BASC position on lead ammunition restriction proposals

[London Best]

2 minutes ago, holloway said:

Having read a lot of the complete tosh on this thread a good job they didn’t consult there membership .

I’ve said that since the start of the phase out saga!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

11 minutes ago, holloway said:

Having read a lot of the complete tosh on this thread a good job they didn’t consult there membership .

Why?

Because their members might have said no?

[enfieldspares]

11 hours ago, Scully said:

You mean the same law that it is widely claimed by many finger pointers, that hasn’t prevented game shooters shooting wildfowl with lead? That one? 
Who is going to police legislation so easily prone to non compliance? Do you know just how many shoots take place nationwide throughout the week during the game season? 

Again right 100%. I find it rather discomfiting, yet also reassuring, that I find myself agreeing. If lead is available for clay target shooting then sure as eggs it'll also be used for everything else. And some folk no doubt will load once fired bismuth overprinted cases with lead shot.

[holloway]

53 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Why?

Because their members might have said no?

Just read through this thread .

[Graham M]

At the beginning of this thread (before it descended into a bare knuckle fight) I had hoped to explain and to try to show why different shooting disciplines need to continue to use lead. I had hoped to continue onto muzzle loading as I also use a Pietta Remington 1858 ML revolver in .44 cal, as well as a Pedersoli Mortimer flintlock in .54 cal.  Is there suitable alternative ball for this type of firearm or is this something that is going fall by the wayside as well??

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Graham M

[8 shot]

As said by many before me, the problem is how do your A,B and C class shooter become AAA class and Olympic standard shooter. There wouldn’t be a competitive field. It already been said Small bore and Air rifles competitions become all about luck 

[Scully]

6 hours ago, Graham M said:

At the beginning of this thread (before it descended into a bare knuckle fight) I had hoped to explain and to try to show why different shooting disciplines need to continue to use lead. I had hoped to continue onto muzzle loading as I also use a Pietta Remington 1858 ML revolver in .44 cal, as well as a Pedersoli Mortimer flintlock in .54 cal.  Is there suitable alternative ball for this type of firearm or is this something that is going fall by the wayside as well??

 

If lead presents the level of risk it is claimed it does, then yes, in my opinion it should be the end of muzzle loaders if no non toxic alternative is available, especially given that most BP users in my experience riddled the back stop for spent lead, and then sat in lead fumed sheds casting their own on a winters night with nought else to do. 🙂 They missed out that question in the HSE consultation didn’t they! 
Saying that, whilst filling out that very amateurish and somewhat naive questionnaire, I came across the question ‘do muzzle loading re-enactors use live ammunition?’ so I’m not too sure the HSE are really the ones who should be running this consultation! 
Anyhow, logic dictates they have to go. 
Saying all that, what I really think what will happen, is that exemptions will be made for muzzle loaders mainly due to the fact that I seriously doubt this government can be bothered with another compensation bill….but I may be wrong as nowadays this minority within a minority won’t present the government with too much of a bill, given that a ‘buy back’ scheme has already been mooted for lead projectiles….back door ban? 
Exemptions exist for classic cars which run off leaded fuel, spreading their toxins for all and sundry to breathe in, but the same exemptions don’t exist for classic handguns, so who knows? 
Lead either poses a serious threat to human health and the environment, or it doesn’t. 🤷‍♂️

1 hour ago, 8 shot said:

As said by many before me, the problem is how do your A,B and C class shooter become AAA class and Olympic standard shooter. There wouldn’t be a competitive field. It already been said Small bore and Air rifles competitions become all about luck 

Indeed. Without air rifles the starter route to shooting sports for many will no longer be available. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Scully

[Weihrauch17]

On 14/06/2022 at 18:55, Scully said:

Personally I don’t know any English wildfowlers, but speaking for myself when shooting wildfowl inland, I used steel. 
There was ( and possibly still is ) a lot of finger pointing and accusations as to whether all game shots did and do. 
If lead shot for live quarry is banned then there will quite possibly be those who for one reason or another, shoot clay loads through their non-steel shot proofed guns. As we all know, given the right circumstances clay loads are more than capable. 
Game dealers won’t buy lead shot game if they can’t sell it, but not every shoot or individual sells their shot game. Who will police it? 

Nobody will police it, they don't even attend burglaries.

[McSpredder]

4 hours ago, Scully said:

Lead either poses a serious threat to human health and the environment, or it doesn’t.

You are absolutely correct.   And of course the important word is SERIOUS.

In the 467 pages of the Restriction Report and it annexes, the papers presented at the 2015 Oxford Lead Symposium and all the 57 more recent documents listed by the Lead Ammunition Group as being related to human health, there is not a single record of an actual person in UK ever having been harmed by eating game killed using lead ammunition.  

I suspect the risks from eating game might be very small when compared to the well known effects on  human health, and the massive costs incurred by the NHS, arising from excessive consumption of fizzy drinks.

I also wonder how the effect of lead shot on the UK environment compares with the pollution caused by campaigners flying around the globe to attend “green” conferences.

But I might think differently if I were a drinks manufacturer or an airline operator.

[Newbie to this]

Then there is the fact that many gunshot victims have the bullet left in their body.

Is leaving a bullet in the body a good medical practice?

On Behalf of Cronin & Maxwell

Mar 25, 2020

• Medical Malpractice

In some cases, when a person suffers a gunshot wound, the surgeon is unable to remove the bullet or decides there is no need to remove the bullet. He or she will leave those in the body. Many times, doctors will tell patients that there is nothing to worry about and that leaving the bullet in the body is the best option.

In fact, according to The Atlantic, not removing bullets is a very common practice, and many surgeons will not attempt to remove a bullet that is not creating a problem due to its location. Often, the justification is that removing the bullet will cause additional health issues and damage. However, some now think that leaving a bullet in a person is the more dangerous option.

Potential poisoning

Some new data suggests that bullets can lead to lead poisoning. It may cause a person to have memory loss, mood disorders and fatigue. It may even lead to miscarriages. The most alarming thing is that this issue does not happen right away. It generally takes years for the symptoms to show up.

Medical recommendations state there is a fairly low level of acceptable lead in the body with some saying no levels of lead are OK. A bullet is lead, so if it is in the body, it will leak lead into the body, which gets into the bloodstream. Side effects are bound to happen in time from the exposure.

Sticking to the standard

Despite the new research, many still feel leaving the bullet is the best solution. They say that the process of extracting a bullet, especially one that is near a major organ or artery, is entirely too dangerous to risk. For now, the recommendation is only to remove a bullet if a person later shows symptoms of lead poisoning, which is scary for someone who is a gunshot victim with a bullet inside his or her body right now.

[Sweet11-87]

On 13/06/2022 at 22:47, Graham M said:

There can't be a replacement for smallbore target rifle because ...........there isn't one. Any attempt to replace lead .22 match ammunition has failed completely with absolutely no way meaningful scores can be achieved with non toxic bullets as they just aren't accurate enough to win anything, especially against other countries that would still use lead; China for instance. What you are effectively saying is if I am going to be affected then so are you. We are supposed to be a united voice in all of this, but once again we see the game shooters taking up arms against the target shooters. I have seen this before on this forum where game and vermin shooters deride target shooting by what they term the "Funny coat brigade".

As someone who shoots vermin, deer and target I have seen all sides when it comes to throwing other disciplines under the bus. Steel shot is a fairly simple way to change from shooting lead when engaged in clays or game because all that has to be altered is choke and shot size etc. Yes I know that new wads have to be developed but overall accuracy isn't being affected. But with smallbore target shooting you are aiming for 1/4 MOA accuracy to try and hold the spot at 25yds or the X ring at 50 / 100yds. Tests with the best non toxic bullets have shown that the grouping is so bad that competitions would be based more on luck as to who had fluked the best score based on who was nearest the bull.

Lead shot is spread over a wide area whereas lead bullets go into a backstop that can be contained and recovered. And as for using this inaccurate ammunition for rabbits etc, are you really saying that we shouldn't be looking to kill with a clean accurate shot? ....... or should we just chuck rubbish ammo at a rabbit and hope we hit it cleanly (if at all) and not just injure it so it bolts down a hole and take hours to slowly die.

And so once again it's one shooting discipline trying to either survive at the expense of another, or trying to drag it down with it.

 

 

 

Not to pick a fight and simply to play devils advocate (as a target shooter indoor and outdoor,clay shooter and live quarry shooter so i have no horse in this race) can you see that from what you said in your opening comment  by listing why you should be allowed to keep lead and listing a few reasons why others shouldnt and why its easy for them to switch and not you, you totally undermined and contradicted yourself about having one voice and throwing disiplines under the bus?.

the suggested dangers of lead are either acceptible or they arnt to human health.  its nothing to do with how accurate it is for you on paper, people could easily argue  a clean kill is just as important if not more so from an ethical point of view.

food for thought.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Sweet11-87

[Scully]

27 minutes ago, Sweet11-87 said:

Not to pick a fight and simply to play devils advocate (as a target shooter indoor and outdoor,clay shooter and live quarry shooter so i have no horse in this race) can you see that from what you said in your opening comment  by listing why you should be allowed to keep lead and listing a few reasons why others shouldnt and why its easy for them to switch and not you, you totally undermined and contradicted yourself about having one voice and throwing disiplines under the bus?.

the suggested dangers of lead are either acceptible or they arnt to human health.  its nothing to do with how accurate it is for you on paper, people could easily argue  a clean kill is just as important if not more so from an ethical point of view.

food for thought.

The thing is, despite suggestions we should all unite and fight this, you can bet your bottom dollar that the muzzle loaders association etc, will be lobbying for exemptions for their particular discipline and stating why they should be exempt, rather than lobbying to keep lead for all. 
Experience shows it’s the nature of the UK shooter. 

[Sweet11-87]

13 minutes ago, Scully said:

The thing is, despite suggestions we should all unite and fight this, you can bet your bottom dollar that the muzzle loaders association etc, will be lobbying for exemptions for their particular discipline and stating why they should be exempt, rather than lobbying to keep lead for all. 
Experience shows it’s the nature of the UK shooter. 

couldnt agree more

[cardigun]

Muzzle loading rifles often shot a Patched bullet. the cloth patch helping the bullet to grip the rifling.  It was the dirty patch that was carried into the wound that could start Sepsis. Hence the tradition of digging out the bullet and the Patch.

[Graham M]

12 hours ago, Sweet11-87 said:

Not to pick a fight and simply to play devils advocate (as a target shooter indoor and outdoor,clay shooter and live quarry shooter so i have no horse in this race) can you see that from what you said in your opening comment  by listing why you should be allowed to keep lead and listing a few reasons why others shouldnt and why its easy for them to switch and not you, you totally undermined and contradicted yourself about having one voice and throwing disiplines under the bus?.

the suggested dangers of lead are either acceptible or they arnt to human health.  its nothing to do with how accurate it is for you on paper, people could easily argue  a clean kill is just as important if not more so from an ethical point of view.

food for thought.

But I didn't say that others shouldn't keep lead. All I said was that there was no viable replacement for .22 target rifle.

The straight truth of the matter was that I was trying to say that without lead bullets match rifle would end, whereas with clay or game shooting participants would still be able to continue whilst using non-lead shot. I shoot clay and we have a small syndicate near Worcester that has a walked up Pheasant shoot, so yes I would prefer to keep lead, but I know that without lead I can still continue to use my shotguns because there is a VIABLE alternative. And please don't say that steel isn't a viable alternative because it still allows shooters to carry on with their sport albeit at shorter ranges and with larger shot; but they can still carry on shooting. Without lead bullets target rifle couldn't. And now we have the muzzle loaders being looked upon as being something that can be also be discarded.

This thread does seem to be going down the route of either we all keep lead............or only shotgun should be allowed to survive.

And I am then accused of wanting to be looked upon as being a special case for needing lead to continue shooting certain disciplines.

Well I can see we are never going to be a united front on this subject and so I will leave this thread and wish you all well in your own sports.

[8 shot]

There is one thing that has come out of all this is the cost, to the Government, to cartridge companies, to the gun trade to shoots across the country, to shooters of all disciplines, to conservation/the environment and of coarse jobs and probably friendships. All on pretty much unproven science.

[Scully]

54 minutes ago, 8 shot said:

There is one thing that has come out of all this is the cost, to the Government, to cartridge companies, to the gun trade to shoots across the country, to shooters of all disciplines, to conservation/the environment and of coarse jobs and probably friendships. All on pretty much unproven science.

And that’s why I think it’s important to complete the HSE consultation; there is ample room on there for all to voice their concerns or even vent their spleens. 
There is also room to disassociate oneself from others by completing the parts which ask for comments regarding derogation, and thereby giving the impression that you think there should be exemptions. Unless that is, you make it clear that either lead is toxic or it isn’t, and if it’s the former then there can be no exemptions. 
It’s a strange consultation in my opinion which in one section enquires about derogation and in another enquires about buy back schemes.

That second paragraph reads like I’m telling people what to do, and that isn’t my intention at all. We all have our priorities and interests, and people should do as they feel is in their best interests. 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Scully

[enfieldspares]

From what I know of the buy back scheme with the handgun ban the Government got their fingers very badly burned. Those within the civil service that pushed for the ban said that the buy back cost would be about £X when in fact the cost was finally £5X. That is five times the promoted cost by those whose agenda was always a ban. So, yes, it is MOST IMPORTANT that when completing the survey that costs are given.

[silver fox 1]

Just had this months BASC magazine It states on page 30 that BASC will fight the lead BAN.

So why  propose it in the first place, you can’t make this stuff up

[Scully]

5 minutes ago, silver fox 1 said:

Just had this months BASC magazine It states on page 30 that BASC will fight the lead BAN.

So why  propose it in the first place, you can’t make this stuff up

BASC didn’t propose it, it was already on the cards. What they proposed was a voluntary phase out over time, to give us all time to find alternatives. 

[stagboy]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

BASC didn’t propose it, it was already on the cards. What they proposed was a voluntary phase out over time, to give us all time to find alternatives. 

Correct. I am astonished at the number of people who can't get their heads round this simple concept. A couple of weeks ago the NGO placed a recruitment advert in Shooting Times, trumpeting that they were going to fight a "blanket ban" on lead. A lead-head, known for making bizarre claims about steel, wrote in the next week congratulating the NGO for changing its position! It hasn't. Neither has BASC. 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by stagboy
typo, clarification

[silver fox 1]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

BASC didn’t propose it, it was already on the cards. What they proposed was a voluntary phase out over time, to give us all time to find alternatives. 

Yes you’re right I didn’t make myself clear, what I meant was why propose the five year transition period and then decide to fight the lead ban, surely it would’ve been better just to fight the lead ban, I don’t think they’re making it easy for themselves or us

[8 shot]

6 minutes ago, silver fox 1 said:

why propose the five year transition period and then decide to fight the lead ban, surely it would’ve been better just to fight the lead ban, I don’t think they’re making it easy for themselves or us

Shooting is pretty much on it's knee's right now, game shooting is all most non existant this seasons,. The BASC and NGO memberships are dropping fast another season like this and they're finished. Gunshops struggling, cartridge prices sky high the prospects are not good.

[Fellside]

15 minutes ago, 8 shot said:

Shooting is pretty much on it's knee's right now, game shooting is all most non existant this seasons,. The BASC and NGO memberships are dropping fast another season like this and they're finished. Gunshops struggling, cartridge prices sky high the prospects are not good.

Don’t think it’s quite that terrible. Certainly a few challenges, but not insurmountable. 

[Scully]

38 minutes ago, silver fox 1 said:

Yes you’re right I didn’t make myself clear, what I meant was why propose the five year transition period and then decide to fight the lead ban, surely it would’ve been better just to fight the lead ban, I don’t think they’re making it easy for themselves or us

I suppose it all depends on how long the HSE proposed should be the transitional period. Anyone know? 

29 minutes ago, 8 shot said:

Shooting is pretty much on it's knee's right now, game shooting is all most non existant this seasons,. The BASC and NGO memberships are dropping fast another season like this and they're finished. Gunshops struggling, cartridge prices sky high the prospects are not good.

Really? I know there’s a few issues to get get through, but there always is. I don’t see shooting as being on its knees.