 21/2" chambered guns which could well have been made some 50 years after that date any favours at all in relation to the 2 questions John Swift specifically asked. Here was an opportunity to show that steel shot in certain circumstances is not all things to all men and unless any further investigation while the evidence placed before the group is reviewed does not pick up on this, then a well presented golden opportunity was sorely wasted.

 

 

 

 

[panoma1]

Why are they discussing the efficacy of alternatives to lead shot? Has science evaluated, proven categorically and provided evidence that the level of danger (in all situations) of lead shot from shooting sports to humans and wildlife requires legislation to further ban lead shot? will the conclusions in the final report be based on such scientific evidence? or will it be unduly influenced by biased opinion, unscientific reports, anti shooting rhetoric and speculation? If science has determined a level of risk from lead shot used in shooting sports to humans and wildlife needs addressing, is any proposed/recommended action appropriate and proportional to that risk?

[Scully]

a) Ballistics and effectiveness of steel shot in the field?

The Chairman put two questions to the meeting, on the strength of a publically available BASC information sheet on the use of lead alternatives which had been presented to the Mitigation Subgroup in May[1]; firstly, whether a standard lead shot cartridge customarily used for field shooting is replaceable with a comparably priced steel shot cartridge delivering a specified lethal number of pellet strikes in a 30 inch circle up to the recommended maximum distances for field shooting i.e. 40 to 50 yards? Secondly, he asked whether, subject to checking every cartridge gun combination, such standard steel alternatives are normally useable in standard proofed shotguns? (Noting that if greater performance were needed then a higher standard of gun and cartridge proof would be required). This was an important question bearing on whether the standard shooter might continue to pursue his activity using effective alternatives at little or no additional cost?

This led to considerable discussion over the nature of the evidence behind the BASC information paper, which specified the number of pellet strikes in a 30” circle required to ensure a lethal pattern.

Even though there might be standard steel loads useable in a standard proofed shotgun delivering the required number of pellet strikes at 40 to 50 yards the shooting representative argued that the differences between field shooting practices in the UK and the USA (where much of the evidence in the BASC information paper was from) caused him to disagree that steel might be a comparable field replacement for lead, and he requested a review of the evidence.

It was asked what age of gun could safely shoot standard performance steel shot. The Group was reminded that all cartridges (whether steel or lead) were for safety purposes “proved” to the same standard and so should be safe for use in any standard proofed shotgun. However, it was noted that older (pre 1920s), thin walled, English game guns with tight chokes might not be suitable for use with steel shot.

 

 

The above is taken from the minutes of the last published meeting of the Subject Group.

 

On the face of it, by asking those two questions (to which he probably already knew the answers - always a good idea), John Swift would appear to be doing us a favour. Unfortunately, it looks as though the answers didn't quite do the same.

 

Now, when it comes to the to the one species which is shot more than any other by the average Joe Bloggs shooter, you can bet your bottom dollar that no self respecting Home Office minister is going to knock on Motty's, Fenboy's or Pigeoncontroller's hide and ask what as experienced shooters they think. Sadly, no, they're going to want to base any decision on science.

 

So, lets give him/her some based on the middle of the road 11/16oz No 6 cartridge. Studies by the Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) reflects that in order to hit a wood pigeon with the required number of pellets (3) with each and every shot as opposed to doing so on average, a figure of c5 is required to give a c90% success rate as opposed to c60% using the 3 count. BASC states that 140 pellets in the 30" circle will ensure as far as is reasonable a clean kill. For our chosen cartridge this relates to IC choke performance at 40 yards. It is well known that shotgun external ballistics perform, as a rule, in accordance with the Gaussian Law of Distribution which reflects that a 30" pattern of 50% density will print on average 26.5% of the pellets in the inner 20" circle and the remaining 23.5% in the outer 20 to 30" ring. The recognised vital area of a pigeon is 16sq" so to ensure a c90% success rate some 98 pellets are required in the 20" circle. The BASC idea of what equates to the IC has a shortfall of over 20 pellets. Looking at the 20 to 30" ring, the shortfall is 56. This is not surprising as with the possible exception of TC, as soon as choke is introduced the 'central thickening' of the pattern increases proportionally and rarely if ever the effective pattern density exceeds a 25" diameter and possibly 20" for the tighter end of a choke selection. A quick calculation shows that a 60% pattern (1/2 at 40 yards) which prints 33.5% in the 20" meets the requirement. A further calculation reflects that as indicated the density in the 20 to 30" ring is insufficient to meet the requirement. Consequently, it can be seen that it was right - as the minutes indicate - that there was some discussion regarding the nature of the evidence behind the BASC paper which defined the number of pellets requred to ensure as far as is possible a lethal pattern.

 

The science dictates that a better method than energy alone in deducing effective ranges, is to use Energy Density (ED) which is a relationship between the pellet's energy and its diameter. If we stay with the maximum range specified in the minutes - 50 yards, could I among friends be forgiven for using 45 metres as an equivalent as it saves me a load of extra calculations? At that distance the ED for the No6 lead pellet is 0.27 assuming an MV of 400m/s. However, as it may just be possible to stretch the effective range of the No 6 lead a little and as we are discussing a maximum range of 50 yards, then it is only fair to compare the maximum range of the number 6 lead with the compatible ED figure for the maximum range of a steel pellet and for our 45 metres this equates to a No3 steel. In our 11/16oz load there are c200 steel pellets and even though the energy element is available, with No 3 steel, a 80% choke requirement is such that even allowing for the tighter patterning characteristics of steel, this density means that the effective range is going to be dramatically reduced. We know this. Using the same formulae as above and allowing for the fact that,generously,say, steel patterns 2 degrees tighter than lead, then using No 5 will give a sufficient pellet count assuming the steel 1/2 equates to a lead Full, but reduce the range to marginally over 30 yards due to energy considerations. We know this.

 

In view of the above and the fact that 11/16oz is as much as you really want in a light weight game gun for a full day's shooting, then whoever it was that said that only pre1920 light weight guns could not handle steel shot did not do the minority - but not an excessively small one - of shooters using 21/2" chambered guns which could well have been made some 50 years after that date any favours at all in relation to the 2 questions John Swift specifically asked. Here was an opportunity to show that steel shot in certain circumstances is not all things to all men and unless any further investigation while the evidence placed before the group is reviewed does not pick up on this, then a well presented golden opportunity was sorely wasted.

 

 

 

 

Very good post Wymberley, and many thanks for going to the trouble it must have taken to compile and type it.

[Scully]

Why are they discussing the efficacy of alternatives to lead shot? Your guess is as good as mine, but one ( the cynical me for example) could easily be forgiven for getting the impression a decision has already been made and that all this which follows is merely window dressing by way of damage limitation.

Has science evaluated, proven categorically and provided evidence that the level of danger (in all situations) of lead shot from shooting sports to humans and wildlife requires legislation to further ban lead shot? The science has proven that the level of danger to humans is negligible, but that hasn't stopped the WWT still, since and just recently, spouting out the same old tripe it presented as evidence to the contrary, about lead ingestion when pregnant and why lead was removed from paint and petrol. scaremongering basically. The science has proved (as far as I'm aware) that ingestion of lead shot is detrimental to the point of being dangerously toxic, to the well being of wildfowl, but the impact this is or has had on wildfowl populations still appears to be debatable.

will the conclusions in the final report be based on such scientific evidence? Only time will tell, but I sincerely doubt it.

or will it be unduly influenced by biased opinion, unscientific reports, anti shooting rhetoric and speculation? Given the track record of most other anti shooting led agendas, the chances of this happening are pretty high I would say.

If science has determined a level of risk from lead shot used in shooting sports to humans and wildlife needs addressing, is any proposed/recommended action appropriate and proportional to that risk? I refer you to the answers above.

Good questions, from someone who (I get the impression) is as cynically weary as me.

[motty]

a) Ballistics and effectiveness of steel shot in the field?

The Chairman put two questions to the meeting, on the strength of a publically available BASC information sheet on the use of lead alternatives which had been presented to the Mitigation Subgroup in May[1]; firstly, whether a standard lead shot cartridge customarily used for field shooting is replaceable with a comparably priced steel shot cartridge delivering a specified lethal number of pellet strikes in a 30 inch circle up to the recommended maximum distances for field shooting i.e. 40 to 50 yards? Secondly, he asked whether, subject to checking every cartridge gun combination, such standard steel alternatives are normally useable in standard proofed shotguns? (Noting that if greater performance were needed then a higher standard of gun and cartridge proof would be required). This was an important question bearing on whether the standard shooter might continue to pursue his activity using effective alternatives at little or no additional cost?

This led to considerable discussion over the nature of the evidence behind the BASC information paper, which specified the number of pellet strikes in a 30” circle required to ensure a lethal pattern.

Even though there might be standard steel loads useable in a standard proofed shotgun delivering the required number of pellet strikes at 40 to 50 yards the shooting representative argued that the differences between field shooting practices in the UK and the USA (where much of the evidence in the BASC information paper was from) caused him to disagree that steel might be a comparable field replacement for lead, and he requested a review of the evidence.

It was asked what age of gun could safely shoot standard performance steel shot. The Group was reminded that all cartridges (whether steel or lead) were for safety purposes “proved” to the same standard and so should be safe for use in any standard proofed shotgun. However, it was noted that older (pre 1920s), thin walled, English game guns with tight chokes might not be suitable for use with steel shot.

 

 

The above is taken from the minutes of the last published meeting of the Subject Group.

 

On the face of it, by asking those two questions (to which he probably already knew the answers - always a good idea), John Swift would appear to be doing us a favour. Unfortunately, it looks as though the answers didn't quite do the same.

 

Now, when it comes to the to the one species which is shot more than any other by the average Joe Bloggs shooter, you can bet your bottom dollar that no self respecting Home Office minister is going to knock on Motty's, Fenboy's or Pigeoncontroller's hide and ask what as experienced shooters they think. Sadly, no, they're going to want to base any decision on science.

 

So, lets give him/her some based on the middle of the road 11/16oz No 6 cartridge. Studies by the Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) reflects that in order to hit a wood pigeon with the required number of pellets (3) with each and every shot as opposed to doing so on average, a figure of c5 is required to give a c90% success rate as opposed to c60% using the 3 count. BASC states that 140 pellets in the 30" circle will ensure as far as is reasonable a clean kill. For our chosen cartridge this relates to IC choke performance at 40 yards. It is well known that shotgun external ballistics perform, as a rule, in accordance with the Gaussian Law of Distribution which reflects that a 30" pattern of 50% density will print on average 26.5% of the pellets in the inner 20" circle and the remaining 23.5% in the outer 20 to 30" ring. The recognised vital area of a pigeon is 16sq" so to ensure a c90% success rate some 98 pellets are required in the 20" circle. The BASC idea of what equates to the IC has a shortfall of over 20 pellets. Looking at the 20 to 30" ring, the shortfall is 56. This is not surprising as with the possible exception of TC, as soon as choke is introduced the 'central thickening' of the pattern increases proportionally and rarely if ever the effective pattern density exceeds a 25" diameter and possibly 20" for the tighter end of a choke selection. A quick calculation shows that a 60% pattern (1/2 at 40 yards) which prints 33.5% in the 20" meets the requirement. A further calculation reflects that as indicated the density in the 20 to 30" ring is insufficient to meet the requirement. Consequently, it can be seen that it was right - as the minutes indicate - that there was some discussion regarding the nature of the evidence behind the BASC paper which defined the number of pellets requred to ensure as far as is possible a lethal pattern.

 

The science dictates that a better method than energy alone in deducing effective ranges, is to use Energy Density (ED) which is a relationship between the pellet's energy and its diameter. If we stay with the maximum range specified in the minutes - 50 yards, could I among friends be forgiven for using 45 metres as an equivalent as it saves me a load of extra calculations? At that distance the ED for the No6 lead pellet is 0.27 assuming an MV of 400m/s. However, as it may just be possible to stretch the effective range of the No 6 lead a little and as we are discussing a maximum range of 50 yards, then it is only fair to compare the maximum range of the number 6 lead with the compatible ED figure for the maximum range of a steel pellet and for our 45 metres this equates to a No3 steel. In our 11/16oz load there are c200 steel pellets and even though the energy element is available, with No 3 steel, a 80% choke requirement is such that even allowing for the tighter patterning characteristics of steel, this density means that the effective range is going to be dramatically reduced. We know this. Using the same formulae as above and allowing for the fact that,generously,say, steel patterns 2 degrees tighter than lead, then using No 5 will give a sufficient pellet count assuming the steel 1/2 equates to a lead Full, but reduce the range to marginally over 30 yards due to energy considerations. We know this.

 

In view of the above and the fact that 11/16oz is as much as you really want in a light weight game gun for a full day's shooting, then whoever it was that said that only pre1920 light weight guns could not handle steel shot did not do the minority - but not an excessively small one - of shooters using 21/2" chambered guns which could well have been made some 50 years after that date any favours at all in relation to the 2 questions John Swift specifically asked. Here was an opportunity to show that steel shot in certain circumstances is not all things to all men and unless any further investigation while the evidence placed before the group is reviewed does not pick up on this, then a well presented golden opportunity was sorely wasted.

 

 

 

 

Despite all of the above, a decent ounce of No.5 steel will kill pigeons at well over 30 yards.

[Guest stevo]

Despite all of the above, a decent ounce of No.5 steel will kill pigeons at well over 30 yards.

 

sorry replied to wrong bit , it was ment to be in response to this bit ,,,,

 

" No 5 will give a sufficient pellet count assuming the steel 1/2 equates to a lead Full, but reduce the range to marginally over 30 yards due to energy considerations "

 

if I was limited to 30-35 yrds I would sell my shotguns the first chance I had ,

Edited November 17, 2014 by stevo

[sitsinhedges]

 

sorry replied to wrong bit , it was ment to be in response to this bit ,,,,

 

" No 5 will give a sufficient pellet count assuming the steel 1/2 equates to a lead Full, but reduce the range to marginally over 30 yards due to energy considerations "

 

if I was limited to 30-35 yrds I would sell my shotguns the first chance I had ,

 

You wont be using the .410 if we lose lead either

[kent]

Guns like the .410 are effectively finished by a lead ban. I wont cry if we loose lead in shotguns personally because I don't personally own any old English guns and have every faith in steel now and rarely select to use lead over steel in 12ga, if I did have such a gun I should just use the soft (so called non-toxic highly toxic stuff they sell for duck on gameshoots). If we go non lead in rifles it will be an unmitigated disaster though and totally not required.

 

It took some effort for the OP to write that, I am not too confident we will win or loose based on the science however. Those who have been using lead illegally have seen to that one IMO

[Guest stevo]

It will be the final nail in the coffin for driven pheasant to . There is no way you can use steel on tall driven pheasant . ... not a chance IMO .

[mudpatten]

Please don`t think that this indicates any particular standpoint on the lead shot issue.

 

Were the use of steel to become mandatory for all forms of shooting it would not lead to the end of high bird driven pheasant shooting.

 

Dedicated game shooters are not simply going to give up.

 

What it would lead to would be a period of immense change. Gone would be the matched pairs of Purdeys to be replace by a pair of top drawer Benelli semi auto`s or some other HP steel proved gun with tight aftermarket chokes firing 3" steel cartridges. I`d shoot high driven birds all day with that combination.

[spanj]

Guns like the .410 are effectively finished by a lead ban. I wont cry if we loose lead in shotguns personally because I don't personally own any old English guns and have every faith in steel now and rarely select to use lead over steel in 12ga, if I did have such a gun I should just use the soft (so called non-toxic highly toxic stuff they sell for duck on gameshoots). If we go non lead in rifles it will be an unmitigated disaster though and totally not required.

 

It took some effort for the OP to write that, I am not too confident we will win or loose based on the science however. Those who have been using lead illegally have seen to that one IMO

Great attitude........ Not

[snow white]

No body as said anything about the pollution to the fields and pools with plaswads witch you use with steel shot.

[Guest cookoff013]

 

You wont be using the .410 if we lose lead either

 

by my reconing the .410 would top out at 1/2ounce, in a 3" magnum. thats not good. due to the size restriction / bore size that would mean steel 9s would be it.

after that its HP territory, but the .410 isnt far behind that anyway.

 

i`d have to chop the merkel up. the chokes are just too tight.

[rbrowning2]

The bad news is because it looks like we have been let down by the organisations we pay to support us it looks like it may not be long before we see a total ban on lead shot in the UK look at http://www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/ and the 25th June meeting minutes and just about all issues that were pro lead shot have been pushed a side with steel shot gaining the upper hand. In 2010 a total ban looked unlikley now in 2014 in looks like it will come very soon.

 

How many clay grounds will continue how many will give up shooting why is John Swift ex-BASC and Chairman of the lead shot ammunition group not shouting keep lead shot? we have been sold out !!!!

 

Re http://www.leadammun... June 2014.html

 

Why was 3.2 so quickly dismissed are the conclusion not that the Norwegians have concluded that lead shot is so much better than steel for certain types of shooting

why were the pro shooting attendees like John Batley Gun Trade Association not commenting on this in a pro lead way? Such as what they said was recorded in the minutes.

 

Just away banning or reducing shooting via the back door.

Edited November 18, 2014 by rbrowning2

[wymberley]

What I've tried to highlight is the use of the only economic (one of the original main criteria for the use of NTS) option for pigeon shooting using smaller calibre chambers. So far, no one except Motty as disagreed to any degree. I agree with him. It is possible to extend the range somewhat if a higher MV than I gave is used. However, the effect of a dramatic increase at the muzzle is somewhat reduced down range so the effect is only marginal where it matters. I further concede that the use of No 4 with its increased energy might just be possible if the pattern can be sufficiently tightened without any undue pressure causing barrel damage usually in the form of the unrepairable ring bulges. Either way though, the performance of either will not be in any way comparable with the lead load detailed and to which John Swift's questions related and which I'm discussing.

 

However, that's not our only problem. The LAG has various sub groups that carry out specific enquiries and then report back to the Group on the findings for further debate. Have a look at the make up and the qualifications - never mind the titles - of the participants. A distinct difference will be found between 'us' and 'them'. Can anyone give me the name of one (or more) who has a recognised qualification in external/terminal ballistics which will have sufficient clout to be heard and recognised in such debates - after all it will be from the result of these that the final response is forthcoming. I simply cannot understand how it was permitted that the Group be formed with no expertise from, say, the proof houses, the Royal College of Military Science or previously from the now (sadly) defunct BRL in its make-up.

 

Our only hope is that common sense prevails - and that seems to be in very short supply.

Edited November 18, 2014 by wymberley

[Steppenwolf]

I wonder if anyone in the main shooting organisations can cite this Colorado survey when it comes to standing up for lead shot. If people are not familiar, Colorado state has just tried to ban all lead shot for hunting but as you can see that ban has failed to materialize. I hope the shooting organizations take notice of this.

Colorado panel keeps lead-based bullets

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/28/colorado-panel-keeps-lead-based-bullets/

[David BASC]

With all due respect, having read the whole article, I can see how this could be used to defend lead shot?

[wymberley]

With all due respect, having read the whole article, I can see how this could be used to defend lead shot?

't?

[Steppenwolf]

I was pointing out the actual news. I am sure that the groups that have successfully defended the decision have studies or some sort of evidence, if you ask them they might be able to help. Same with the Norwegian hunting groups that reversed the leasd ban in their country.

[Harnser]

I would like to know what damage rusted steel shot would do to wild fowl that had injested it ? Has any body seen anything relating to this ?

Harnser

[wymberley]

I would like to know what damage rusted steel shot would do to wild fowl that had injested it ? Has any body seen anything relating to this ?

Harnser

Found this:

 

www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/.../Fera%20-%20Lead%20Shot%20-%...

 

while trying to answer the question. There appears not to be a problem. I've not read the piece fully - it's a tad heavy and requires careful reading - but there's a tasty little sentence at the end of the third paragraph of Item 6. Conclusions.

[anser2]

It will be the final nail in the coffin for driven pheasant to . There is no way you can use steel on tall driven pheasant . ... not a chance IMO .

What rubbish of course you can do it , I have with great sucess. Hp steel ( 36 g of No 3 ) will kill high pheasants as well as standard lead so in no way will the loss of lead be cause the end of driven pheasants. What might cause it is the loss of a few game shooters cant be bothered to use guns that will handle HP steel.

 

Lead is finnished , anyone who reads the papers on the efect of lead on our wildlife ( and how many on here have done that ) can see that. We now have very good steel shells so its up to game shooters to buy the guns to use it , wildfowlers have done so and you do not hear them moaning about steel these days , indeed most like it. Nobody would want to go back to driving a 1960s ford Anglia after driving a 2014 Ford Fiestia so why on earth use out dated guns - the world has moved on and if you want to carry on shooting driven game move with it. I sold my old English guns years ago once steel loads were perfected.

 

You have to ask your self an question, what is more important to keep using out dated wepons that will only handle steel or scatter lead posion around the countryside. For me wildlife must always come first , becuse without it we have no sport.

 

Harnser I shoot several hundred wildfowl a year and have yet to find any rusty steel in the flesh even with birds stored for several years in a deep freeze.

Edited December 5, 2014 by anser2

[wymberley]

What rubbish of course you can do it , It have with great sucess. Hp steel ( 36 g of No 3 ) will kill high pheasants as well as standard lead so in no way will the loss of lead be cause the end of driven pheasants. What might cause it is the loss of a few game shooters cant be bothered to use guns that will handle HP steel.

 

Lead is finnished , anyone who reads the papers on the efect of lead on our wildlife ( and how many on here have done that ) can see that. We now have very good steel shells so its up to game shooters to buy the guns to use it , wildfowlers have done so and you do not hear them moaning about steel these days , indeed most like it. Nobody would want to go back to driving a 1960s ford Anglia after driving a 2014 Ford Fiestia so why on earth use out dated guns - the world has moved on and if you want to carry on shooting driven game move with it. I sold my old English guns years ago once steel loads were perfected.

 

You have to ask your self an question, what is more important to keep using out dated wepons that will only handle steel or scatter lead posion around the countryside. For me wildlife must always come first , becuse without it we have no sport.

 

Harnser I shoot several hundred wildfowl a year and have yet to find any rusty steel in the flesh even with birds stored for several years in a deep freeze.

Whereas I fully appreciate your point of view, there is a problem. For my money our foreshore 'fowlers have done themselves, not to mention the rest of us, proud in this respect. However, in acquiring a suitable gun they have been able to either retain their existing one(s) for alternative use or sell them at face value to provide the funds for the new purchase. I think that your analogy relating to guns/cars is flawed. The guns are not outdated and when combined with lead shot remain far more efficient with fewer problems than the new miraculous versions using steel. The debate regarding the ongoing use of lead is an entirely different matter. I suspect you'll find that many, many sportsmen who have paid as much as they possibly could to buy (and are still doing so) their outdated guns are going to be a tad miffed to discover their only value is for scrap. I wonder how you would have felt had your English models been similarly valued. Hopefully, if push ever comes to shove you'll be equally vociferous in demanding that the government fully reimburses those affected. Cheers

[Steppenwolf]

Lead is finnished , anyone who reads the papers on the efect of lead on our wildlife ( and how many on here have done that ) can see that. We now have very good steel shells so its up to game shooters to buy the guns to use it , wildfowlers have done so and you do not hear them moaning about steel these days , indeed most like it. Nobody would want to go back to driving a 1960s ford Anglia after driving a 2014 Ford Fiestia so why on earth use out dated guns - the world has moved on and if you want to carry on shooting driven game move with it. I sold my old English guns years ago once steel loads were perfected.

 

I don't think you understand the issue here. The data that shows that lead is poisonous for the countryside is absolute rubbish, it is data skewed to support the banning of lead. Steel shot is prohibitively expensive, banning led shot for hunting will mean higher overall cost of shooting. It will mean much less shooters and therefore a death in our sport. Not to mention it is a stepping stone. once they ban it for hunting you can bet they will ban it for all uses, such as target shooting.

 

Be careful what you wish for....

[FatFreddysCat]

It will be the final nail in the coffin for driven pheasant to . There is no way you can use steel on tall driven pheasant . ... not a chance IMO .

Maybe not in a light 12 bore game gun but will be no problem with a 10 bore. I shot a high (est 40-45yds) mallard last week with No.3 steel. It took 4 pellets in the breast of which 3 passed right through the bird and 1 was lodged just under the skin on it's back.

Be interesting to see the driven pheasant boys lining up with their 10s!