Jump to content

Say good bye to lead shot, HSE report.


Recommended Posts

A post above has raised the question…..if the cartridge manufacturers won’t accept responsibility for any damage to barrels as a result of using steel, can I assume gun insurance wont insure?  If they do, at the very least premiums will rise as a result. 
Safety glasses are going to become the norm when shooting bolting bunnies I suppose. It’s not an issue, just something else to consider. 
The issue of whether standard steel can be used in full choke will have to be resolved for definite also, as current advice is both yes and a ‘recommended’ nothing tighter than half or even quarter for nitro proved guns, again, dependant in who you talk to. Personally I’m inclined to fall inline with the American train of thought, but it won’t be American insurers dictating policy, which in turn could mean opening up those chokes which in turn means a reproof ( with lead or steel? ) which in turn means added expense with no recompense for a legislative act which is beyond the end users control. 🤷‍♂️

What a mess. 
Lots to ponder while we cater to this farcical agenda, given Labours stated intent to ignore the needs of a few newts for the sake of a new housing estate. 😄
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Scully said:

A post above has raised the question…..if the cartridge manufacturers won’t accept responsibility for any damage to barrels as a result of using steel, can I assume gun insurance wont insure?  If they do, at the very least premiums will rise as a result. 
Safety glasses are going to become the norm when shooting bolting bunnies I suppose. It’s not an issue, just something else to consider. 
The issue of whether standard steel can be used in full choke will have to be resolved for definite also, as current advice is both yes and a ‘recommended’ nothing tighter than half or even quarter for nitro proved guns, again, dependant in who you talk to. Personally I’m inclined to fall inline with the American train of thought, but it won’t be American insurers dictating policy, which in turn could mean opening up those chokes which in turn means a reproof ( with lead or steel? ) which in turn means added expense with no recompense for a legislative act which is beyond the end users control. 🤷‍♂️

What a mess. 
Lots to ponder while we cater to this farcical agenda, given Labours stated intent to ignore the needs of a few newts for the sake of a new housing estate. 😄
 

I agree with the rest of your post, but there is no requirement for reproof after opening chokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/12/2024 at 20:29, holloway said:

I completely agree ,but now we can have non compliance thrown at us ,game dealer sales was the only way they could gauge compliance ,i think we all agree its a nonsense but ammunition against us has been gifted .

More fool the dealers who took and sold lead shot ducks. No excuse for this and they will be the source of their own demise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, London Best said:

I agree with the rest of your post, but there is no requirement for reproof after opening chokes.

Unless you have it multi choked and then they will send for re proof ( insurance requires it apparently) 

no requirement in law I know but you will struggle to get it done without 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, grahamch said:

More fool the dealers who took and sold lead shot ducks. No excuse for this and they will be the source of their own demise.

On the contrary its not illegal to sell lead shot ducks as far as i know only to shoot them, the onus is on the game shoot to enforce the law on the shoot day .

 Its the average shooter who will pay the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, BobbyH said:

Is it worth raising a petition, just to get our voices heard??

 

I doubt it now 

We had the opportunity to respond to the consultation but many - most didnt

We have been using steel this year on our shoot and some of the lads complained - when i asked how many had done the consultation none was the answer

Despite reservations with steel it has been very good 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jall25 said:

 

I doubt it now 

We had the opportunity to respond to the consultation but many - most didnt

We have been using steel this year on our shoot and some of the lads complained - when i asked how many had done the consultation none was the answer

Despite reservations with steel it has been very good 

Have you shot steel, and how did you get on with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BobbyH said:

Have you shot steel, and how did you get on with it?

 

Honestly - for me it kills as well if not better 

Its very dirty in the barrel with like a sticky residue but seems as easy if not easier to clean 

Our syndicate shot ratio is actually better overall too 

We have had 8 days now and have fired many thousands of cartridges

I have noticed an increase in missfires from perhaps never to 2 or 3 this year myself and similar for the other lads

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, it was my Lanber, 28inch barrel, choked in skeet and skeet.

It was ESP at Chalk Farm stands 1-8.

From 20 yard rabbits to high towers (with plenty of lead).

I shot MIDI’s, Battues, rabbits, loopers…Missed a few, but that was down to my error.

I am going to try them at Skeet end of the week and see how it goes!

I shot them side by side in my O/U lanber with my Fiocchi Fblu’s, and the recoil on the steel carts was far less! 

It also seems the 7.5 Steel could be larger than 7.5 lead?

 

IMG_0562.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, BobbyH said:

Of course, it was my Lanber, 28inch barrel, choked in skeet and skeet.

It was ESP at Chalk Farm stands 1-8.

From 20 yard rabbits to high towers (with plenty of lead).

I shot MIDI’s, Battues, rabbits, loopers…Missed a few, but that was down to my error.

I am going to try them at Skeet end of the week and see how it goes!

I shot them side by side in my O/U lanber with my Fiocchi Fblu’s, and the recoil on the steel carts was far less! 

It also seems the 7.5 Steel could be larger than 7.5 lead?

 

IMG_0562.jpeg

No good for me I’m afraid need a fibre or biodegradable wad 

thanks for the info 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, Maybe it is another way to force people give up Shooting as we know Labour are Antis 

Lead in ammunition, and some hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent makeup, were the first areas to be reviewed in 2021 under post-Brexit legislation called UK REACH on the control of hazardous chemicals. These HSE reviews came about following Brexit to ensure continued trade in chemicals with the EU post-Brexit. Northern Ireland is excluded due to the NI protocol and continues to be subject to EU REACH regulations. This all began under the last government.

In June 2023 the HSE proposed its recommendation for a restriction on hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent make-up in England, Wales and Scotland. This was the first restriction HSE has proposed since it took on the role of regulatory agency for UK REACH at the start of 2021. Nothing has happened since.

Lead in ammunition was the second substance subject to review and the next one is the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams.

This is a new process in the UK and no legislative changes as yet.

Defra and the Scottish and Welsh Governments will review the HSE report and decide whether to propose legislation (noting the substances in tatoos and permanent make-up were at this stage of review in June 2023 and nothing has happened).

If laws on lead ammunition are proposed this could be the same for England, Wales and Scotland or we could see different laws in different countries - as happened when the lead shot regulations for wildfowl and/or wetlands came into force over 20 years ago. The devolved governments have always had the power to bring in further restrictions (subject to public consultation) regardless of the HSE review.

More details on the HSE restriction proposals here:

https://basc.org.uk/hse-recommendations-on-lead-restriction-proposals-explained/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Lead in ammunition was the second substance subject to review and the next one is the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams.

I’ve wittered on about this before, but unlike lead we are only just beginning to understand the toxicity and/or carcinogenic properties of PFAS. There is a real push to ban these where possible on the ‘precautionary principle’, but it won’t be easy as they’re everywhere. Firefighting foams are an obvious place to start, but the increased use of ethanol in fuel makes their replacement challenging as it’s difficult to make something that effectively smothers alcohol fires.

The point I’m meandering towards, is that if governments are potentially prepared to ban things on the basis of ‘unknown unknowns’, then banning something with ‘no safe levels’ is by comparison easy.

Nobody said the science these decisions are based on had to be anything better than junk science (or at the very least backside covering by ‘the blob’). The UK government’s response to the pandemic demonstrated this repeatedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   1 member


×
×
  • Create New...