Say good bye to lead shot, HSE report.

[old'un]

13 hours ago, islandgun said:

Had a google, copper wash [thin layer] on steel shot will still damage old barrels, due to the un-compressionability ? of steel, you would need a thick layer of copper to reduce any potential harm

The only time steel shot will damage the barrel is if the wad fails and the shot is in direct contact with the barrel wall.

[wymberley]

3 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

the forces act sideways also, pick up fired steel shot wads and examine them.

 

 Force/pressure acts equally in all directions. If it didn’t there’d be no burst barrels or ring bulges - I’m not saying soft iron shot would cause these as a matter of course.

[Conor O'Gorman]

There is some BASC advice here on the use of steel shot:

https://basc.org.uk/ammunition/using-non-lead-shot-for-live-quarry-shooting/

Also there is a Podcast here that includes advice on the use of steel shot:

https://theshoothubpodcast.podbean.com/e/lead-shot-latest/

 

[London Best]

22 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

There is some BASC advice here on the use of steel shot:

https://basc.org.uk/ammunition/using-non-lead-shot-for-live-quarry-shooting/

 

Your link gives NO advice for the 95% of shooters who use guns marked with foreign proof marks.

[Conor O'Gorman]

5 minutes ago, London Best said:

Your link gives NO advice for the 95% of shooters who use guns marked with foreign proof marks.

Thanks, I will raise this with colleagues for consideration of updated advice.

[London Best]

Just now, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thanks, I will raise this with colleagues for consideration of updated advice.

Not a problem for me personally, I use English guns 99% of the time.

[Whitebridges]

Ban this. Ban that. Ban Immigrants. Ban wokes. Ban diesel fuel.Ban benders in the church. 

Ban farming. Ban Europe. Ban water companies. Ban King Charles. etc. etc. etc.

Banning lead shot is ludicrous , stupid old bull****. Lead kiils humanly and is ballistically superior to steel. There are so many bigger matters than banning lead shot but the BASC will not step away from "old goals" . Personally I stopped paying a subscription because at £80 they were not fighing the right fights.          

[Conor O'Gorman]

30 minutes ago, Whitebridges said:

Lead kiils humanly and is ballistically superior to steel. There are so many bigger matters than banning lead shot but the BASC will not step away from "old goals" . Personally I stopped paying a subscription because at £80 they were not fighing the right fights.          

Lead shot and steel shot are effective. You mention animal welfare as a concern. The problem with lead shot is that when it is distributed on the ground freshly available for birds of various species to mistake as grit and eat, then that lead shot gets eroded in the gizzard and is metabolised into toxic lead salts that are absorbed into blood and later deposited in the kidneys, liver, bones etc. with resulting ill effects. Given your stated concerns about animal welfare are you concerned about the risks to birds from your use of lead shot? That is the consideration being discussed for the last five years since the shooting organisations began encouraging us all to move away from the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting. It's your choice. There is nothing mandatory about it. There has been no change in law and is not about 'fighting', it's about doing the right thing as conservationists. 

[clangerman]

19 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The problem with lead shot is that when it is distributed on the ground freshly available for birds of various species to mistake as grit and eat, then that lead shot gets eroded in the gizzard and is metabolised into toxic lead salts that are absorbed into blood and later deposited in the kidneys, liver, bones etc. with resulting ill effects. 

those birds would be the same chicks where everyone ended up laughing at you! 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Lead shot and steel shot are effective. You mention animal welfare as a concern. The problem with lead shot is that when it is distributed on the ground freshly available for birds of various species to mistake as grit and eat, then that lead shot gets eroded in the gizzard and is metabolised into toxic lead salts that are absorbed into blood and later deposited in the kidneys, liver, bones etc. with resulting ill effects. Given your stated concerns about animal welfare are you concerned about the risks to birds from your use of lead shot? That is the consideration being discussed for the last five years since the shooting organisations began encouraging us all to move away from the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting. It's your choice. There is nothing mandatory about it. There has been no change in law and is not about 'fighting', it's about doing the right thing as conservationists. 

Oh give over pleeeaassse! We’re killing birds for entertainment for crying out loud! While the intent of none of us is to be cruel, if we were so concerned about ‘welfare’ we wouldn’t be shooting. 

[Weihrauch17]

26 minutes ago, Scully said:

Oh give over pleeeaassse! We’re killing birds for entertainment for crying out loud! While the intent of none of us is to be cruel, if we were so concerned about ‘welfare’ we wouldn’t be shooting. 

Yep totally agree.  To boot Lead is more humane than Steel which on the few times I have used it resulted in far more pricked birds.  The Lead Ban is an agenda with no substance at all just like the economic insanity of Net Zero.

[Konor]

3 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Lead shot and steel shot are effective. You mention animal welfare as a concern. The problem with lead shot is that when it is distributed on the ground freshly available for birds of various species to mistake as grit and eat, then that lead shot gets eroded in the gizzard and is metabolised into toxic lead salts that are absorbed into blood and later deposited in the kidneys, liver, bones etc. with resulting ill effects. Given your stated concerns about animal welfare are you concerned about the risks to birds from your use of lead shot? That is the consideration being discussed for the last five years since the shooting organisations began encouraging us all to move away from the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting. It's your choice. There is nothing mandatory about it. There has been no change in law and is not about 'fighting', it's about doing the right thing as conservationists. 

As you seem to believe the case against the use of lead shot is so strong then why are you supporting a voluntary move away from the use of lead shot and not insisting on an enforced lead ban. 
It appears that you are making a strong case for the complete cessation of lead shot use and at the same time trying to convince everyone that in reality you favour a solution that enables one to choose to continue using whichever ammunition they favour.

Do you have any evidence to support the extent of the impact on game bird numbers as a result of the ill effects of the use of lead shot so that we can put your claims in perspective?
Commercial shooting is feathered clays for the well heeled ,perhaps your conscience should stretch to concern for the scale of animal welfare issues involved in that practice rather than being occupied with justifying its continuation as a means to supply a supposedly burgeoning wild game meat market.

Appeasement and hypocrisy in tandem.

 

Edited December 27, 2024 by Konor
Addition for clarity

[Konor]

3 hours ago, Whitebridges said:

they were not fighing the right fights.          

They seem more concerned with protecting the status of BASC as the manipulator of shooting opinion for their own benefit rather than fighting the issues that impact on grass roots shooters. The continual political undertones witnessed in the BASC supposed  pro voluntary move away from lead shot stance while at the same time broadcasting the perceived risks of lead shot use ,which they are unable to quantify, appears confused and contradictory.

[Konor]

3 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

are you concerned about the risks to birds from your use of lead shot?

I think you are forgetting that your support for commercial shooting at its present scale would indicate that animal welfare is not one of your main concerns. Crocodile tears for “poor wee partridge chicks” while supporting the scale of game meat slaughter for a commercial market would seem to indicate a low level of concern.

[JKD]

"Knock knock"

"Who's there?"

"Earwig !"

"Earwig who ?"

I think you know the rest ! 🙄😣

[Konor]

Rather that than leaving the obvious unchallenged. As BASC is not acting as my voice in this matter I’m obliged to have that reflected in my posts lest it’s assumed all BASC members are buying the official confusing BASC line.

Edited December 28, 2024 by Konor

[Sweet11-87]

its my understanding that BASC are trying to use the bitter lemons to make lemonade.  The ban on lead will come eventually we all know that. lead paint, lead pipes, lead petrol lead solder and theyre going after anglers weights too. i personally dont think this one is as anti shooting as everyone seems to want it to be.

i think the play here is instead of hitting it head on and throwing the whole cash pot at it and walking in front of the steam train and lose is to use it as an exercise in demonstrating how the shooting community can adapt, reason and negotiate.

you know.....fighting withdrawal before you have to retreat.

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Sweet11-87 said:

its my understanding that BASC are trying to use the bitter lemons to make lemonade.  The ban on lead will come eventually we all know that. lead paint, lead pipes, lead petrol lead solder and theyre going after anglers weights too. i personally dont think this one is as anti shooting as everyone seems to want it to be.

i think the play here is instead of hitting it head on and throwing the whole cash pot at it and walking in front of the steam train and lose is to use it as an exercise in demonstrating how the shooting community can adapt, reason and negotiate.

you know.....fighting withdrawal before you have to retreat.

I'm sorry, but you're just parroting the basc line of 5 years ago.

The one where we could all 'choose' 😂 to not use lead shot for live quarry ? If we all transitioned away from lead shot, we could save everything else... We were told there was no imminent ban, it was voluntary... Within a year the consultations started, yet basc still assured us that they would fight for us, and make sure there would be no sweeping bans on lead.

Well, here we are now, and basc are STILL saying it might not happen 🤣 Of course it's going to happen ! 

We've moved from a voluntary transition of lead shot for live quarry, to a ban on lead shot for ALL shooting disciplines, AND lead bullets .243 and above, and once we're into the transition periods for this, they WILL come after the rest.

To say there isn't an agenda, is painfully naive.

[Robden]

9 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Lead shot and steel shot are effective. You mention animal welfare as a concern. The problem with lead shot is that when it is distributed on the ground freshly available for birds of various species to mistake as grit and eat, then that lead shot gets eroded in the gizzard and is metabolised into toxic lead salts that are absorbed into blood and later deposited in the kidneys, liver, bones etc. with resulting ill effects. Given your stated concerns about animal welfare are you concerned about the risks to birds from your use of lead shot? That is the consideration being discussed for the last five years since the shooting organisations began encouraging us all to move away from the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting. It's your choice. There is nothing mandatory about it. There has been no change in law and is not about 'fighting', it's about doing the right thing as conservationists. 

Will the birds know the difference between lead and steel shot then?  And what does rusting steel metabolise into once/if it is broken down in the bird's/animal's gut? 

[rbrowning2]

I wonder if putting down millions and millions of non native gamebirds each year has more effect on fauna and flora then lead shot over the little area of land used by clay grounds, one to be banned but not the other. 

 

[Konor]

8 hours ago, Sweet11-87 said:

its my understanding that BASC are trying to use the bitter lemons to make lemonade.  The ban on lead will come eventually we all know that. lead paint, lead pipes, lead petrol lead solder and theyre going after anglers weights too. i personally dont think this one is as anti shooting as everyone seems to want it to be.

i think the play here is instead of hitting it head on and throwing the whole cash pot at it and walking in front of the steam train and lose is to use it as an exercise in demonstrating how the shooting community can adapt, reason and negotiate.

you know.....fighting withdrawal before you have to retreat.

Sounds like complete appeasement in response to the failure to produce absolutely any evidence to demonstrate the practical impact on the environment of the use of lead shot in order to protect mass production of game for commercial shooting and the marketing of that game that justifies its existence.

Rather than spending their time convincing shooters to accept the “inevitable” would it not have been better to investigate the scale of any problem and reach a compromise based on those findings.Risk assessments for each branch of the sport ranging from large scale commercial shoots through small syndicates to the infrequent deposit of lead by stalkers.and lone rough shooters. Scientists or politicians ?We’d  have been better served with more of the former and letting the figures produced make the  choice clear cut for both sides.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, Konor said:

Sounds like complete appeasement in response to the failure to produce absolutely any evidence to demonstrate the practical impact on the environment of the use of lead shot in order to protect mass production of game for commercial shooting and the marketing of that game that justifies its existence.

Rather than spending their time convincing shooters to accept the “inevitable” would it not have been better to investigate the scale of any problem and reach a compromise based on those findings.Risk assessments for each branch of the sport ranging from large scale commercial shoots through small syndicates to the infrequent deposit of lead by stalkers.and lone rough shooters. Scientists or politicians ?We’d  have been better served with more of the former and letting the figures produced make the  choice clear cut for both sides.

And of course BASC could have started all of this by asking its Members for their opinion and worked on from there.

 

It would have been far better in my humble opinion to have offered to sort out the PLASTIC WAD problem first.

That would have helped and speeded up the need for good NON PLASTIC WADs which would have lead to better, usable and economically viable NON PLASTIC WADS for soft iron loads.

 

Why treat your Members in such a poor and non inclusive way?

 

It seems it has ALWAYS been the same with BASC, "we know best but cannot give you the proof that we should." Just hearsay from supposed experts.

[Konor]

3 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Just hearsay from supposed experts.

With the risk of their interpretations having an agenda behind them. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

2 minutes ago, Konor said:

With the risk of their interpretations having an agenda behind them. 

There is DEFINITELY an AGENDA.

[udderlyoffroad]

7 hours ago, Rewulf said:

I'm sorry, but you're just parroting the basc line of 5 years ago.

To be honest this whole thread is re-hashing the arguments of 5 years ago, with little to no new insights as far as I can see.

The idea that the org’s voluntary transition, as poorly communicated as it was, somehow begat the HSE’s and the EU’s push to ban lead is a laughable.

I’ve still not seen a shred of evidence to support this theory, only people using words like ‘they’ & ‘agenda’.