Steel v Lead

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, Fellside said:

If a restriction in lead shot use is based on a percentage reduction - that could well leave room for the non ‘mass market’ small bores. It just depends how it all works through. It is very early days yet. Different countries have approached this in their own various ways. How will the UK respond….? Does anyone really know yet….?! 

No, but I very much doubt we will gain anything from whatever the offered solution is!

[Fellside]

16 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

No, but I very much doubt we will gain anything from whatever the offered solution is!

I’m hopeful that we adopt the New Zealand approach. They’ve allowed lead cart’s for 410s to continue - citing its importance as an entry gun for youngsters etc. Who really knows at this stage…? 

[Johnny English]

Now that the consultation period has closed, does anyone know when we are expecting the HSEs verdict/ recommendations? Are we talking weeks, months, years?

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Johnny English said:

Now that the consultation period has closed, does anyone know when we are expecting the HSEs verdict/ recommendations? Are we talking weeks, months, years?

You mean it's not already decided?

[Stonepark]

2 hours ago, Johnny English said:

Now that the consultation period has closed, does anyone know when we are expecting the HSEs verdict/ recommendations? Are we talking weeks, months, years?

It is still open today and closes tomorrow, you are a bit premature........

The public consultation lasts for six months and closes at 23:59 (London time BST) on 6 November 2022.

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Stonepark

[Scully]

18 hours ago, Fellside said:

I’m hopeful that we adopt the New Zealand approach. They’ve allowed lead cart’s for 410s to continue - citing its importance as an entry gun for youngsters etc. Who really knows at this stage…? 

Due to the class system we have ( or had ) in this country, we don’t have a tradition of hunting unlike NZ or many other countries.
Our only hunting tradition was foxes with hounds, originally undertaken by wealthy landowners , their guests and servants, and that was banned basically.
In the light of that I can’t see how an exemption for the .410 could logically be made given that the reason for the banning of lead is for the benefit of the environment and it’s claimed toxicity when used to shoot game etc.

If the .410 was given an exemption then many ( including myself ) would be using one for driven game and decoying, thereby defeating the basis for the legislation. I’m pinning my hopes on the development of a usable non toxic load. 
 

[London Best]

33 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’m pinning my hopes on the development of a usable non toxic load. 
 

You mean a”politically correct” load.

 

 

[Gas seal]

Maybe a delay with the.410 .suitable cartridges would be expensive or back to shorter range like  the old four ten  or four long cartridges .We also have a few 9mm guns about. It’s about lead in the environment and food. The government statement I read started ,lead is a non essential toxic element , or show me why your toxic ammunition is essential. Shooting or hunting is different in other countries . The traditional hunting of wildfowl stopped using lead shot and they have always used a lot less cartridges. Game shooting fire the most cartridges.The way l see it is if you collect all of the lead that comes out of your barrel that is ok ,if we give you a license, but don’t eat anything that you shoot with lead.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, London Best said:

You mean a”politically correct” load.

 

 

Yep. That’s what it’s all about. 

[rbrowning2]

4 hours ago, Johnny English said:

Now that the consultation period has closed, does anyone know when we are expecting the HSEs verdict/ recommendations? Are we talking weeks, months, years?

This from the BASC website

Next steps

The HSE and Environment Agency (EA) will review the consultation responses prior to preparing a final restriction report. This report, expected to be published in early summer 2023, will be a set of recommendations to Defra. This will provide the basis for legislation.

It is likely that a 60-day consultation will launch in February 2023 as part of the HSE’s Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of proposals.

BASC will continue to engage with the HSE and EA as part of the UK REACH process.

full document

https://basc.org.uk/basc-response-to-uk-reach-lead-ammunition-consultation/

 

 

 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, rbrowning2 said:

This from the BASC website

Next steps

The HSE and Environment Agency (EA) will review the consultation responses prior to preparing a final restriction report. This report, expected to be published in early summer 2023, will be a set of recommendations to Defra. This will provide the basis for legislation.

It is likely that a 60-day consultation will launch in February 2023 as part of the HSE’s Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of proposals.

BASC will continue to engage with the HSE and EA as part of the UK REACH process.

full document

https://basc.org.uk/basc-response-to-uk-reach-lead-ammunition-consultation/

 

 

 

So there you go, there will be ‘restrictions’ backed by ‘legislation’. It’s a done deal……always was in my opinion. 

[Dave at kelton]

One point that I don’t think any of you have touched upon is the issue of proof rules. I have now shot in Canada on three occasions using steel loads that are not permitted in the U.K. due to the nonsense which is our proof rules derived from Europe.

This year we started with heavy shot shells which were rubbish. Fortunately our outfitter had just under 1,000 heavy steel which we have used previously and were far better. We were generally killing geese up to 50 yds but largely at 30-40 yds no2 shot. None of these are available in the U.K. as they are producing velocities around 1500+ fps.

we were shooting Benelli super black eagle II, exactly the same gun as I use early season here at home. Speaking with fellow Canadian and US hunters they are all shooting the same OU’s with no ill effects. Placing our traditional English guns aside there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t be using steel loads the same as those across the Atlantic for all practical terms. For steel to be really effective it needs speed but that is restricted by proof unless I load my own.

I would be interested where my logic fails!

[Old farrier]

2 minutes ago, Dave at kelton said:

One point that I don’t think any of you have touched upon is the issue of proof rules. I have now shot in Canada on three occasions using steel loads that are not permitted in the U.K. due to the nonsense which is our proof rules derived from Europe.

This year we started with heavy shot shells which were rubbish. Fortunately our outfitter had just under 1,000 heavy steel which we have used previously and were far better. We were generally killing geese up to 50 yds but largely at 30-40 yds no2 shot. None of these are available in the U.K. as they are producing velocities around 1500+ fps.

we were shooting Benelli super black eagle II, exactly the same gun as I use early season here at home. Speaking with fellow Canadian and US hunters they are all shooting the same OU’s with no ill effects. Placing our traditional English guns aside there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t be using steel loads the same as those across the Atlantic for all practical terms. For steel to be really effective it needs speed but that is restricted by proof unless I load my own.

I would be interested where my logic fails!

Very valid point 

if lead is made illegal and all guns that  are currently proof for lead only (although you could probably/possibly shoot non hp steel in them) would be rendered out of proof 

this could make them obsolete/ illegal to sell as out of proof for steel 

so either re proof for steel or change the proof rules and rules of proof 

either way expensive costly and time consuming legislation 

[rbrowning2]

7 minutes ago, Dave at kelton said:

One point that I don’t think any of you have touched upon is the issue of proof rules. I have now shot in Canada on three occasions using steel loads that are not permitted in the U.K. due to the nonsense which is our proof rules derived from Europe.

This year we started with heavy shot shells which were rubbish. Fortunately our outfitter had just under 1,000 heavy steel which we have used previously and were far better. We were generally killing geese up to 50 yds but largely at 30-40 yds no2 shot. None of these are available in the U.K. as they are producing velocities around 1500+ fps.

we were shooting Benelli super black eagle II, exactly the same gun as I use early season here at home. Speaking with fellow Canadian and US hunters they are all shooting the same OU’s with no ill effects. Placing our traditional English guns aside there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t be using steel loads the same as those across the Atlantic for all practical terms. For steel to be really effective it needs speed but that is restricted by proof unless I load my own.

I would be interested where my logic fails!

indeed nothing wrong with your logic, however we are a member of the CIP club so as Scully says about the lead ban, it’s a done deal.

Way back in 2013 Eley sold their lightening Steel 36gm but had to recall them because they were faster or momentum was greater than CIP rules allowed.

Mind you the faster you launch the shot the greater the momentum / recoil will be, hence autos so popular in the states.

Could get interesting if someone is injured by a gun failing using steel shot if the gun was never deigned or proofed for steel shot.

[Dave at kelton]

1 minute ago, rbrowning2 said:

indeed nothing wrong with your logic, however we are a member of the CIP club so as Scully says about the lead ban, it’s a done deal.

Way back in 2013 Eley sold their lightening Steel 36gm but had to recall them because they were faster or momentum was greater than CIP rules allowed.

Mind you the faster you launch the shot the greater the momentum / recoil will be, hence autos so popular in the states.

Could get interesting if someone is injured by a gun failing using steel shot if the gun was never deigned or proofed for steel shot.

Yep it’s all about CIP rules but my point is the very same guns we are using, aside of traditional English, are being used by our cousins over the water. The guns aren’t any more robustly made but handling nonCIP loads to good effect. It doesn’t mean we always need them but these proof rules are denying us the opportunity to use very effective steel loads. As I have previously posted I am using Eley eco steel in a thin walled English game gun. In my Benelli I would happily use the same loads I used in Canada but I am not given that choice for what I see as no good reason!

[McSpredder]

I am fairly sure Scully is correct in his overall assessment of the situation.   However, I still think we should make MPs aware of any instance where campaigners indulge in deliberate dishonesty or issue publications liable to bring the UK scientific community into disrepute.

Modellers deliberately exaggerated risks to human health by pretending that all meat in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) category “Game birds” had been killed using lead ammunition.   They knew this was untrue, they knew that 70% of meat in those NDNS figures was duck, and they knew much of it was from farmed duck.   All that information was contained in a report by the Food Standards Agency Scotland (2012), and Professors Green and Pain definitely knew about it because they quoted the FSAS report no fewer than six times in their paper at the 2015 Oxford Lead Symposium.   All their statistical analysis of game meat consumption should be regarded as invalid because they had no idea whether any individual in the NDNS records had actually eaten meat from wild-shot game, but they did know that most had probably eaten none at all.

The NDNS documentation makes it absolutely clear that the category Game birds included “Any muscle meat from duck, goose, partridge, pheasant.”   DEFRA monthly statistics show that UK production of farmed duck to be almost 30,000 tonnes per year, which is several times greater than the total quantity of all wild-shot game.

The same two professors claimed that “We followed EFSA CONTAM (2010) in assuming that an average meat meal for adults contained 0.2kg of meal.” (Green & Pain, 2012) and “…If it is assumed that a typical game meal includes 200g of meat (EFSA 2010)” and “EFSA (2010) assumed that an adult portion of game meat was 200g” (Green & Pain, 2015).   I have read through that lengthy EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) document and never found any suggestion that 200g would be either an average or a typical portion.   (That portion size was mentioned only once, for a theoretical EFSA assessment in which “The influence of specific diets containing a high consumption of foods with elevated lead levels was tested assuming a weekly meal of 200 g of game meat”).

You can read the EFSA document for yourself and make up your own mind.   If you find nothing stating 200g to be an average or a typical portion size, you will have to conclude that Professors Green and Pain had a deliberate intent to deceive their readers.

The HSE dossier claims that “BASC and Countryside Alliance estimated in 2014 that 9,000 (midpoint of the range 5,500 – 12,500) children under the age of 8 from the UK shooting community consumed at least one game meal per week (all types of game, one portion assumed to be ≥ 100 g), averaged over the year (cited in (Green and Pain, 2019; LAG, 2015b))”.   If BASC and CA really did estimate a minimum portion size of at least 100g for children under the age of 8 years, they must be blithering idiots with zero experience of child rearing.   If (as seems much more likely) BASC and CA simply estimated the numbers of consumers, and the minimum portion size was inserted by Green & Pain, the authors of the HSE dossier have been dishonest.   Perhaps somebody from either BASC or CA will tell us more.

As far as I am aware, the authorship of the dossier has not been revealed.   It might have been compiled by HSE staff, but I suspect it was contracted out.   Based on the way the information has been set out, I could hazard a guess as to the actual authors, but will refrain from doing so.

[Fellside]

5 hours ago, Scully said:

Due to the class system we have ( or had ) in this country, we don’t have a tradition of hunting unlike NZ or many other countries.
Our only hunting tradition was foxes with hounds, originally undertaken by wealthy landowners , their guests and servants, and that was banned basically.
In the light of that I can’t see how an exemption for the .410 could logically be made given that the reason for the banning of lead is for the benefit of the environment and it’s claimed toxicity when used to shoot game etc.

If the .410 was given an exemption then many ( including myself ) would be using one for driven game and decoying, thereby defeating the basis for the legislation. I’m pinning my hopes on the development of a usable non toxic load. 
 

I have to say, rather like you, I don’t necessarily expect a 410 derogation, more a case of hoping that we get it. There are several sound arguments for this, which I hope the org’s are going to make a strong case with. Regarding a new non-toxic load, the biggest shooting market in the world, the USA, haven’t found one yet, despite lead being banned in most states for hunting. It is therefore hard to expect a new wonder shot material…. although I would very much welcome one. Tungsten is great stuff, but incredibly expensive. China holds 80% of the known global supply - and ‘add value’ by offering finished products only. If a new massive reserve is discovered somewhere else…….?! 

[Scully]

3 hours ago, McSpredder said:

I am fairly sure Scully is correct in his overall assessment of the situation.   However, I still think we should make MPs aware of any instance where campaigners indulge in deliberate dishonesty or issue publications liable to bring the UK scientific community into disrepute.

Modellers deliberately exaggerated risks to human health by pretending that all meat in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) category “Game birds” had been killed using lead ammunition.   They knew this was untrue, they knew that 70% of meat in those NDNS figures was duck, and they knew much of it was from farmed duck.   All that information was contained in a report by the Food Standards Agency Scotland (2012), and Professors Green and Pain definitely knew about it because they quoted the FSAS report no fewer than six times in their paper at the 2015 Oxford Lead Symposium.   All their statistical analysis of game meat consumption should be regarded as invalid because they had no idea whether any individual in the NDNS records had actually eaten meat from wild-shot game, but they did know that most had probably eaten none at all.

The NDNS documentation makes it absolutely clear that the category Game birds included “Any muscle meat from duck, goose, partridge, pheasant.”   DEFRA monthly statistics show that UK production of farmed duck to be almost 30,000 tonnes per year, which is several times greater than the total quantity of all wild-shot game.

The same two professors claimed that “We followed EFSA CONTAM (2010) in assuming that an average meat meal for adults contained 0.2kg of meal.” (Green & Pain, 2012) and “…If it is assumed that a typical game meal includes 200g of meat (EFSA 2010)” and “EFSA (2010) assumed that an adult portion of game meat was 200g” (Green & Pain, 2015).   I have read through that lengthy EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) document and never found any suggestion that 200g would be either an average or a typical portion.   (That portion size was mentioned only once, for a theoretical EFSA assessment in which “The influence of specific diets containing a high consumption of foods with elevated lead levels was tested assuming a weekly meal of 200 g of game meat”).

You can read the EFSA document for yourself and make up your own mind.   If you find nothing stating 200g to be an average or a typical portion size, you will have to conclude that Professors Green and Pain had a deliberate intent to deceive their readers.

The HSE dossier claims that “BASC and Countryside Alliance estimated in 2014 that 9,000 (midpoint of the range 5,500 – 12,500) children under the age of 8 from the UK shooting community consumed at least one game meal per week (all types of game, one portion assumed to be ≥ 100 g), averaged over the year (cited in (Green and Pain, 2019; LAG, 2015b))”.   If BASC and CA really did estimate a minimum portion size of at least 100g for children under the age of 8 years, they must be blithering idiots with zero experience of child rearing.   If (as seems much more likely) BASC and CA simply estimated the numbers of consumers, and the minimum portion size was inserted by Green & Pain, the authors of the HSE dossier have been dishonest.   Perhaps somebody from either BASC or CA will tell us more.

As far as I am aware, the authorship of the dossier has not been revealed.   It might have been compiled by HSE staff, but I suspect it was contracted out.   Based on the way the information has been set out, I could hazard a guess as to the actual authors, but will refrain from doing so.

Excellent post. 👍
I recall Pain making some very iffy claims at the time, and another which involved the forced feeding ( via a tube ) of lead to ducks. 🤷‍♂️
However, the science is annoyingly mostly irrelevant as there are agendas at work here, as well we know. 

[Gas seal]

Each gauge of shotgun has a different speed and pellet size for steel . Lead and steel cartridges are different the same as heavy metal type of cartridges. I’ve loaded 12 and 10gauge fast steel cartridges and they are a better cartridge. I have loaded steel 6 and 7 in 410 and 28gauge. The USA have commercial steel and tss type cartridges in 410. There are other types of non lead shot, non toxic means lead must be toxic, but more expensive. The USA are going back to the original hevi shot l think they use it for pheasants . A lot of the plastic wads are from Italy, I don’t know of any bio wads being made by them. I have used bio wads for 10 12 and 28 but the 410 is to small a cartridge I didn’t try it.  We also have 9mm and 24gauge out there and muzzle loaders and black powder guns. Looks like change for all of us, no more cheep lead cartridges or components to reload . The cartridge manufacturers will need different powders to load steel and a lot of steel pellets.

[Scully]

4 hours ago, Old farrier said:

Very valid point 

if lead is made illegal and all guns that  are currently proof for lead only (although you could probably/possibly shoot non hp steel in them) would be rendered out of proof 

this could make them obsolete/ illegal to sell as out of proof for steel 

so either re proof for steel or change the proof rules and rules of proof 

either way expensive costly and time consuming legislation 

They won’t be out of proof though, because as you’ve already pointed out above, they are still in proof for several non lead alternatives, including standard steel. 
What may make a difference is any insurance claim for a nitro proofed gun following a lead shot ban. 

The value of such guns will be effected of course, as is already happening. Some RFD’s will quite happily sell you a non steel shot proofed gun, stating it’s perfectly safe to put steel through it because it has steel shot proofed chokes, or to just use standard, but very reluctant to let you trade one in. It’s all poop! 

[Fellside]

10 minutes ago, Gas seal said:

Each gauge of shotgun has a different speed and pellet size for steel . Lead and steel cartridges are different the same as heavy metal type of cartridges. I’ve loaded 12 and 10gauge fast steel cartridges and they are a better cartridge. I have loaded steel 6 and 7 in 410 and 28gauge. The USA have commercial steel and tss type cartridges in 410. There are other types of non lead shot, non toxic means lead must be toxic, but more expensive. The USA are going back to the original hevi shot l think they use it for pheasants . A lot of the plastic wads are from Italy, I don’t know of any bio wads being made by them. I have used bio wads for 10 12 and 28 but the 410 is to small a cartridge I didn’t try it.  We also have 9mm and 24gauge out there and muzzle loaders and black powder guns. Looks like change for all of us, no more cheep lead cartridges or components to reload . The cartridge manufacturers will need different powders to load steel and a lot of steel pellets.

Interesting points. I have been keeping a keen eye on what’s been happening over the pond. Yes the old type ‘hevishot’ is making a come back. Unfortunately however, the ready loaded cart’s are about £4. each….?! Great stuff actually. I still have some which I was lucky enough to have been given…….but I wouldn’t like to buy it for general shooting…..or even fowling for that matter. 

[Old farrier]

28 minutes ago, Scully said:

They won’t be out of proof though, because as you’ve already pointed out above, they are still in proof for several non lead alternatives, including standard steel. 
What may make a difference is any insurance claim for a nitro proofed gun following a lead shot ban. 

The value of such guns will be effected of course, as is already happening. Some RFD’s will quite happily sell you a non steel shot proofed gun, stating it’s perfectly safe to put steel through it because it has steel shot proofed chokes, or to just use standard, but very reluctant to let you trade one in. It’s all poop! 

Are they though 

that’s why I said probably and as we know by shooting the stuff through them

lets deal with fact unless they are proof for hp steel fleur de lyes they are proof for lead that’s it nothing else 

what we can do and fire in them is up to us most will be capable of alternative options but the fact still remains that they were built and proof for lead 

this is the problem that will arise with proof rules in the future 

one would like to think if you send a gun for steel proof they would put a over charged cartridge in it with a over load of steel shot to test it for steel proof? 

[grahamch]

3 hours ago, Fellside said:

I have to say, rather like you, I don’t necessarily expect a 410 derogation, more a case of hoping that we get it. There are several sound arguments for this, which I hope the org’s are going to make a strong case with. Regarding a new non-toxic load, the biggest shooting market in the world, the USA, haven’t found one yet, despite lead being banned in most states for hunting. It is therefore hard to expect a new wonder shot material…. although I would very much welcome one. Tungsten is great stuff, but incredibly expensive. China holds 80% of the known global supply - and ‘add value’ by offering finished products only. If a new massive reserve is discovered somewhere else…….?! 

There is apparently a large deposit of tungsten on Cornwall that cant be mined because of the eco looneys

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Old farrier said:

Are they though 

that’s why I said probably and as we know by shooting the stuff through them

lets deal with fact unless they are proof for hp steel fleur de lyes they are proof for lead that’s it nothing else 

what we can do and fire in them is up to us most will be capable of alternative options but the fact still remains that they were built and proof for lead 

this is the problem that will arise with proof rules in the future 

one would like to think if you send a gun for steel proof they would put a over charged cartridge in it with a over load of steel shot to test it for steel proof? 

Well they’re obviously proofed for nitro, but as we all know they’re more than capable of handling standard if not HP steel, whether proofed for it or not.
They can only be deemed out of proof by law only by certain criteria, so as long as they’re still in proof for nitro then not proved specially for steel is irrelevant; they’re still in proof. 
I’m not really sure how a government could quantify or insist on banning a certain element and then deem its vehicle as unlawful as a result? 

It’s all a bit of a quandary really. Submit your nitro proofed gun for steel shot proofing, thereby proving you needn’t have bothered, don’t bother and just put steel through it anyway, or try and trade it in for one which is already steel shot proofed. 
I suppose you have to figure out or decide if the cost of having it proofed for steel is recoverable by its potentially increased trade in price by doing so. 
A mate at our local rough shoot yesterday was showing off his new ( to him ) 100 plus year old Damascus barrelled side locked sxs. I asked him if would put steel through it and he said ‘no problem.’ 
It is what it is; we can go round and round trying to chase the negatives or we can just make the best of a situation which we have no control over. 
There is going to be a lot of very very unhappy gun owners and RFD’s in the UK ( and a lot of very very happy Americans ) if our guns and their significant stock is deemed unlawful as a result of the proposed lead ban. 
I can’t see why a steel shot proof load would be any different to a lead shot proof load. It’s still nitro, just a bigger charge. 🤷‍♂️

[rbrowning2]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

I can’t see why a steel shot proof load would be any different to a lead shot proof load. It’s still nitro, just a bigger charge. 🤷‍♂️

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.