Lead Ammmunition Group

[Whitebridges]

Mate of yours then? figures

 

Have you got any mates?

[panoma1]

Ok harnser/whitebridges et al I'm bored with this now it's too predictable! So can we return, as per the PW house rules to this threads "topic of conversation " ie. the lead ammunition group.............cos corries on the goggle box just now! LOL

[Scully]

Just a thought; have any studies of the effect of lead shot on the UK ( ) environment and in particular UK ( ) wildlife been undertaken in recent years by a totally unbiased and impartial organisation, or does all such work consist of studies by organisations with a vested interest in the outcome?

Edited December 10, 2014 by Scully

[wymberley]

Just a thought; have any studies of the effect of lead shot on the environment and in particular our wildlife been undertaken in recent years by a totally unbiased and impartial organisation, or does all such work consist of studies by organisations with a vested interest in the outcome?

Although the use of the word,"our", is noted, you could just slip in, 'in the UK', so there's no confusion. Should narrow down any possible answers.

[grrclark]

Just a thought; have any studies of the effect of lead shot on the environment and in particular our wildlife been undertaken in recent years by a totally unbiased and impartial organisation, or does all such work consist of studies by organisations with a vested interest in the outcome?

Who would do it without having some sort of vested interest? It's a genuine question, I have thought about it and I can't think of who would do it without having some sort of agenda.

 

Even if someone was paid to do it as an independent and they did it completely impartially and honestly would the other side not just look at who was paying and cry foul anyway if the findings were not how they wanted them to be?

 

That is no doubt a huge part of the problem in that there is a fundamental lack of trust.

[Scully]

Who would do it without having some sort of vested interest? It's a genuine question, I have thought about it and I can't think of who would do it without having some sort of agenda.

 

Even if someone was paid to do it as an independent and they did it completely impartially and honestly would the other side not just look at who was paying and cry foul anyway if the findings were not how they wanted them to be?

 

That is no doubt a huge part of the problem in that there is a fundamental lack of trust.

Exactly. Which is why all interested parties should have a vested interest in agreeing and commissioning a study from a University or such which has total impartiality. Thereby any misgivings surrounding the question of trust can largely be excluded. It would certainly be much more acceptable than having an organisation such as a shooting organisation commissioning a study from another organisation such as the WWT. Let's face it, both the shooting organisations and the WWT have vested interests; (and they aint the same to say the least) therefore their roles should exclude them from any such trials and studies. Otherwise it would be like the Tories commissioning UKIP to undertake a survey on the merits of the UK being part of the EU. I'd pay good money to read that report.

 

The 'Value of Shooting' wouldn't have had the authority it had if it were carried out by the same people who had commissioned it. There were, and probably still are those who resent the outcome of that study, and in no small way dismiss it because it was commissioned by a group with a vested interest, but there can be no doubt as to the accuracy of the results of that report, and the impartiality of those who carried out the work, whether they like those results or not.

This is one of the reasons why I can't stop digging away at how the results as to the claimed effect lead shot has on the UK environment and indeed its wildlife were arrived at and thereby conclusions formed and claims made. It has to be open and honest and without agenda, and whichever way you look at it, the topic of toxic shot isn't.

[Blunderbuss]

Just as an aside to the issue of lead shot, there is also the issue of lead in priming compounds. This is more of a concern for human health than the evironment and not so much of an issue for wildfowing or shotgunning in general. But on indoor ranges, particularly pistol ranges, airborne lead particles have been an issue for years. Some caused by splatter in the bullet catchers, but the worst by the gaseous product of lead styphnate and lead azide based priming compounds which is much more readily inhaled and is very toxic. People like police firearms instructors had a lot of exposure to this. A few years ago this was managed by the best possible ventilation systems and regular blood tests for lead levels. These days lead free primers are available and I believe a lot of indoor pistol ranges now mandate lead free ammunition.

 

I know this is not directly relevant to most on here, but just another example of ammo manufacturers having to adapt their products due to health concerns. Although I hate to admit it, I think the days of lead are numbered. The LAG debate is just one local aspect of this, but the tide is turning against it elswwhere in the world too. I support a robust defence of lead, but ultimately I fear it may just a delaying tactic. Maybe not in the next 5-10 years, but at some stage beyond that I think the use of lead in all types of small arms ammunition will be completely banned :(

[rjimmer]

Despite what BASC reps say, the writing was on the wall when Dr John Harradine, BASC Chief Scientific Adviser, got up at the BASC wildfowling conference(Cheltenham, I think it was) and said that he had shot with both steel and lead in America and couldn't tell the difference between the two. Perhaps he misses with everything.

 

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.steelvslead.html

[snow white]

What about all the plastic steel shot users are put on the fields doesn't the farms and land owners have a say.I will not use plastic on any land I shoot over and the farmers have asked me not to.

[rbrowning2]

If you take the time and trouble to read all the posts the one word that hits you is TRUST the shooter does not trust the LAG report to be impartial and unbiased due to the people/organisations on the LAG.

 

With current technology the outcome of a total ban on lead from ammunition would be catastrophic for shooting.

 

Further price increase in ammunition – less people shooting.

No cost effective fibre wad (or biodegradable plastic wad) – clay grounds will close – less people shooting.

 

No lead - RIP Shooting.

[Guest stevo]

I wont mind using steel so much as long as they can get the price down .for a decent pigeon load . I know everyone keeps saying " yeah as soon as they start mass producing steel loads . The price will come down " hmmm i dont think so . The manufacturer's may drop the price a tad but i will bet that we WILL soon be £300 per thou for a steel pigeon shell that gives mediocre performance over decoys . However i feel that the decent HP stuff will go through the roof .

Edited December 28, 2014 by stevo

[rbrowning2]

I don't think any steel shot is manufactured in the UK, unlike lead shot at Gamebore and Eley, there are also fewer manufactures of steel shot and the process is far more complicated than lead. So would steel shot fall in price if demand went up by say 5000% (as a guess) ??

 

Then we still have the problem with fibre wads - yes a green biodegradable plastic wad is available but again at a significantly higher price.

 

As you say in the short term pigeon/clay carts £300 per thou ............. in the long term prices may recover but how many will be still shooting and where?

[Guest stevo]

I think land owners will soon come around to the pest controllers using plaswad . As there wont be a lot of choice . And the new steel/lead shot laws will sort of force there hand . Either let birds hammer there crops all year round . Or let there pigeon shooters use the plaswad steel shells .as a lot of shooters will not be able to afford let alone justify paying ridiculous prices for HP fiber cup steel loads . Just my opinion.

[Vince Green]

Everyone is talking about shot where there is at least an alternative, and the market is big enough to make the manufacturers to take on the challenge. What about rifle shooting? There are no lead free alternative AFAIK and the UK market is not big enough to tempt the US/ European manufacturers to make special bullets just for us. Even if they did, would they be any good? Some military bullets are lead free but they are FMJ

[Scully]

FMJ doesn't necessarily mean lead free. The core is often lead, surrounded, as the term implies, by a full metal jacket.

An impenetrable jacketed shot load was developed some years ago but then not marketed due to the fact that at its core, it was still lead. I'm assuming that lead cored bullets would be banned on the same basis if lead shot is eventually banned.

[Vince Green]

FMJ doesn't necessarily mean lead free. The core is often lead, surrounded, as the term implies, by a full metal jacket.

An impenetrable jacketed shot load was developed some years ago but then not marketed due to the fact that at its core, it was still lead. I'm assuming that lead cored bullets would be banned on the same basis if lead shot is eventually banned.

The current US military bullets are allegedly lead free and there are moves to make all NATO ammunition lead free although why I really cant see why they are bothering. If they ban lead in rifle bullets we would be totally stuffed because there is no commercial lead free ammo for hunting. There are Barnes Bullets for the reloaders but not everyone reloads. What about .22s?

Maybe that is what they secretly want

Edited December 29, 2014 by Vince Green

[Steppenwolf]

That pretty much is the idea. A clever way to attack gun ownership by attacking the ammunition that they use.

[Scully]

The current US military bullets are allegedly lead free and there are moves to make all NATO ammunition lead free although why I really cant see why they are bothering.

Agreed. It does seem a bit out of kilter really, but when you think of it logically it does make sense to generate 'green' military munitions. Waging war and killing each other on a grand scale is something we are very good at, and there has never been a time when some country or other isn't at war with another, plus there's serious money to be made from supplying the means to do so. The fact the survivors have to live there when the fighting is done may be a consideration, but only peripherally, and certainly not by those doing the killing.

Faced with the new religion that is being green, and all that it encompasses, we shooters are very small fry, something that those who oppose us have and will use to further their agendas. It is the perfect opportunity for back door legislation.

Once Governments feel pressurised into toeing the line of general consensus then we will have little choice (regardless of science, evidence or whatever) but to do anything other than comply. Once it's gone, it wont be coming back.

[Guest stevo]

Agreed. It does seem a bit out of kilter really, but when you think of it logically it does make sense to generate 'green' military munitions. Waging war and killing each other on a grand scale is something we are very good at, and there has never been a time when some country or other isn't at war with another, plus there's serious money to be made from supplying the means to do so. The fact the survivors have to live there when the fighting is done may be a consideration, but only peripherally, and certainly not by those doing the killing.

Faced with the new religion that is being green, and all that it encompasses, we shooters are very small fry, something that those who oppose us have and will use to further their agendas. It is the perfect opportunity for back door legislation.

Once Governments feel pressurised into toeing the line of general consensus then we will have little choice (regardless of science, evidence or whatever) but to do anything other than comply. Once it's gone, it wont be coming back.

I cant remember where I know i did read it somewhere that there were some concerns over the use of green military ammo . And the yanks for example only on ranges . For the life of me i cant remember the details . But it was something along those lines. Someone kind soul will look it up . Im at work at min .

[Guest stevo]

It was a post similar to this one .

 

http://www.wired.com/2009/04/toxic-tungsten/

 

atb stevo

[brett1985]

RWS, Hornady and Nosler all provide lead free variants for rifles. probably more to be honest, but theyre the ones i know of, off of the top of my head.

 

the issue is price and availability. the last time i looked, they were all pretty readily available in the US but not here.

 

as previous posters have mentioned, price will be a big killer. i cant see many wanting to pay £300 a thousand for pigeon carts.

 

but i would like to think that the cartridge manufacturers would also be savvy enough to realise that if they dont produce steel carts at a reasonable price that they will lose out in the long run as people will just stop buying and their sales figures will drop dramatically...

[scotslad]

Who would do it without having some sort of vested interest? It's a genuine question, I have thought about it and I can't think of who would do it without having some sort of agenda.

 

Even if someone was paid to do it as an independent and they did it completely impartially and honestly would the other side not just look at who was paying and cry foul anyway if the findings were not how they wanted them to be?

 

That is no doubt a huge part of the problem in that there is a fundamental lack of trust.

 

That is the major problem not just with lead ammo but with most conservation/predator control studies/research and an awful lot of government decisions have more to do with the popular/PR vote than actual science.

 

For some reason the UK has unilaterally shifted totally away from fieldsports and the belief in managing populations of certain species., (travel to any country in any direction and hunting/fieldsports is far more part of the culture still, but in the last 30yrs has disappeared here from normal cultre) even at academic levels many think if u leave stuff i peace it will sort itself out, or re-introing top end appex predaors will solve any other problems.

Even at university environemental students/graduates are being churned out with only the briefiest grasp of wot actually hapens in the 'real' countryside and truely believe shooting is bad.

But these same scientist's are going on to carry out these studies and now have jobs at government/agencies which pass laws and rules on countryside stuff never having worked in it

 

Scientists should be able to be trusted, and it should not matter who is paying for the study and any opinions beliefs should be left behind and any study carried out with an open mind.

An awful lot of studies seem to be flawed from the design, when i was at uni they taught u the 'null hypothesis' so if u want to prove something u actually try ur hardest to disprove it

[gunsmoke]

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.

 

YES! very good point. The LAG members where hand picked by John Swift and OK'd [rubber stamped] by Defra minister.

 

The last thing they want is someone who might know the subject.

 

They where waiting for the FSA report done in Scotland to finish their report, when it came out, the FSA bye-past the LAG all together.

 

I have one question: Why is the Lead Ammunition Group looking at steel shot when did that become apart of its remit?

[Kes]

Quote;

In the “World Symposium on Lead in Ammunition,” held in Rome, Italy in 2004, John

Harradine from the United Kingdom, reported, “The issue of lead poisoning in wildlife as

a consequence of shooting activities has long been debated as to its occurrence, its impact

and how it should be managed. On the basis of evidence to date, and in general terms,

waterfowl, some non-waterfowl species, and birds of prey are the groups of wildlife most

at risk of poisoning by virtue of being most exposed to spent lead shot and vulnerable to

its effects” (Harradine 2004).

Are there 2 J Harradine's ?

[Kes]

The incidence and significance of ingested lead pellet poisoning in British Wildfowl

• G.P. Mudge^∗

Show more

Choose an option to locate/access this article:

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution

Check access

Purchase $35.95

• 

doi:10.1016/0006-3207(83)90090-3 Get rights and content

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the extent of lead pellet ingestion by British wildfowl, particularly ducks and geese, and to examine regional variations. The gizzard contents of 2445 shot and 238 found-dead birds were examined, and lead concentrations were determined for 1620 liver and 1841 wing bone samples. In addition, X-ray photographs and blood samples were taken from live-caught birds. Ingested lead pellets were found in 3·2% of the birds examined. For a range of species, including pink-footed goose, white-fronted goose, barnacle goose, wigeon, teal, pintail, shoveler, scaup and moorhen, recorded incidences were either very low or zero. Relatively high incidences were noted for swans, greylag goose (7·1% of shot birds), gadwall (11·8%), mallard (4·2%), pochard (10·9%), tufted duck (11·7%) and goldeneye (6·7%). Most ingested pellets originated from shotguns, though anglers' split shot were found in one pochard and four mute swans. A marked seasonal variation in the extent of pellet ingestion was noted for mallard, with a peak in September, and evidence of high levels immediately before and after the shooting season. Pellet ingestion by mallard was found to be of widespread occurrence, though with considerable variation in recorded incidence from place to place. Inland areas tended to be worse, with the highest incidences recorded for birds shot at flight ponds and other freshwater bodies. Six per cent of mallard shot at inland sites contained ingested pellets, compared with 2·6% of those collected from coastal areas. The observed extent of pellet ingestion in British mallard is calculated directly to cause the death of at least 8000 each winter. Some measures that could be taken to alleviate the lead-poisoning problem in Britain are discussed, and progress of the USA's non-toxic pellet programme is examined.

∗

Present address: RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, Great Britain.

It would be interesting to determine whether all shot birds had ingested lead (which therefore did not kill them) and how many of the 'found -dead' were killed as a result of lead ingestion as separate groups. A similar study into 'lead poisoning' of wildfowl in the Ebro delta notes concentration of an average lead concentration of 250,000 pellets per hectare and estimates that 10,000 out of a winter population of mallard of 36,000 were poisoned by lead. The first occurrence of lead poisoning was noticed (in Waterfowl) in 1988.

The evidence of mass fatal poisoning of mallard particularly, does not seem to stack -up wherever the analysis is done. Why is this a relatively recent phenomenon, compared to numbers of shooters, which I would guess peaked in the 1970's.

We all need to check the data very carefully.