Steel Shot Ban

[webber]

During my visit to Kelbrook yesterday I glimpsed at notice on the hut door, stating that steel shot was not to be used at Kelbrook from a certain date. As I don't shoot any steel at the moment I paid scant attention to the notice. I am however now wondering as to the reasons or circumstances which have made this decision necessary, and if similar bans have been introduced at other clay grounds?

 

webber

[jonnyoftheboy]

no steel shot allowed at West kent

[reedbradshaw]

but why?

[jonnyoftheboy]

not sure, have never asked.

 

noise?

[David BASC]

I think, and I could be wrong, that this has come via a letter from the CPSA to some ground owners saying that there is a risk with steel ricocheting off of skeet towers for example.

 

However, most 'hard' lead shot, like that often used in clay loads will surely ricochet off of a hard surface anyway?

 

I wonder if there grounds are insured via the CPSA insurance scheme, and this is yet another one of their loss limitation exercises like compulsory eye and ear protection, and non CPSA members having to pay an extra insurance only fee if they want to shoot birds only on registered shoots!

 

As many of you will know, one of the several jobs I do at BASC is to look after the insurance claims on a day to day basis. In 13 years there have been no ricochet claims from clay shooting on the BASC policy – although I bet we insure at least as many if not more ‘ clay shooting days’ per year than the CPSA.

 

David

[Mungler]

I thought it was a ricochet issue and also if the ground is surrounded by woods or forest that are regularly cut - chainsaws hitting embedded steel shot and all that.

[David BASC]

I think you would need to be pretty close to a tree to embed shot in it though - falling shot of course has about as much energy as hail.

 

I would love to see the text of the letter from the CPSA as htis would answer the question - or at least stimulate the debate- I cant see anything about it on their web site - or am I looking in the wrong place?

 

David

[al4x]

I think, and I could be wrong, that this has come via a letter from the CPSA to some ground owners saying that there is a risk with steel ricocheting off of skeet towers for example.

 

However, most 'hard' lead shot, like that often used in clay loads will surely ricochet off of a hard surface anyway?

 

I wonder if there grounds are insured via the CPSA insurance scheme, and this is yet another one of their loss limitation exercises like compulsory eye and ear protection, and non CPSA members having to pay an extra insurance only fee if they want to shoot birds only on registered shoots!

 

As many of you will know, one of the several jobs I do at BASC is to look after the insurance claims on a day to day basis. In 13 years there have been no ricochet claims from clay shooting on the BASC policy – although I bet we insure at least as many if not more ‘ clay shooting days’ per year than the CPSA.

 

David

 

just because you haven't handled a claim should the risk not be assesed and if there is one guidance given? Not that perhaps Health and safety is about preventing accidents and therefore claims. Steel shot is relatively new for clay shooting so just perhaps its a problem that has recently come to light.

[David BASC]

I would agree 100% that just because I have not seen such a claim in 13 years that this does not mean there is a risk of something happening.

 

Indeed almost all the claims I see have very different circumstances surrounding them, although the basic scenario for almost all shooting accidents is often A shoots and B get hit – B being anything from a person to an animal, to a bit of properly.

 

The other shooting incidents tend to fall into A shoots and B gets frightened and something then gets damaged – be it B or something else. Again B in this case could be a person or an animal.

 

The issue is this – if you shoot at a hard surface there is a risk of ricochet – Tom Roster, who is based in the USA where steel has been used for years, and is one of the world’s top ballisticians and has not reported any such issues.

 

But as I say, I would agree that if you shoot a shotgun at a hard surface then there is a risk of ricochet whether you are using steel or lead.

 

D

[PaulABF]

Noticed the same sign up at Dinnington this morning. No steel shot on the skeet traps.

[salisburykeeper]

Perhaps the antis have deemed steel shot to be cruel for usage on clay pigeons?

[Windknot]

No steel at Brook Bank either.

[clayman]

I think, and I could be wrong, that this has come via a letter from the CPSA to some ground owners saying that there is a risk with steel ricocheting off of skeet towers for example.

 

However, most 'hard' lead shot, like that often used in clay loads will surely ricochet off of a hard surface anyway?

 

I wonder if there grounds are insured via the CPSA insurance scheme, and this is yet another one of their loss limitation exercises like compulsory eye and ear protection, and non CPSA members having to pay an extra insurance only fee if they want to shoot birds only on registered shoots!

 

As many of you will know, one of the several jobs I do at BASC is to look after the insurance claims on a day to day basis. In 13 years there have been no ricochet claims from clay shooting on the BASC policy – although I bet we insure at least as many if not more ‘ clay shooting days’ per year than the CPSA.

 

David

 

The risk of ricochet from steel has been identified and covered in CPSA Safety literature for at least 10 years. Every commercial ground must have a risk assessment, and if they have potential ricochet surfaces it is prudent they do not allow steel. The CPSA risk assessment forms and procedures are based on a co-operative effort between BASC and CPSA in 2002 to improve ground awareness of the needs for risk assessment, and I am surprised if BASC do not identify steel shot as a heading for consideration in a risk assessment.

 

The crush value of steel is many times harder than even the highest antinomy lead alloy, just drop some 7% alloyed lead pellets onto a hard surface and they will hardly bounce at all, while steel will not deform to absorb the energy and will reflect appreciably off the surface.

 

Where do you get the idea that A/ there is compulsory ear and eye protection, at CPSA grounds? B/ that it is insurance driven?

 

The only requirement for compulsory ear and eye protection is at a CPSA registered shoot. This is a CPSA condition of entry, not an insurance requirement. There is no requirement for CPSA affiliated grounds to require eye protection, nor any requirement at a registered or higher ground if the shoot is not a CPSA event. There is no requirement in ground insurance for compulsory ear and eye protection BUT, as with any insurer, when you sign the proposal you are signing that you have identified all risks ( risk assessment) and taken all reasonable steps to mitigate them. As potential ear and eye damage from shooting / clay shards, is well documented as a hazard, a claim on any shoots insurance from any source could potentially fail if loss adjusters reported the ground was reckless in not requiring ear and eye protection in their particular circumstances. This is the grounds commercial decision, and is not imposed by the CPSA.

 

The "Day Ticket" scheme to allow non-CPSA members to shoot within a registered shoot does not include any CPSA insurance, the ground provides whatever P/L cover is required for those shooters on that event. This scheme is simply a way of allowing grounds that cannot economically run exclusive registered shoots to legitimize the practice of allowing non-CPSA entrants on to the course. As CPSA members need to pay an annual competition membership, it is only reasonable that entrants to a CPSA shoot who are non-CPSA members should pay a small day fee. This is divided 50/50 with the ground, or in some cases the ground makes no charge and absorbs the fee or part of it. The Day Ticket scheme allows non-members to experience the quality of a registered shoot, and if they enter these regularly they will soon want to be eligible for prizes and classification, and so migrate to CPSA membership. The CPSA also collects the non-members names for marketing purposes in this way.

 

Lastly, the CPSA does not insure grounds itself. Allianz is the underwriter the CPSA refers ground insurance to, and they give a discount if the club is CPSA affiliated or higher. This is reasonable, as any ground with the NGB will have a trained safety officer and access to all the proforma ground management tools the CPSA provides - viz: risk assessment, Safety Policy Statement, Safety Signs, etc. The CPSA only requires that a ground has evidence of P/L insurance to maintain its Affiliated or higher status. The ground can insure where-ever it wants, and will be subject to the terms imposed by their individual insurer.

[dunganick]

no steel shot allowed at West kent

 

With west kent im fairly sure its a noise issue. West Kent has a range of issues with their noise and local busy body locals at the end of Old Hay, hense no weekend shooting.

[Cranfield]

clayman, thanks for an excellent post of clarification.

[lapwing]

Are there any trees in range? Steel shot is becoming an issue with sawmills as it damages saw blades and can discolour the timber. Not an issue today maybe, but in a couple of decades when pellets lodged in crevices have been grown into the wood. Some forestry contracts now exclude timber from around clay grounds if steel has been used, so maybe that is a reason too?