if its the end of lead, what about .410's

[Scully]

48 minutes ago, wymberley said:

I'm wondering if the "pitiful" relates to density and not quality of distribution. The shot sizes shown are English and for a knowledgeable 410 shooter who knows its limits there should be no problem. Consequently, this doesn't concern me. What does to an extent, is the pricing that the same poster identifies. Now, I don't know but will find out whether or not we're actually looking at an advert. If so, fine, but should the piece be an article by - or with the approval of - BASC then that is an altogether different ballpark  and reflects the direction that the Organisation is taking its members - those for whom c£1500 is acceptably "affordable" anyway - all the others will have left 'ere long.

I have no idea. I’m not concerned about the price at all, as I won’t be buying them at that price.
My post was referring to the assumptions made by enfieldspares regarding the effectiveness of the loads, based on an advert! 
His hostility is understandable, but if antis had made such claims about a shooting ad’ that they had no knowledge of based on nothing more than their hostility towards shooting, then we wouldn’t be too amused, and rightly so. I was hoping we were better than that. 
My experience of Bismuth is limited admittedly, and only in 12 bore, but that experience was anything but negative. 

[enfieldspares]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

My post was referring to the assumptions made by enfieldspares regarding the effectiveness of the loads, based on an advert! 
 

I take your point but from my experience if over thirty yards range then 28 grams of lead #6 (approx 270 pellets) isn't a dense enough pattern on woodcock in a normally bored game gun of say IMP and IMP in both barrels. And if you are walking them up the problem is even worse.

I am told that in 28 grams of bismuth #5 there are 258 pellets. Yes. You could get a denser pattern of the gun were more tightly choked but at some point that tighter choking will render the gun unsuitable for steel shot. And in 16 bore or 20 bore the pattern will have more holes in it than a old dishcloth.

And as to cost at £1.30 a "pop" the cost of letting a young shot having a day at decoyed pigeon with a .410" will be eye watering. And if there's a ban on lead even for clay shooting I am unaware of a steel alternative for the .410"? As another said on another forum. Well I guess by 9 May we'll know what's proposed. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by enfieldspares

[Old farrier]

Well at £1.30 a shot there hardly affordable and as for effective I shall have to try a box before I comment on that fortunately most 410 shotguns are on the tighter choke side I’ve ordered one box and will let you know what it patterns like 👍

also thinking it’s not good to compare them with the pattern from a 12 

I do believe that the Americans have developed a steel load for the 410 although it’s a plastic wad 

im awaiting further development 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

I take your point but from my experience if over thirty yards range then 28 grams of lead #6 (approx 270 pellets) isn't a dense enough pattern on woodcock in a normally bored game gun of say IMP and IMP in both barrels. And if you are walking them up the problem is even worse.

I am told that in 28 grams of bismuth #5 there are 258 pellets. Yes. You could get a denser pattern of the gun were more tightly choked but at some point that tighter choking will render the gun unsuitable for steel shot. And in 16 bore or 20 bore the pattern will have more holes in it than a old dishcloth.

And as to cost at £1.30 a "pop" the cost of letting a young shot having a day at decoyed pigeon with a .410" will be eye watering. And if there's a ban on lead even for clay shooting I am unaware of a steel alternative for the .410"? As another said on another forum. Well I guess by 9 May we'll know what's proposed. 

Fair enough, I agree with your remarks regarding cost, but you made no reference to cost in your post, just the effectiveness of the loads. 
If you use standard steel you can go up to full choke, so that argument is meaningless, and given steel in general patterns tighter than lead anyhow, you possibly wouldn’t need to tighten those chokes, and all this despite many guns proofed for nitro are being sent for steel shot proofing, so what does that tell you?

I totally get the resentment, I really do, and given the choice I’d keep lead, but it’s going and the sooner folk accept that the sooner they can start making the most of what is available to us.
People are so intent on finding fault to the extent they seem only to be able to respond in a negative manner. It’s time to learn to use shotgun non lead alternatives because lead shot is going, and it ain’t coming back. 
 

[Old farrier]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Fair enough, I agree with your remarks regarding cost, but you made no reference to cost in your post, just the effectiveness of the loads. 
If you use standard steel you can go up to full choke, so that argument is meaningless, and given steel in general patterns tighter than lead anyhow, you possibly wouldn’t need to tighten those chokes, and all this despite many guns proofed for nitro are being sent for steel shot proofing, so what does that tell you?

I totally get the resentment, I really do, and given the choice I’d keep lead, but it’s going and the sooner folk accept that the sooner they can start making the most of what is available to us.
People are so intent on finding fault to the extent they seem only to be able to respond in a negative manner. It’s time to learn to use shotgun non lead alternatives because lead shot is going, and it ain’t coming back. 
 

Can you really use standard steel in a full choke 410 not sure how anyone can be 100% sure until there’s a commercial load available
 

as a note I’m trying and have been experimenting with the alternatives for some time with mixed results 

[Stonepark]

Currently, bulk, lead is £1900\t, Bismuth is £5,250\t, even allowing for different processing to make shot, it does not justify the retail price of Bismuth shot of £49,000\t.

Lyalvale Supreme 19g 76mm 410 cartridges at JC are £409\1000.

Lead Shot value per 1000 from C&G is £79.80

Replacement 16g Bismuth per 1000 from C&G is £740.70.

But going on above C&G figures alone, 410 is horrendously over priced.

£409 -£79.80 + £790.08 = £1119.38

How do they get to £1365?

Simple, the profit is not a fixed overhead (such as £5 per box or £200\1000) but a percentage of cost, which increases as the base cost rises (I.e 100% of of £170 manufacturing cost is £170, + 100% =£340 plus vat =  £409 but a 100% of £559 "maufacturing cost" + 100% = £1137 plus vat £1365.

In reality, Lyalvale will be paying £2.50\kg for lead shot and £20\kg for Bismuth shot at worst.

Retail Cost for 16g Bismuth 410 should be circa £700\1000 and that still includes a healthy profit similar to that of the 19g lead road (if not more) if manufacturers were playing fair and actual competition existed.

4 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Can you really use standard steel in a full choke 410 not sure how anyone can be 100% sure until there’s a commercial load available
 

as a note I’m trying and have been experimenting with the alternatives for some time with mixed results 

I wouldn't, especially the way some of those chokes are formed.

You also don't need choke as such under 30 yards (steels realistic max range from a 410) as the pattern spread barely exceeds 30 inches with Improved Cylinder at 30 yards.

[Old farrier]

21 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Currently, bulk, lead is £1900\t, Bismuth is £5,250\t, even allowing for different processing to make shot, it does not justify the retail price of Bismuth shot of £49,000\t.

Lyalvale Supreme 19g 76mm 410 cartridges at JC are £409\1000.

Lead Shot value per 1000 from C&G is £79.80

Replacement 16g Bismuth per 1000 from C&G is £740.70.

But going on above C&G figures alone, 410 is horrendously over priced.

£409 -£79.80 + £790.08 = £1119.38

How do they get to £1365?

Simple, the profit is not a fixed overhead (such as £5 per box or £200\1000) but a percentage of cost, which increases as the base cost rises (I.e 100% of of £170 manufacturing cost is £170, + 100% =£340 plus vat =  £409 but a 100% of £559 "maufacturing cost" + 100% = £1137 plus vat £1365.

In reality, Lyalvale will be paying £2.50\kg for lead shot and £20\kg for Bismuth shot at worst.

Retail Cost for 16g Bismuth 410 should be circa £700\1000 and that still includes a healthy profit similar to that of the 19g lead road (if not more) if manufacturers were playing fair and actual competition existed.

I wouldn't, especially the way some of those chokes are formed.

You also don't need choke as such under 30 yards (steels realistic max range from a 410) as the pattern spread barely exceeds 30 inches with Improved Cylinder at 30 yards.

Many thanks for your reply it would seem there’s a possibility of a lot of profit going to be made out of this transition 

I shan’t be firing steel through my fixed (tight ) choke 4.10 at the moment 

 

 

[Scully]

29 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Can you really use standard steel in a full choke 410 not sure how anyone can be 100% sure until there’s a commercial load available
 

as a note I’m trying and have been experimenting with the alternatives for some time with mixed results 

According to official guidance/advice regarding steel shot, standard steel can be used in any choke. 
 

[Old farrier]

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

According to official guidance/advice regarding steel shot, standard steel can be used in any choke. 
 

In any caliber shotgun?

I can find plenty of references for 12 bore however 410 ………I’m still looking 

[Scully]

54 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

In any caliber shotgun?

I can find plenty of references for 12 bore however 410 ………I’m still looking 

I can’t see why it should be bore specific; logic would mean it’s all relevant. If you can’t put steel through a .410 then I can’t think why they would be trying to develop loads for them, as every .410 I’ve come across has been choked full. 🤷‍♂️
 

[Stonepark]

1 hour ago, Old farrier said:

In any caliber shotgun?

I can find plenty of references for 12 bore however 410 ………I’m still looking 

Standard steel in .729 12b (18.52mm) can only have shot up to no4 3.25mm, any larger is classed as HP.

Standard steel in .615 20b (15.62mm) can only have shot up to no6 2.6mm.

 

The equivalent in 410 (10.414mm) would only be 1.76mm or no12 if you go by the same, so all 410 steel cartridges will be classed as HP.

Effectively, they seem to be classing any shot that can bridge the bore in 5 pellets or less as HP.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Stonepark

[Old farrier]

9 minutes ago, Scully said:

I can’t see why it should be bore specific; logic would mean it’s all relevant. If you can’t put steel through a .410 then I can’t think why they would be trying to develop loads for them, as every .410 I’ve come across has been choked full. 🤷‍♂️
 

It’s not about logic it’s about ballistics and pressure the 410 works at higher pressure and the shot column is longer and thinner this creates problems 

As I said earlier they are trying to develop a steel load in America weather they will achieve it who knows 

see above stonepark has explained it better 

many thanks ^^^^^

 

[Old farrier]

17 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Standard steel in .729 12b (18.52mm) can only have shot up to no4 3.25mm, any larger is classed as HP.

Standard steel in .615 20b (15.62mm) can only have shot up to no6 2.6mm.

 

The equivalent in 410 (10.414mm) would only be 1.76mm or no12 if you go by the same, so all 410 steel cartridges will be classed as HP.

Effectively, they seem to be classing any shot that can bridge the bore in 5 pellets or less as HP.

Many thanks 😊 

[Scully]

50 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

It’s not about logic it’s about ballistics and pressure the 410 works at higher pressure and the shot column is longer and thinner this creates problems 

 

I don’t see what relevance the classification of shot size has in reality, it’s based on shot size and I’m pretty sure a home loader could create an HP load regardless of shot size. It is also said you can’t put HP steel through a non steel shot proofed gun, but you can; I’ve been doing it for years and I’m not the only one. 
When I first started using steel shot I wasn’t even aware there was such a thing as standard steel, and just used Gamebore Super steel 3’s and 4’s in my old 101 Winchesters because that was all that was available to me.  No one told me I shouldn’t or couldn’t. 
Logic ( again ) dictates that if you can have your nitro only proofed gun submitted for steel shot proofing, then it’s obviously capable of shooting it. Nothing about that gun or it’s barrels is  changed, all that happens is it is proofed to a higher degree. 
To my mind you ( and all of us really ) have three choices; either submit your .410 for steel shot proofing ( and thereby prove to yourself that you needn’t have bothered because it was capable all the time ) or just put steel shot through it, or just don’t use it. 
If you won’t put steel through it and no concessions are made for .410 ( and I can’t think why there would be ) then  once lead goes, it’s obsolete. I suppose an alternative is to have the choke taken out as steel shot ( with plastic wads anyhow ) patterns  tighter; but it still won’t be proofed for steel. 🤷‍♂️ Quandary. 

[wymberley]

10 hours ago, Scully said:

I don’t see what relevance the classification of shot size has in reality, it’s based on shot size and I’m pretty sure a home loader could create an HP load regardless of shot size. It is also said you can’t put HP steel through a non steel shot proofed gun, but you can; I’ve been doing it for years and I’m not the only one. 
When I first started using steel shot I wasn’t even aware there was such a thing as standard steel, and just used Gamebore Super steel 3’s and 4’s in my old 101 Winchesters because that was all that was available to me.  No one told me I shouldn’t or couldn’t. 
Logic ( again ) dictates that if you can have your nitro only proofed gun submitted for steel shot proofing, then it’s obviously capable of shooting it. Nothing about that gun or it’s barrels is  changed, all that happens is it is proofed to a higher degree. 
To my mind you ( and all of us really ) have three choices; either submit your .410 for steel shot proofing ( and thereby prove to yourself that you needn’t have bothered because it was capable all the time ) or just put steel shot through it, or just don’t use it. 
If you won’t put steel through it and no concessions are made for .410 ( and I can’t think why there would be ) then  once lead goes, it’s obsolete. I suppose an alternative is to have the choke taken out as steel shot ( with plastic wads anyhow ) patterns  tighter; but it still won’t be proofed for steel. 🤷‍♂️ Quandary. 

Aaah, bliss!

Nothing to do with the quoted post or even this thread, but I can't help getting the idea that we're talking ourselves into a  total ban instead of targeting specific exemptions where there is no evidence of a requirement for further change.

[Fellside]

It is reasonable to demand that the so called decision makers allow for a special derogation re using a 410 and lead shot for certain vermin control circumstances. This could be with consideration for steel shot having the propensity to rebound off stoney ground or buildings etc. The HSE (one of the key protagonists in this debacle) should be made aware of these risks. Additionally, it could be argued that the 410 is ballistically unsuitable for the larger steel shot required for humane lethality. Therefore there may be a robust rationale for the continuance of lead shot - especially in the absence of any affordable alternative. Bearing in mind the moderated 410 is often a necessary tool in some circumstances, I would hope….I say HOPE… that this is born out in policy. 

If key decision makers have any sense of being connected with the shooting community, and that is a big if, they (or probably their researchers and info gatherers) should be looking at the main representative forums such as PW. If any of them are…..hello and welcome….. please would they kindly take note of my points. 

I will of course be putting these points to my local MP (and shooting org’). I would urge others to do similar. 

[8 shot]

15 minutes ago, Fellside said:

If key decision makers have any sense of being connected with the shooting community, and that is a big if, they (or probably their researchers and info gatherers) should be looking at the main representative forums such as PW. If any of them are…..hello and welcome….. please would they kindly take note of my points. 

I will of course be putting these points to my local MP (and shooting org’). I would urge others to do similar. 

The BASC have reps that post regularly on here and to be fair to one, we exchange several emails when this first started, and to his credit we had a phone conversation for over an hour, out of his hours on a Saturday afternoon. So they are hearing what’s being said. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Shame they don't appear to be taking any notice!

[Fellside]

50 minutes ago, 8 shot said:

The BASC have reps that post regularly on here and to be fair to one, we exchange several emails when this first started, and to his credit we had a phone conversation for over an hour, out of his hours on a Saturday afternoon. So they are hearing what’s being said. 

Hi 8 shot, thanks for that. Yes it’s encouraging that BASC are engaged. I have had similar ‘off-line’ conversations myself. I was rather hoping that policy decision makers and those involved in the REACH initiative, particularly the HSE, would take note. 

[Stonepark]

https://consultations.hse.gov.uk/crd-reach/restriction-proposals-004/consultation/intro/

 

Have started a seperate thread for the consultation!

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Stonepark

[Fellside]

6 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

https://consultations.hse.gov.uk/crd-reach/restriction-proposals-004/consultation/intro/

 

Thanks Stonepark - hugely useful. I’m sure a lot of people will be completing this quick questionnaire about the REACH proposals. I would still urge all concerned to send emails to MPs, as there needs to be some chatter and awareness ‘in the house’. Some MPs will not even be aware of this issue. Is it worth a 2 minute couple of sentences? They need to feel some constituent pressure. They certainly won’t act without it…..!!!!

[London Best]

2 hours ago, Fellside said:

researchers and info gatherers) should be looking at the main representative forums such as PW. 

That one sentence makes me really glad BASC will be representing us!

[Fellside]

1 hour ago, London Best said:

That one sentence makes me really glad BASC will be representing us!

Now now….it’s not like you to be cynical LB…..😆

[Scully]

4 hours ago, wymberley said:

Aaah, bliss!

Nothing to do with the quoted post or even this thread, but I can't help getting the idea that we're talking ourselves into a  total ban instead of targeting specific exemptions where there is no evidence of a requirement for further change.

Yes, ignorance is bliss. However, I would have still used it ( and continue to do so ) because it is obvious they were capable of handling it for the reasons I’ve already given many times. We just need to take the time to think it through.

As for .410, I genuinely hope they are exempt; but to what end? You won’t be able to use lead through them on game because the proposed ban doesn’t differentiate between game for the pot and game for commercial sale, which is a major oversight ( but no doubt a deliberate one for obvious reasons ) in my opinion, so you’re back to non toxic again. 🤷‍♂️

[bostonmick]

if lead is banned i doubt any maker would be interested in making 410 alone as the price is stupid now cant imagine what the cost would have to be if the only guage they could use lead in was that.