The EU strikes again

[Rob85]

So the EU has decided that by 2023 lead shot cannot be used within 100m of a body of water. This will affect almost every shoot in the land well before BASC and the other orgs wanted the voluntary switch to non toxic to happen.

What do we reckon? Will we take on this with other EU laws after brexit or tell them to eff off?

[Farmboy91]

Hopefully the latter as it's ridiculously unworkable and they know it.

Its one of the biggest nails poised to go into the coffin by far.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Farmboy91
Spelling

[Shotkam]

Some of the best shoots in the land are based around water/ watercourses as are tens of thousands of rough shoots.

This is another good reason to leave !

[Rob85]

From what I've seen if you have so much as a puddle or standing water in your fields from rain you cannot use lead shot. The only reason this ticks me off so much is it's another EU over reach (funny it is called the reach comittee) into countries domestic affairs. Maybe the shooting orgs seen this coming and decided a 5 year transition would be better than the possibility of the british government just accepting this and having our hand forced in a rushed manner.

[rbrowning2]

It’s got a long way to go yet before it happens.

https://www.face.eu/2020/09/unworkable-proposal-on-restricting-lead-shot-over-wetlands-approved-by-eu-reach-committee/

[Walker570]

We are well out of that crazy bunch. I believe there is a sense of panic in Brussels as one or two other members are showing signs of looking for the exit. Unfortunately we have our share of idiots.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Rob85 said:

So the EU has decided that by 2023 lead shot cannot be used within 100m of a body of water. This will affect almost every shoot in the land well before BASC and the other orgs wanted the voluntary switch to non toxic to happen.

What do we reckon? Will we take on this with other EU laws after brexit or tell them to eff off?

If we want to sell shot game to the EU, then yes, we will ‘take on this’. 

[Jacko3275]

I guess it’s the way forward But I feel for you guys with older more elegant guns that will not take Steel and will only be useable on clay grounds till  lead is no longer aloud At all

[London Best]

And which older, more elegant guns do you think will not take a sensible load of steel if nitro proof?

[Scully]

14 minutes ago, Jacko3275 said:

I guess it’s the way forward But I feel for you guys with older more elegant guns that will not take Steel and will only be useable on clay grounds till  lead is no longer aloud At all

Any nitro proofed gun is capable of taking steel, regardless of age. 

[Walker570]

9 minutes ago, London Best said:

And which older, more elegant guns do you think will not take a sensible load of steel if nitro proof?

Well I would not put steel through my Army & Navy  Damascus 16 gauge even though it is proofed.  I have a sneaky suspicion that this no lead thing is not environmentally based. I believe there is a certain anti gun and anti field sport element here. They banned lead in projectiles in California and really are now chewing their lips because Barnes and one or two other bullet manufacturers devised and designed some superb all copper projectiles.

[Farmboy91]

1 minute ago, Walker570 said:

Well I would not put steel through my Army & Navy  Damascus 16 gauge even though it is proofed.  I have a sneaky suspicion that this no lead thing is not environmentally based. I believe there is a certain anti gun and anti field sport element here. They banned lead in projectiles in California and really are now chewing their lips because Barnes and one or two other bullet manufacturers devised and designed some superb all copper projectiles.

Spot on. I've only got about 150 acres but should this go into effect I would be able use lead on any of it.

An advert came up the other day from bio ammo for new bio rifle ammunition?

[matone]

7 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Well I would not put steel through my Army & Navy  Damascus 16 gauge even though it is proofed.  I have a sneaky suspicion that this no lead thing is not environmentally based. I believe there is a certain anti gun and anti field sport element here. They banned lead in projectiles in California and really are now chewing their lips because Barnes and one or two other bullet manufacturers devised and designed some superb all copper projectiles.

Did anyone really think its about the environment!!! Not a chance,it`s all a long game ,well thought out by the Euro greens/antis and executed very well through the corridors where they rule.

[Jacko3275]

7 minutes ago, Scully said:

Any nitro proofed gun is capable of taking steel, regardless of age. 

Oh ok I thought from reading what I read  some maybe on here as well that guns of a certain age would be no good to shoot steel 

[Walker570]

1 minute ago, Jacko3275 said:

Oh ok I thought from reading what I read  some maybe on here as well that guns of a certain age would be no good to shoot steel 

Well mine is 120yrs old and still shoots lead brilliantly and a joy to use. There is no way I would be stupid enough to put steel through it.  I have shot a small amount of bismuth with some success but I still have reservations about it's killing power compared with lead.

[Jacko3275]

Bismuth At a quid a shot bit out of my finances 

1 minute ago, Walker570 said:

Well mine is 120yrs old and still shoots lead brilliantly and a joy to use. There is no way I would be stupid enough to put steel through it.  I have shot a small amount of bismuth with some success but I still have reservations about it's killing power compared with lead.

 

[bluesj]

I think the rule of thumb is nitro proofed 1/2 choke or less and no bigger than no 4 shot and you are good to go.

For me its not the possible damage that steel could cause, but that steel may not be as good as lead at killing and that there are some question marks with the non plastic wads.

Edited September 8, 2020 by bluesj

[Rob85]

1 minute ago, Jacko3275 said:

Bismuth At a quid a shot bit out of my finances 

 

I bet all the usual £50 guns will go up in price because there will be people wanting to try steel through something else before trying their expensive guns. There are already Danish guys bashing lead through Damascus barrels without any trouble 

[London Best]

42 minutes ago, Jacko3275 said:

Bismuth At a quid a shot bit out of my finances 

 

For those who shoot game the cartridges are the least expensive part of a day out.

For example: a smallish day driven pheasant shooting costs circa £400. Plus a tip, say another £40. Plus travelling expenses. Say you were lucky enough to fire 2 boxes of cartridges at maybe £8/box, that’s another £16. If you were using bismuth then the cartridge cost would be £60, a difference of £44 on a day costing about £500. Not a deal breaker when looked at it like that, is it? And many days you may only shoot less than a box.

Edited September 8, 2020 by London Best

[Jacko3275]

15 minutes ago, London Best said:

For those who shoot game the cartridges are the least expensive part of a day out.

For example: a smallish day driven pheasant shooting costs circa £400. Plus a tip, say another £40. Plus travelling expenses. Say you were lucky enough to fire 2 boxes of cartridges at maybe £8/box, that’s another £16. If you were using bismuth then the cartridge cost would be £60, a difference of £44 on a day costing about £500. Not a deal breaker when looked at it like that, is it? And many days you may only shoot less than a box.

But sat in a field shooting a pigeons totally different story

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Jacko3275 said:

Oh ok I thought from reading what I read  some maybe on here as well that guns of a certain age would be no good to shoot steel 

The only hindrance steel imparts to traditional game guns of any age, is that the correct chamber length in steel cartridges isn’t as yet commercially available. 
Steel proof is no guarantee of an undamaged barrel, that is entirely  down to the wad/cup. 

[London Best]

I believe Eley have just produced Grand Prix Steel in 2 1/2 inch

[Scully]

1 hour ago, London Best said:

I believe Eley have just produced Grand Prix Steel in 2 1/2 inch

Good to go then! 🙂👍

[Vince Green]

What constitutes "A body of water"? it has to be defined

[udderlyoffroad]

18 hours ago, London Best said:

For example: a smallish day driven pheasant shooting costs circa £400. Plus a tip, say another £40. Plus travelling expenses. Say you were lucky enough to fire 2 boxes of cartridges at maybe £8/box, that’s another £16. If you were using bismuth then the cartridge cost would be £60, a difference of £44 on a day costing about £500. Not a deal breaker when looked at it like that, is it? And many days you may only shoot less than a box.

Ha!  My DIY syndicate costs £400 a year for 10 days; though I doubt I go through a slab of Carts each year.   A day's driven shooting means different things to different people, and yes, I'm well aware that all I've done is substituted cost to me for my time (which also has a cost).

 

Back on topic, I've just lost 15mins of my life reading the UK's intended position on REACH regs

One saliant quote

Quote

As the UK will be operating an independent regulatory system, UK downstream users will no longer be able to rely on EU REACH authorisation decisions addressed to companies in the EU/ EEA from 1 January 2021.

So, the UK doesn't have to adopt these regs, if they do indeed become law.  That is, become an EU directive, which would be incorporated into UK law by virtue of a Statutory Instrument.

 

16 hours ago, Vince Green said:

What constitutes "A body of water"? it has to be defined

 

According to the BASC news article:

Quote

The EU REACH committee voted for a restriction of lead shot over wetlands that when enacted would see a buffer zone of 100m around any body of water, no matter the size, and all peatlands.

 

Even if we stay in the EU, the UK is already in a position where local law (English, Scots, NI) complies effectively with the the spirit of the proposed regulations but not the letter.  Therefore, in a sensible world, nothing would need done.  This being the UK however, the regulations would be gold plated, enforced immediately and harshly, whilst the rest of the EU just adopts regs as and when they see fit.  (this is is in part why Brexit happened of course...).

Short story long, the risk here is that UK civil servants will just carry on as if we are still in the EU....