EU lead ban in both shot shells and bullets imminent!

minktrapper

gunny123 wrote: »

Done a bit of mooching around the net, the costs of any non-toxic shotgun cartridges is stiff. Well up in the £30-45 a box of 25 range, so a mornings claybusting, assuming you need 4 boxes for 100 birds is going to cost you well over 120 euros at least.

Check out the major u.s. sites. Not much of a difference in cost. The price of lead on the markets is way more expensive than iron. So it looks like steel will be the way to go in the future. Shotgun manufacturers will probably build stronger barrells to cope with higher pressures or maybe the existing ones will be good enough.

Sparks

123shooter wrote: »

Well the sh*te hit the fan in 2007 or 2008 and they aint managed to sort that out yet.

No, *we* haven't. They're doing a lot better (that $20 trillion is this year's latest estimate), or at least everyone outside of PIGS is.
As to the UK... that's a car crash in slow motion right now, it's physically painful to watch especially when you look at actual civil servants (the ones who have to do the actual work while eejits like Davis swan about making random proclamations). They're in so much trouble it's not funny anymore.
Seriously, the UK economy grew more slowly than the North Korean one last year. Even with dodgy accounting that's not a good sign.

There's no safe dose of anything in humans

No, there are safe dosage levels for a lot of compounds. Ethanol for example (all those studies into red wine consumption). Or asprin or vitamin A or whatever. But lead (and plutonium and pretty much all of the heavy metals), all of them have nasty, nasty effects on humans even in trace amounts. And in lead's case, mainly the effects show up in kids, and people tend to pay attention to stuff like that.

That said, the distribution of pellets compared to the natural distribution of lead in the environment, for wildfowling at least, are not that far apart. It doesn't seem like a ban is supportable for that. I can see there being a good argument for taking more measures on ranges because all the shooting there concentrates the lead in one place, but we already take measures here to prevent the worst of that getting near the water table, with linings under berms and the like. Beyond that, it'll get opposed (and rightly) and given the size of the opposition, it's hard to see an all-out ban coming in.

123shooter

Sparks wrote: »

No, *we* haven't. They're doing a lot better (that $20 trillion is this year's latest estimate), or at least everyone outside of PIGS is.
As to the UK... that's a car crash in slow motion right now, it's physically painful to watch especially when you look at actual civil servants (the ones who have to do the actual work while eejits like Davis swan about making random proclamations). They're in so much trouble it's not funny anymore.
Seriously, the UK economy grew more slowly than the North Korean one last year. Even with dodgy accounting that's not a good sign.

Yeah yeah yeah .....Sparks you can scoot around and find comparisons with everything but for a start get your head out of the Irish media who wont report anything but bad Brexit and Whoopie the EU.........when in reality it aint like that.

But on your point if the UK is going down as you say......you had better make some more room around your way cause half the Irish workforce is there.

Anyway leave politics out of it.

No, there are safe dosage levels for a lot of compounds. Ethanol for example (all those studies into red wine consumption). Or asprin or vitamin A or whatever. But lead (and plutonium and pretty much all of the heavy metals), all of them have nasty, nasty effects on humans even in trace amounts. And in lead's case, mainly the effects show up in kids, and people tend to pay attention to stuff like that.

That said, the distribution of pellets compared to the natural distribution of lead in the environment, for wildfowling at least, are not that far apart. It doesn't seem like a ban is supportable for that. I can see there being a good argument for taking more measures on ranges because all the shooting there concentrates the lead in one place, but we already take measures here to prevent the worst of that getting near the water table, with linings under berms and the like. Beyond that, it'll get opposed (and rightly) and given the size of the opposition, it's hard to see an all-out ban coming in.

Well I grew up with others surrounded by lead, in the pipes, car exhausts and god knows what else.........hold on might explain a few things......Duh !:D

minktrapper

Sparks wrote: »

No, *we* haven't. They're doing a lot better (that $20 trillion is this year's latest estimate), or at least everyone outside of PIGS is.
As to the UK... that's a car crash in slow motion right now, it's physically painful to watch especially when you look at actual civil servants (the ones who have to do the actual work while eejits like Davis swan about making random proclamations). They're in so much trouble it's not funny anymore.
Seriously, the UK economy grew more slowly than the North Korean one last year. Even with dodgy accounting that's not a good sign.


No, there are safe dosage levels for a lot of compounds. Ethanol for example (all those studies into red wine consumption). Or asprin or vitamin A or whatever. But lead (and plutonium and pretty much all of the heavy metals), all of them have nasty, nasty effects on humans even in trace amounts. And in lead's case, mainly the effects show up in kids, and people tend to pay attention to stuff like that.

That said, the distribution of pellets compared to the natural distribution of lead in the environment, for wildfowling at least, are not that far apart. It doesn't seem like a ban is supportable for that. I can see there being a good argument for taking more measures on ranges because all the shooting there concentrates the lead in one place, but we already take measures here to prevent the worst of that getting near the water table, with linings under berms and the like. Beyond that, it'll get opposed (and rightly) and given the size of the opposition, it's hard to see an all-out ban coming in.

What measures are taken at clay pidgeon grounds. With 28 grammes (1oz) being used with every shot fired. And over a larger area so plenty of opportunity for lead to leech in to the ground.

Sparks

123shooter wrote: »

Yeah yeah yeah .....Sparks you can scoot around and find comparisons with everything but for a start get your head out of the Irish media who wont report anything but bad Brexit and Whoopie the EU.........when in reality it aint like that.

The Irish media? Yeah, no. I'll keep reading the original people's comments instead of filtering it through an editorial group that have their heads somewhere warm and dark thanks You can pretty much count the number of decent reporters in this country on the fingers of one hand and still give offence at will. And those few, you can read directly instead of through the editor.

But on your point if the UK is going down as you say......you had better make some more room around your way cause half the Irish workforce is there.

Yup. Like I said, painful to watch
It's not like we're in a good place now, but you start cranking on the price of imported goods, you kick all the UK Irish workers out to here, and well, there's a catastrophe in the making

Well I grew up with others surrounded by lead, in the pipes, car exhausts and god knows what else.........hold on might explain a few things......Duh !:D

Dunno what you're *twitch* on about mate, I'm *twitch* fine, I am. Perfectly *twitch* normal.

Sparks

minktrapper wrote: »

What measures are taken at clay pidgeon grounds. With 28 grammes (1oz) being used with every shot fired. And over a larger area so plenty of opportunity for lead to leech in to the ground.

Ah, but we have a solution to that - we just don't define clay pigeon grounds as ranges in Ireland. Simples!

123shooter

minktrapper wrote:

What measures are taken at clay pidgeon grounds. With 28 grammes (1oz) being used with every shot fired. And over a larger area so plenty of opportunity for lead to leech in to the ground.

On this 'Oh my god' point before you get too paranoid Lead is a natural substance and found everywhere in certain quantities.

Lead piping and lead solder is still around on pipework and lead is found on most roofs being washed and degraded by the elements.

grassroot1

The problem with banning lead is that a lot of our guns cannot shoot the alternatives.
When we look at what the american waterfowlers are using I dont think I could stick shooting 3inch shells loaded with no 1 shot for any lenght of time. Perhaps that is why the mostly use autos to help with the recoil.
If a lead ban is to come into force a viable alternative must be available first

ligertigon

At least depleted uranium is still allowed!

minktrapper

A bit like landfills. We all use them and need them but not in my backyard.

gunny123

minktrapper wrote: »

Check out the major u.s. sites. Not much of a difference in cost. The price of lead on the markets is way more expensive than iron. So it looks like steel will be the way to go in the future. Shotgun manufacturers will probably build stronger barrells to cope with higher pressures or maybe the existing ones will be good enough.

Thats fine , but both my shotguns are probably 100 years old at this stage, i don't want to abuse them firing crappy inferior steel shot through them. Good quality shotguns have thin barrels with good balance and handle well. If the solution is to shoot a pump or semi with a drain pipe for a barrel, then i'll pass.

Hopefully common sense will prevail, after all i don't hear of people dropping left right and centre with lead poisoning. The only trouble i've heard lead shot causing, apart from people actually getting shot with it, is breaking a tooth tucking into a pheasant or woodcock.

yubabill1

I've never used steel shot, but I did follow the UK debate some years ago.

In addition to the steel-proofed barrel issue, a lot of shotgun shooters argued that steel retains less energy than lead and is less inclined to kill quickly.

Hence the need for more powder behind the shot, but it's subject to the law of diminishing returns - energy equals mass times velocity; but it works both ways and lighter shot loses velocity more quickly.

I have just read an article by Varoufakis (forget his first name) in the Sunday Times, advising the UK that the EU negotiators are aiming to crush the UK on Brexit by planting diminishing/negative media articles, by forcing the UK to negotiate about negotiations and demanding complete capitulation, exactly as they did with Greece (and all the PIIGS). The parallel is that Varoufakis believes the EU believes it must deter similar behaviour from other member states in both cases.

Varoufakis describes the EU attitude brilliantly - as anyone who followed the firearms directive will remember - as "incompetent authoritarianism"

grassroot1

minktrapper wrote: »

A bit like landfills. We all use them and need them but not in my backyard.

No comparison at all.
I fail to see what effect my 200 rounds of lead dispersed over a very large area will have on human health. No sportsman has an objection to using alternatives but they must be viable alternatives.
The moves to ban lead are simply a thinly veiled attempt to curtail hunting

gunny123

yubabill1 wrote: »

I've never used steel shot, but I did follow the UK debate some years ago.

In addition to the steel-proofed barrel issue, a lot of shotgun shooters argued that steel retains less energy than lead and is less inclined to kill quickly.

Hence the need for more powder behind the shot, but it's subject to the law of diminishing returns - energy equals mass times velocity; but it works both ways and lighter shot loses velocity more quickly.

I have just read an article by Varoufakis (forget his first name) in the Sunday Times, advising the UK that the EU negotiators are aiming to crush the UK on Brexit by planting diminishing/negative media articles, by forcing the UK to negotiate about negotiations and demanding complete capitulation, exactly as they did with Greece (and all the PIIGS). The parallel is that Varoufakis believes the EU believes it must deter similar behaviour from other member states in both cases.

Varoufakis describes the EU attitude brilliantly - as anyone who followed the firearms directive will remember - as "incompetent authoritarianism"

Just wait until the Italian economy finally crashes, or the eastern european countries get tired of merkel and macron dictating what they should do about immigration, and tell them to get stuffed.

"Incompetent authoritarianism" ? Leo was minister for health, made a complete balls of it, gets made taoiseach, so europe is compatable with Irelands way of doing things.

minktrapper

grassroot1 wrote: »

No comparison at all.
I fail to see what effect my 200 rounds of lead dispersed over a very large area will have on human health. No sportsman has an objection to using alternatives but they must be viable alternatives.
The moves to ban lead are simply a thinly veiled attempt to curtail hunting

If you were shooting clays that would be 28 grammes X 200 = 5.6 kg. So if there was 50 competitors and each fired 200 cartridges that would be 280 kg. That is over a quarter of a tonne of lead. All fired in a small area.

Hunting would be a different story.

yubabill1

gunny123 wrote: »

Just wait until the Italian economy finally crashes, or the eastern european countries get tired of merkel and macron dictating what they should do about immigration, and tell them to get stuffed.

"Incompetent authoritarianism" ? Leo was minister for health, made a complete balls of it, gets made taoiseach, so europe is compatable with Irelands way of doing things.

There is serious talk in Italy of running a new Italian Lira in parallel with the Euro. the idea is that they could raise bonds in Lira and Euro to suit themselves.

The incumbent govt are expected to lose the next election and the putative new coalition, which is to include Berlusconi's party, Forza Italia, is in favour of this parallel arrangement.

123shooter

yubabill1 wrote: »

There is serious talk in Italy of running a new Italian Lira in parallel with the Euro. the idea is that they could raise bonds in Lira and Euro to suit themselves.

The incumbent govt are expected to lose the next election and the putative new coalition, which is to include Berlusconi's party, Forza Italia, is in favour of this parallel arrangement.

Not forgetting Poland wants their money from Germany about 750 billion......Brexit.....

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

That said, the distribution of pellets compared to the natural distribution of lead in the environment, for wildfowling at least, are not that far apart. It doesn't seem like a ban is supportable for that. I can see there being a good argument for taking more measures on ranges because all the shooting there concentrates the lead in one place, but we already take measures here to prevent the worst of that getting near the water table, with linings under berms and the like. Beyond that, it'll get opposed (and rightly) and given the size of the opposition, it's hard to see an all-out ban coming in.

Two things that never seem to be taken into waterfowl and lead toxicity..2stroke outboard engines and fishing weights.The exhaust of an outboard is under water so it is being directly mixed into the water.Even so called "lead-free " fuel still has trace amounts of lead in its fuel or a lead substitute to prevent "knocking".Fishing weights, well pretty self-explanatory.

minktrapper

Fishing weights have been taken into account for years afaik. In GB anyhow. The exhaust fumes? That's an interesting one.

Grizzly 45

Seems this will only apply to waterfowl in wetlands areas only?
Guns week article.

EU lead ammunition ban: don't panic!

September 12, 2017 - 10:27am Posted in:
CURRENT
Let's go back to the lead ammunition issue and the potential limitations that (in the future) could come from the European Commission
It's confirmed how, so far, talks about restrictions are on the table "only" for lead-based hunting ammunition in wetlands

Last week, we published the news about possible new restrictions on the use of lead-based ammunition: a new attack, once again coming from the European Commission, potentially even more dangerous than the proposed restrictions contained in the EU Commission directive approved this year.
While maintaining vigilance against any possible threat to our gun rights is important, it is also paramount to double-check and thoroughly investigate all relevant information in order to avoid raising unwarranted alarm in the shooters' community.
The concern of a possible total ban on lead-based ammunition – which would have a negative effect on all sport shooting activities, everywhere in Europe – spread like wildfire among the European shooters' community, and we have been asked to shed some further light about the matter, which is what we are going to do right now.
Concerning the European Commission's request to ECHA to evaluate possible restrictions to the use of lead-based ammunition, authoritative sources within EU institutions confirmed to us that the procedure only pertains to the use of lead-based ammunition for hunting purposes in the wetlands.

Sources from AFEMS – the Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition – also confirm that the focus of the procedure is, once again, hunting ammunition used in wetlands. Something that many hunters in several European countries have already learned to get used to.
There is no total ban on lead-based ammunition behind the corner, nor any planned restriction for uses other than hunting in wetlands

It goes without saying, that within the European Commission there are people that would just love to go "more ambitious" on the matter; but as far as it concerns limitations on the use of lead-based ammunition in handguns and rifles, there are no operative indications, exception made for generic indications to conduct "studies" about their impact on the environment. Therefore, nothing to be worried about.
What is on the table is basically a modification on the REACH regulation, and not a directive to be passed by the European Parliament with the direct involvement of the Council and the Commission; this means that, while any restriction proposal may indeed have a political motive, the procedure will not be political but exquisitely technical and scientific in nature.

To sum it up: there is no imminent threat to the use of lead-based ammunition, no cause for alarm or panic, no total ban on lead-based ammunition is awaiting behind the corner, just like the total ban on modern sporting firearms proposed by the European Commission failed miserably to see the light.

When facing this kind of threats – because that's what we're talking about! – the European shooters' community needs to be resilient and avoid unwarranted panicky reactions like " I don't buy them, as they will soon be banned". The masterminds behind the European and global gun control campaigns want you to believe this, in order to weaken the industry and the whole market, preparing for possible future attacks. We will keep you posted.
THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR, IS FEAR ITSELF.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

kunekunesika

The supply and sale of 2-stroke marine engines was effectively outlawed in the eu a good few years ago. Only a small number of manufacturers so easy to implement. You can continue to use any existing engines until they break.

Nekarsulm

And I think using Aspen is environmentally friendly. Not friendly on the pocket, though!
Quite a few friends with boats are getting those little 12 volt motors now.

minktrapper

CCI have a new.22 bullet on the market called Copper 22.A 21gr hollow point bullet made from copper and polymer particles. Travelling at 1850 fps.

meathstevie

minktrapper wrote: »

CCI have a new.22 bullet on the market called Copper 22.A 21gr hollow point bullet made from copper and polymer particles. Travelling at 1850 fps.

Not too sure if the introduction of more plastic particles in the environment is less harmful than lead. The only place where you're really going to find high concentrations of lead from shooting is in the backstops of ranges and in concentrated areas on clay grounds. It's far from impossible to periodically remove that soil or similar material and physically separate the lead from the other material.

minktrapper

Plastic of course is not banned at the moment and won't be for the foreseeable future. If it ever is we are in for a big shock. Would it pay to harvest the lead or put in a system where it can be easily removed.

gunny123

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_EhWmzTlQ

Autochange

surely the Environment is more important than your guns. Just get new ones that fire the new ammo.

gunny123

Autochange wrote: »

surely the Environment is more important than your guns. Just get new ones that fire the new ammo.

What new ammo ?

Autochange

gunny123 wrote: »

What new ammo ?

Maybe i missed something but is there not a new type of ammunition to replace the lead?

Nekarsulm

Autochange wrote: »

Maybe i missed something but is there not a new type of ammunition to replace the lead?

Out on October 5th. Countrywide release.