Steel v Lead

[Old farrier]

16 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

When the gun is fired the pellets are not only moving forward down the barrel but are trying to go sideways through the side of the barrel tube, hence steel wads are much thicker. Steel (soft iron) shot does not yield or deform like lead so applies more force (friction) to the side walls of the tube which is greatest at the chokes, hence steel proofed chokes. 
I would expect the loads to be different, as the internal ballistics will be different but both would need to reach proof pressure.

I would expect a proof load to reach over normal cartridge pressure 

I would also expect lead proof to use a lead load 

and steel proof to use steel of the largest size pellet 

as it seems that cartridge pellet size alters them from normal to high pressure 

it seems lead proof works on chamber pressure with none lead there are other issues to consider especially pressure caused by shot bridging near the choke areas 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Old farrier

[Scully]

9 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

When the gun is fired the pellets are not only moving forward down the barrel but are trying to go sideways through the side of the barrel tube, hence steel wads are much thicker. Steel (soft iron) shot does not yield or deform like lead so applies more force (friction) to the side walls of the tube which is greatest at the chokes, hence steel proofed chokes. 
I would expect the loads to be different, as the internal ballistics will be different but both would need to reach proof pressure.

Thanks. I’m aware of how it works. 👍

[Dave at kelton]

As this thread started with a comment on chokes i add that our recent trip to Canada using the hired Benellis and steel loads the outfitter uses only imp cyl chokes. They were very capable with 13/8 oz of No 2 HP steel.

so same gun I use here in the U.K., slightly less choke as I use half and no ill effects. Proves a point that Scully makes. The guns will take it.

[B725]

Has anyone ever been ill as a result of eating game shot with lead let alone died of it, there must be some record if it's ever happened. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

35 minutes ago, B725 said:

Has anyone ever been ill as a result of eating game shot with lead let alone died of it, there must be some record if it's ever happened. 

Stop being sensible, this has gone far beyond that!  

[bigroomboy]

39 minutes ago, B725 said:

Has anyone ever been ill as a result of eating game shot with lead let alone died of it, there must be some record if it's ever happened. 

Actually, no that isn't a simple question and the studies have never been done to prove or disprove. What is known is that lead is a cumulative neurotoxin to humans and even worse for other wildlife. The risk may be low and I've always been happy to accept that, but if the consumer of food doesn't want to take that risk and reasonable alternatives exist then people need to get over it.

[wymberley]

5 hours ago, Scully said:

Thanks. I’m aware of how it works. 👍

Then you'll know that force equals pressure times area and as there's no distortion (compared to lead) there's no increase in area so an increase of force has to be down to an increase in pressure.

[B725]

I don't really have a problem moving to steel or other it's the cost that will ultimately reduce my shooting, everywhere I shoot it has to be fibre or biodegradable and on a limited budget it will make a difference to me. My original post was simply both myself and my mate used identical cartridges and both shot better using lead. 

[Scully]

42 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Then you'll know that force equals pressure times area and as there's no distortion (compared to lead) there's no increase in area so an increase of force has to be down to an increase in pressure.

Means nothing to me Wymberley I’m afraid; with all respect I’m just not that interested beyond that increase in pressure hopefully transferring to an increase in speed. 
I’ve been putting HP steel through none steel proofed guns with none steel proofed chokes for years, and none ever came to any harm. 
There’s a 3” chambered Winchester 101 Wildfowl model for sale on this forum which has been proofed for HP steel, so that’s maybe the way to go for all those who insist in peace of mind. 
I’ll be putting standard steel through my fixed choke trap guns also, when the time comes. 
There are some who insist on putting obstacles in their path, and seeing problems where none exists, and I just refuse to let any of this get in the way of my shooting. 

[Fellside]

49 minutes ago, bigroomboy said:

Actually, no that isn't a simple question and the studies have never been done to prove or disprove. What is known is that lead is a cumulative neurotoxin to humans and even worse for other wildlife. The risk may be low and I've always been happy to accept that, but if the consumer of food doesn't want to take that risk and reasonable alternatives exist then people need to get over it.

Do you know of any robust data re elevated Pb plasma levels from lead shot game alone? I’m not talking about lead toxicity theory or poisoning incidents - there is endless data on this. 

If research has shown a lack of correlation, or if quality research simply doesn’t exist, it is this which people need to get over. Any changes to legislation must be evidence based. 

 

 

[Dave at kelton]

It seems to me that we have three things weighing in here.

1. The steel loads developed, and being developed, by the manufacturers and their recommendations as to suitability for different guns, taking into account their natural caution.

2. Ballistics science being used to argue against the use of steel as an alternative.

3. The experience of those like me and Scully, (and those across the Atlantic) who are using both standard and HP steel in guns not proofed for steel but without ill effect to date.

We can debate this till the cows come home to little or no practical benefit. In the end it’s up to you to decide what you believe, a bit like religion really, and apply it to your every day life.

[Fellside]

P.S The consumer can do what ever they like, but that shouldn’t dictate my choice of what I shoot game with. Incidentally there is scant evidence (if any) for terrestrial lead shot impacts to wildlife. 

[Fellside]

2 minutes ago, Dave at kelton said:

It seems to me that we have three things weighing in here.

1. The steel loads developed, and being developed, by the manufacturers and their recommendations as to suitability for different guns, taking into account their natural caution.

2. Ballistics science being used to argue against the use of steel as an alternative.

3. The experience of those like me and Scully, (and those across the Atlantic) who are using both standard and HP steel in guns not proofed for steel but without ill effect to date.

We can debate this till the cows come home to little or no practical benefit. In the end it’s up to you to decide what you believe, a bit like religion really, and apply it to your every day life.

That’s true enough Dave - well put. However, I would like to retain that same freedom of choice to use lead shot for terrestrial environments. If robust evidence demonstrates harmful impacts I am happy to rethink. As yet there doesn’t seem to be any non-biased clean science on this. 

[wymberley]

28 minutes ago, Scully said:

Means nothing to me Wymberley I’m afraid; with all respect I’m just not that interested beyond that increase in pressure hopefully transferring to an increase in speed. 
I’ve been putting HP steel through none steel proofed guns with none steel proofed chokes for years, and none ever came to any harm. 
There’s a 3” chambered Winchester 101 Wildfowl model for sale on this forum which has been proofed for HP steel, so that’s maybe the way to go for all those who insist in peace of mind. 
I’ll be putting standard steel through my fixed choke trap guns also, when the time comes. 
There are some who insist on putting obstacles in their path, and seeing problems where none exists, and I just refuse to let any of this get in the way of my shooting. 

Which is all that I said. As pressure acts equally in all directions any lateral application equates equally to longtitudinally - down the barrel - so more of it means more speed. Obviously, up to a point where something lets go.

[Weihrauch17]

1 hour ago, bigroomboy said:

Actually, no that isn't a simple question and the studies have never been done to prove or disprove. What is known is that lead is a cumulative neurotoxin to humans and even worse for other wildlife. The risk may be low and I've always been happy to accept that, but if the consumer of food doesn't want to take that risk and reasonable alternatives exist then people need to get over it.

So why a blanket ban on everything??  Shoots putting birds into the food chain don't use lead and everyone else crack on simples.  We all know this has nothing to do with food safety.

[Scully]

54 minutes ago, Fellside said:

P.S The consumer can do what ever they like, but that shouldn’t dictate my choice of what I shoot game with. Incidentally there is scant evidence (if any) for terrestrial lead shot impacts to wildlife. 

Exactly. However, it’s not about the science, it’s about agendas. 

49 minutes ago, Fellside said:

That’s true enough Dave - well put. However, I would like to retain that same freedom of choice to use lead shot for terrestrial environments. If robust evidence demonstrates harmful impacts I am happy to rethink. As yet there doesn’t seem to be any non-biased clean science on this. 

As would I, but it’s down to agendas. 

17 minutes ago, Weihrauch17 said:

So why a blanket ban on everything??  We all know this has nothing to do with food safety. 

Why? Because of agendas. 
Correct. Nothing to do with food safety and everything to do with agendas. 🙂

[Dave at kelton]

56 minutes ago, Fellside said:

That’s true enough Dave - well put. However, I would like to retain that same freedom of choice to use lead shot for terrestrial environments. If robust evidence demonstrates harmful impacts I am happy to rethink. As yet there doesn’t seem to be any non-biased clean science on this. 

I agree on the politics and freedom of choice. My concern is that if the seemingly  inevitable happens we do not lose shooters merely because of lack of understanding or disinformation.

[bigroomboy]

30 minutes ago, Weihrauch17 said:

So why a blanket ban on everything??  Shoots putting birds into the food chain don't use lead and everyone else crack on simples.  We all know this has nothing to do with food safety.

That's where we are and I can't see that changing as an attempt to control what you choose to shoot birds with. If there is a lead ban it will on environmental grounds, not to stop you shooting a bird with lead and eating it yourself.

[Fellside]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

Exactly. However, it’s not about the science, it’s about agendas. 

As would I, but it’s down to agendas. 

Why? Because of agendas. 
Correct. Nothing to do with food safety and everything to do with agendas. 🙂

I too recognise this ‘agenda’ you speak of as a real threat. It’s certainly very real alright. I just hope (and we have to hope!) that this agenda will be challenged by real science. 

[8 shot]

I visit The Farming Forum now and again and there is a thread on there of a farmer losting several cow and calf's to lead poisoning. Post mortum confirmed lead poisoning with no explanation what so ever. the land never shot over, no lead pipes etc. all obvious causes looked at. Other cows and calf's sharing the same the field tested showed no trace. Science can prove absolutley nothing

[enfieldspares]

It is quite possible indeed to just complete page one...ONLY of the survey and add a single "General Comment" and then click through leaving all other parts blank if time is pressing. Just because you don't have an answer to input to every section doesn't exclude from making one single "General Comment". 

 

Here's a link. Making this (further submission) took me but five minutes by making in this merely the one observation as below in "General Comment":

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

Here is mine. Please feel able to use it if you wish:

 

Why have the New Zealand "Fish and Game" Regulations not been considered? 

 

As in https://fishandgame.org.nz/game-bird-hunting-in-new-zealand/hunting-regulations/non-toxic-shot-regulations/

 

Below is what would be useful to be considered for the United Kingdom and, indeed, would bring the law in England and Wales regarding geese and ducks shot over land into line with the law in Scotland. Lead shot being banned....for use in the conditions below ONLY...for all calibres of shotgun excluding .410" when: 

 

Lead shot being prohibited for: 

- ALL waterfowl hunters including private landowners hunting on their own property hunting or killing waterfowl within 200m of water. 

 

But lead shot is continued to be allowed, in New Zealand, in all bores of shotgun as well as .410" in the circumstances below: 

- ALL hunters of upland game (all pheasants) are exempted. That's because research has shown these birds are not affected because the shot "in the uplands" is so widely dispersed 

- Users of a .410 bore shotgun 

- All hunters who pass the "200m rule test" (see below). 

 

The "200m Rule Test" being: 

- If you're hunting waterfowl (swans, geese, ducks), MORE THAN 200 metres from a water body, which is taken as any stream, river, lake or tidal area, "more than 3m wide," you can continue to use lead shot, if you wish. Lead shot that falls on land away from water is not a significant risk to waterfowl 

- If you are hunting BOTH upland AND waterfowl within 200m of a waterway, more than 3m in width, then you must use ONLY non-toxic shot 

- If you hunt in a tidal area, then the 200m rule applies from the Mean High Water Mark. So you may be 500 metres away from the water's edge at low tide, but this is not a defence. Similarly, if you're hunting next to floodwaters it is the edge of the floodwater at that time that you measure the 200m from. 

 

The New Zealand Fish and Game Rules carry this simple to understand reasoning that would quite easily be applied to the UK: 

- The 200m rule may sound like an odd exemption, but it does allow, for instance, hunting waterfowl over paddocks with lead and allows lead to be used for ALL upland game bird hunting, ALL clay target shooting and ALL farm pest control. 

- The 200m rule recognises that lead is not a problem away from waterways. 

 

So I would ask, as are many many others that the New Zealand Rules be considered as a sensible, workable and cost free as no compensation would be required solution for the United Kingdom.

[Fellside]

13 hours ago, 8 shot said:

I visit The Farming Forum now and again and there is a thread on there of a farmer losting several cow and calf's to lead poisoning. Post mortum confirmed lead poisoning with no explanation what so ever. the land never shot over, no lead pipes etc. all obvious causes looked at. Other cows and calf's sharing the same the field tested showed no trace. Science can prove absolutley nothing

?!

13 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

It is quite possible indeed to just complete page one...ONLY of the survey and add a single "General Comment" and then click through leaving all other parts blank if time is pressing. Just because you don't have an answer to input to every section doesn't exclude from making one single "General Comment". 

 

Here's a link. Making this (further submission) took me but five minutes by making in this merely the one observation as below in "General Comment":

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

Here is mine. Please feel able to use it if you wish:

 

Why have the New Zealand "Fish and Game" Regulations not been considered? 

 

As in https://fishandgame.org.nz/game-bird-hunting-in-new-zealand/hunting-regulations/non-toxic-shot-regulations/

 

Below is what would be useful to be considered for the United Kingdom and, indeed, would bring the law in England and Wales regarding geese and ducks shot over land into line with the law in Scotland. Lead shot being banned....for use in the conditions below ONLY...for all calibres of shotgun excluding .410" when: 

 

Lead shot being prohibited for: 

- ALL waterfowl hunters including private landowners hunting on their own property hunting or killing waterfowl within 200m of water. 

 

But lead shot is continued to be allowed, in New Zealand, in all bores of shotgun as well as .410" in the circumstances below: 

- ALL hunters of upland game (all pheasants) are exempted. That's because research has shown these birds are not affected because the shot "in the uplands" is so widely dispersed 

- Users of a .410 bore shotgun 

- All hunters who pass the "200m rule test" (see below). 

 

The "200m Rule Test" being: 

- If you're hunting waterfowl (swans, geese, ducks), MORE THAN 200 metres from a water body, which is taken as any stream, river, lake or tidal area, "more than 3m wide," you can continue to use lead shot, if you wish. Lead shot that falls on land away from water is not a significant risk to waterfowl 

- If you are hunting BOTH upland AND waterfowl within 200m of a waterway, more than 3m in width, then you must use ONLY non-toxic shot 

- If you hunt in a tidal area, then the 200m rule applies from the Mean High Water Mark. So you may be 500 metres away from the water's edge at low tide, but this is not a defence. Similarly, if you're hunting next to floodwaters it is the edge of the floodwater at that time that you measure the 200m from. 

 

The New Zealand Fish and Game Rules carry this simple to understand reasoning that would quite easily be applied to the UK: 

- The 200m rule may sound like an odd exemption, but it does allow, for instance, hunting waterfowl over paddocks with lead and allows lead to be used for ALL upland game bird hunting, ALL clay target shooting and ALL farm pest control. 

- The 200m rule recognises that lead is not a problem away from waterways. 

 

So I would ask, as are many many others that the New Zealand Rules be considered as a sensible, workable and cost free as no compensation would be required solution for the United Kingdom.

In the event that we are listened to at all - an adoption of the New Zealand model would be a breath of fresh air. 

[enfieldspares]

1 hour ago, Fellside said:

In the event that we are listened to at all - an adoption of the New Zealand model would be a breath of fresh air. 

Yes. I would hope so. I might go a bit blue in the face holding my air in but we can hope.

[Fellside]

43 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Yes. I would hope so. I might go a bit blue in the face holding my air in but we can hope.

🤞👍

[Scully]

16 hours ago, Fellside said:

I too recognise this ‘agenda’ you speak of as a real threat. It’s certainly very real alright. I just hope (and we have to hope!) that this agenda will be challenged by real science. 

There’s always hope!