Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Lead ban
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Father in law dropped a few rifle shooter magazines in my letterbox yesterday as he was finished reading them. Included was was the most recent issue. Multiple articles about finding and testing lead free ammo in centre fire and (mostly) rimfire.
They were very thorough and show decent accuracy depending on brand (mostly rws/norma right now, with cci closing in too). They did expansion tests for varminting too which gave better results than eley subs.
Big caveat is the bullets are zinc with either copper plating or copper jacket. To maintain the correct size the bullets are 24gr instead of the usual 40gr. And the charge nearly fills the case, and results in hyper velocity, 1700fps. Big worry with overpenetration or pass through on smaller game and a very loud supersonic crack.
Best group with norma speeds was 0.3" but the wax coating gave inconsistent 5 round groups. 3 round groups were tight but 5 rounds more often than not gave a decent flyer. If wax coating removed, groups went to hell in a handbasket.
I'm starting to wonder will 17hmr overtake .22 now as they seem to be far less affected at present by lead free ammo? Hope not considering my Tikka T1x in .22 will be here this week
0 -
Father in law dropped a few rifle shooter magazines in my letterbox yesterday as he was finished reading them. Included was was the most recent issue. Multiple articles about finding and testing lead free ammo in centre fire and (mostly) rimfire.
They were very thorough and show decent accuracy depending on brand (mostly rws/norma right now, with cci closing in too). They did expansion tests for varminting too which gave better results than eley subs.
Big caveat is the bullets are zinc with either copper plating or copper jacket. To maintain the correct size the bullets are 24gr instead of the usual 40gr. And the charge nearly fills the case, and results in hyper velocity, 1700fps. Big worry with overpenetration or pass through on smaller game and a very loud supersonic crack.
Best group with norma speeds was 0.3" but the wax coating gave inconsistent 5 round groups. 3 round groups were tight but 5 rounds more often than not gave a decent flyer. If wax coating removed, groups went to hell in a handbasket.
I'm starting to wonder will 17hmr overtake .22 now as they seem to be far less affected at present by lead free ammo? Hope not considering my Tikka T1x in .22 will be here this week
Interesting, well the industry will roll with the punches.
Anything on the expected price of these new moonshot 22s?
Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.
S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized
S.I. No. 21/2008 - Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 - Firearm types restricted
Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered
S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban, ammo storage & transport restricted
Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 - 2023 Firearm Ban (retroactive to 8 years prior)
0 -
-
Interesting, well the industry will roll with the punches.
Anything on the expected price of these new moonshot 22s?
No definite pricing yet, centrefire seems in and around the current ballpark however rimfire is going to require extensive retooling and the obvious expense of copper on top of that. Regular ammo going to be match pricing I reckon0 -
No definite pricing yet, centrefire seems in and around the current ballpark however rimfire is going to require extensive retooling and the obvious expense of copper on top of that. Regular ammo going to be match pricing I reckon
There goes the international sport of having a plink with the rifle/pistol 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
When this is put in front of our MEPs after the consultation period is over, it is going to get voted for. There's no way they'll vote against it, they won't even take the time to understand what is being laid before them, as evidenced by some of the MEP's replies to questions already mentioned in this or other threads that clearly shows that they are ignorant of what they are actually doing.
So this is going through, like it or not and I think the best that can be hoped for is to have as much sensible parts put into it from ECHA in their proposal - because what they put forward gets rubber stamped by Dr. Okun and his ilk.
From the draft report here: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/95cc3061-7d88-67d0-b932-51d2606a50f3?fbclid=IwAR3XwtZ10KWhBb8pEnivFhpYkcywbF6ue6JW473pIiCB6rzdcWAIieTSPEA (which if you use the contents page to find the relevant bits you're interested in isn't too bad to navigate) the basic gist of things seemss to be:
For rifle hunting: Forget lead, it's knackered. After the 18 month transition period is over it's gone. For .22 calibre it's 5 years. (I have no idea if .22 calibre includes .22 calibre centrefire like ,222, .223, etc)
For shotgun hunting: Well, they've already banned it over "wetlands" anyway so this only bans it over any dry bits of the country if they happen to exist. But for those dry bits - lead is knackered too.
For shotgun target shooting/clay pigeon shooting: At the moment they're saying that technically it's possible with alternatives to lead. In the Olympics lead shot is a stipulation in the rules but the use of non lead shot is technically viable. ECHA are basically saying that the only barrier to lead free shot here is a rule and this just requires a rule change to be made, no more than that.
"Alternative shot material has been found to be effective in sports shooting as well, the barriers for further advancing with alternatives that are not technical but are rather imposed by the rules of the ISSF, FITASC and other organisations that require lead shot to be used and/or have not approved other shot material. "
If you look at the report, methods of lead shotgun shot recovery seem pretty expensive and are certainly not reasonable feasible from what I can see from a clay shoot in a field type arrangement (Excuse my lack of knowledge here, I don't shoot this discipline)
For rifle target shooting: They MAY allow the continued use of lead IF Risk Management Methods are put into place and the recovery of lead can be managed/verified/documented. At a bare minimum, they want at least 90% of lead recovered. This will mean bullet traps at ranges. I don't think that sifting the sand in berms will be adequate or certainly if would be difficult to say with certainty what has and hasn't been recovered with this method. They do say that strict measures will be needed. That's my interpretation - read the report and see what you make of it yourself. Also, if you read the case studies of the report in ranges in Finland that might resemble something like a backstop berm at the Midlands range - the costs are huge for lead recovery to the required 90% minimum.
This initial drafting follows the ECHA meeting 12 months ago with stakeholders (ie: the shooting industry and sporting bodies).
One of the stakeholders was the ISSF that put some evidence forward from their target shooting perspective:
"Stakeholders at the ECHA workshop and in the call for evidence highlighted that the test with lead fee bullets have shown that these type of bullets have an accuracy that is sufficient for hunting but that the accuracy achieved with lead free bullets is not sufficient for sports shooting purposes."
"Alternative shot material for bullets (and air pellets) the alternatives exhibit suboptimal performance in terms of required accuracy."
I only target shoot so paid attention to this area so far but from what I can see with the hunting parts of the report - there doesn't seem to be much evidence from any hunting bodies in this draft - if any were present at the Helsinki meeting even? Also remember that for range shooting - these lead recovery measures are only "Maybes". They can and would like to (want to) just go for an outright, total ban. No derogation at all. We need to try and get these parts very much forming elements of the final proposal . (If you don't target shoot at a range you should still support this type of inclusion - likewise if you don't hunt you should give reciprocal support to the suggested inclusions from the hunting side - everyone together)
I think if we want some sensible elements to be put into the proposal - be it hunting or target, rifle or shotgun - now, in the 6 month consultation period is the time for the groups or organisations to try get them included. Writing to MEPs in the shotgun lead shot ban that went through at the end of last year seemed to have little to no effect.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
When this is put in front of our MEPs after the consultation period is over, it is going to get voted for. There's no way they'll vote against it, they won't even take the time to understand what is being laid before them, as evidenced by some of the MEP's replies to questions already mentioned in this or other threads that clearly shows that they are ignorant of what they are actually doing.
So this is going through, like it or not and I think the best that can be hoped for is to have as much sensible parts put into it from ECHA in their proposal - because what they put forward gets rubber stamped by Dr. Okun and his ilk.
From the draft report here: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/95cc3061-7d88-67d0-b932-51d2606a50f3?fbclid=IwAR3XwtZ10KWhBb8pEnivFhpYkcywbF6ue6JW473pIiCB6rzdcWAIieTSPEA (which if you use the contents page to find the relevant bits you're interested in isn't too bad to navigate) the basic gist of things seemss to be:
For rifle hunting: Forget lead, it's knackered. After the 18 month transition period is over it's gone. For .22 calibre it's 5 years. (I have no idea if .22 calibre includes .22 calibre centrefire like ,222, .223, etc)
For shotgun hunting: Well, they've already banned it over "wetlands" anyway so this only bans it over any dry bits of the country if they happen to exist. But for those dry bits - lead is knackered too.
For shotgun target shooting/clay pigeon shooting: At the moment they're saying that technically it's possible with alternatives to lead. In the Olympics lead shot is a stipulation in the rules but the use of non lead shot is technically viable. ECHA are basically saying that the only barrier to lead free shot here is a rule and this just requires a rule change to be made, no more than that.
"Alternative shot material has been found to be effective in sports shooting as well, the barriers for further advancing with alternatives that are not technical but are rather imposed by the rules of the ISSF, FITASC and other organisations that require lead shot to be used and/or have not approved other shot material. "
If you look at the report, methods of lead shotgun shot recovery seem pretty expensive and are certainly not reasonable feasible from what I can see from a clay shoot in a field type arrangement (Excuse my lack of knowledge here, I don't shoot this discipline)
For rifle target shooting: They MAY allow the continued use of lead IF Risk Management Methods are put into place and the recovery of lead can be managed/verified/documented. At a bare minimum, they want at least 90% of lead recovered. This will mean bullet traps at ranges. I don't think that sifting the sand in berms will be adequate or certainly if would be difficult to say with certainty what has and hasn't been recovered with this method. They do say that strict measures will be needed. That's my interpretation - read the report and see what you make of it yourself. Also, if you read the case studies of the report in ranges in Finland that might resemble something like a backstop berm at the Midlands range - the costs are huge for lead recovery to the required 90% minimum.
This initial drafting follows the ECHA meeting 12 months ago with stakeholders (ie: the shooting industry and sporting bodies).
One of the stakeholders was the ISSF that put some evidence forward from their target shooting perspective:
"Stakeholders at the ECHA workshop and in the call for evidence highlighted that the test with lead fee bullets have shown that these type of bullets have an accuracy that is sufficient for hunting but that the accuracy achieved with lead free bullets is not sufficient for sports shooting purposes."
"Alternative shot material for bullets (and air pellets) the alternatives exhibit suboptimal performance in terms of required accuracy."
I only target shoot so paid attention to this area so far but from what I can see with the hunting parts of the report - there doesn't seem to be much evidence from any hunting bodies in this draft - if any were present at the Helsinki meeting even? Also remember that for range shooting - these lead recovery measures are only "Maybes". They can and would like to (want to) just go for an outright, total ban. No derogation at all. We need to try and get these parts very much forming elements of the final proposal . (If you don't target shoot at a range you should still support this type of inclusion - likewise if you don't hunt you should give reciprocal support to the suggested inclusions from the hunting side - everyone together)
I think if we want some sensible elements to be put into the proposal - be it hunting or target, rifle or shotgun - now, in the 6 month consultation period is the time for the groups or organisations to try get them included. Writing to MEPs in the shotgun lead shot ban that went through at the end of last year seemed to have little to no effect.
I agree with most of what you are saying however there are some countries that are not overly happy with this ban, unlike our own fools that to be honest will go along with everything they are told to. There are some aspects of this lead ban that are hard to argue against but now that they have the shotgun issue sorted they are getting carried away with this.I also agree we are wasting our time contacting our MEPs directly about this issue. The one MEP that got back to me said he would like to look around my club and discuss this with me at some stage. This will never come about as he really is not bothered.
For ranges bullet catchers are almost 100% effective in retrieving the lead and also it was suggested to use sand berms to be sifted requarly and the sand replaced every 5 years or so as an alternative. Most target clubs will adhere to this if required, however even so this does not solve the whole issue.
If copper bullets work well for deer shooting then grand as apart from a few more Euro nothing really changes. However almost all the smaller calibre rifles would suffer badly with this ban and really needs to be taken up by our local shooting representatives. What is their arguments for banning this type of ammo. .22lr ammo does not disintegrate on impact and generally will exit small game rabbits etc that it is used on. The same is true for say .223 on foxes as it will expand and punch right through a fox. The only argument is the displacement of lead both on the meat and the offal of deer. The meat as a danger to human health and the offal to scavengers. If copper was used for deer shooting then they have very little evidence to ban it.0 -
"You may have won this time, but we have 50 ways of getting what we want" :rolleyes:.
0 -
Possibly but going by the general gist of the proposed bill it would appear that lead ammo for smallbore lead ammo may be allowed if certain criteria are in place, bullet traps, possible overhang over target area, sand traps to be filtered and better ventilation. This however will not suit long range target shooting as it would be difficult to capture the bullets in these cases. My main concern for shooters is the damage copper at such velocities will cause to a decent barrel. My Bartlein and Benchmark barrels would be destroyed by these velocities. I think this leadban in unreasonable at present and there appears to be an air of acceptance creeping in at the moment.
That acceptance is clear with a headline on the Rifle Shooter magazine, 'non-toxic .22lr on test. The end of lead ammo as we know it'Grizzly 45 wrote: »And unfortunately pretty much a done deal as well! It's virtually impossible to argue against the "Lead is bad M'kay?" argument. Which it is a proven health hazard.That doesn't mean it can't be used in a controlled environment and process like shooting on ranges or leaving out from particular areas for hunting...If the govts of the EU think more injured birds are a better option and optics of "saving the wildlife" than clean kills with lead shot...Not to mind increasing the business of dentists for crowns and chipped teeth when people hit those steel pellets...Well then:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Beats me how they will work out this steel ammo with their own legislation in rifle ammo, as it is technically "Armour piercing" and therefore under EU legislation CAT A Prohibited ammo.
Saying it in your best Iraqveteran8888 voice, this is governments back door to take our guns. If you make it expensive and not worth the effort, how many people will just pack up and then thats gun owners now no longer gun owners?I've a young lad to teach in years come so I'll have carry on.
I know how the smokers felt when then ban came in though!
I've never been a smoker and would argue that 2nd hand smoke within an enclosed bar/workspace was/is far more dangerous than lead shot or bullets at a range.
I've 3 kids whom I'd like to introduce to shooting, and even before that I've only had my own license since October so personally I'm only getting going in the sport properly, ie owning my own gun instead of using someone else's, myself
I would question, in light of potential excess or increased barrel wear akin to larger centrefire rifles, should a rethink on barrels legislation be done to allow purchase without import license since more frequent changes will potentially be required?
Has anyone listened to Vortex Nation Podcast? They did an episode on Lead ammo and alternatives and a very good argument mentioning lead ammo being not as bio available as leaded fuel or paints etc. These bad versions of lead are what need to be tackled and the different 'type' of lead used in ammo is far less bio available, ie far less toxic or leached into your system than commercial lead. Even flashing on buildings is more dangerous than lead ammo.
However in a survey done in the states they ask do you support banning toxic ammo over public lands and ranges. The guests on the podcast quickly pointed out how the wording was deliberately misleading as if you asked should toxic paint be banned you would say yes! So unfortunately its a worldwide issue, not just the EU right now.
Afterthought;
Electric/hybrid cars are not yet fully within the mainstream because they can't out range a diesel. Yet.
If/when this ban comes in, ammo manufacturers won't hang up their tooling and say it was a good run. They will continue to develop ammo just as they have done, just starting from a disadvantage. There will be a period of development and trial and error. That luckily for us has already started. Yes costs are higher to begin with, but my persevering and buying ammo, you support development of newer materials. This will lead to better ammo and eventually, hopefully, something similar or potentially better, than what we have now. It may cost us in the short term, requiring higher priced ammo and shortening some barrel lives, think of converting older cars to run unleaded fuel.
This is not a defeatist attitude, more an optimistic hopeful as i don't want a brand new tikka unshootable before my renewal in 3yrs.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
"You may have won this time, but we have 50 ways of getting what we want" :rolleyes:.
That individual is more toxic than lead. He has largely helped to destroy a country.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
That acceptance is clear with a headline on the Rifle Shooter magazine, 'non-toxic .22lr on test. The end of lead ammo as we know it'
Saying it in your best Iraqveteran8888 voice, this is governments back door to take our guns. If you make it expensive and not worth the effort, how many people will just pack up and then thats gun owners now no longer gun owners?
I've never been a smoker and would argue that 2nd hand smoke within an enclosed bar/workspace was/is far more dangerous than lead shot or bullets at a range.
I've 3 kids whom I'd like to introduce to shooting, and even before that I've only had my own license since October so personally I'm only getting going in the sport properly, ie owning my own gun instead of using someone else's, myself
I would question, in light of potential excess or increased barrel wear akin to larger centrefire rifles, should a rethink on barrels legislation be done to allow purchase without import license since more frequent changes will potentially be required?
Has anyone listened to Vortex Nation Podcast? They did an episode on Lead ammo and alternatives and a very good argument mentioning lead ammo being not as bio available as leaded fuel or paints etc. These bad versions of lead are what need to be tackled and the different 'type' of lead used in ammo is far less bio available, ie far less toxic or leached into your system than commercial lead. Even flashing on buildings is more dangerous than lead ammo.
However in a survey done in the states they ask do you support banning toxic ammo over public lands and ranges. The guests on the podcast quickly pointed out how the wording was deliberately misleading as if you asked should toxic paint be banned you would say yes! So unfortunately its a worldwide issue, not just the EU right now.
Afterthought;
Electric/hybrid cars are not yet fully within the mainstream because they can't out range a diesel. Yet.
If/when this ban comes in, ammo manufacturers won't hang up their tooling and say it was a good run. They will continue to develop ammo just as they have done, just starting from a disadvantage. There will be a period of development and trial and error. That luckily for us has already started. Yes costs are higher to begin with, but my persevering and buying ammo, you support development of newer materials. This will lead to better ammo and eventually, hopefully, something similar or potentially better, than what we have now. It may cost us in the short term, requiring higher priced ammo and shortening some barrel lives, think of converting older cars to run unleaded fuel.
This is not a defeatist attitude, more an optimistic hopeful as i don't want a brand new tikka unshootable before my renewal in 3yrs.
Doubt it will be the end of lead ammo if the best groups they can get is .3 of an inch and at what distance. .1 inch on a 5 shot group is just about acceptable at 50 metres. .3 inch is just about OK for bunny shooting. Anyway this bill is only open for negotiation and people here are treating it like its law already. Wait and see if all the European clubs and their representatives can twist these guys arms.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNNQHSl-vPI
Advertisement