Say good bye to lead shot, HSE report.

[Stonepark]

17 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

That article is about iron levels in bird foodstuffs and small amounts of iron and zinc are required. Your question was about steel shot ingestion and I am not aware of any evidence that ingested steel shot causes ill effects on birds. Indeed on this forum there are sometimes calls for steel shot pigeons for falconers because lead shot pigeons cause ill effects. If there were issues with steel shot ingestion in birds I think we would have heard by now but I could be wrong.

We use Iron shot, not steel shot (even though everyone calls it steel shot).

 

Steel is too hard to use in shotgun barrels due to the carbon content, whilst annealed iron shot is softer (comparatively).

Iron (due to lack of carbon and other elements) is prone to rust, hence often coated with Zinc.

Birds of prey do not use their crops to grind food like most other birds and as such have no need for grit.

Instead they swallow stones if they are not eating enough bones and feathers to cast out built up fat from their crops and as such iron pellets are almost immediately coated in fat and don't affect them in same way as normally expelled within 24 hours unlike birds such as geese, duck, pheasant, grouse  etc actively use stones for grinding.

It's like not understanding difference between a pig with 1 stomach and a cow with 4 stomachs.

 

This is the problem, the lack of understanding....... apparently not only with Joe public but also our supposed representatives

 

[Old farrier]

15 hours ago, Sweet11-87 said:

depends what 4 grand is to the holder. to me personally its allot, and id think if i payed nearly 4 grand for a gun in the last 10 years thats not up to the task of firing steel ive been a bit short sighted. if ive had it over 10 years and ive shot it at a rate that continuing with steel will see a vast amount of damage in short order id say ive had my moneys worth.

and if id thrown nearly 40 grand at a gun then clearly the cost of shooting is an after thought and ill move to bismith

but to address your latter point ive put a fair few heavy loads  of large pellets  through my fowling gun the last few seasons blth plastic and dio degradable and ive not got any scoring  and if i do its so minimal ive not even seen it any my gun gets a pull through and held up to the light after every outing on the foreshore. is any data even available that you get excessive scoring  in modern chrome lined barrels and if so how much scoring can a barrel take before it need retiring?.

Good replay many thanks 

so basically it’s perfect in £350 guns 

might wear out ££4000 guns but slowly 

and if you have a £40000 gun you shouldn’t use it 

although personally think the cartridge should be safe and not cause damage to any gun irrespective of its value 

As for how much scoring a barrel can take I’m afraid I don’t have a answer for that 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Stonepark said:

We use Iron shot, not steel shot (even though everyone calls it steel shot).

 

Steel is too hard to use in shotgun barrels due to the carbon content, whilst annealed iron shot is softer (comparatively).

Iron (due to lack of carbon and other elements) is prone to rust, hence often coated with Zinc.

Birds of prey do not use their crops to grind food like most other birds and as such have no need for grit.

Instead they swallow stones if they are not eating enough bones and feathers to cast out built up fat from their crops and as such iron pellets are almost immediately coated in fat and don't affect them in same way as normally expelled within 24 hours unlike birds such as geese, duck, pheasant, grouse  etc actively use stones for grinding.

It's like not understanding difference between a pig with 1 stomach and a cow with 4 stomachs.

 

This is the problem, the lack of understanding....... apparently not only with Joe public but also our supposed representatives

 

Perhaps then you should go on a few falconry forums and debate the safety of feeding BOP with lead shot game vs steel shot game. The question was about steel shot ingestion and I am not aware of any evidence that ingested steel shot causes ill effects on birds. 

[wymberley]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Perhaps then you should go on a few falconry forums and debate the safety of feeding BOP with lead shot game vs steel shot game. The question was about steel shot ingestion and I am not aware of any evidence that ingested steel shot causes ill effects on birds. 

Eh?

In the event that BASC finally loses all credibility, it would not be a misnomer if this was termed the, “O’Gorman Effect”.

[enfieldspares]

15 hours ago, Weihrauch17 said:

Has anyone ever found one?

Well my P/W fellow member...I'd reckon anyway that these birds would be dead anyway from being shot or being killed by vermin or badly shot and then "died of wounds" before they were ever killed by actually ingesting lead shot as grit. So they may conceivably, possibly, remotely, have ingested shot but likely they'll be dead from something else long before.

I am also unaware of any scientific trials where wildfowl have been force fed steel shot (either fresh steel shot or heavily rusted lead shot) in the same several tablespoonful dosages that were used when lead shot dosing trials were done in the USA some now decades ago. Ditto tungsten shot mixed with microplastics or any other of the non-toxic pure metal or alloyed metal alternatives.  

Like the girl says...why worry about something that can kill you in ten years when there's so many things that can kill you today? 

 

Edited December 29, 2024 by enfieldspares

[grahamch]

This thread was quite reasonable to start with but is now being taken over by the usual suspects with negativity, criticism and old old news. 

Our sport is up against the wall and we should be uniting and no constantly sniping. 

The fowling community has used non tox/steel shot for years without any real issues. 

Maybe the change to steel etc. will be the end of stupid high bird shoots and that will be a good thing. 

A pal of mine recently shot at a well known Northumberland high bird shoot where the bag was 306 birds for just under 3000 36 or 40g loads. God knows how many birds would be pricked and not picked Not sporting or ethically or morally justifiable. 

 

 

[enfieldspares]

1 hour ago, grahamch said:

Maybe the change to steel etc. will be the end of stupid high bird shoots and that will be a good thing. 

I would also welcome that. I am no fan at all of these ridiculous videos of men using 36 gram #4 and agree with that sentiment.

However regarding lead shot it isn't now just about its use for bird shooting it is about a proposed ban on its use for all shooting yet with an allowance for "Olympic shooters" or 1.25 million cartridges per year and .22 Rimfire and Centrefire and air weapons permitted.

So the nonsense is some lead bad some lead good? There's more risk of lead fragments in meat in a deer shot with a 60 grain .22-250 than ever there is from a deer shot with a one ounce lead slug from a 12 bore shotgun under the farmers and crofters defence.

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2024 by enfieldspares

[Rewulf]

58 minutes ago, grahamch said:

Our sport is up against the wall and we should be uniting and no constantly sniping

Interesting analogy.

We were told by basc ect, to surrender without a fight, and place ourselves on the mercy of 'the powers that be'

Now we are blindfolded, and literally up against the wall.

Worry not, high end (expensive) game shooting will survive, there's always a deal to be done.

[Sweet11-87]

5 hours ago, Old farrier said:

Good replay many thanks 

so basically it’s perfect in £350 guns 

might wear out ££4000 guns but slowly 

and if you have a £40000 gun you shouldn’t use it 

although personally think the cartridge should be safe and not cause damage to any gun irrespective of its value 

As for how much scoring a barrel can take I’m afraid I don’t have a answer for that 

 

 i cant find any documentation either on a forum, in an article or from a gun maker that says  scoring is  in anyway dangerous or detrimental to performance of a gun beyond harder to clean and may need oil in the bore to prevent rust and thats IF you do get scoring in the first place. believe me ive looked.

check your proof marks get the correct cart and open your chokes and just enjoy your shooting

 

 

Edited December 29, 2024 by Sweet11-87

[Scully]

4 hours ago, grahamch said:

This thread was quite reasonable to start with but is now being taken over by the usual suspects with negativity, criticism and old old news. 

Our sport is up against the wall and we should be uniting and no constantly sniping. 

The fowling community has used non tox/steel shot for years without any real issues. 

Maybe the change to steel etc. will be the end of stupid high bird shoots and that will be a good thing. 

A pal of mine recently shot at a well known Northumberland high bird shoot where the bag was 306 birds for just under 3000 36 or 40g loads. God knows how many birds would be pricked and not picked Not sporting or ethically or morally justifiable. 

 

 

Mmmm. Not really sure where to start with this one, but do I REALLY have to go through all this again? 

Right, first things first. You criticise criticism, negativity and old old news, whilst being guilty of all of them. You’ve mentioned on here many times of your dislike for not only high bird shoots but big bags. When it comes to sniping you’re up there with the best of them, so I’m not sure how that sits with ‘uniting’. Perhaps you could explain? 
Not only does god not know anymore than your mate how many birds would be pricked and not picked, we only have third hand news on which to base your prejudice. 
Yes, the fowling community are certainly best placed to make informed judgements, and most certainly best placed to witness the swathes of lead poisoned birds floating around which Shifty claimed was one of the main reasons for the ban, but for some reason none of them ( fowlers ) either witnessed or commented on it, and at THAT particular BASC hosted event were clearly as mystified as the rest of us. Weird eh? 
High bird shoots don’t have the monopoly on wounding, any more than any other form of game shooting, and when it comes to sporting, ethics and morals, how do any of those sit with your penchant for killing birds for entertainment? In fact, how do any of those sit comfortably with the trapping and killing of indigenous species, ( which is all part of the the driven game shooting industry ) simply to increase the chances of survival of a non-indigenous species just so you can go out and have the pleasure of killing them? 
Are you really that blinkered? 

Edited December 29, 2024 by Scully

[Sweet11-87]

i was just a boy when it got banned for wildfowl 25 years ago, did people go on like it was the end of the world then aswell? 

i suppose not so much internet back them so no chat forums, you all must have spent countless nights just screaming into the void then did what well have to do this time and just get on with it.

im only jokin.. Christmas init

Edited December 29, 2024 by Sweet11-87

[Old farrier]

9 minutes ago, Sweet11-87 said:

 i cant find any documentation either on a forum, in an article or from a gun maker that says  scoring is  in anyway dangerous or detrimental to performance of a gun beyond harder to clean and may need oil in the bore to prevent rust and thats IF you do get scoring in the first place. believe me ive looked.

check your proof marks get the correct cart and open your chokes and just enjoy your shooting

 

 

Quiet happy to check the proof marks although all guns are proofed with lead and not steel to get them through proofing even for steel proof and I don’t have a problem shooting non lead cartridges I have for twenty years in a appropriate gun (heavy Fowling pieces) 

iv also tried it in my lightweight game guns not a pleasant experience and certainly not the gun cartridge combination for a decent driven day 

as for altering the chokes who pays me or the legislature I’ve as many times how many thousands of a inch needed to be removed to give me a cylinder and quarter pattern in a 12 bore with standard bored barrels with steel shot cartridges perhaps you have the answer 

Should I and many others just roll over and accept rules based upon bad science or no science 

[BobbyH]

I’m going to only use steel in one of my guns, and take before and after shots of 250,500,750 and thousand carts.

Do we think there will be anything to report after 1000??

Just now, BobbyH said:

I’m going to only use steel in one of my guns, and take before and after shots of the barrels after 250,500,750 and thousand carts.

Do we think there will be anything to report after 1000??

 

[Sweet11-87]

24 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Should I and many others just roll over and accept rules based upon bad science or no science 

no but might be worth while finding your own science to prove that barrel scoring from modern steel cartridges does have a detrimental effect on a modern guns safety and performance before you choose it as a keystone reason to not accept  rules because of a lack science or evidence.

 

6 minutes ago, BobbyH said:

I’m going to only use steel in one of my guns, and take before and after shots of 250,500,750 and thousand carts.

Do we think there will be anything to report after 1000??

 

be very very interested in the findings. especially if its an older gun.

Edited December 29, 2024 by Sweet11-87

[enfieldspares]

1 hour ago, Sweet11-87 said:

Might be worth while finding your own science to prove that barrel scoring from modern steel cartridges does have a detrimental effect on a modern guns safety and performance before you choose it as a keystone reason to not accept  rules because of a lack science or evidence.

Steel shot can and does score barrels. That it may or may not be detrimental to safety or performance is but one aspect. Cutting two inches off the stock of a shotgun and then re-attaching it will also have no affect of its safety or performance. Nor will sleeving the barrels.

However what both will do in the market as it exists here in the UK is decrease its value.

In some cases sleeved barrels significantly do so by four figures. In the case of a cut stock such that of two guns offered and identical other than the cut stock the gun with its stock still entire will sell in preference to that with its stock cut even though their length of pull be the same.

So objections are not just about a selected this or that but about the whole of it all.

Or maybe some of us just don't like littering the countryside with plastic wads. And even so called bio-degradeable plastic wads contain plastic hat breaks down into that newly pilloried for of micro plastic granules.

And that will be the next attack against us. Littering micro plastic everywhere. Which birds then could eat in grit. For have no doubt the "antis" will call for studies of birds dosed with grit dosed with micro plastics soon after lead is gone.

Let us remember well that paying Danegeld always fails.

Edited December 29, 2024 by enfieldspares

[McSpredder]

1 hour ago, Sweet11-87 said:

no but might be worth while finding your own science to prove that barrel scoring from modern steel cartridges does have a detrimental effect on a modern guns safety and performance

Have the Proof Houses ever commented on what depth of scoring would render a barrel out of proof?  

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Sweet11-87 said:

i was just a boy when it got banned for wildfowl 25 years ago, did people go on like it was the end of the world then aswell? 

i suppose not so much internet back them so no chat forums, you all must have spent countless nights just screaming into the void then did what well have to do this time and just get on with it.

im only jokin.. Christmas init

Now that makes me feel old! I had started working for BASC amidst the various wildfowl/wetlands restrictions that came into force across the UK from circa 1999-2004 and it was a challenging time for wildfowlers but most got on with it finding effective alternatives to lead shot (many homeloading), whilst some did seem to spend an inordinate time at club meetings and on forums evangelically discrediting the science and blaming BASC and targeting individual BASC staff members (some still do!), even though the restrictions came in because the UK government signed an international treaty (AEWA), the same one that many other countries were also signing and committing to the move away from lead shot.

Much of the vitriol was part of the human condition dealing with change and the Danish experience of moving away from lead shot is explained in some detail here:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6675819/

The following paper is also of interest, looking at perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans:

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.30

[Konor]

I think you will find that the majority are not attempting to blame BASC for the introduction of proposals to restrict the use of lead shot.  Rather they are blaming them for their failure to effectively oppose such restrictions and instead of insisting on the production of relevant scientific data to justify these restrictions ,that for example will see clay pigeon shooting continue only provided non lead shot is used, they have given up despite supposedly opposing a legislated lead ammunition ban. 

 

[Scully]

31 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Now that makes me feel old! I had started working for BASC amidst the various wildfowl/wetlands restrictions that came into force across the UK from circa 1999-2004 and it was a challenging time for wildfowlers but most got on with it finding effective alternatives to lead shot (many homeloading), whilst some did seem to spend an inordinate time at club meetings and on forums evangelically discrediting the science and blaming BASC and targeting individual BASC staff members (some still do!), even though the restrictions came in because the UK government signed an international treaty (AEWA), the same one that many other countries were also signing and committing to the move away from lead shot.

Much of the vitriol was part of the human condition dealing with change and the Danish experience of moving away from lead shot is explained in some detail here:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6675819/

The following paper is also of interest, looking at perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans:

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.30

Perhaps if the science had been believable to the extent it was conducted impartially at the time Conor, and BASC especially had been more upfront and honest with its members, the organisation would have received much less criticism. We were told by none other than Swift ( yes, I was a member ) that lead was poisoning fowl in droves, but waffled and blustered when pushed for evidence BY FOWLERS to back it up. We then had that totally impartial Wetlands Trust and Paine get on board, which Swift fully endorsed even after they’d been funnelling lead into ducks as part of their ‘science driven evidence’. We even had the FSE stating lead shot eaten in game in moderate quantities was fine. 

If BASC had simply said back in the mid 90’s or whenever….’look lads and lasses, lead is going. We dont like it anymore than you, but there’s nothing we can do about’ and then got on with  matters, perhaps the criticism would have been less severe.
‘Politico’ speak and the avoidance of answering specific matters and questions arising, simply encourages suspicion of deceit. 
We know that in the face of a political agenda our shooting organisations are toothless, but honesty would have been the much better option. 
The only thing I accuse BASC of is being dishonest with the shooting community. 
 

[Conor O'Gorman]

7 minutes ago, Scully said:

Perhaps if the science had been believable to the extent it was conducted impartially at the time Conor, and BASC especially had been more upfront and honest with its members, the organisation would have received much less criticism. We were told by none other than Swift ( yes, I was a member ) that lead was poisoning fowl in droves, but waffled and blustered when pushed for evidence BY FOWLERS to back it up. We then had that totally impartial Wetlands Trust and Paine get on board, which Swift fully endorsed even after they’d been funnelling lead into ducks as part of their ‘science driven evidence’. We even had the FSE stating lead shot eaten in game in moderate quantities was fine. 

If BASC had simply said back in the mid 90’s or whenever….’look lads and lasses, lead is going. We dont like it anymore than you, but there’s nothing we can do about’ and then got on with  matters, perhaps the criticism would have been less severe.
‘Politico’ speak and the avoidance of answering specific matters and questions arising, simply encourages suspicion of deceit. 
We know that in the face of a political agenda our shooting organisations are toothless, but honesty would have been the much better option. 
The only thing I accuse BASC of is being dishonest with the shooting community. 
 

Looking back on that era now, would you agree that the science that lead shot was causing lead poisoning in many bird species in the UK, mainland Europe, and worldwide was correct then, and/or correct now?

[Sweet11-87]

1 hour ago, McSpredder said:

Have the Proof Houses ever commented on what depth of scoring would render a barrel out of proof?  

not to my knowledge but theyd be a good starting point for questions im sure. however ive seen questions asked before they wont give a definitive answer to avoid liability and just say send any gun in for reproof which is understandable

but how long is a piece of string? i guess the safe levels will depend on  barrel quality and thickness to begin with.

[PeterHenry]

1 hour ago, McSpredder said:

Have the Proof Houses ever commented on what depth of scoring would render a barrel out of proof?  

Presumably the same amount as if reduced by lapping the barrels or corrosion or whatever else - which is to say the bore is enlarged by 10 thousands of an inch from what it was originally proofed at

Edited December 29, 2024 by PeterHenry

[Konor]

12 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Looking back on that era now, would you agree that the science that lead shot was causing lead poisoning in many bird species in the UK, mainland Europe, and worldwide was correct then, and/or correct now?

Has the science that lead shot was causing lead poisoning led to figures that show the extent of poisoning in pheasant and partridge and is there any measurable decline in game bird numbers associated with lead shot presence in the environment or is the science purely theoretical with no figures to support that the presence of lead shot in non wetland areas has any effect at all on game species numbers ? 

[Newbie to this]

On 28/12/2024 at 01:03, 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.

You might want to check your list of banned stuff

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Looking back on that era now, would you agree that the science that lead shot was causing lead poisoning in many bird species in the UK, mainland Europe, and worldwide was correct then, and/or correct now?

See what I mean regarding ‘politico’ type management of debate/ avoiding direct answers? 
I genuinely couldn’t say whether I agree or not Conor; I know lead is toxic, but I honestly can’t state whether the science you refer to was impartial or not. Debbie Paine and the Wetlands Trust on which Swift often based his arguments ( particularly during the LAG period ) definitely wasn’t impartial and the science ( if some of their methods could indeed be regarded as science ) was dubious to say the least. The manner in which Swift conducted himself throughout was regarded as highly suspicious and deceitful. The rot ( for me ) started there. 
The science appears to evolve according to agenda Conor, as much of it does, but while the toxicity of lead hasn’t increased ( it can’t as far as I’m aware as it’s an inanimate substance ) I get the impression that it’s stated risk to human health in particular has increased, in that I’ve read nothing from the FSA repeating its claim that lead shot game eaten as part of a balanced healthy diet is fine to eat, but then we wouldn’t would we, given the over-riding agenda? 
As for the science being correct now, is it any more impartial than it was originally? Who is funding it and which organisations would be damaged by a contrary result? 
There are many things which simply don’t stand up to thorough scrutiny throughout this entire sorry saga, which again arouses mistrust, and politico, policy driven talk does little to alleviate it. 
I don’t mind using steel at all ( I’d much prefer to keep lead ) but this entire debacle reeks of duplicitous double dealing, and while no one can say BASC are to blame for the lead ban ( it’s a ridiculous claim )  I genuinely feel they are to blame for the duplicity, which is a great shame.