Lead ban

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Exactly...You can make as many laws as you want. Enforcing them on the ground is a different matter. Without a doubt , estuaries, foreshore,rivers&lakes under state control. Your private ground...Be interesting alright.:)

Clay and rifle ranges ? Who's job will it be ? Wildlife rangers ? Who will pay for it ? It looks like the whole thing could be unworkable on that front. The alternative ? No lead cartridges or bullets allowed into the country, or to be sold in gunshops. What a mess.

JohnFitz2332

So, this is genuinely and literally posing an existential threat to all shooting sports in Ireland?

tudderone

JohnFitz2332 wrote: »

So, this is genuinely and literally posing an existential threat to all shooting sports in Ireland?

Thats the desired outcome i reckon.

meathstevie

no_4 wrote: »

Half choke or less is always the advice
Worth looking up the cartridge pressures also
Cost wise the cheapest steel will be 2-3 x more exp compared with lead

Price wise the difference isn’t nowhere near that bad on the continent. The real problems are the cost of purchasing a new gun if this nonsense gets through and the fact that steel compared to lead is far more ineffective.

Never mind bismuth and tungsten based ammo, you want to be a City hedgefund honcho to afford that lark.

dto001

tudderone wrote: »

Its a bit like the guards and the reloading scheme in the midlands, "expense is not a reason for wanting to reload". If you are like Phil Hogan taking home 300k a year and expenses of all kinds, you don't care.

But your existing gun not being able to fire anything other than lead may be, to allow you use bismuth etc. which would reduce the number of wounded game. There should be a push on now to allow reloading for all hunters as this would help reduce the cost a bit es
pecially for older gun owners

The father went duck shooting a couple of years ago in the states where they use steel and he said you have to let them right in no more shooting at birds in orbit:D

meathstevie

dto001 wrote: »

But your existing gun not being able to fire anything other than lead may be, to allow you use bismuth etc. which would reduce the number of wounded game. There should be a push on now to allow reloading for all hunters as this would help reduce the cost a bit es
pecially for older gun owners

The father went duck shooting a couple of years ago in the states where they use steel and he said you have to let them right in no more shooting at birds in orbit:D

Have you seen the prices of bismuth cartridges ? You can buy a decent second hand gun for the price of a slab of those.

I still sincerely doubt if lead ammunition is really the threat to the environment the powers that be want you to believe. If it is what was put into the environment between WWI and WWII should have exterminated all life on the continent. You’re literally talking billions of bullets discharged all over the continent of Europe, some in concentrations centuries of hunting won’t accumulate anywhere.

Grizzly 45

Not only that .There is a difference between hard lead,as used in bullets and shells and soft lead,as used in paints,fuel and the like which shows up more in the nviroment than hard lead..Hard lead can be so hard that even hydrochloric acid,the stuff we all have in our stomachs that breaks down foods and bones its that strong,wont even touch hard lead.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

Clay and rifle ranges ? Who's job will it be ? Wildlife rangers ? Who will pay for it ? It looks like the whole thing could be unworkable on that front. The alternative ? No lead cartridges or bullets allowed into the country, or to be sold in gunshops. What a mess.

More than likely,when the stocks run out of lead ammo,thats it bar military/LE production which are curiously exempt from this directive.:rolleyes:

GooseB

I wonder how this will hit the EU gun manufacturers if all lead in all ammunition gets banned? How big is the EU market as a proportion of their entire global market? If the October debate does herald this next step, nobody will want to buy a new gun if there'll be such a restricted ammunition supply in 2 or 3 years. You certainly wouldn't go buy a new air rifle for pest control after hearing that news, or a target rifle, or the thoughts of having to replace your shotgun might just make you so sick you just throw the towel in altogether.

What'll the sport look like then - people shooting steel shot from shotguns, hunters using monolithic copper bullets for deer, no rimfire and can anyone afford centrefire target shooting with the amount of rounds shot there with copper bullets? This is what they want - gun free Europe. The environmental issue is just a useful Trojan horse.

tudderone

GooseB wrote: »

I wonder how this will hit the EU gun manufacturers if all lead in all ammunition gets banned? How big is the EU market as a proportion of their entire global market? If the October debate does herald this next step, nobody will want to buy a new gun if there'll be such a restricted ammunition supply in 2 or 3 years. You certainly wouldn't go buy a new air rifle for pest control after hearing that news, or a target rifle, or the thoughts of having to replace your shotgun might just make you so sick you just throw the towel in altogether.

What'll the sport look like then - people shooting steel shot from shotguns, hunters using monolithic copper bullets for deer, no rimfire and can anyone afford centrefire target shooting with the amount of rounds shot there with copper bullets? This is what they want - gun free Europe. The environmental issue is just a useful Trojan horse.

100%.

Brontosaurus

Rows Grower wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/rural-life/gun-owners-facing-2000-bill-over-proposed-rules-on-lead-ammunition-39519488.html

The ****ers only care when it affects them, and even then they give a piss-poor defense, and on top of that they say the "landowner or their agent who have a legitimate need to use firearms to protect livestock and crops.", without mentioning sports shooting, implying we don't count.

meathstevie

Brontosaurus wrote: »

The ****ers only care when it affects them, and even then they give a piss-poor defense, and on top of that they say the "landowner or their agent who have a legitimate need to use firearms to protect livestock and crops.", without mentioning sports shooting, implying we don't count.

I wouldn’t say so. “Agent” in that sentence is the likes of you and I who give the pigeons and the crows a rattle when it’s needed and get the nod for shooting over the land in return. It’s a formal way of describing the rather informal way in which most shooting in Ireland takes place.

dto001

meathstevie wrote: »

Have you seen the prices of bismuth cartridges ? You can buy a decent second hand gun for the price of a slab of those.

Sorry I wasn't very clear there I meant to allow reload bismuth or an equivalent Reloading your own may bring down the price a bit probably not too much mind. but it could be used as a good reason for getting a license for reloading.

The next question is in what way are the groups representing the shooting community going to re-act? or are they going to embrace it like in the UK?
I haven't see much coming out of them just FACE releasing a statement. At this point they should be organising marches etc. to stop this or make it at least workable if not stop it. It just seems to be a talking shop to me. Over this whole thing I've heard feck all from any of the various groups except being aske by the NARGC for a bullet from a shot deer but that was on the 1st of March.

Zxthinger

dto001 wrote: »

Sorry I wasn't very clear there I meant to allow reload bismuth or an equivalent Reloading your own may bring down the price a bit probably not too much mind. but it could be used as a good reason for getting a license for reloading.

The next question is in what way are the groups representing the shooting community going to re-act? or are they going to embrace it like in the UK?
I haven't see much coming out of them just FACE releasing a statement. At this point they should be organising marches etc. to stop this or make it at least workable if not stop it. It just seems to be a talking shop to me. Over this whole thing I've heard feck all from any of the various groups except being aske by the NARGC for a bullet from a shot deer but that was on the 1st of March.

A bullet from a shot deer? What's that about.

amadangomor

Not getting into the general debate here but there is one example of a gun club that has a clay shooting ground aiming out into a bog. Can you imagine how much lead is in that bog?

Surely this sort of thing shouldn't be allowed and when it's uncovered will give the people wanting to ban lead more ammunition. (excuse the pun)

Grizzly 45

They have been reacting,where it counts,in Brussels. No point in us queing up to protest outside the Dail with all the various others peed off with the EU Soviet on a Saturday. All our lot will say is its out of their hands its an EU directive .
FACE's most recent statement is actually considerd pretty radical for a Brussels based organisation to be issued on this.

This is now in the hands of MEPs and who will be sitting in the star chambers of the trilouge,where all the unaccounted dirty busisness of EU law is made.:)
Gotta up our game people.Stop thinking nationally,think EU and lobbying every other european MEP on this.Id recommend emailing the Polish,Czech,Slovakian and Hungarian lads as they are pretty much pro gun in outlook,then find whoever had been voting pro gun individually in the Western MEPs, our Irish shower, even if they voted twice,wouldn't make a difference due to the EU system and are, by and large Greenies and indifferent wage collectors until pension timethat we have there.

Grizzly 45

amadangomor wrote: »

Not getting into the general debate here but there is one example of a gun club that has a clay shooting ground aiming out into a bog. Can you imagine how much lead is in that bog?

Surely this sort of thing shouldn't be allowed and when it's uncovered will give the people wanting to ban lead more ammunition. (excuse the pun)

I could think of 3 of them that would fall foul of this under the new definition of "wetland"
By the EUSSR.It never was a problem untill Brussels made it one,with this badly worded directive.Plus as, pointed out before ,shotgun ammo is HARD lead,not the more dangerous soft lead, it is virtually water insoluble if hydrochloric acid wont attack it.

Grizzly 45

Brontosaurus wrote: »

The ****ers only care when it affects them, and even then they give a piss-poor defense, and on top of that they say the "landowner or their agent who have a legitimate need to use firearms to protect livestock and crops.", without mentioning sports shooting, implying we don't count.

What annoys me about that lot is,they are always asleep on issues that affect us all,and when they do wake up,the first 3 things they always seem to ask and get is; Can we get a grant for it?We want an exception to the rules.Shure if it doesnt affect us farmers,do what ye want...Witness that time that gobdaw of the IFA stating to go ahead and ban handguns and semi auto rifles in their offical statement in 2015:mad:

Biggest theft of firearms that end up in criminal hands comes from their members,who got the most lax security requirements of us all.Break the gun into its component parts or store with a trigger lock.
No fekin rush on them either to go bother the minister to try and sort out the deer liscense mess for their members,who are wondering where the stalkers are this year either.
Waste ofspace that lot on shooting matters here.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

What annoys me about that lot is,they are always asleep on issues that affect us all,and when they do wake up,the first 3 things they always seem to ask and get is; Can we get a grant for it?We want an exception to the rules.Shure if it doesnt affect us farmers,do what ye want...Witness that time that gobdaw of the IFA stating to go ahead and ban handguns and semi auto rifles in their offical statement in 2015:mad:

Biggest theft of firearms that end up in criminal hands comes from their members,who got the most lax security requirements of us all.Break the gun into its component parts or store with a trigger lock.
No fekin rush on them either to go bother the minister to try and sort out the deer liscense mess for their members,who are wondering where the stalkers are this year either.
Waste ofspace that lot on shooting matters here.

I don't understand a lot of these orgs, we've had SCOVI, which nearly snookered us completely, the British have BASC, which is volunteering to give things away like volunteering a lead ban without consultation of its members, even in the US, the NRA are about as popular as an allegator in a swimming pool now, something i never thought i'd see in my lifetime, its GOA now.

Too many "you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours" backroom dealings.

dto001

Zxthinger wrote: »

A bullet from a shot deer? What's that about.

https://nargc.ie/save-our-sport/

dto001

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

They have been reacting,where it counts,in Brussels. No point in us queing up to protest outside the Dail with all the various others peed off with the EU Soviet on a Saturday. All our lot will say is its out of their hands its an EU directive .
FACE's most recent statement is actually considerd pretty radical for a Brussels based organisation to be issued on this.

This is now in the hands of MEPs and who will be sitting in the star chambers of the trilouge,where all the unaccounted dirty busisness of EU law is made.:)
Gotta up our game people.Stop thinking nationally,think EU and lobbying every other european MEP on this.Id recommend emailing the Polish,Czech,Slovakian and Hungarian lads as they are pretty much pro gun in outlook,then find whoever had been voting pro gun individually in the Western MEPs, our Irish shower, even if they voted twice,wouldn't make a difference due to the EU system and are, by and large Greenies and indifferent wage collectors until pension timethat we have there.

Does anyone know who the pro shooting ones are? I don't even know who is pro shooting here:D:D

Grizzly 45

And true to form , the Johnny come lately of the IFA arrives in with hand out,bawling for money, tramping all over the place in their mucky wellies.:mad:
The problem isnt with NPWS or the minister either its in EUROPE for a start.... Jeeze !!!Could someone brief these people before they make complete gobdaws of themselves...Again??:rolleyes::mad:

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/ifa-to-consider-seeking-compensation-after-lead-ammunition-ban-vote/

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And true to form , the Johnny come lately of the IFA arrives in with hand out,bawling for money, tramping all over the place in their mucky wellies.:mad:
The problem isnt with NPWS or the minister either its in EUROPE for a start.... Jeeze !!!Could someone brief these people before they make complete gobdaws of themselves...Again??:rolleyes::mad:

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/ifa-to-consider-seeking-compensation-after-lead-ammunition-ban-vote/

Its a bit selective isn't it ? Farmers want compensation, what about me and everyone else who has had their property made unusable, don't we count ?

hiddenmongoose

tudderone wrote: »

Its a bit selective isn't it ? Farmers want compensation, what about me and everyone else who has had their property made unusable, don't we count ?

Fact. And more to the point I don't want compensation in the first place I want this legislation scrapped/amended.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

Its a bit selective isn't it ? Farmers want compensation, what about me and everyone else who has had their property made unusable, don't we count ?

Nope!unless you are of the agricultural bent,they aint intrested.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Nope!unless you are of the agricultural bent,they aint intrested.

Ah, the "I'm alright Jack, sod you" line of reasoning.

Mississippi.

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

Fact. And more to the point I don't want compensation in the first place I want this legislation scrapped/amended.

+ 1 on that.
They must not fully understand the inadequacies of steel if they they think that with a bit of compo they'll be alright again

GooseB

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/hunting/ammunition/eu-lead-ban-in-ammunition-current-status-in-september-2020-all-you-need-to-know-about-lead-shot-in-wetlands-and-the-long-term-threats-for-hunters/

BattleCorp

Saw this video earlier. While it's a rough test, it clearly shows that steel really isn't an adequate substitute for lead as the performance difference between the two is quite significant. But we already knew that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT2F18WPGew

tudderone

BattleCorp wrote: »

Saw this video earlier. While it's a rough test, it clearly shows that steel really isn't an adequate substitute for lead as the performance difference between the two is quite significant. But we already knew that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT2F18WPGew

30 yards will be a long shot with steel, or you won't be breaking clays, or killing game cleanly.

Zxthinger

I have read a fair bit of this thread but what can be done to try and limit the interference of this ban.
Can shooting bodies create maps of areas where lead might be prohibited.
If you let the PTB figure it out they might just ban lead across the entire island.

paulireland

Looks like it will come in
Its a question of how to limit the damage it will cause

BattleCorp

Zxthinger wrote: »

I have read a fair bit of this thread but what can be done to try and limit the interference of this ban.
Can shooting bodies create maps of areas where lead might be prohibited.
If you let the PTB figure it out they might just ban lead across the entire island.

The problem is that you can be miles from a river, bog, stream, pond or lake but a good lashing of rain could create a puddle on the land and technically that might then be considered a wetland.

But you are right, maps need to be drawn up because you can't trust our gombeen Government to do anything right. They'd probably be far happier banning lead and to hell with the consequences.

Asus1

Ok this might sound naive but should there not be loads dead or dying waterfowl on all this land now designated as wetlands.Our land will be classified and ive never seen a duck on the land.
Are there areas of Europe that seen massive fighting during ww2 that are now wetlands holding waterfowl.Surely with all the lead flying around any fowl would be dead or have huge lead readings.

meathstevie

Asus1 wrote: »

Ok this might sound naive but should there not be loads dead or dying waterfowl on all this land now designated as wetlands.Our land will be classified and ive never seen a duck on the land.
Are there areas of Europe that seen massive fighting during ww2 that are now wetlands holding waterfowl.Surely with all the lead flying around any fowl would be dead or have huge lead readings.

My good man, if lead from spent ammo was so unbelievably toxic as the powers that be want you to believe life should be extinct from Nieuwpoort on the Belgian coast in a wide belt through the North and Northeast of France to South of Strasbourg as it was once known as the Western Front.

Some areas are dangerous alright but not because of the presence of lead but because of the presence of unexploded ordnance among which quite an amount of chemical weaponry.

Sure Volgograd, aka Stalingrad, should look like the surface of the moon.

Grizzly 45

Not to mind those ww1 battlefields are turned over annually in ploughing and agriculture and produce an "iron harvest " of appx 1000 metric tonnes PA,which is estimated will take another 700 years to clean up.
So unlike normal birdshot lead which will eventually sink below 12 to 24 ins of soil or river , swamp mud and out of the way of ducks and other waterfowl absorbing it in their crops, and then becoming some birds of prey dinner and poisoning them. Those former battlefields crops should be dumped immediately as a health hazard. Yet so long as this stuff is no more than 12 or 18 inches below the surface it's considerd fine for human consumption.In fact ,you are more likely to get more lead off your bio veggies,if they are grown near a roadway.

Yes lead is dangerous,but it also has to be taken in context too.We use hardned lead in our shells or bullets,not soft mallable stuff like roof lead.This stuff is so hard,hydrochloric acid wont attack it.IE the acid we all have in our stomachs to break down food.So this paranoia about "all lead is bad" is a witch hunt.

As for drawing a map,it would have to be changed after every rainstorm here. What needs to be changed in Brussels is the definition of "wetland" to standing bodies of water for more than 7days duration.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Not to mind those ww1 battlefields are turned over annually in ploughing and agriculture and produce an "iron harvest " of appx 1000 metric tonnes PA,which is estimated will take another 700 years to clean up.
So unlike normal birdshot lead which will eventually sink below 12 to 24 ins of soil or river , swamp mud and out of the way of ducks and other waterfowl absorbing it in their crops, and then becoming some birds of prey dinner and poisoning them. Those former battlefields crops should be dumped immediately as a health hazard. Yet so long as this stuff is no more than 12 or 18 inches below the surface it's considerd fine for human consumption.In fact ,you are more likely to get more lead off your bio veggies,if they are grown near a roadway.

Yes lead is dangerous,but it also has to be taken in context too.We use hardned lead in our shells or bullets,not soft mallable stuff like roof lead.This stuff is so hard,hydrochloric acid wont attack it.IE the acid we all have in our stomachs to break down food.So this paranoia about "all lead is bad" is a witch hunt.

As for drawing a map,it would have to be changed after every rainstorm here. What needs to be changed in Brussels is the definition of "wetland" to standing bodies of water for more than 7days duration.

There you go with them feckin' pesky fact things again. Pack it in will you ? Its green so therefore good, grotty thunberg has spoken.

323

tudderone wrote: »

30 yards will be a long shot with steel, or you won't be breaking clays, or killing game cleanly.

Far as remember a bit further than that, maybe closer to 40 in some cases. Going to be a big adjustment for everyone either way.

Lived 6 or 7 seasons across the pond, where shot waterfoul more than anything else, some coastal shooting but mostly on rice land. There Steel was only on wetland, clays, rough shooting, turkey, we still used lead.



Steel, less mass so less energy, plus doesn't deform so less energy transfer
.
Only experience on geese has been with steel, best of the time, the big Canadian geese are like trying to bring down a B17. Were only allowed one of those a day, but 15 or so Snow Geese, often filled that one.

Accepted norm there was to use shot a couple of sizes bigger, 3's or 4's instead of 6 on duck, T, TT or F instead of BB for geese (always magnum shells on geese).

Third or fourth season, started using 3's and 4's on the geese on advice of one old very experienced gentleman on our lease, where the big shot would break wings and bring the bird down often still alive, the denser shot pattern had a better chance of getting a few into the head/neck/gizzard and kill cleaner.

tudderone

323 wrote: »

Far as remember a bit further than that, maybe closer to 40 in some cases. Going to be a big adjustment for everyone either way.

Lived 6 or 7 seasons across the pond, where shot waterfoul more than anything else, some coastal shooting but mostly on rice land. There Steel was only on wetland, clays, rough shooting, turkey, we still used lead.



Steel, less mass so less energy, plus doesn't deform so less energy transfer
.
Only experience on geese has been with steel, best of the time, the big Canadian geese are like trying to bring down a B17. Were only allowed one of those a day, but 15 or so Snow Geese, often filled that one.

Accepted norm there was to use shot a couple of sizes bigger, 3's or 4's instead of 6 on duck, T, TT or F instead of BB for geese (always magnum shells on geese).

Third or fourth season, started using 3's and 4's on the geese on advice of one old very experienced gentleman on our lease, where the big shot would break wings and bring the bird down often still alive, the denser shot pattern had a better chance of getting a few into the head/neck/gizzard and kill cleaner.

You see this is what i object to. I heard of one lad who used steel on decoyed pigeons and he reckoned he never had so many runners. Birds hit, but not killed. I hate this, when i shoot a bird i love nothing more to see it fold stone dead in the air.

Maybe this is part of the reasoning behind this ban, people will give up in disgust ?

Grizzly 45

Well,if you ever needed confirmation on that Watermelon Grace O Sullivans stance on gun ownership and this lead ban .Here it is.She will vote yes for it.:mad:
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/schedule-set-for-eu-parliament-debate-on-lead-ammunition-ban/

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well,if you ever needed confirmation on that Watermelon Grace O Sullivans stance on gun ownership and this lead ban .Here it is.She will vote yes for it.:mad:
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/schedule-set-for-eu-parliament-debate-on-lead-ammunition-ban/

I've always expected the worst with the twits who run this country, and i have yet to be disappointed, they'll always do the worst. It will be no different with this situation :mad:.

tudderone

Have a look at this, a stunning range in Switzerland being closed after 143 years due to "environmental regulations", - having lead on a range :rolleyes:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdXID-EHzYY

Eddie B

Some positive news

https://www.facebook.com/190104431023958/posts/3664114666956233/?sfnsn=mo

Grizzly 45

Just hope he can maintain this when it gets to the Trilouge stage of EU law making.The EU Irish Greens will be no help,Ming doesn't know,and the others FFG proably will do as their EU bosses want.Keep bulk emailing all EU MEPs of all countries on this.It is helping .

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Just hope he can maintain this when it gets to the Trilouge stage of EU law making.The EU Irish Greens will be no help,Ming doesn't know,and the others FFG proably will do as their EU bosses want.Keep bulk emailing all EU MEPs of all countries on this.It is helping .

If the Commission want something, in this case a lead ban, they will get it. They have said before they have 50 ways of getting what they want, and no pesky public and their emails/protests will change that, sadly. Just seen the "Compulsory Solidarity" thing being pushed by merkel and the eu, its getting like Nineteen eighty-four.

tudderone

"They don't damage your gun, apart from bulges and scraped barrels "? :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6DeKia_PO8

keith s

Sorry if this has been discussed before.

As I understand it, steel shot needs more pressure to get any distance and so the barrels need testing to confirm they can hold up.
But what happens if you have a barrels or shotgun not proofed for steel.

Is it a legal requirement or more of a safety thing to get them tested?

meathstevie

keith s wrote: »

Sorry if this has been discussed before.

As I understand it, steel shot needs more pressure to get any distance and so the barrels need testing to confirm they can hold up.
But what happens if you have a barrels or shotgun not proofed for steel.

Is it a legal requirement or more of a safety thing to get them tested?

No it’s not a regal requirement to have them tested for your own use but since Ireland is a CIP country ( without it’s own proof house may I add ) selling a firearm commercially requires it to be CIP proofed.

Proofing is nothing more than a recognised proof house, as in test firing facility, shooting a particular heavy load through a gun submitted for proofing.

If the gun withstands this without sustaining any damage it is deemed safe up to a defined weight and pressure limit for all ammo available for the caliber. If does get damaged it’s failed.

For shotguns there are a wide range of different proofing standards going from black powder proof, nitro proof, steel proof etc etc. A defined load to proof to each of those standards exists for all calibers, 12bore, 16bore, 20 bore, 2”, 2 1/2”, 2 3/4”, 3” etc etc.

The nearest proof house is located in Birmingham or London. Other proof houses are located in Belgium, France, Germany etc etc.

For your own gun and safety if you don’t particularly care wether your gun gets damaged or not there’s the wheelbarrow test. It’s very simple, you tie the gun to wheelbarrow with a bit of weight in it, load with a couple of heavy loads of the right dimensions and pull the trigger with a length of twine from a good distance. Repeat a few times and if the gun holds up it will most likely not disintegrate when fired in your hands with lighter loads than what you’ve tortured it with.

keith s

Thanks Stevie,

That makes sense.
So, if for example, I was going to trade in a shotgun, it would need to be proofed in order for the RFD to resell it on?
Which probably means I could get a few extra quid if this was already done as apposed to the RFD having to send it off.

tudderone

There are steel loads that are designed for use in guns that have not been built to fire steel shot. Like the ones in the video above. As you say to get the same performance as lead, the steel has to be faster, which means higher pressures, or if you keep to the same pressures, slower shot. Laws of physics i'm afraid.

Personally i think the whole thing is a dogs dinner, dreamt up by some green plonker in a back office in Brussels, with the added advantage that a lot of older lads might just say to hell with it and give up shooting.