Lead ban

tudderone

BattleCorp wrote: »

My local FF/FG/Green TD's are about to get calls from me saying that if this comes in, they can fcuk off if they think they'll ever get a vote from me again (not that the Greens ever got a vote). They need to get on to their MEP colleagues and tell them that this is a non-runner.

I'll tell them I'm going to vote for the Shinners.

I'm about to get awfully active writing and phoning all of my public representatives.

Good idea, but aren't the shinners singing off the green hymn sheet too ? This is the dilemma everytime i go to vote, they are literally all the same in a lot of ways, and none of them will piddle off the eu by not agreeing with this stuff.

BattleCorp

tudderone wrote: »

Good idea, but aren't the shinners singing off the green hymn sheet too ? This is the dilemma everytime i go to vote, they are literally all the same in a lot of ways, and none of them will piddle off the eu by not agreeing with this stuff.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Shinners but they are a party that the other parties don't like (fear) so.....................maybe that would encourage FF/FG et al. to take it seriously.

hiddenmongoose

Sinn Feins's Chris MacManus was quick to reply and engage with me over the lead shot ban and I will contact him again regarding this issue and urge others to do so also

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

That link is dead Griz.

Try this one;
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/95cc3061-7d88-67d0-b932-51d2606a50f3?fbclid=IwAR3XwtZ10KWhBb8pEnivFhpYkcywbF6ue6JW473pIiCB6rzdcWAIieTSPEA

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

My local FF/FG/Green TD's are about to get calls from me saying that if this comes in, they can fcuk off if they think they'll ever get a vote from me again (not that the Greens ever got a vote). They need to get on to their MEP colleagues and tell them that this is a non-runner.

I'll tell them I'm going to vote for the Shinners.

I'm about to get awfully active writing and phoning all of my public representatives.

We've already seen how the Irish MEPs will vote on this esp the Watermelons, so I doubt they will change their minds. Even if they voted with both hands up for scrapping this, it would make no difference.

If you are going to email MEPS, get a list of ALL countries and blizzard them all. Don't worry if it is just in English, or even Gaelic...They have and can translate them to their native lingo. The more other MEPS from pro-gun countries hear from us,the more it strengthens their arguements.to be able support us too.

Fastnet50

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

We've already seen how the Irish MEPs will vote on this esp the Watermelons, so I doubt they will change their minds. Even if they voted with both hands up for scrapping this, it would make no difference.

If you are going to email MEPS, get a list of ALL countries and blizzard them all. Don't worry if it is just in English, or even Gaelic...They have and can translate them to their native lingo. The more other MEPS from pro-gun countries hear from us,the more it strengthens their arguements.to be able support us too.

Yes I got a reply from only one of them or at least his PR representative who informed me that he had made an informed decision to support banning leadshot as it is a toxic unsafe substance, that it will not apply to farmers, will apply to people that want to shoot waterbirds and will not apply to clay pigeon shooters near puddles, that he spoke to the department of agriculture and they have no plans for a nationwide ban on leadshot. Still he does not accept the interpratation put forward by FACE and the NARGC and he trusts people at home will trust his decision. So yes go for the MEPs in countries that really care about and are educated in this issue.

tudderone

Fastnet50 wrote: »

Yes I got a reply from only one of them or at least his PR representative who informed me that he had made an informed decision to support banning leadshot as it is a toxic unsafe substance, that it will not apply to farmers, will apply to people that want to shoot waterbirds and will not apply to clay pigeon shooters near puddles, that he spoke to the department of agriculture and they have no plans for a nationwide ban on leadshot. Still he does not accept the interpratation put forward by FACE and the NARGC and he trusts people at home will trust his decision. So yes go for the MEPs in countries that really care about and are educated in this issue.

What a stupid thing to say to you, its a toxic unsafe substance, but farmers are immune to its toxicity ? How the hell does that work out ?

"It will not apply to clay pigeon shooter that shoot near puddles", nope thats not what the law says. The EU itself says 80% of land in Ireland is wetland and lead cannot be shot over wetlands.

Fastnet50

I am just giving you a heads up as to what he said. I think he was talking about water birds as opposed to people and probably assumed farmers only used shotguns for vermin control which is mostly true. Either way I take everything he says with a grain of salt, just as I do not subscribe to the doomsday belief that all they want is our firearms control. You should email him yourself and ask him why he made these comments Hint he is an ex builder from Wexford. Either way try not to shoot the messenger.

tudderone

Fastnet50 wrote: »

I am just giving you a heads up as to what he said. I think he was talking about water birds as opposed to people and probably assumed farmers only used shotguns for vermin control which is mostly true. Either way I take everything he says with a grain of salt, just as I do not subscribe to the doomsday belief that all they want is our firearms control. You should email him yourself and ask him why he made these comments Hint he is an ex builder from Wexford. Either way try not to shoot the messenger.

Firstly, sorry if you think i was attacking you, i wasn't, not in the slightest, sorry again. I know who you are talking about now, a complete dollop that guy :mad:.

Fastnet50

Totally agree with the dollop description but I emailed quite a few and he was the only one who replied. I hope that sense prevails and that this ban is only used on genuine wetlands as I feel duck and geese shooting with lead is at an end to be honest. Hunted almost everything all my life and now at 70 more into target and competition shooting. I remember the love of hunting so much which is the main reason I want it preserved and I believe it will, but people will have to stand up and be counted which is sadly lacking.

otmmyboy2

tudderone wrote: »

What a stupid thing to say to you, its a toxic unsafe substance, but farmers are immune to its toxicity ? How the hell does that work out ?

Similar to how I went for an interview recently at a garda station and was told beforehand to wear a mask. After getting ushered in past the public area I noticed all the guards were maskless, so I asked the guard who was escorting me, and was informed that they were exempt from the legislation.

Evidently legislation makes you immune to anything, wish they'd just outlaw covid for the rest of us :rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

Should have told him.
I'm not risking my health then, if whoever wants to see me that urgently he can do like all the rest of the world and Zoom call me. Or meet me outside the station and we'll socially distance.:)
This "Laws for thee and not for me!" needs to be stamped out if we are "all in this together"...Well, then figures in authority should be leading by example.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Should have told him.
I'm not risking my health then, if whoever wants to see me that urgently he can do like all the rest of the world and Zoom call me. Or meet me outside the station and we'll socially distance.:)
This "Laws for thee and not for me!" needs to be stamped out if we are "all in this together"...Well, then figures in authority should be leading by example.

Be your age Grizz, thats never been the case in Ireland. Priest and bishops interfering with kids. TD's and ministers taking tax free backhanders for favours, and other downright corruption.

alan0387

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

otmmyboy2

alan0387 wrote: »

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?

tudderone

I was talking to the stalker i know in Scotland. He surprised me by saying he hasn't fired a lead round from his .270 in 10 years. He reckons the copper rounds are mcuh better than lead ! He tells me the copper rounds dump all their energy into the animal. Often the bullet is to be found in the animal or close by.

The only things wrong with the copper rounds is (1) Cost, they are expensive 40-50 quid a box ! (2) The bullets are light for calibre, which doesn't really matter so much in Ireland. For instance the max weight with the .243 is about 85 grains.

So if i was a Deer stalker, i wouldn't worry too much about the lead ban. Its people who might be shooting a lot of bunnies or foxes could be caught out. If target shooters are allowed to continue to shoot lead, then things mightn't change as much as we think.

alan0387

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

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 reckon

tudderone

alan0387 wrote: »

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

alan0387

tudderone wrote: »

I was talking to the stalker i know in Scotland. He surprised me by saying he hasn't fired a lead round from his .270 in 10 years. He reckons the copper rounds are mcuh better than lead ! He tells me the copper rounds dump all their energy into the animal. Often the bullet is to be found in the animal or close by.

The only things wrong with the copper rounds is (1) Cost, they are expensive 40-50 quid a box ! (2) The bullets are light for calibre, which doesn't really matter so much in Ireland. For instance the max weight with the .243 is about 85 grains.

So if i was a Deer stalker, i wouldn't worry too much about the lead ban. Its people who might be shooting a lot of bunnies or foxes could be caught out. If target shooters are allowed to continue to shoot lead, then things mightn't change as much as we think.

I think target shooters will be hardest hit in terms of pricing and accuracy degradation in my opinion. Deer stalking possibly not sooo much, subsonic lead free ammo has already proven in testing to be terrible and unreliable.

Fastnet50

alan0387 wrote: »

I think target shooters will be hardest hit in terms of pricing and accuracy degradation in my opinion. Deer stalking possibly not sooo much, subsonic lead free ammo has already proven in testing to be terrible and unreliable.

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.

tudderone

Fastnet50 wrote: »

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.

Yes, but that won't stop them imposing it.

Grizzly 45

Fastnet50 wrote: »

s]I think this lead ban in unreasonable at present and there appears to be an air of acceptance creeping in at the moment.

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.

GooseB

Beats me how they will work out this steel ammo with their own legislation in rifle ammo

I think they've only mentioned steel in regards to steel shotgun shot as an alternative to lead shot, not actually steel cored,copper plated bullets. Is ammo - treated as ammo? ie: No difference in law whether steel in a projectile comes in the form of a single bullet from a rifled barrel or in the form of multiple pellets from a shotgun?

Fastnet50

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.

I think they are concentrating on compressed copper more so than steel. I suppose if you upped the calibre a bit you might get reasonable results, however the reliance is on upping the velocity for these rounds as they can not match the weight needed to distribute the energy needed to despatch a given quarry humanely. But what would this solid copper bullet at hyper-velocity do to your firearm barrel. Ruin it I think and very quickly as most barrels using present supersonic rounds might last 2000 rounds at best. Imagine a harder bullet at twice the speed????

tudderone

Copper rounds have to be more expensive than lead as its a more expensive material, much higher melting point, and harder, so more difficult to work.

https://www.lme.com

Grizzly 45

GooseB wrote: »

I think they've only mentioned steel in regards to steel shotgun shot as an alternative to lead shot, not actually steel cored,copper plated bullets. Is ammo - treated as ammo? ie: No difference in law whether steel in a projectile comes in the form of a single bullet from a rifled barrel or in the form of multiple pellets from a shotgun?

Nope!!! applies to ALL ammo.

Fastnet50

tudderone wrote: »

Copper rounds have to be more expensive than lead as its a more expensive material, much higher melting point, and harder, so more difficult to work.

https://www.lme.com

It certainly is but to be fair and if you have no choice how many rounds do you use in a year deer shooting. I used to use maybe 30 rds at most for the full year. For foxes 50 rds? and most of my other usage was .22lr on rabbits which was a few hundred. I would shoot 5000 now at the range so if the lead ban extended to there it would be a huge problem. However I am sure if it is if it is banned on ranges I will give up shooting altogether.

GooseB

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.

GooseB

Nope!!! applies to ALL ammo.

They actually have an easy way out of this too - they're not telling people to use steel necessarily, they're looking at alternative materials and steel is an option they're holding up as a poster boy. If this steel clashes with another law - they'll just go "tough, find something else, we're still banning lead." ie: tungsten, bismuth - cost or other environmental problems associated with them doesn't matter to them.

However I am sure if it is if it is banned on ranges I will give up shooting altogether.

That's the whole point of all this really under the guise of the environment.

tudderone

GooseB wrote: »

They actually have an easy way out of this too - they're not telling people to use steel necessarily, they're looking at alternative materials and steel is an option they're holding up as a poster boy. If this steel clashes with another law - they'll just go "tough, find something else, we're still banning lead." ie: tungsten, bismuth - cost or other environmental problems associated with them doesn't matter to them.



That's the whole point of all this really under the guise of the environment.

I think you are correct. How many people will just say "I cannot be bothered fighting anymore, to hell with it".