Lead Ammmunition Group

[Scully]

 

Scully , I am off shooting for a few days in the morning and have to get my gear togeather and do not have the time tonight to do a serious search on experiments on lead posioning on ducks , but here is a abstract from one of the papers.

 

 

The Journal of Wildlife Management © 1978 Wiley

Abstract:

The toxicity of an experimental lead-iron shot containing 38.1 percent lead was compared with commercial lead shot in mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) fed corn for 14 weeks. Significantly higher mortality occurred in ducks dosed with commercial lead shot compared to ducks given lead-iron shot containing comparable amounts of lead. Loss of body weight was indicative of the difference in toxicity of the 2 types of shot. Mortality was dose related in ducks given commercial lead shot; one #8 shot (73 mg lead) caused 35 percent mortality with higher amounts of lead causing 80 to 100 percent mortality. Ingestion of up to 2 #4 lead-iron shot (111 mg lead) caused no significant weight loss and only 5 percent mortality. However, ducks dosed with 5 lead-iron shot suffered 45 percent mortality and those given 16 shot 50 percent mortality.

 

 

And links for a couple of US govenment papers you might find interesting

 

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/pbpoison/symptoms.htm

 

posioning of both waterfowl and gamebirds

https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/PDF/0107%20Mateo.pdf

 

 

It will take time , but there is plenty on the internet on the subject

 

Many thanks. Can you identify the name of the organisation which commissioned Wiley to undertake the study in (I'm assuming) 1978?

[anser2]

see next post

Edited December 6, 2014 by anser2

[Steppenwolf]

I think it is a bit of a wrong experiment to make. Lead is not ingested by wildlife in the amounts given in the experiment. The experiment is based on an abnormal high lead dosage ingested, of course there will be problems but in minute doses the majority of which game birds find themselves in lead is not a problem. Making a mountain out of a molehill.

[anser2]

Scully , sorry i gave you the wrong journal. The paper was written by two govenment researchers working for the US fish and Wildlife service. Mac Findley and Mike Dieter. Wiley is the publisher .

[anser2]

Steppenwolf read the above links and you will find its not a mountain out of a mole hill. They contain examples of hundreds of birds of many species from pheasants to ducks and examples of the density of lead pellets found in the soil where shooting in undertaken. The effect of the pellets depends on diet and the substrate. Lead pellets are worse when the birds are eating corn and less where they are eating soft plants. because the corn needs grinding down in the gizzard the soft plants less so.

 

I cant find the link at the moment , but is some cases experiments have found that one lead pellet will kill a mallard in 5 days when fed on wheat.

Edited December 6, 2014 by anser2

[Scully]

I haven't read it all, but I found the paper you quoted an extract from dated 1st Jan 1978, attributed to Mike Dieter. Interesting material but if I've read it correctly, the ducks in question didn't infact feed on contaminated lead shot feed. They were fed yellow corn and the then 'were dosed with shot through a flexible plastic tube inserted to the proventriculus', which unless I'm mistaken is the gizzard. Maybe it has no reflection on the validity of the experiment, but I was a little disappointed and concerned to discover the ducks didn't in fact ingest the lead through choice.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Scully

[Guest stevo]

 

Scully , I am off shooting for a few days in the morning and have to get my gear togeather and do not have the time tonight to do a serious search on experiments on lead posioning on ducks , but here is a abstract from one of the papers.

 

 

The Journal of Wildlife Management © 1978 Wiley

Abstract:

The toxicity of an experimental lead-iron shot containing 38.1 percent lead was compared with commercial lead shot in mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) fed corn for 14 weeks. Significantly higher mortality occurred in ducks dosed with commercial lead shot compared to ducks given lead-iron shot containing comparable amounts of lead. Loss of body weight was indicative of the difference in toxicity of the 2 types of shot. Mortality was dose related in ducks given commercial lead shot; one #8 shot (73 mg lead) caused 35 percent mortality with higher amounts of lead causing 80 to 100 percent mortality. Ingestion of up to 2 #4 lead-iron shot (111 mg lead) caused no significant weight loss and only 5 percent mortality. However, ducks dosed with 5 lead-iron shot suffered 45 percent mortality and those given 16 shot 50 percent mortality.

 

 

And links for a couple of US govenment papers you might find interesting

 

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/pbpoison/symptoms.htm

 

posioning of both waterfowl and gamebirds

https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/PDF/0107%20Mateo.pdf

 

I cant find the link for this , but the subject is well covered in my copy of Federal Cartridge Company Waterfowl and Steel Shot Guide. Volume I; 1988.

It will take time , but there is plenty on the internet on the subject

 

what a load of **** ! of course its going to do harm if there fed in large doses like that every day for 14 weeks , birds in there wild/naturel surroundings are ever going to ingest amounts anywhere close to that . if any

I remember there was a program on tv about a bloke that had eaten nothing but Mc Donald's ( other fast food outlets are available ) for half that time and his body/organs were shutting down . my point being that ANYTHING in large amounts will do harm , ...

Edited December 6, 2014 by stevo

[Harnser]

To much water will kill you .

 

Harnser

[Whitebridges]

Whitebridges, I stand by my statement lead is finished. The public does not like lead in any form, its been removed from petrol, paint and a host of other things it was used for, its been proved to kill wildlife so its only a matter of time before its banned. The more we fight it the worse the shooting community looks on the eyes of the public and the more damage it does to the future of shooting.

 

The end of lead may not come next year or the year after , but its comming.

 

I wouldn't expect you to say anything else. So everything that happens in this world should be down to the environmental impact?

Have a closer look at what goes on elsewhere and get some sort of perspective.

What gets my goat is that you do not seem to show any respect for fellow shooters. Read post # 35 by Blackpowder again and consider what you are endorsing. You sir are very much in the minority and In danger of marginalising wildfowlers who through their own ineptitude and lack of organisation are forced to use steel shot.

You keep making reference to America and how they use steel and how we might use stuff. This had no credence or relevance to game shooting in the British Isles so keep your views to the marsh.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Whitebridges

[wymberley]

Wimberly , of course I would expect you could get the same synchronous failure in pattern \ energy in lead . My point is that by balancing pattern\energy with steel you can produce a steel shell very close to tthe effectivness of a lead shell countering the argument that steel is not effective.

 

I have not measured the pellets , but i used gamebore and RC shells

Couple of points.

 

This thread is about the LAG and the possibility, however either remote or probable, of a total lead shot ban. See my Post #23 regarding our 'fowlers and any other of my posts that you can find and nowhere will you find me saying steel is not effective per se.

 

You say in your Post #40 that there is a need to go up at least 3 shot sizes. At least that is an improvement on the initial 2 size increase that was bandied about. It's worth noting however, that in your example the increase is,of course, 4. Also in this Post, you gave the distinct impression that a balanced load was not possible with lead and it's good to see that that false impression has been withdrawn. There is one problem though. If we accept that the No 6 lead pellet ceases to be effective in energy terms at 45 yards at which distance a pellet with a MV of 1425 ft/sec will have 1.3ft/lbs of energy. All things being equal, the steel No 3 will not drop to this energy level until it reaches 85 yards. As I'm sure you're aware that the better way of assessing the performance of pellets of differing materials is to use their energy density ratio. Because steel is not so lethally effective with regard to size for size as lead, using this system the effective range is 55 yards. In this case a No 4 steel would have matched the lead 6 - as you said, up three sizes in this instance. Yep, steel does work.

 

Do me a favour though, find me something that I - and many thousands of others - can use in our 21/2" chambered guns proofed at 11/8 oz and use it effectively and without any possibility of any damage being incurred. I'm rather afraid to say that your somewhat self centered attitude is not doing the long term future of our sport as we know it any good at all.

[andrew f]

Surprised David hasn't come here with some info

[RossEM]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Absolutely right. If it is found that a significant number of birds regularly ingest lead from quantities deposited by local shooting, which leads to their subsequent poisoning, then it should of course be banned. I just don't know how on earth it can be proven. But wildlife must come first.

 

A couple of years ago I decided to try steel cartridges after reading many, many debates on PW regarding its effectiveness. Let's be clear, I'm commenting on the effectiveness of steel as I found it, from the perspective of an average recreational shooter.

 

The gun I used was an early Browning/FIAS Medallist 20 bore, choked 1/4 and 1/2, and the cartridges I used were Express 24g Super Steel 4s. These cartridges are Standard Steel, non-HP, which are one of those that can be used in any gun with any choke, according to BASC advice. I bought 3-4 slabs over the course of 2 years and was normally shooting twice a week if I remember rightly.

 

This is my experience: I can tell everyone 100% honestly that during that time I found no difference whatsoever in the consistency of clean kills. I shot driven & walked up pheasant, partridge, woodcock & snipe, decoyed and flighted geese, duck, pigeon & crows and quite a few clays.

 

I should point out that I also agree with Chris Green that the inconsistency of patterns at over 45 yards render clean kills as more luck than marksmanship, and for that reason my limit is 45 yards as I perceive it downrange, whether I'm using lead or steel.

 

What no one is mentioning through these perpetual debates is that some lead loads are ****! Since moving back to the 12 bore, I'd rather shoot Express Hunting Steel than Eley Grand Prix (lead) any day of the week - because it patterns better in my gun.

[fenboy]

Absolutely right. If it is found that a significant number of birds regularly ingest lead from quantities deposited by local shooting, which leads to their subsequent poisoning, then it should of course be banned. I just don't know how on earth it can be proven. But wildlife must come first.

 

A couple of years ago I decided to try steel cartridges after reading many, many debates on PW regarding its effectiveness. Let's be clear, I'm commenting on the effectiveness of steel as I found it, from the perspective of an average recreational shooter.

 

The gun I used was an early Browning/FIAS Medallist 20 bore, choked 1/4 and 1/2, and the cartridges I used were Express 24g Super Steel 4s. These cartridges are Standard Steel, non-HP, which are one of those that can be used in any gun with any choke, according to BASC advice. I bought 3-4 slabs over the course of 2 years and was normally shooting twice a week if I remember rightly.

 

This is my experience: I can tell everyone 100% honestly that during that time I found no difference whatsoever in the consistency of clean kills. I shot driven & walked up pheasant, partridge, woodcock & snipe, decoyed and flighted geese, duck, pigeon & crows and quite a few clays.

 

I should point out that I also agree with Chris Green that the inconsistency of patterns at over 45 yards render clean kills as more luck than marksmanship, and for that reason my limit is 45 yards as I perceive it downrange, whether I'm using lead or steel.

 

What no one is mentioning through these perpetual debates is that some lead loads are ****! Since moving back to the 12 bore, I'd rather shoot Express Hunting Steel than Eley Grand Prix (lead) any day of the week - because it patterns better in my gun.

Steel will pattern and kill well beyond 45 yards , but as answer2 discussed you do need the right choke to get the pattern that is required , I do refer to high performance steel though .

Of course just like lead stell is only any good if its shot within the capability of the shooter.

[rbrowning2]

Surprised David hasn't come here with some info

 

I'm not look who the chairman is for the LAG ex BASC top man Mr John Switft.

 

Don't forget this is to ban lead from ammunition/shot so good bye to your small bore guns like .410, 28ga and .22RF rifle.

 

Lot's of hiden agenda's with the trade expecting they will make a lot of money when a lot of shooters have to buy new steel proof guns otherwise why is the Gun Trade Association man John Batley so quite and not shouting out loud keep lead.

[David BASC]

What information do you expect me to have that is not already in the public domain?

[Steppenwolf]

I haven't read it all, but I found the paper you quoted an extract from dated 1st Jan 1978, attributed to Mike Dieter. Interesting material but if I've read it correctly, the ducks in question didn't infact feed on contaminated lead shot feed. They were fed yellow corn and the then 'were dosed with shot through a flexible plastic tube inserted to the proventriculus', which unless I'm mistaken is the gizzard. Maybe it has no reflection on the validity of the experiment, but I was a little disappointed and concerned to discover the ducks didn't in fact ingest the lead through choice.

Exactly and at levels which just wouldn't happen in a natural setting. You do know that some experiments are just bogus you know. Just because it's an "experiment" and has an air of officialdom doesn't mean it's acurate, reliable and fair. That is one study as well. There are numerous other studies that lead is not a danger to wild birds.

[Steppenwolf]

Absolutely right. If it is found that a significant number of birds regularly ingest lead from quantities deposited by local shooting, which leads to their subsequent poisoning, then it should of course be banned. I just don't know how on earth it can be proven. But wildlife must come first.

 

Ok great, you like steel, use steel. Don't force the reat of us to use it and don't cite erroneous surveys to make us feel guilty for using lead. What is it with shooting in britain where some people need to dictate to others what gun, scope, mount and ammunition (whether steel or lead) they need to use.

 

If it works for you fine, but it might not work for everyone. After all variety is the spice of life.

[Steppenwolf]

 

I'm not look who the chairman is for the LAG ex BASC top man Mr John Switft.

 

Don't forget this is to ban lead from ammunition/shot so good bye to your small bore guns like .410, 28ga and .22RF rifle.

 

Lot's of hiden agenda's with the trade expecting they will make a lot of money when a lot of shooters have to buy new steel proof guns otherwise why is the Gun Trade Association man John Batley so quite and not shouting out loud keep lead.

....and hence we find the agenda. The reason even some of the shooting associations will support this is because it will bring them lots of money. Screw the shooters, the organizations coffers matter first.

[Blackpowder]

I find the whole concept of the lead ban utterly ridiculous, Steppenwolf has perhaps hit the nail on the head with his post above. Ridiculous? Well imagine you are on a Shoot where both game and wildfowl are to be shot, you are standing beside a lake, pond or mere shooting pheasants using lead shot spent pellets landing in the water. Next drive is reared mallard off a similar pond to the above. Now you are using steel or other non toxic shot with spent pellets landing on a stubble field. Keep the steel and other non toxic for the foreshore and use lead inland!

 

Blackpowder

[David BASC]

Of course, in Scotland you cannot do what you have just suggested, ie allow lead shot to fall into or over wetlands.

 

Nor do I think, from the evidence reviewed by the LAG, that there is any suggestion that lead is only a potential problem on the foreshore

 

As for shooting organisations pushing for or in some way being complicit on lead ban is frankly laughable and without any evidence.

Edited December 7, 2014 by David BASC

[Blackpowder]

Of course, in Scotland you cannot do what you have just suggested, ie allow lead shot to fall into or over wetlands.

 

Nor do I think, from the evidence reviewed by the LAG, that there is any suggestion that lead is only a potential problem on the foreshore

 

As for shooting organisations pushing for or in some way being complicit on lead ban is frankly laughable and without any evidence.

Sorry I was thinking of the English situation at the time, does the same apply there for the fall out of lead shot over wetlands?

 

Blackpowder

[panoma1]

As I see it the Anglo Eurasian Wildbird Agreement(AEWA)was bought about by Europe purely to prevent waterfowl from ingesting lead in their wetland habitat....that is what Scotland and NI got!!.........in England and Wales using lead shot over wetlands was also banned in line with the AEWA....however the English and Welsh Governments went further, not only did they ban lead shot over wetlands they also made the ban species specific and made it illegal to use lead shot for shooting geese and ducks anywhere in England and Wales, where were the groups that represent shooting when this happened? why/how did they let this to happen?

 

By our representative organisations allowing this uncalled for and unnecessary species specific element to pass into law probably marked the beginning of the end for lead shot?.........ask yourselves, if it is wrong (it must be because they made it illegal?) to shoot geese and duck with lead shot, how is it right to shoot other birds/animals with lead shot?

 

Now we are facing a complete ban on using lead ammunition, the only people to blame are our representative shooting organisations who again failed, for whatever reason to protect shooting interests?

 

And what do BASC do? allow an unaccountable former employee and stand by whilst representatives from other organisations fight our corner, BASC have no representatives hence no voice on the Lead ammunition group, so how can they argue for the retention of lead shot and thereby protect shooting interests when we all know the purpose of the LAG is to give a forum for the WWT and RSPB to push for a ban lead shot!

 

Why do I continually feel we have been shafted?

[spanj]

....and hence we find the agenda. The reason even some of the shooting associations will support this is because it will bring them lots of money. Screw the shooters, the organizations coffers matter first.

No shooters...... No organisations. Simple

[David BASC]

I agree there are differences between the Scottish and English systems, but remember shooting on or over all RAMSAR wetlands is banned in Scotland inland or foreshore.

 

Also, please remember that the LAG is there to simply look at the scientific evidence on the potential risks of lead shot to the environment and human health from published literature and other sources, all of which are on the LAG site. LAG were not there to discuss, debate or make any recommendations on the terminal ballistics of lead shot or any other lead shot, or many of the other issues raised here, and are most certainly not simply a platform for a RSPB/WWT ban lead shot campaign.

 

I can assure you that BASC were actively involved in the evidence groups that reviewed the literature. May I also remind you that the Chairman was not a former employee of BASC for most of the lifetime of the LAG

 

The key issue will be when the LAG makes its final report to DEFRA and what recommendations are in that report.It will be then up to DEFRA to do something or nothing, who knows, but its at that point the lobbying can begin

 

I do find you quote from the above post:

 

'if it is wrong (it must be because they made it illegal?) to shoot geese and duck with lead shot, how is it right to shoot other birds/animals with lead shot?'

 

Very interesting indeed

 

David

Edited December 7, 2014 by David BASC

[Guest stevo]

 

I'm not look who the chairman is for the LAG ex BASC top man Mr John Switft.

 

Don't forget this is to ban lead from ammunition/shot so good bye to your small bore guns like .410, 28ga and .22RF rifle.

 

Lot's of hiden agenda's with the trade expecting they will make a lot of money when a lot of shooters have to buy new steel proof guns otherwise why is the Gun Trade Association man John Batley so quite and not shouting out loud keep lead.

i agree it will be the end of the .410 . However the 28g will survive but with specialists loads imo . With regards to .22 lr it wont just be the humble "rimfire " it will affect all calibres too. They all have lead cores . Take the .243 a 90 grain soft point head still has approximately 70 grains of lead .

Do people really belive that IF there successful it will just stop at lead shot ?

 

Just food for thought .