Sustainable ammunition articles

[scotslad]

But the toxicity of lead and any effects is not straight forward at all.

 

It all depends on the form the lead is in and how accessable that is to the body.

Lead in solid metal form is really very stable and not very easy for the body to absorb.

Lead has been used for hundreds of years and in the past many people would be eating far higher %s of shot meat with little I'll effect.

Has anyone studied the long term effect off steel shot in the body???

I've still too have it confirmed it's safe to go in an MRI scanner with steel shot inside u. ( I did think it was an exaggeration but been told it is a real issue)

 

In my old house had lead water pipes ( sure my nieghbours still will)

When I bought it water had sat in the pipe for about 7 months and a pipe god knows how old but house was 1870s so pretty old pipe.

Sent it away for testing for lead to qualify for a grant to replace it, lead levels hardly even registered and no where near the levels needed to get a grant.

Solid lead as just not as toxic as other forms off it

Very different if in a gaseous form like when it was in petrol/exhhaust fumes or paint fumes very accessible to the body and readily absorbed so can be dangerous in that form

[Walker570]

3 hours ago, scotslad said:

It's all very well going on about public perception BUT do u honestly think 90% of population really give a toss about lead shot???

Very few would ever eat game anyway.

 

Public perception is a problem but the problem is that shooting for fun is bad no ammount of BS about 'sustainable ammo will ever change that.

Lead is just an excuse to hit us with and considering even when Wet and r son went completely outside there remit to study lead in the human food chain and could find no real evidence for the LAG.

Basc have played right into there hands and shot ourselves in both feet while basc was stabbing us in back.

 

No offence Conor but if basc rolled u out and told me it was raining the 1st thing I'd do was look at the window.

Did u not also claim to have 'consulted' with the gun trsde??? Which they all denied

It's a sad day when after 35 odd years of membership u can't trust a word they say,, got more respect for r son now might not agree with wot they do but atleast they do it well.

 

Did the study say of the 1-3% of birds that may ingest shot was it enough to harm them???

Was there blood tested for lead levels?

There was a case for wildfowl for lead being banned but the same case just does not exist on dry land.

 

Enfield I would not be too quick to point the finger purely at big bag days, I know a few 30 bird DIY syndicates that can't get rid off birds either.

Guns just don't want them esp in feather

100% could not have put it better.

The Eley cartridges shown even if in 16 gauge would not be safe in my 100 year old gun.  It states the gun must have been nitro proofed for steel which mine is not.

12 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

And the ONLY reason that is now an issue is because of the "big bag" shoots that use as a justification for what they do the argument that what they shoot "goes into the food chain".

The shoot that shares its game...be that two hundred shot or more...between its guns, its beaters, its pickers-up and the rest goes to a traditional "fur and feather" sale at a local Cattle Market doesn't need to worry that it's bag has been shot with lead shot.

Yet because of these "big bag" shoots that, frankly, use pheasants as little more than feathered clay pigeons this problem has now arisen. The whole issue has been driven IMHO by the attempt of these "big bag" shoots to justify the massive release of put-down birds by their claims that this glut (that once shot, is so great that the shoot then can't be disposed of internally or through traditional outlets) "goes into the food chain".

As I have said steel shot will not save these enterprises as once the compensation claims start arriving thick and fast for teeth broken by steel shot the supermarkets will stop selling game shot with such.

100%

[Nuke]

1 hour ago, scotslad said:

I've still too have it confirmed it's safe to go in an MRI scanner with steel shot inside u. ( I did think it was an exaggeration but been told it is a real issue)

It is not safe, my girlfriend is a radiologist and they ALWAYS ask if you may have metallic particles inside you before an MRI.

If you say yes they will just send you home.

If they think you are lying to get the exam anyway they will do a normal x-ray to see for them self.

/Markus

Edited July 19, 2020 by Nuke

[scotslad]

Cheers nuke.

 

I was told it was just an old wives tale and part of the lies the lead boys spin.

 

To me it seem ironic to replace lead shot which has yet to be proven to be harmful in any way inside the body despite being used for hundreds of years for something that we already know will crack ur teeth and can be a hazard in MRI scans.

And that's before any long term studies have been done.

 

If u had to ask which poses the greatest risk I know wot I'd say.

Bloody ridiculuas situation to be in and our ' voice' led us here, just bonkers

[Stonepark]

15 hours ago, Scully said:

I only have a .22rf now, but it uses toxic lead ammunition. 
 

There is no non-toxic rifle ammunition, just armour piercing and semi armour piercing and repeating that to everyone who suggests non lead bullets and then explaining how soft lead is the best option, often pretty quickly brings them round, especially police and lawmakers.

[clangerman]

7 hours ago, scotslad said:

It's all very well going on about public perception BUT do u honestly think 90% of population really give a toss about lead shot???

Very few would ever eat game anyway.

 

Public perception is a problem but the problem is that shooting for fun is bad no ammount of BS about 'sustainable ammo will ever change that.

Lead is just an excuse to hit us with and considering even when Wet and r son went completely outside there remit to study lead in the human food chain and could find no real evidence for the LAG.

Basc have played right into there hands and shot ourselves in both feet while basc was stabbing us in back.

 

No offence Conor but if basc rolled u out and told me it was raining the 1st thing I'd do was look at the window.

Did u not also claim to have 'consulted' with the gun trsde??? Which they all denied

It's a sad day when after 35 odd years of membership u can't trust a word they say,, got more respect for r son now might not agree with wot they do but atleast they do it well.

 

Did the study say of the 1-3% of birds that may ingest shot was it enough to harm them???

Was there blood tested for lead levels?

There was a case for wildfowl for lead being banned but the same case just does not exist on dry land.

 

Enfield I would not be too quick to point the finger purely at big bag days, I know a few 30 bird DIY syndicates that can't get rid off birds either.

Guns just don't want them esp in feather

brilliantly put tried the lead debate at a social event soon as i showed them a few empty’s from the car nobody cared what we fired the problem for them was the plastic cases general everyone thought we are trying to pull a scam and they are right 

[Scully]

16 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

And the ONLY reason that is now an issue is because of the "big bag" shoots that use as a justification for what they do the argument that what they shoot "goes into the food chain".

The shoot that shares its game...be that two hundred shot or more...between its guns, its beaters, its pickers-up and the rest goes to a traditional "fur and feather" sale at a local Cattle Market doesn't need to worry that it's bag has been shot with lead shot.

Yet because of these "big bag" shoots that, frankly, use pheasants as little more than feathered clay pigeons this problem has now arisen. The whole issue has been driven IMHO by the attempt of these "big bag" shoots to justify the massive release of put-down birds by their claims that this glut (that once shot, is so great that the shoot then can't be disposed of internally or through traditional outlets) "goes into the food chain".

As I have said steel shot will not save these enterprises as once the compensation claims start arriving thick and fast for teeth broken by steel shot the supermarkets will stop selling game shot with such.

Not this old chestnut again please! It’s absolute codswallop and smacks of reverse snobbery in my opinion.

Commercial shooting is just that, commercial, it’s a business, big business. Those birds which are shot go into the food chain ( if you know otherwise then post the evidence...not some blurry images of the same birds trussed up and photographed from different angles, but real evidence that you didn’t hear from a mate in the pub whose second cousin knows a bloke who says his mate saw it ) whether that particular estate gets paid for them or not. If dealers won’t buy them, or pay a good price for them ( in any number ) because consumers perceive lead to be poison, then that’s it. If they won’t buy them because there are too many, then that’s a problem which needs to be rectified, but if you think changing to steel shot will determine policy then you’re very much mistaken, it’s still big business....a 500 bird day will still be a 500 bird day whether they’re shot with lead or steel. 
Modern day shooting is much more defensible today than it was by the standards back in the days when Lord Filthyrich invited his mates to his estate to shoot anything which moved, when their game books recorded masses of an array of not only flying quarry but of ground game also. 
You go and enjoy your days of driven game where everyone goes home with a brace or two ( as I will ) but don’t kid yourself that you’re any better than those who frequent big bag days.....you’re killing for exactly the same reason they are, for entertainment. It’s part of a grand social day out admittedly, on whatever scale , but for exactly the same reason. 
Justify that to your hypocritical self, or others. 
 

[Scully]

15 hours ago, Salopian said:

Scully,

 All valuable points that you have made , I could not agree more .

But that is not the issue , we do not have to kill obscene numbers of Game , we need to be sportsmen and shoot enough for our own consumption and that of friends . Which once again highlights the wrong direction that BASC sometimes take such as now pandering to the demands of the very large shoots and aligning with the Game Alliance which if it worked correctly would really be fantastic , but has the G.A. really had a good effect on the game marketing strategy?

I remember it wasn't so long ago that BASC were raising the issue of Caged bird rearing by the large producers , now surprise ,surprise they seem to be in bed with them!

Yet again, we don’t ‘NEED‘ to shoot any numbers at all, but we do because we enjoy it. It has nothing to with ‘sport’ either ( how I despise that term ) if you want to give those birds your shoot at for entertainment a ‘sporting chance’, use a single barrelled gun, or use a bow and arrow. 
Without those big commercial shoots none of us on this forum would be shooting live quarry; we wouldn’t survive without them. 
Admittedly, it can attract much criticism, but once commercial shooting has gone, what makes you believe the rest of us would survive? Go on, explain how we would survive. 

[islandgun]

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

Not this old chestnut again please! It’s absolute codswallop and smacks of reverse snobbery in my opinion.

Commercial shooting is just that, commercial, it’s a business, big business. Those birds which are shot go into the food chain ( if you know otherwise then post the evidence...not some blurry images of the same birds trussed up and photographed from different angles, but real evidence that you didn’t hear from a mate in the pub whose second cousin knows a bloke who says his mate saw it ) whether that particular estate gets paid for them or not. If dealers won’t buy them, or pay a good price for them ( in any number ) because consumers perceive lead to be poison, then that’s it. If they won’t buy them because there are too many, then that’s a problem which needs to be rectified, but if you think changing to steel shot will determine policy then you’re very much mistaken, it’s still big business....a 500 bird day will still be a 500 bird day whether they’re shot with lead or steel. 
Modern day shooting is much more defensible today than it was by the standards back in the days when Lord Filthyrich invited his mates to his estate to shoot anything which moved, when their game books recorded masses of an array of not only flying quarry but of ground game also. 
You go and enjoy your days of driven game where everyone goes home with a brace or two ( as I will ) but don’t kid yourself that you’re any better than those who frequent big bag days.....you’re killing for exactly the same reason they are, for entertainment. It’s part of a grand social day out admittedly, on whatever scale , but for exactly the same reason. 
Justify that to your hypocritical self, or others. 
 

And that is why shooting will be banned in this country. Mr and Mrs public cannot get their heads round people killing things for fun and while pressure groups lead by "lovable" tv personalities persuade them to part with their money to stop this evil, ozone depleting, countryside ruining practice, shooting will be killed off bit by bit 

[wymberley]

2 minutes ago, islandgun said:

And that is why shooting will be banned in this country. Mr and Mrs public cannot get their heads round people killing things for fun and while pressure groups lead by "lovable" tv personalities persuade them to part with their money to stop this evil, ozone depleting, countryside ruining practice, shooting will be killed off bit by bit 

Except for vermin control which will see a major sea change in legislation and any culling when deemed necessary which will be subject to stringent licensing. However, as things are at present this worst case scenario is not yet on the horizon and provided the one aspect that could change this remains dormant, we still have some time left.

[Terry2016]

4 hours ago, Nuke said:

It is not safe, my girlfriend is a radiologist and they ALWAYS ask if you may have metallic particles inside you before an MRI.

If you say yes they will just send you home.

If they think you are lying to get the exam anyway they will do a normal x-ray to see for them self.

/Markus

A number of factors help determine if an MRI is safe for you if you have pieces of metal in your body. They include where the metal is, its size, its shape, and whether it's near a vital organ or structure. At Yale Medicine, you might get an X-ray first to answer those questions. “The vast majority of the time, there’s no problem and we’ll go right ahead and do the MRI scan,” Dr. Weinreb says. But the scan may not be possible if the metal is lodged near the eye or an artery in the neck. In those situations, the danger is that the metal might heat up and damage sensitive tissues.

Basically they X-ray you first .... and in most cases never a problem it goes straight ahead.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Terry2016

[islandgun]

1 hour ago, wymberley said:

Except for vermin control which will see a major sea change in legislation and any culling when deemed necessary which will be subject to stringent licensing. However, as things are at present this worst case scenario is not yet on the horizon and provided the one aspect that could change this remains dormant, we still have some time left.

Agree with the vermin control. Can you say what aspect that is,  is it an aspect in favour of shooting or against ? pm if you would rather

[rbrowning2]

18 hours ago, holloway said:

I am sure that inside 5 years wads will become available as will shop bought cartridges, as for larger shot use and more recoil and worse patterns simply nonsense it can be soft on the shoulder lower recoil and better patterning especially with smaller shot .

Good point

You have lost me, simply nonsense how can it be “nonsense It can be softer on the shoulder lower recoil and better patterning especially with smaller shot”

 How can you go smaller shot with steel shot, you need to go two sizes bigger to reach similar mass to that of lead and the reason some say move away from CIP pressure limits is so they can obtain faster velocities to improve steel shots performance and as momentum is e=mc2 then the momentum and hence recoil must be more if the velocity is more.

Edited July 19, 2020 by rbrowning2

[Walker570]

Nobody has yet told me how many people have died from ingestation of lead shot in the last hundred years. All seem to avoid the question.    Obviously the whole essence of this change over to steel or non toxic is to save lives..... so how many to date ?   The areas I live in seem to have very similar levels of birds and animals that existed 50yrs ago. They have declined since my younger days in the 40s and 50s but that is mainly due to human population increase and farming activities encouraged after the last war .... produce more food they said.

[Scully]

33 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Nobody has yet told me how many people have died from ingestation of lead shot in the last hundred years. All seem to avoid the question.    Obviously the whole essence of this change over to steel or non toxic is to save lives..... so how many to date ?   The areas I live in seem to have very similar levels of birds and animals that existed 50yrs ago. They have declined since my younger days in the 40s and 50s but that is mainly due to human population increase and farming activities encouraged after the last war .... produce more food they said.

It isn’t being done to save lives; it is being done to improve the perception others have of shooting and shooters, and to try and improve the prospects of game being bought and consumed on a more regular basis. 
However, to market it as an elite luxury food by pricing it accordingly, and only affordable by those who shop at Waitrose etc, for example, would be detrimental to shooting. 

[JohnfromUK]

3 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

as momentum is e=mc2

Sorry - but that is utter rubbish!

Momentum is mass x velocity.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

E = MC2  (E = MC squared) is known as Einstein's equation and is completely unrelated!

Recoil is a MUCH more complex issue that just momentum, or indeed energy (although both are a part of it).

I think (are very much hope) that suitable biodegradable wad cartridges in a sensibly priced 'non lead' form will become available to suit older 2 1/2" chambered guns and the less common bore sizes.  Whether their performance will be satisfactory to give adequate 'clean kills' on game at normal 'sensible ranges' (i.e. say typically 25 - 35 yards and up to 40 yards) I don't know - and that worries me as an older gun user.  Personally, I have no interest in shooting out beyond 40 yards - my skills are not up to a decent humane kill at beyond 40 yards, but those who wish to shoot at the longer ranges will have to find a suitable non toxic cartridge, degradable wad - and gun to suit.

[holloway]

4 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

You have lost me, simply nonsense how can it be “nonsense It can be softer on the shoulder lower recoil and better patterning especially with smaller shot”

 How can you go smaller shot with steel shot, you need to go two sizes bigger to reach similar mass to that of lead and the reason some say move away from CIP pressure limits is so they can obtain faster velocities to improve steel shots performance and as momentum is e=mc2 then the momentum and hence recoil must be more if the velocity is more.

Sorry I lost you, just speak to any wildfowler  who has been using steel for years ,you can reduce the shot load fire lighter loads faster ,they don’t have to be mega fast ,in my experience the faster the cartridge the worse the patterns,I loaded some 1700 FPS shells thinking they would be the bees knees the recoil was awful and the patterns dire so never bothered against.Avoid heavy loads at all times it’s not necessary with steel. 

[Scully]

57 minutes ago, holloway said:

Sorry I lost you, just speak to any wildfowler  who has been using steel for years ,you can reduce the shot load fire lighter loads faster ,they don’t have to be mega fast ,in my experience the faster the cartridge the worse the patterns,I loaded some 1700 FPS shells thinking they would be the bees knees the recoil was awful and the patterns dire so never bothered against.Avoid heavy loads at all times it’s not necessary with steel. 

Like I’ve said before; not everyone wants to reload.

If I had to reload the amount of cartridges I got through each year, I wouldn’t have time to do much else. 

[rbrowning2]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

Sorry - but that is utter rubbish!

Momentum is mass x velocity.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

E = MC2  (E = MC squared) is known as Einstein's equation and is completely unrelated!

Recoil is a MUCH more complex issue that just momentum, or indeed energy (although both are a part of it).

I think (are very much hope) that suitable biodegradable wad cartridges in a sensibly priced 'non lead' form will become available to suit older 2 1/2" chambered guns and the less common bore sizes.  Whether their performance will be satisfactory to give adequate 'clean kills' on game at normal 'sensible ranges' (i.e. say typically 25 - 35 yards and up to 40 yards) I don't know - and that worries me as an older gun user.  Personally, I have no interest in shooting out beyond 40 yards - my skills are not up to a decent humane kill at beyond 40 yards, but those who wish to shoot at the longer ranges will have to find a suitable non toxic cartridge, degradable wad - and gun to suit.

Every force as an equal and opposite force for linear or kinetic energy that is e=mc2/2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

so the momentum is related to the kinetic energy, no kinetic energy then you have no momentum as the mass is at rest.

If an object strikes you, and convert its energy and momentum to you, the damage inflicted will depend on many factors. All other things being equal, however, we can conclude that the impact damage is predominantly due to the kinetic energy of the object, and much less due to the momentum of the object.

1 hour ago, holloway said:

Sorry I lost you, just speak to any wildfowler  who has been using steel for years ,you can reduce the shot load fire lighter loads faster ,they don’t have to be mega fast ,in my experience the faster the cartridge the worse the patterns,I loaded some 1700 FPS shells thinking they would be the bees knees the recoil was awful and the patterns dire so never bothered against.Avoid heavy loads at all times it’s not necessary with steel. 

JohnfromUK will not agree with you your 1700FPS should not have awful recoil but be soft.

Edited July 19, 2020 by rbrowning2

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Every force as an equal and opposite force for linear or kinetic energy that is e=mc2/2

That should read E = 1/2 x (mv squared)  - In other words V not C.  Substituting c instead of v has an entirely different meaning in physics or mathematics.

E = mc squared is Einstein's equation - see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

where c is the abbreviation for the speed of light.  (This has no relevance in shooting)

What you are saying is that pushing up the muzzle velocity for an identical weight of load pushes up the energy.  I agree

You also say every action has an equal reaction.  Again I agree.

But it has nothing to do with Einstein's equation.  For future reference;

Momentum is mass x velocity (P = m x v) where P is the symbol for momentum

Energy (kinetic energy) is  half the mass x the velocity squared E = 1/2 x m x (v squared)

Because energy depends on the mass - and the square of the velocity - I think you are trying to say that pushing the velocity up will disproportionally increase the recoil?  If so - again I agree.

It is difficult to put these things with the limited typeface characters we have ....... and I don't think we disagree about the fact that either (or both) higher mass or higher velocity will increase recoil.

For the same mass (i.e. load weight) of steel shot and the same muzzle velocity - the recoil will be the same.  The problems start because to get the same striking energy from an individual  steel pellet, it has to be bigger (hence going up a couple of sizes). 

[rbrowning2]

34 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

That should read E = 1/2 x (mv squared)  - In other words V not C.  Substituting c instead of v has an entirely different meaning in physics or mathematics.

E = mc squared is Einstein's equation - see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

where c is the abbreviation for the speed of light.  (This has no relevance in shooting)

What you are saying is that pushing up the muzzle velocity for an identical weight of load pushes up the energy.  I agree

You also say every action has an equal reaction.  Again I agree.

But it has nothing to do with Einstein's equation.  For future reference;

Momentum is mass x velocity (P = m x v) where P is the symbol for momentum

Energy (kinetic energy) is  half the mass x the velocity squared E = 1/2 x m x (v squared)

Because energy depends on the mass - and the square of the velocity - I think you are trying to say that pushing the velocity up will disproportionally increase the recoil?  If so - again I agree.

It is difficult to put these things with the limited typeface characters we have ....... and I don't think we disagree about the fact that either (or both) higher mass or higher velocity will increase recoil.

For the same mass (i.e. load weight) of steel shot and the same muzzle velocity - the recoil will be the same.  The problems start because to get the same striking energy from an individual  steel pellet, it has to be bigger (hence going up a couple of sizes). 

Think we got their and reached the same conclusion, which is the issue with steel shot in small gauge guns, you either use the same size shot as lead but have to up the velocity to that where the recoil is awful and probably outside CIP max or go up a couple of sizes in shot and then get a poor pattern. Quite possibly the extra strength required in a wad suitable for steel shot especially of the biodegradable type will even further reduce the shot capacity.  Just not convinced any lead shot ban is good news for small gauge guns.

Old but still some interesting reading on the subject at http://www.fourten.org.uk   

 

 

[holloway]

2 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

Every force as an equal and opposite force for linear or kinetic energy that is e=mc2/2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

so the momentum is related to the kinetic energy, no kinetic energy then you have no momentum as the mass is at rest.

If an object strikes you, and convert its energy and momentum to you, the damage inflicted will depend on many factors. All other things being equal, however, we can conclude that the impact damage is predominantly due to the kinetic energy of the object, and much less due to the momentum of the object.

JohnfromUK will not agree with you your 1700FPS should not have awful recoil but be soft.

Ok 

2 hours ago, Scully said:

Like I’ve said before; not everyone wants to reload.

If I had to reload the amount of cartridges I got through each year, I wouldn’t have time to do much else. 

Fair enough 

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, holloway said:

JohnfromUK will not agree with you your 1700FPS should not have awful recoil but be soft.

Recoil is complex because it depends on how you 'perceive' the event, which is more than just the energy - and includes how 'fast' that energy is transferred.

• My usual game load (in a light gun) is 26 grammes at a claimed 1450 fps (I had to look on manufacturers website).  Recoil is perceived as low.
• My usual clays load is 21 grammes at a claimed 1425 fps.  Recoil is perceived as low.
• Another brand clay load of 21 grammes at a claimed 1450 fps had a markedly higher perceived recoil

I suspect that powder burn speed differences alter the perceived recoil.

I would not wish to try 1700 fps in my light gun - it isn't what it is for, but would expect fierce recoil.

What I am personally awaiting for game is a non toxic factory load of about 26 to 28 grammes, fibre/bio degradable wad, 12 bore, 2 1/2 (up to 67 mm) case that will perform similarly to a lead load of 26 to 28 grammes. (i.e. provide decent kills to about 40 yards). The price should be not significantly greater than lead (steel should be cheaper as gramme for gramme it is a cheaper metal).  They should be usable in a standard UK 2 1/2" proofed gun without damage.  A requirement for less than half choke is acceptable.

[London Best]

9 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

What I am personally awaiting for game is a non toxic factory load of about 26 to 28 grammes, fibre/bio degradable wad, 12 bore, 2 1/2 (up to 67 mm) case that will perform similarly to a lead load of 26 to 28 grammes. (i.e. provide decent kills to about 40 yards). The price should be not significantly greater than lead (steel should be cheaper as gramme for gramme it is a cheaper metal).  They should be usable in a standard UK 2 1/2" proofed gun without damage.  A requirement for less than half choke is acceptable.

You and thousands of others John.

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, London Best said:

You and thousands of others John.

Yes, I'm sure that is the case - and if I seem to keep pushing a 'personal wish' it is because I do believe that (with perhaps minor variations) - there is a big market there.

The wildfowlers have already crossed this hurdle - and from what I read on these forums there are a lot of people who are quite comfortable with their new loads, which is good.  But they are slightly different in tending to have large capacity hardware - and many are also keen, knowledgeable and 'experimental' home loaders, so have developed their own specialised ammunition.  Whether they have accepted some performance 'shortfall' and altered their 'discretion' on long shots - I don't know, but I suspect that the 'culture' of responsibly making humane shots is strong in wildfowlers - and common sense is used.

The 'extreme high bird' faction also have heavy large capacity hardware - and in a way - the issue is slightly similar to wildfowlers - except that I suspect there are less home loaders, and per person, they probably use a lot more ammunition.  Whether they can get what they want is questionable - because steel being lighter than lead, will always be more of a challenge to retain the 'pellet energy' at extreme range.  The issue here is in the title 'extreme high bird' in that it is all about pushing the 'extreme' - and my own view is that steel will fall short here.

The huge majority of cartridges fired are at clays, pigeons, vermin and 'normal' game shoots.

Clays is (in my humble view) less important, because it is inherently a competition about your skill/ability/talent - and as ling as the rules are the same for everyone - the competition is still valid (not all may agree, but that is how I see it, but I do my clays only for a bit of fun).

Pigeons, game, vermin I see as being able to adapt provided a suitable cartridge can be developed.  I for one would be quite happy to leave a few more long birds to go on their way to retain the sports and have a great day out with friends - and a brace for the oven.  What I don't want is a cartridge that leaves me wounding birds (more than lead), damaging a much treasured old gun, and coming home at the end of the day feeling that the sport has been 'ruined'.

Would I buy a modern steel proofed 'game' gun?  Possibly, but I'm getting old - and those I have seen look to be heavier and quite a slower in handling - when I am at an age when I need something lighter to carry and that a fast handling that helps my ageing frame remain fast enough to still shoot reasonably.