EU Lead Ammunition Ban

badaj0z

The proposed ban on the use of Lead Ammunition will effect all users of Firearms, including those who only shoot targets. At worst, it will stop you using your firearms totally. At best, it will cost you a lot more money in both ammo costs and the cost of your club having to install lead traps, if possible. The FACE organisation has put together a survey to get information to fight the ban. Response from Ireland so far is low so please follow the link and complete the survey.
Many see this lead ban as a sneaky way to get all private use of firearms banned. You should read the available debates in the media and come to your own conclusion on this.


https://www.face.eu/2020/12/hunters-survey-on-lead/

J.R.

NARGC looking for members to complete survey

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116700465&postcount=855

tudderone

Its apathy. I am sick saying to lads whats happening, and all i get back is "Ah shure it'll never happen", and the other doozy "Its uninforceable". If the eu ban the manufacture and importation of lead ammo, its gone.

GooseB

Its apathy. I am sick saying to lads whats happening, and all i get back is "Ah shure it'll never happen", and the other doozy "Its uninforceable". If the eu ban the manufacture and importation of lead ammo, its gone.

The lead ban thread has been going for quite a while. There have also been a few threads in that time with people asking advice about a new rifle they're about to get - I'm going off memory so not going looking for links here - Either about different makes of gun and/or calibre to go for. I think I am yet to read one of these where the long term prospects of the new gun have been questioned by the poster or by the people replying giving advice in regards to the lead ammunition ban. Either people simply don't care, are aware but as mentioned think "sure it'll never happen" or lastly, are still ignorant of the potentially impending doom.

If it comes in then anything used for hunting that is over .22 calibre is going to have to use lead free in 24 months (6 month consultation period + 18 month lead in time). Picking numbers off the top of my head here for an example - if somepne's using a .308 with 150 grain bullets, they're going to have to get used to shooting something around 100 grain for lead free (roughly). If they want to continue using 150 grains then the bullet will have an increased length and therefore will most likely require a faster twist rate barrel to stabilise it. I haven't seen anything like this being discussed here yet. Another example might be what happens to the .17HMR in 5.5 years when the ban is in in place for small calibres? Anyone like to shoot a 9 grain bullet?* Haven't seen any questions like this generate interest yet? Why not? Is it indifference, hope that it will never happen or sheer unawareness of what's coming?

For target shooting the only hope is the possible allowance for the continued use of lead as long as at least 90% at the bare minimum of the lead fired is recovered. This isn't set in stone - it's merely a suggestion in the ECHA report and we need to try and get this cemented into place. It's going to cost clubs money to change from berms to full bullet recovery backstops. It'll be easier for slower moving, full lead .22 rounds but what about for centrefire, high speed bullets? How hard will that be to implement? (Of course this ban doesn't apply to indoor ranges so if anyone wins the Euro-Millions and wants to build a roof over every range in the country out of their generosity I'm sure it would be very much appreciated!)

Also why are the national bodies so silent on all this? If people don't know about the lead ban - it may be because they don't look at internet forums like this or read shooting news websites - that's understandable. But they may be brought up to speed if they belong to an organisation and their particular organisation sends them an email giving some information on the topic. eg: For me, I target shoot in NASRPC competitions. There's not a squeak from the NASRPC on the issue - they have my email and I'd imagine that of most members, they have a website and social media page but there's not a mention on it of the lead ammunition ban. Another target organisation - Target Shooting Ireland have a website and social media page - They're going to be affected but why no mention of the lead ban to their members if only to inform them of what's coming down the line should they not get the information elsewhere? It's not my intent to single out those two shooting bodies for any particular reason or to make them look negative in any way, they are merely two examples I happened to pick out since I usually check in on their websites - this can be said for nearly all the organisations at the moment it would seem (hunting & target).

*That was an off the top of my head guess, a copper bullet of the same size as a lead .17HMR 17 grain bullet would actually weigh 13.4 grains.

cookimonster

Theres a lot of discussion and field experiments been done with the likes of Field Sports Britian. At present they have a cohort of professional stalkers using non lead bullets in various calibres to see what they think.

As regards to grain weight here is one view on it -

Instead of using a 150 or a 180-grain copper bullet in .308, they are now gone to a 130-grain bullet. This travels at 3,000 feet per second and is still doing more than 2,600fps at 200 metres. “It gives you all the hydrostatic shock to kill and almost 100% weight retention.”

In .243, a recommendation of an 80-grain bullet that leaves the barrel at 3,350fps and gives “good expansion expansion out to all sensible hunting ranges.”

“A light-for-calibre bullet is the way to go for people shooting foxes and varmints.”

tudderone

I know a lad in scotland using copper bullets in his .270 win. He reckons they are brilliant on deer. They are more expensive than lead rounds, but how many boxes of rounds do stalkers/deer shooters use a year ? Its clay/target shooters who use huge amounts of rounds this is going to scupper.

GooseB

I know a lad in scotland using copper bullets in his .270 win.

Some prices of soon the be launched lead free hunting ammo from Norma on this website: https://www.all4shooters.com/en/hunting/ammunition/new-hunting-and-sporting-ammunition-from-norma-2021-all-data-and-prices/

The only .270 Win I could see there was from the "Evostrike" range. E95.00 for a box of 20 cartridges and that's mainland Europe prices.

tudderone

GooseB wrote: »

Some prices of soon the be launched lead free hunting ammo from Norma on this website: https://www.all4shooters.com/en/hunting/ammunition/new-hunting-and-sporting-ammunition-from-norma-2021-all-data-and-prices/

The only .270 Win I could see there was from the "Evostrike" range. E95.00 for a box of 20 cartridges and that's mainland Europe prices.

I'll contact him and see how much he is paying, and what rounds he is using.

tonysopprano

GooseB wrote: »

If it comes in then anything used for hunting that is over .22 calibre is going to have to use lead free in 24 months (6 month consultation period + 18 month lead in time).

If this comes in ANY LEAD PROJECTILE OVER OR UNDER .22 OR ANY LEAD PRODUCT ie. lead pellets , lead weights for fishing will be illegal (but lead for roofing or piping will be allowed)

This is now the time to get EVERYBODY on board, hunters, shooters, fishermen etc

GooseB

If this comes in ANY LEAD PROJECTILE OVER OR UNDER .22 OR ANY LEAD PRODUCT ie. lead pellets , lead weights for fishing will be illegal (but lead for roofing or piping will be allowed)

This is now the time to get EVERYBODY on board, hunters, shooters, fishermen etc

Maybe I wasn't clear - you need to take into account the "24 months" part of the sentence you quoted. Yes, all lead projectiles will eventually be lead free - but not in 24 months. There's an 18 month transition period for larger calibres once this becomes law - assuming what's in the ECHA report passes unchanged. Add in another 6 months for the current consultation period and this is where I got my 24 months.

There's a 5 year transition period for the smaller .22 calibres and under. Add in the 6 month consultation period and that's where I got the 5.5 years mentioned. I'm not sure if that smaller calibre refers to rimfires only or also includes the .22 calibre centrefires and under - like .223, 22-250, .17 Hornet, etc. So you could still be hunting rabbits with standard lead .22LR ammunition in 4 years time - but your time will be rapidly running out.

I probably made that about as clear as mud!

Timescale taken from here: https://echa.europa.eu/-/towards-sustainable-outdoor-shooting-and-fishing-echa-proposes-restrictions-on-lead-use

ban on the use of lead in bullets and other projectiles (small calibre: five-year; large calibre: 18-month transition periods). Derogations for continued use if releases to the environment are minimised, i.e. when sports shooting ranges are equipped with bullet traps.

tonysopprano

GooseB wrote: »

Maybe I wasn't clear - you need to take into account the "24 months" part of the sentence you quoted. Yes, all lead projectiles will eventually be lead free - but not in 24 months. There's an 18 month transition period for larger calibres once this becomes law - assuming what's in the ECHA report passes unchanged. Add in another 6 months for the current consultation period and this is where I got my 24 months.

There's a 5 year transition period for the smaller .22 calibres and under. Add in the 6 month consultation period and that's where I got the 5.5 years mentioned. I'm not sure if that smaller calibre refers to rimfires only or also includes the .22 calibre centrefires and under - like .223, 22-250, .17 Hornet, etc. So you could still be hunting rabbits with standard lead .22LR ammunition in 4 years time - but your time will be rapidly running out.

I probably made that about as clear as mud!

Timescale taken from here: https://echa.europa.eu/-/towards-sustainable-outdoor-shooting-and-fishing-echa-proposes-restrictions-on-lead-use

From the last Directive, we all know that derogations mean sweet F0ck all to Irish government ie. magazine ban

GooseB

From the last Directive, we all know that derogations mean sweet F0ck all to Irish government ie. magazine ban

And that derogation may not even happen yet from the EU - it could still be taken out.:(

tudderone

GooseB wrote: »

Some prices of soon the be launched lead free hunting ammo from Norma on this website: https://www.all4shooters.com/en/hunting/ammunition/new-hunting-and-sporting-ammunition-from-norma-2021-all-data-and-prices/

The only .270 Win I could see there was from the "Evostrike" range. E95.00 for a box of 20 cartridges and that's mainland Europe prices.

Right, he came back to me, They use Federal Trophy copper at £40 a box, so obviously 2 quid a bang. The estate he works on have used copper for 10 years and they like that round, reckons its as good as anything lead based, apart from the price.

Reloading, the copper bullets are twice the price of lead. They were using copper in .22lr and they were fine to 50 yards or so and tumbled after that, also expensive compared to lead. Roughly twice the price again.


https://www.federalpremium.com/rifle/premium-centerfire-rifle/trophy-copper/

1874

badaj0z wrote: »

The proposed ban on the use of Lead Ammunition will effect all users of Firearms, including those who only shoot targets. At worst, it will stop you using your firearms totally. At best, it will cost you a lot more money in both ammo costs and the cost of your club having to install lead traps, if possible. The FACE organisation has put together a survey to get information to fight the ban. Response from Ireland so far is low so please follow the link and complete the survey.
Many see this lead ban as a sneaky way to get all private use of firearms banned. You should read the available debates in the media and come to your own conclusion on this.


https://www.face.eu/2020/12/hunters-survey-on-lead/

And how to affect it? stop it (unlikely), change it?
I dont hunt, started filling in the survey and saved it, mostly zero's as I dont have a shotgun or hunt (target),
Multiple option answers like
will you stop hunting? they'd probably like that if people say yes
will you fire less practice shots, stuff along those lines?


How to influence it? or is that even possible?

tudderone

I don't see it being overturned, like i said earlier, once the unelected commission want something, they get it. Our lot of dopes will gild the lily and probably tack on some other rubbish when they draft the law outlawing lead. The days of heading to the range on a sunday morning and putting a brick of .22 through the rifle or pistol are over it seems. I hope FACE fight it, but i think they will have a tough time getting anywhere.

badaj0z

1874 wrote: »

How to influence it? or is that even possible?

Yes. Numbers count in surveys. There was equal weight given to target shooters that I could see. Fill it in with an eye to the end result.

GooseB

They were using copper in .22lr and they were fine to 50 yards or so and tumbled after that

In relation to rimfire, from the ECHA report, a submission to them from "Gunlex" (not sure who they are?) in relation to CCI copper ammo:

Rimfire
Gunlex reported on a test with COPPER-22 ammunition with bullet weighing 1.05 g, made from compressed polymer/copper dust material by US company CCI (the only nonlead .22 ammunition on market – manufacturer already stopped production, but some is still available). The test result demonstrated the inaccuracy of the ammunition for target shooting, the grouping (i.e. the systematic spread of the gun without human intervention) was considerably more spread then with lead bullets.

Ammunition Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Average dispersion
Copper/ polymer 13 mm 29 mm 39 mm 34 mm 40 mm 31 mm
Solid lead 6 mm 7 mm 5 mm 7 mm 10 mm 7 mm

Distance was measured between centres of two most distant hits. According to testing shooter, this disperse is insufficient not only for target shooting, but (considering additional disperse caused by average shooter and firearm) even for recreational shooting or small game hunting.

Sticking to rimfire, US company "Cutting Edge" have copper bullets turned on a CNC lathe. https://cuttingedgebullets.com/Blog/22lr They're sold with primed brass and require hand loading at home. They're aiming at the super long range craze that exists in the US, they're expensive even over there and over here - forget it (home loading issue ignored even). I think it makes them about the same price as shooting a .223 over there. It defeats the attraction of rimfire in a way. Maybe if it moved away from a niche product and got mass produced by all the big names the price would come down - but you'd still have the basic fact that the raw material cost of copper is more expensive and that's never going away. And then the greenies will ban copper....

Asus1

Maybe I'm missing something but what was or is the justification of removing lead from ammunition.On the scale of things that are polluting the world surely lead out of firearms is a tiny,tiny percentage on that scale.Who was the first person or people to run with this idea and what was their reasoning.
Is it a food safety thing,as in lead shot game is dangerous.If that's the case why not just make it so lead shot meat stays out of the market.
I just can't see how shooting with lead is such a bad thing,but then I'm not a politician.

tudderone

Asus1 wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something but what was or is the justification of removing lead from ammunition.On the scale of things that are polluting the world surely lead out of firearms is a tiny,tiny percentage on that scale.Who was the first person or people to run with this idea and what was their reasoning.
Is it a good safety thing,as in lead shot game is dangerous.If that's the case why not just make it so lead shot meat stays out of the market.
I just can't see how shooting with lead is such a bad thing,but then I'm not a politician.

The EU have wanted to drastically reduce the amount of guns in europe after the Norway 2011 shootings and the religion of peace terrorist attacks. Rather than say that, they just bring in a ban by the back door. If you want rid of cars, ban petrol and diesel (thats next). You want rid of guns in civilian hands ban lead ammo.

Zxthinger

I deal with political folk and they a dunking clowns. On the whole it would be safe to say that it's a field that is devoid of technical educated humans and is too heavy with socially idealistic clowns.
They try to bullshhhhit us with male vs female crap but this is the great divide.. those that have the nac and those who talk..

The wholesale dispersal of the vote to the unwashed turned political legacy away from the great industrial thinkers of the world and towards the clowns that promote vegan life choices even though they have been give the meat eating teeth😬
The lead ban needs to be reined in. Yes it could be stipulated that commercial sold game meats can not be harvested with lead based ammo. I think that would be sufficient to promote a significant uptake in lead free technologies.
How is the 17hmr going to work with 9grain bullets or air rifles. Every gun out there will see performance losses. Why a hobby shooter has to suffer is beyond my reasoning when large proportions of city dwelling are still drinking from lead pipes🤢

Asus1

tudderone wrote: »

The EU have wanted to drastically reduce the amount of guns in europe after the Norway 2011 shootings and the religion of peace terrorist attacks. Rather than say that, they just bring in a ban by the back door. If you want rid of cars, ban petrol and diesel (thats next). You want rid of guns in civilian hands ban lead ammo.

Maybe that is the case.Either way I do think in the not so distant future the only way to own a firearm is to have your own land with a heard number,thus firearm is for animal protection.Or be a member of a club with a few traps and a rifle lane.
I think that getting permission to walk across farmers land having a shot will be suddenly a big no no and before you know it,it's banned.

Zxthinger

tudderone wrote: »

The EU have wanted to drastically reduce the amount of guns in europe after the Norway 2011 shootings and the religion of peace terrorist attacks. Rather than say that, they just bring in a ban by the back door. If you want rid of cars, ban petrol and diesel (thats next). You want rid of guns in civilian hands ban lead ammo.

Maybe it's time to leave the EU too. Let's face it, the uks departure was an astounding disaster for our economic welbeing.

The whole issue needs to be promoted

1874

tudderone wrote: »

The EU have wanted to drastically reduce the amount of guns in europe after the Norway 2011 shootings and the religion of peace terrorist attacks. Rather than say that, they just bring in a ban by the back door. If you want rid of cars, ban petrol and diesel (thats next). You want rid of guns in civilian hands ban lead ammo.

Likely as anything, how they'll implement that across the European mainland? given the levels of shooting sports there???


I dont have a shotgun, Id be interested, but think I should be holding off on that. I was under the impression they want to reduce the amount of lead used in wetlands? overall its minscule, but it may have an effect,

that said, I thought steel shot was a thing for clays? or for shooting fowl? with shotguns proofed for that?


I dont understand why they'd want to ban it for target shooting (although thats where Im involved) I dont have a preference to excuse or explain that away (Im still interested to take up clay shooting purely for fun).
It would seem relatively easy to capture lead in target boxes, as its mostly all going to the same place?


There has got to be other solutions rather than outright bans

GooseB

Maybe it's time to leave the EU too

I was looking at YouTube and came across a video saying that an organisation in the UK that is supposed to be pro hunting - BASC (sorry I don't know the ins and outs of it) actually proposed a voluntary lead ban prior to the EU one. So it doesn't look like being outside the EU is a huge help over in the UK.

Fast forward to 45 minutes, 30 seconds in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcLWiKYpHW4

Asus1

1874 wrote: »

Likely as anything, how they'll implement that across the European mainland? given the levels of shooting sports there???


I dont have a shotgun, Id be interested, but think I should be holding off on that. I was under the impression they want to reduce the amount of lead used in wetlands? overall its minscule, but it may have an effect,

that said, I thought steel shot was a thing for clays? or for shooting fowl? with shotguns proofed for that?


I dont understand why they'd want to ban it for target shooting (although thats where Im involved) I dont have a preference to excuse or explain that away (Im still interested to take up clay shooting purely for fun).
It would seem relatively easy to capture lead in target boxes, as its mostly all going to the same place?


There has got to be other solutions rather than outright bans

I'd love to know have they taken soil samples from shooting ranges to say how high the lead readings were compared to an area that had no shooting done on it.Now we all know that the shooting range will of course have a higher reading as it's an area that gets covered in lead,but does that matter as no food stuffs is being taken from it.If the site is polluting grounds outside it's boundaries that's another matter.
I'm just at a loss as to why if it's true that they are removing lead from ammunition to remove firearms from the general population they think it will decrease terrorism.No one is that stupid it is just not a rational explanation.

tudderone

GooseB wrote: »

I was looking at YouTube and came across a video saying that an organisation in the UK that is supposed to be pro hunting - BASC (sorry I don't know the ins and outs of it) actually proposed a voluntary lead ban prior to the EU one. So it doesn't look like being outside the EU is a huge help over in the UK.

Fast forward to 45 minutes, 30 seconds in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcLWiKYpHW4

It helped them hugely with the covid vaccinations though, the eu has shown itself to be an unwieldy joke. If they are not fighting with the UK they are squabbling like old women amongst themselves. Von der leyen should be working in duffy's circus as a clown, and Merkel has made a right fool of herself.

Zxthinger

Asus1 wrote: »

I'd love to know have they taken soil samples from shooting ranges to say how high the lead readings were compared to an area that had no shooting done on it.Now we all know that the shooting range will of course have a higher reading as it's an area that gets covered in lead,but does that matter as no food stuffs is being taken from it.If the site is polluting grounds outside it's boundaries that's another matter.
I'm just at a loss as to why if it's true that they are removing lead from ammunition to remove firearms from the general population they think it will decrease terrorism.No one is that stupid it is just not a rational explanation.

Lead exists naturally.. in some places it's more prevalent.. but I have studied water treatment at a municipal level and it's not considered a problem..

It's a xxxxking rues to ban guns. When did you ever hear of any dying of lead poisoning.. pure clap-trap. I know one plumber he lived till he was 80 and he was the goto guy for any plumbing problem that was lead based..

As a kid, we used to cast lead weights for fishing. I still here 35years later.

My health was only effected by eating to much cake and drink too many pints.. if fact, shooting improved my wellbeing- getting me out in the open and out walking fields..
over the years I found many and sick animal, or a leaking water pipe and an open gate and I actually saved the farmers money by my intervention or alerts..

These tosses need to have raw paper pipled on their door steps. Don't waste time with electronic complaints.. they hold no weight..
Write to you local policitical reps and ask them to write on your behalf.. I know that at the county council level, if a Cllr writes in then you ha e to write back..

Perhaps we need to make a new postcard to relay this complex lie🤥

Grizzly 45

While some talk, or go into denial mode,or conduct surveys...Others act!!

***BREAKING NEWS***
Based on the article 263 of the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union, FUN is challenging this regulation (aka Lead Ban) to the European Tribunal of Justice.
More details will come soon.

https://www.facebook.com/FirearmsUnitedNetwork/videos/3628761390583282

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

It helped them hugely with the covid vaccinations though, the eu has shown itself to be an unwieldy joke. If they are not fighting with the UK they are squabbling like old women amongst themselves. Von der leyen should be working in duffy's circus as a clown, and Merkel has made a right fool of herself.

Crass commercialism...BASC is pandering to this as they believe that UK game birds shot with lead will not be accepted on EU markets. So who is BASC representing anymore?The bloke with a shotgun who shoots a few birds for the pot,or Lord Bulgecoffer and pals commercial shoots? They certainly do not repersent the majority of UK shooters anymore. Ironic really as it was a bunch of working class lads meeting in a shed on an estuary concerned about wildfowling in the late 1940s that started this all off.
Called Wildfowlers Assoc of Great Britan and Ireland [WAGBI] it morphed into BASC and is far removed from the shed in East Yorkshire and its original aim.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Crass commercialism...BASC is pandering to this as they believe that UK game birds shot with lead will not be accepted on EU markets. So who is BASC representing anymore?The bloke with a shotgun who shoots a few birds for the pot,or Lord Bulgecoffer and pals commercial shoots? They certainly do not repersent the majority of UK shooters anymore. Ironic really as it was a bunch of working class lads meeting in a shed on an estuary concerned about wildfowling in the late 1940s that started this all off.
Called Wildfowlers Assoc of Great Britan and Ireland [WAGBI] it morphed into BASC and is far removed from the shed in East Yorkshire and its original aim.

It is like many other orgs i have heard about, classic motorcycle associations etc, once brilliant, turned into a money making racket for someone.

Grizzly 45

Asus1 wrote: »

I'd love to know have they taken soil samples from shooting ranges to say how high the lead readings were compared to an area that had no shooting done on it.Now we all know that the shooting range will of course have a higher reading as it's an area that gets covered in lead,but does that matter as no food stuffs is being taken from it.If the site is polluting grounds outside it's boundaries that's another matter.
I'm just at a loss as to why if it's true that they are removing lead from ammunition to remove firearms from the general population they think it will decrease terrorism.No one is that stupid it is just not a rational explanation.

ESp as we have been eating French and Belgian foodstuffs for decades. Grown on appx 400 million tonnes of lead and other unpleasant stuff on the former battlefields of WW1.So why is that safe and all of a sudden eating your veggies grown 300 meters from your local range is? Simple really...Lead being heavy has a tendency to well...sink.Even in soil. So once it sinks beyond a certain depth, usually as far as a deep plough cut it becomes a moot problem as crop plants dont grow deep enough to be infected.
Ergo, we EU wide are hardly firing that amount of lead into the environment as was in Passendale,nor is it soft lead either. It is coated lead that is even unaffected by sulphuric acid!, IOW our shot sinks eventually in rivers and lakes and fields past the plant roots and is harmless too.
Plus you are more likely to get lead poisoning from your veggies grown next to a motorway than grown on the 1foot of topsoil on a range berm,were we to grow such there.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

ESp as we have been eating French and Belgian foodstuffs for decades. Grown on appx 400 million tonnes of lead and other unpleasant stuff on the former battlefields of WW1.So why is that safe and all of a sudden eating your veggies grown 300 meters from your local range is? Simple really...Lead being heavy has a tendency to well...sink.Even in soil. So once it sinks beyond a certain depth, usually as far as a deep plough cut it becomes a moot problem as crop plants dont grow deep enough to be infected.
Ergo, we EU wide are hardly firing that amount of lead into the environment as was in Passendale,nor is it soft lead either. It is coated lead that is even unaffected by sulphuric acid!, IOW our shot sinks eventually in rivers and lakes and fields past the plant roots and is harmless too.
Plus you are more likely to get lead poisoning from your veggies grown next to a motorway than grown on the 1foot of topsoil on a range berm,were we to grow such there.

Which is an valid argument that even a pimpily youth of 13 could make, which proves to me that it is nothing to do with lead in foodstuffs, but a way of killing off shooting sports and making gun ownership pointless.

1874

Asus1 wrote: »

I'd love to know have they taken soil samples from shooting ranges to say how high the lead readings were compared to an area that had no shooting done on it.Now we all know that the shooting range will of course have a higher reading as it's an area that gets covered in lead,but does that matter as no food stuffs is being taken from it.If the site is polluting grounds outside it's boundaries that's another matter.
I'm just at a loss as to why if it's true that they are removing lead from ammunition to remove firearms from the general population they think it will decrease terrorism.No one is that stupid it is just not a rational explanation.

Id say no, this isnt about firearms accessible by terrorists or criminals or illegal organisations, they will acquire weapons one way or another, maybe other means or more significant means to reach their end goal.
It seems to me to be more a means to control and maybe reduce accessibility to firearms and shooting sports in the general population imo, not to stop terrorists getting access to anything, that might say that, but they will deal with criminals/terrorists by other means, as any such group will always try/need to access something or turn/use something to a more nefarious end, eg many chemicals available could be used to make explosives, which might serve a terrorists ends better than a firearm.


Regarding testing of target ranges soil, I think it would be relatively easy to create target boxes that direct and capture lead (probably already occurring), anything else in there might be considered to be fouled with lead,Ive never been able to distinguish much physical lead among what Ive seen inside a target box. In general, for the occasional shot over land of a shotgun cartridge it would surprise me if there would be a significant increase in lead readings over maybe an area that has it naturally occurring. Maybe alternatives are viable such steel shot or someone mentioned copper, surely its viable for cartridge manufacturers to come up with alternative options anyway, in which case, what complaints could there be? and what is the original complaint/opposition in regard to? is it completely that its lead?

tudderone

1874 wrote: »

Maybe alternatives are viable such steel shot or someone mentioned copper, surely its viable for cartridge manufacturers to come up with alternative options anyway, in which case, what complaints could there be? and what is the original complaint/opposition in regard to? is it completely that its lead?

Steel shot is available, but it is nowhere near as good as lead, if it were cartridge/shot manufacturers would have been using it since the 1800's or before, but didn't. It doesn't carry its energy as well, being lighter in weight, meaning effective range is reduced, it cannot be shot through older guns as it will score the barrels, and if you try to increase the performance to lead levels, its lke shooting magnum loads all the time. Add to that on game, as steel is nowhere as soft and malleable as lead, it doesn't deform and dump its energy into the body of the animal or bird, meaning steel tends to pass through, resulting in wounded birds.

Zxthinger

Lead has the required specific gravity and malleability to allow a package to conform to a barrel's form and travel down range with the least amount of fluid displacement and deliver energy on the target with ideal deformation even at low velocities...

Perhaps some larger bore firearms are better placed to adopt copper bullets as they might have the external ballistic to absorb a lower ballistic coefficient but such limitations on small bore firearms is too much.. many already operate at the envelope of limits related to the complexities of bullet stability.

Maybe we should just go back to the musket............oh sugar that uses lead too..
What about reverting to archery.. of drat.. that heavily restricted too..

Don't forget that these people who have drafted this are clowns bereft of any firearms knowledge and they are more concerned with legacy building than environmental concerns


Gs of Metals
Copper 8.96
Silver 10.49
Lead 11.34
Gold 19.32

badaj0z

Copy, copy, copy the survey link and a link to this thread to all of your shooting FB friends , Whatsapp, Signal, Instagram, Reddit, TicToc and whatever other medium you prefer. Get it out there. Embarrass all shooters you know into supporting the survey and into leaning on the groups they are in, such as the NASRPC, TSI, NARGC, SC, etc., to submit documents in support of the FUN objection referenced above. The video has good arguments but I wish they had chosen a backdrop that was more neutral. A better acronym would have done no harm either but they have made a start.

Grizzly 45

badaj0z wrote: »

The video has good arguments but I wish they had chosen a backdrop that was more neutral. A better acronym would have done no harm either but they have made a start.

Noted and will be passed on...
The original was just FU:D:D:D
Remember this is a Polish operation on this level that has a total F.."K U attitude to people telling them what to do even worse than us Irish,probably because like us they have been occupied and oppressed by larger neighbours East and West for centuries too. But were a lot more Bolshie about it.

Those guns are legal to possess and own all over the EU, more or less, and the whole idea is to be a more "in your face " operation and to be unapologetic to our aims and demands,or what we shoot. Being all nicey-nicey and beating about the bush with long-winded acronyms has got us precisely...Nowhere fast in the last 25 years anywhere.:) Going with modern media tactics and from the Wokeist playbook.Those who shout loudest and act ,get the most attention and media coverage".

Zxthinger

,FUN mentioned forming your own attack on this issue. Anyone know what envolved in doing that

jb88

I am aware of a scrap dealer in Ireland who dug out a range and sifted all of the lead for a range owner, took the brass as well.

Didnt see him complaining. Made money out of it.

jb88

Another well respected and great clay club near me have an area in a crop field fenced off with wire and im sure a lot of shot goes out over the crops, never hear any complaints, in fact the land owner selected that spot especially.

Lots of shot if you consider 20 guys twice a week back in the day over 6 -7 years firing 50 -100 rounds per time.

badaj0z

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

badaj0z wrote: »

Those guns are legal to possess and own all over the EU, more or less, and the whole idea is to be a more "in your face " operation and to be unapologetic to our aims and demands,or what we shoot. Being all nicey-nicey and beating about the bush with long-winded acronyms has got us precisely...Nowhere fast in the last 25 years anywhere.:) Going with modern media tactics and from the Wokeist playbook.Those who shout loudest and act ,get the most attention and media coverage".

That is all true Griz but you also have to recognise that getting the attention of a larger audience is important but persuading them that your arguments have value is also important. Most "neutral" people, coming to this debate, will see weapons they recognise from action movies on that FUD backdrop, not "sporting " firearms.

Grizzly 45

badaj0z wrote: »

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

That is all true Griz but you also have to recognise that getting the attention of a larger audience is important but persuading them that your arguments have value is also important. Most "neutral" people, coming to this debate, will see weapons they recognise from action movies on that FUD backdrop, not "sporting " firearms.

FUN please!:D Dont want to be associated with people who are trying to
shut down shooting sports by their own pettiness and agendas.

Well,I'll pass it on but knowing Tomaz..He'll proably hang a Barrett 50 cal rifle there instead, along with a couple of AK style rifles instead for the next one.:D
These Polish lads give less than zero fks for peoples feelings or images I can tell you.:eek:

Grizzly 45

For those of you with contacts in political parties;
Here is a breakdown of who voted for us and against us in Brussels on the lead ban.

FOR
Chris MacManus [SF]
Billy Kelliher [FF]

AGAINST
Deidre Clune [FG]
Francis Fitzgerald [FG]
Sean Kelly[ FG]
Colm Markey [FG]
Maria Walsh [FG]

Crian Cuffe [GP]
Grace O Sullivan [GP]}

NGL
Ming Flanagan [IND]
Clare Daly [IND]
Mick Wallace [IND]

MIght want to pass this list about any political contacts you all might have and mention this as going to be rememberd next elections.

Mississippi.

What's the NGL ?

tonysopprano

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

For those of you with contacts in political parties;
Here is a breakdown of who voted for us and against us in Brussels on the lead ban.

FOR
Chris MacManus [SF]
Billy Kelliher [FF]

AGAINST
Deidre Clune [FG]
Francis Fitzgerald [FG]
Sean Kelly[ FG]
Colm Markey [FG]
Maria Walsh [FG]

Crian Cuffe [GP]
Grace O Sullivan [GP]}

NGL
Ming Flanagan [IND]
Clare Daly [IND]
Mick Wallace [IND]

MIght want to pass this list about any political contacts you all might have and mention this as going to be rememberd next elections.

This is the email I got From Clair Daly,

A chara,

I'm sending you this email because you contacted me in the last several days concerning the vote on the urgent procedure for the Digital Green Certificate in the European Parliament. I received a huge volume of emails from concerned people over this period, so many that I regret it has not been possible to reply to everyone immediately. I am very grateful to everyone who has gotten in touch, and have taken on board the concerns raised.

The vote took place on Thursday morning. As you may know, I voted against the Commission's request for an urgent procedure, because I believe there are serious concerns about the Digital Green Certificate, and something like this should not be rushed through.

Disappointingly, despite our best efforts, the Parliament did not vote against it overall, therefore undermining our ability to scrutinize the proposal. That said, I think there will be very serious legal blockages to any suggestion that such a scheme would be made mandatory for travel purposes or any other reason. It seems to me the Commission is already realising this and is not suggesting vaccine-only documents.

We will continue to keep a watching brief.

All the best
Clare Daly

What does NGL signify?

Zxthinger

Digital Green me hole!! How many birds are there wind turbines killing every year..
pure BS

Grizzly 45

tonysopprano wrote: »

What does NGL signify?

Nordic Green Left...Google is your pal. This lot certainly are not!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_United_Left%E2%80%93Nordic_Green_Left

tudderone

Zxthinger wrote: »

Digital Green me hole!! How many birds are there wind turbines killing every year..
pure BS

Bird choppers, something the shrieking greta the know-all seems to keep quiet about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NAAzBArYdw

Feisar

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

For those of you with contacts in political parties;
Here is a breakdown of who voted for us and against us in Brussels on the lead ban.

FOR
Chris MacManus [SF]
Billy Kelliher [FF]

AGAINST
Deidre Clune [FG]
Francis Fitzgerald [FG]
Sean Kelly[ FG]
Colm Markey [FG]
Maria Walsh [FG]

Crian Cuffe [GP]
Grace O Sullivan [GP]}

NGL
Ming Flanagan [IND]
Clare Daly [IND]
Mick Wallace [IND]

MIght want to pass this list about any political contacts you all might have and mention this as going to be rememberd next elections.

GooseB

I got an ECHA update email today, if anyone - or any organisations, wish to submit questions or suggestions (Like forget about the whole thing!):

Info session on restriction proposal of lead in outdoor shooting and fishing
15 April 2021 11:00 - 13:00 (Helsinki time)

Learn about the REACH restriction process and how to submit comments to the consultation on the restriction proposal of lead in outdoor shooting and fishing. You can send questions to our experts in advance using this form. No registration is required. A live Q&A session will take place during the webinar.

"Summary
ECHA has published its proposal to restrict the use of lead in ammunition for hunting and outdoor sports shooting as well as in fishing.

A six-month consultation was launched on 24 March 2021.

This information session introduces the REACH restriction process, describes the proposed restriction on lead in outdoor shooting and fishing and explains how to submit comments to the consultation.

No registration is required. Join the information session via our homepage on the day of the event at 11:00 EET.

You can send questions to our experts in advance using this form (until 17:00 EET 11 April). You may also ask us questions during in a live question and answer session on 15 April from 11:00 to 13:00 EET using this link or entering the event code #lead in Sli.do.com.

Further information:

Have your say on proposed restriction of lead in outdoor shooting, hunting and fishing, 24 March 2021
Towards sustainable outdoor shooting and fishing – ECHA proposes restrictions on lead use, 3 February 2021
Hot topics: lead in shot, bullets and fishing weights"

https://echa.europa.eu/-/consultation-on-the-restriction-proposal-of-lead-in-outdoor-shooting-and-fishing?utm_source=echa-weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly&utm_content=20210331&_cldee=YXNhLnJlZG1vbmRAeWFob28uaWU%3d&recipientid=lead-1a7503642b24eb118125005056b9310e-aac45f4d9a33409aa78053b3e1e089b3&esid=10933d8e-f691-eb11-812a-005056b9310e

Mississippi.

Just after finding my own reply from the ECHA. It was sent two weeks ago but was in the junk mail folder