Jump to content

All quite on the Lead Shot Front


Recommended Posts

BASC now agree with me. Thank god.

The 15 year plan is what BASC was talking about behind closed doors, I hope they have now dropped this idea and going to fight with the rest of us shooters. The reasons for not proceeding is what I've been saying for 5 years. At last.

-------------------------------------------------------------

BASC has welcomed the decision of the Austrian Ministry of the Environment to stop pursuing a phasing out of lead ammunition.

The Austrian government had been urged to phase out lead ammunition because of the pollution caused by lead ammunition at rifle ranges, the dangers to raptors feeding on carrion and the potential contamination of venison.

After considering the proposal to phase out lead ammunition the Environment Ministry has announced that it will not proceed for the following reasons:

• There is a lack of ammunition with similar or better performance than lead
• The change would have a massive economic impact on industry which would require 15 years to get rid of current stocks of lead ammunition.
• There are no alternative loads for a whole range of calibres, as a result 30% of privately owned firearms in Austria can only be used with lead ammunition
• This would have the damaging effect of reducing the value of private property.

Other arguments are estimates of a threefold increase in price of ammunition and the fact that lead dispersed in the environment through ammunition represents only two per cent, the rest being caused by the illegal disposal of car batteries.

Alan Jarrett, chairman of BASC, the UK’s largest shooting organisation with a membership of over 140,000, said: “We are pleased that Austria has decided to call a halt to these plans. Thorough consideration has obviously been given to the decision and the right outcome has been achieved.”

Edited by gunsmoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I totally agree that shooters need to back up their organisations to continue to fight, but when it turns out that shooters end up having to fight the very organisation which is supposed to be representing them, then basically we're ********. How many organisations have sprung into being simply because some have felt under-represented by the one they are a member of, or because they have wholeheartedly disagreed with policy decisions?

We already have a partial lead ban in existence; where was the opposition to this, and why now are we having to fight the very people who have for years been telling us they represent us? It beggars belief, it really does. Those who oppose us must be wetting themselves with laughter. What is going on, does anyone know?

The one thing I'd say Scully is that it's entirely possible (likely, in my opinion) that JS/JH were operating with zero regard for BASC in their LAG contributions, knowing that retirement was looming. Looking at BASC historically, their record on defending against restrictive legislation is poor - whether you believe matters are always going to be outside their control is a matter of opinion, but I believe it to be the case and that's why I'm in favour of amalgamating the organisations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

BASC now agree with me. Thank god.

The 15 year plan is what BASC was talking about behind closed doors, I hope they have now dropped this idea and going to fight with the rest of us shooter. The reasons for not proceeding is what I've been saying for 5 years. At last.

-------------------------------------------------------------

BASC has welcomed the decision of the Austrian Ministry of the Environment to stop pursuing a phasing out of lead ammunition.

The Austrian government had been urged to phase out lead ammunition because of the pollution caused by lead ammunition at rifle ranges, the dangers to raptors feeding on carrion and the potential contamination of venison.

After considering the proposal to phase out lead ammunition the Environment Ministry has announced that it will not proceed for the following reasons:

• There is a lack of ammunition with similar or better performance than lead

• The change would have a massive economic impact on industry which would require 15 years to get rid of current stocks of lead ammunition.

• There are no alternative loads for a whole range of calibres, as a result 30% of privately owned firearms in Austria can only be used with lead ammunition

• This would have the damaging effect of reducing the value of private property.

Other arguments are estimates of a threefold increase in price of ammunition and the fact that lead dispersed in the environment through ammunition represents only two per cent, the rest being caused by the illegal disposal of car batteries.

Alan Jarrett, chairman of BASC, the UK’s largest shooting organisation with a membership of over 140,000, said: “We are pleased that Austria has decided to call a halt to these plans. Thorough consideration has obviously been given to the decision and the right outcome has been achieved.”

 

Dumped car batteries are more polluting that lead shot. Well, that spells it out.

What surprises me about the above is that the Austrian government appears to have rejected lead shot restrictions on the basis, more or less, of projected detrimental economic effects on the gun trade, whereas we're quibbling over the science of lead ingestion...I wonder why the LAG hasn't put all of this into context, insomuch as questioning the distribution of lead shot in comparison to the distribution of other polluting factors? If lead shot is now a genuine concern, surely the WWT/RSPB must have instigated the creation of a DCBG (Dumped Car Battery Group) in the past? No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing I'd say Scully is that it's entirely possible (likely, in my opinion) that JS/JH were operating with zero regard for BASC in their LAG contributions, knowing that retirement was looming. Looking at BASC historically, their record on defending against restrictive legislation is poor - whether you believe matters are always going to be outside their control is a matter of opinion, but I believe it to be the case and that's why I'm in favour of amalgamating the organisations.

Would have to agree with much of this, and while I'm totally anti anything but lead, I can't rubbish steel on the grounds it is ineffective, it isn't.

I sincerely hope common sense prevails in this matter, I really do, but UK shooting legislation is riddled with many examples of a lack of common sense and illogicality, so we'll have to wait and see.

As much as an amalgamation of shooting organisations makes sense, it aint gonna happen I'm afraid, ever. But that's for another topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still it would seem nobody cares what muzzleloaders will shoot with! I am not alone you know! There are thousands of us!

Do they really think we will just stop! Because they say so lol.

 

I'm with on Muzzle loading just not had a chance to bring it up on here. I run a black powder stand at the Barbury School School every year but this will be stop if there was a lead ban, not able to use steel in muzzle loader.

 

As much as an amalgamation of shooting organisations makes sense, it aint gonna happen I'm afraid, ever. But that's for another topic.

 

I try to get something off the ground but not one of the guys I talked to wanted to work with BASC they no long trust them.

Edited by gunsmoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with on Muzzle loading just not had a chance to bring it up on here. I run a black powder stand at the Barbury School School every year but this will be stop if there was a lead ban, not able to use steel in muzzle loader.

 

Why can't steel be used in muzzle loaders? The barrels are just a tube the same as a breech loader, and with a totally enclosed wad you should be able to shoot steel through either (all of) them!

Don't get me wrong I am totally in favour of fighting to save lead but surely this arguement will not stand up to scrutiny?

Edited by panoma1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Velocity, low velocity from front stuffers.

So it's not that you can't use steel, it's just ineffective through a muzzle loader?............I can understand that! Ta!

 

Always best to be accurate when using a statement to either go on the attack or establish a defence! Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's not that you can't use steel, it's just ineffective through a muzzle loader?............I can understand that! Ta!

Always best to be accurate when using a statement to either go on the attack or establish a defence! Lol

 

A thousand fps would be tops see!

Edited by Underdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can not use steel in muzzle loaders because the plastic wad does not load from the muzzle. The plastic would burn, how do you know the shot is all in the cup and you can not get a gas tight seal with plastic wads. The Black powder burns all the way up the barrel where the Nitros burn in the first foot.

 

And any way Harradine says you can not use steel in damascus barrels. So it must be right. NOT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can not use steel in muzzle loaders because the plastic wad does not load from the muzzle. The plastic would burn, how do you know the shot is all in the cup and you can not get a gas tight seal with plastic wads. The Black powder burns all the way up the barrel where the Nitros burn in the first foot.

 

And any way Harradine says you can not use steel in damascus barrels. So it must be right. NOT!

You don't need a plastic wad! Totally enclosed paper wad cups over felt and a card gas seal wad would protect the bores....no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need a plastic wad! Totally enclosed paper wad cups over felt and a card gas seal wad would protect the bores....no?

 

Steel loads best perform at high speed, most muzzleloading guns are black powder proof only, and black powder burns slowly.

I reckon someone out there has developed a good steel load for black powder - there must be an American who's beavered away at it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will BASC do David if the LAG recommend a lead shot ban in their final report to DEFRA/FSA ?

I sincerely hope they throw their entire weight against it - that's what their Media Centre is for - national newspapers, campaigns, marches, rallies, the lot.

Again they should be lobbying....NOW...for Defra to disband the LAG on the basis of the abuses of due process and the impartiality of the Chairman. Go on the offensive for a change, there are votes to be won and a membership to retain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record I used some steel in a flintlock last September. I used a card wrap. It was two shots and I wounded two ducks! I won't do it again. I will hunt duck though! Humanely!

 

A plastic wad can be used but use a lubricated fibre wad under it to act as a fire wall. 1/4" thick is plenty.

 

I just don't recommend it, in the interests of the duck!

 

U.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cookoff013

Just for the record I used some steel in a flintlock last September. I used a card wrap. It was two shots and I wounded two ducks! I won't do it again. I will hunt duck though! Humanely!

 

A plastic wad can be used but use a lubricated fibre wad under it to act as a fire wall. 1/4" thick is plenty.

 

I just don't recommend it, in the interests of the duck!

 

U.

 

now ud what is that supposed to mean?

you want to get yourself a good old traditional 3.5" benelli and some decent steel shells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cookoff013

It means common sense will prevail!

 

3&1/2"! Over my dead body!

 

nb, you could get some niceshot and just use that, that should be good enough for WF. its premium stuff. got a price tag to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...