EU lead ban in both shot shells and bullets imminent!

Nekarsulm

Or perhaps Bismuth?

grassroot1

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Or perhaps Bismuth?

Are you sure you are a cavan man?

Grizzly 45

Autochange wrote: »

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

You realise that is an investment of several thousand euros for us with a zero trade-in option on then "old lead shooting" firearms?They would have instant scrap value.Also, as usual, we are the ones who should change.How about the eco-freaks "change" for once and work with us for a solution to the problem?Copper shot is also an option.As are teflon coatings.

123shooter

Autochange wrote: »

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

That is actually a fair point and nearly all human activity has some effect on the environment not more than the form of transport we all use..........your car.

Most of the journeys made are for leisure so of no real importance and a drain on the environment. Also the automobile is one of the biggest polluters of the planet, biggest drains on the earth's resources, biggest cause of harm and killers of animal and human life than any gun or lead metal projectile used for peace time purposes.

Over to you as you seem to have the answers.

minktrapper

Any idea as to the cost of copper.

meathstevie

Autochange wrote: »

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

Environmental concerns are definitely important. The real question though is whether the level of environmental impact is really there to justify a prohibition on lead ammunition. On shooting ranges it can be contained and removed and for hunting applications the quantities that end up in the environment are quite small and very spread out geographically . Personally I would be much more in favour of compulsory introduction of biodegradable materials for wads and cartridge cases and leave lead ammo alone.

Grizzly 45

Could go back to cardboard shells?

Any idea as to the cost of copper.

not cheap, but it isn't applied in millimetres, but microns

gunny123

meathstevie wrote: »

Environmental concerns are definitely important. The real question though is whether the level of environmental impact is really there to justify a prohibition on lead ammunition. On shooting ranges it can be contained and removed and for hunting applications the quantities that end up in the environment are quite small and very spread out geographically . Personally I would be much more in favour of compulsory introduction of biodegradable materials for wads and cartridge cases and leave lead ammo alone.

When i buy shells for my old side by side (short chambers), usually all i can get are traditional game loads, which are paper cased, and fibre wad. So it looks like back to the future is the way to go.

123shooter

meathstevie wrote: »

Environmental concerns are definitely important. The real question though is whether the level of environmental impact is really there to justify a prohibition on lead ammunition. On shooting ranges it can be contained and removed and for hunting applications the quantities that end up in the environment are quite small and very spread out geographically . Personally I would be much more in favour of compulsory introduction of biodegradable materials for wads and cartridge cases and leave lead ammo alone.

Lead does eventually degrade and enter the environment as do all metals, but they are all there naturally and sometimes in very much larger quantities so a natural part of the environment/make up of the planet, whereas plastic is not and purely man made and also now known as a much bigger problem/threat.

I remember paper cased and fibre wad cartridges. All game cartridges were like that up until the mid 80's I think and then they all went the same as trap cartridges, but paper cased/fibre wad cartridges were around for almost one hundred years before they changed and there was no problem with them.

Possibly the change was more of a production efficiency thing?

Nekarsulm

Production efficiency, plus they don't swell up if they get wet.

Grizzly 45

That's why the US Army made full brass shotgun shells. Still, have 4 of them.
But with modern day production methods of waterproofing paper, it should be an academic issue?

gunny123

Never had an issue with swelling on the paper cases. The eley ones are coated with a varnish and are a lovely looking thing.

Another thing is case length. Cases have progressed in length from 2" to 2 1/2" to 2 3/4" over the years, but as powders have improved, there is less volume needed. Loads have also gotten lighter, again needing less case volume.

You wind up with a shell with a bit of material each end and nothing much in the middle. A shorter case makes sense, especially if you are using fibre wads.

grassroot1

We could of course pick up the fired cases and recycle them.
A 3 and a half inch shell in a papercase not sure how that would go?
In reality using lead on dry ground over a wide geographic area will have minimal enviromental impact.
This is just an attempt to curtail hunting and shooting

Sika98k

grassroot1 wrote: »

After nearly 25 to 30 years of lead ban talk a viable alternative has not been produced that I find amazing.

One of the proposals brought to the table is to make having lead cartridges in your possession an offence

It is already in Denmark an offence to have lead cartridges in your possession. A rather frightening amount PER cartridge ! I forget the exact amount but it would soften your cough.

gunny123

Don't forget in Europe a lot of so called Green parties were formed by members or former members of far left and communist parties. People with a not very positive attitude towards civilian gun ownership. No wonder they come up with loo-laa ideas to try to stop shooting sports.

123shooter

grassroot1 wrote: »

We could of course pick up the fired cases and recycle them.
A 3 and a half inch shell in a papercase not sure how that would go?
In reality using lead on dry ground over a wide geographic area will have minimal enviromental impact.
This is just an attempt to curtail hunting and shooting

At the clay shoots we were at which at the start were small clubs we always picked up the plastic wads afterwards. The trouble is that people then burn them with the cases which is not good.

I would never drop my cases anywhere but 3.5" cases could be made from biograde plastic if it were a problem.

minktrapper

grassroot1 wrote: »

We could of course pick up the fired cases and recycle them.
A 3 and a half inch shell in a papercase not sure how that would go?
In reality using lead on dry ground over a wide geographic area will have minimal enviromental impact.
This is just an attempt to curtail hunting and shooting

I would hope that the lead would have no environmental impact. It isn't lead that is causing the biggest environmental impact today but intensive farming and the never ending quest for cheap food.

123shooter

minktrapper wrote: »

I would hope that the lead would have no environmental impact. It isn't lead that is causing the biggest environmental impact today but intensive farming and the never ending quest for cheap food.

Related but I would say plastic is the biggest problem or soon will be.

meathstevie

123shooter wrote: »

Lead does eventually degrade and enter the environment as do all metals, but they are all there naturally and sometimes in very much larger quantities so a natural part of the environment/make up of the planet, whereas plastic is not and purely man made and also now known as a much bigger problem/threat.

I remember paper cased and fibre wad cartridges. All game cartridges were like that up until the mid 80's I think and then they all went the same as trap cartridges, but paper cased/fibre wad cartridges were around for almost one hundred years before they changed and there was no problem with them.

Possibly the change was more of a production efficiency thing?

I remember them myself. Maybe I should have said reintroduction especially since it's proven technology.

meathstevie

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

That's why the US Army made full brass shotgun shells. Still, have 4 of them.
But with modern day production methods of waterproofing paper, it should be an academic issue?

The old waxed paper ones worked fine unless they got absolutely drenched. Modern plastic ones don't tolerate getting soaked all that well either...

Grizzly 45

You must have got some defective ones then.Considering 12 GA shells are used in so-called "Shark sticks" for scuba divers to ward off aggressive sharks.Cant get much more soaked than being 100% underwater.:)

123shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You must have got some defective ones then.Considering 12 GA shells are used in so-called "Shark sticks" for scuba divers to ward off aggressive sharks.Cant get much more soaked than being 100% underwater.:)

I always wondered about that as wax proofing and oiling of materials has been used for centuries without any problem.........Dubbin is still the best stuff to use today........ (For the pussy generation .......animal fats rubbed in to the leather boots):)

Grizzly 45

MINK OIL..Best for waterproofing leather boots.
Now apart from making the missus a nice fur coat, you know another useful thing for the carcasses of these bad-tempered rodents.:)