EU Lead Ammunition Ban

Grizzly 45

Always best to advise the ladies to cover the cleavage when out shooting.
Always wondered how many of those scantily dressed ladies have actually fired or received a Valkyries kiss from the gun they are posing with? Wouldn't be long getting the T-shirt unrolled.:D

Ubbquittious

tudderone wrote: »

Bought a roll of what i thought was solder a while ago, i use it fairly often but it seemed remarkably light when it was placed on the counter. It seems it has to be lead free now, but its nowhere near as good as the proper leaded stuff.

You can still get the leaded stuff on Radionics/ebay


Or this fella http://eirotec.ie/


Lead free stuff works grand for through-hole stuff but for SSOP or even SOIC packages the leaded stuff makes things that bit easier

tudderone

Ubbquittious wrote: »

You can still get the leaded stuff on Radionics/ebay


Or this fella http://eirotec.ie/


Lead free stuff works grand for through-hole stuff but for SSOP or even SOIC packages the leaded stuff makes things that bit easier

Yes, the leaded stuff wets out better (imho).

GooseB

Here's some questions from shooters and the ECHA's responses. A lot of "not within the scope of the ban proposal" type answers. Also a lot of questions and statements similar to what's been mentioned on the two lead ban threads here. These are typically met by ECHA stating "please submit evidence". The ordinary Joe Soap can't exactly provide scientific proof to back up the claims. It's worth reading through:

https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/32772307/questions_and_answers_lead_consultation_en.pdf/9af2222b-f2a4-f574-db24-0eac395ff1f5

Originally found the link published here:

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/hunting/passion/ban-of-lead-in-ammunition-eu-stakeholders-are-now-invited-by-echa-to-submit-information/

Zxthinger

It makes for pathetic reading. They want to protect us from lead fumes.. when shooting and when casting lead..
I don't want there level of protection.. this pure bs from the jobs worth brigade

The answers that they provide are dire indicators of a group or body that doesn't have all the facts, a group that doesn't care about the shooting communities opinions and a grip that is just out to ban lead and has a closed outlook.. fcuk that.. this is not democratic this is not conciliatory this is tyranny..

GooseB

As has always been stated here, it's not about lead - it's about removing suitable ammunition for guns so they become useless. Backdoor gun ban.


Q- "Based on your logic - there is alternative in water pipes - If you are consistent - you should now ban all lead pipes carrying water. "

A- "The scope of this restriction proposal covers lead shot and lead ammunition for civilian use outdoors for hunting, sports shooting, and fishing and therefore does not relate to the use of lead in water pipes. ECHA notes that the lead concentration in drinking water in the EU is regulated my means of the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC. "


Q- "Could the alternatives to lead ever be restricted under REACH in the future?

A- "A Member State, or ECHA, at the request of the European Commission, can start the restriction procedure when they are concerned that a substance poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. ECHA can also propose a restriction on articles containing substances that are on the Authorisation List (Annex XIV). Therefore, if the alternatives to lead are found to pose an unacceptable risk to human or the environment, they may be subject to a restriction in the future."

GooseB

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/culture/off-on-the-wrong-foot-why-the-eu-lead-ban-proposal-is-a-problem-for-shooters-and-hunters/

Bog Trotter99

GooseB wrote: »

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/culture/off-on-the-wrong-foot-why-the-eu-lead-ban-proposal-is-a-problem-for-shooters-and-hunters/

The reason water birds died or die from lead shot (shotgun or fishing) was/is because it is picked up with their food and then ground up in their gizzards by small stones they pick up for the job.

Asus1

Is there any data on numbers and breeds of waterfowl that die by poisoning each year in Ireland or France or any other European country.

Bog Trotter99

It's not really how many. It's the fact that it does.

Any bird if got some lead shot in gizzard can grind it to a poisonous paste. I should imagine just one No 5 would do it.

I doubt but not sure it would affect any other wildlife.

Asus1

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

It's not really how many. It's the fact that it does.

Any bird if got some lead shot in gizzard can grind it to a poisonous paste. I should imagine just one No 5 would do it.

I doubt but not sure it would affect any other wildlife.

Surely legislation has to be based on data and figures otherwise how can we know that banning lead shot will increase bird numbers.How do we know for certain that it's lead shot and not other things like pollution, predation etc that has an effect on the bird's more so than lead.
If we have no figures before lead is banned we can't tell whether it has worked a few years down the road.

tudderone

Nothing to do with the environment or birds, its a way of undermining the civilian ownership of firearms.

BattleCorp

Asus1 wrote: »

Surely legislation has to be based on data and figures otherwise how can we know that banning lead shot will increase bird numbers.How do we know for certain that it's lead shot and not other things like pollution, predation etc that has an effect on the bird's more so than lead.
If we have no figures before lead is banned we can't tell whether it has worked a few years down the road.

I know I shouldn't do this but........

I did a course on Environmental Management a little over a year ago and actually did a literature review on The Environmental Effects of Shooting with Lead Shot in European Wetlands. I wonder why I picked that topic?

I've references for the info below if anybody decides to call me a liar but please don't make me go looking for them, it was a poxy enough course without having to re-live it.

Yes, the EU are going overboard here. They are going after a small scale polluter (shooters) and ignoring the large scale polluters (industry). That said, lead is bad for the environment and there's no denying that.

The ingestion of lead shot has been estimated to cause a population reduction of around 5% of grey partridge and a decrease of 1% for the common buzzard.

Some cattle that had grazed a field beside a clay pigeon shooting range died from lead poisoning. Lead shot was found in the abomasum and fore stomachs.

Raptors and scavengers who eat contaminated meat can also get lead poisoning. Secondary lead poisoning has been found to be the cause of death in some Griffon Vultures from the Iberian Peninsula.

10 - 15% of adult Golden Eagle fatalities in one study were caused by secondary ingestion of quarry contaminated with lead shot.

Funny enough, the ingestion of lead doesn't pose a threat to all species. Lead shot ingestion in the Lesser White-fronted and Greater White-fronted geese doesn't seem to pose a threat for either species.

Dogs fed scraps of game meat were found to have a wide range of negative health effects from lead poisoning.

Hunters in Switzerland who regularly ate game meat had elevated levels of lead in their blood.

Lead isn't really all that good for the environment, but the powers that be really need to look at the alternatives because many of them are worse than lead. The leaching of copper and zinc had a far more damaging effect on some of the plant life.

And as for legislation needing to be based on data...............:rolleyes: Our crowd and apparently the EU don't believe in that sort of carry on.

I think tudderone is right. This is more a move at getting rid of guns than saving the environment.

Grizzly 45

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

The reason water birds died or die from lead shot (shotgun or fishing) was/is because it is picked up with their food and then ground up in their gizzards by small stones they pick up for the job.

Soft lead ,not modern coated lead shot .That stuff defies hydrochloric acid,which is what is in your stomach to dissolve food We can eat that shot and it will pass right the us with little or no harm.

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Soft lead ,not modern coated lead shot .That stuff defies hydrochloric acid,which is what is in your stomach to dissolve food We can eat that shot and it will pass right the us with little or no harm.

It's not quite as simple as that. There are a lot of factors involved that determine the bioaccessibility of the lead.

Modern coated lead shot will eventually break down in the environment. When this happens, it becomes just as harmful as the old soft lead that you mention.

The thing is that we won't know if the lead that the wildfowl ingests is the old dangerous type or the new and maybe not yet as dangerous type..............that will eventually decay and become the same as the old dangerous type.

The geology and redox conditions also play a large role in the amount of lead from lead shot that leaches into the wetlands. Water oxygen levels and the type of bedrock greatly influence how quickly the lead breaks down. Acidic soils that have a high level of carbonic acid and organic acids also break down lead faster. Depending on varying factors, it can take between 100 - 300 years for metallic lead to fully decompose.

The cooking process also makes a lot more of the lead bioaccessible. In uncooked partridge, only 0.7% of the lead was bioaccessible, but cooking it pushed that number up to 6.75%. Cooking in wine or vinegar pushed it up even further.

By the way, I'm not championing the EU's mission to ban lead by any means. I still think it's misguided. I did my best to find an example of someone dying because they ingested lead shot or foodstuffs contaminated by lead shot and couldn't find one single example. Nor could I find any examples of hunters suffering from the effects of lead poisoning or exhibiting any symptoms of lead poisoning. One study did find that some game hunters in Switzerland had blood lead levels that were .30ug/dL higher than non-game meat eaters but there were no obvious health effects.

Bog Trotter99

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's not quite as simple as that. There are a lot of factors involved that determine the bioaccessibility of the lead.

Modern coated lead shot will eventually break down in the environment. When this happens, it becomes just as harmful as the old soft lead that you mention.

The thing is that we won't know if the lead that the wildfowl ingests is the old dangerous type or the new and maybe not yet as dangerous type..............that will eventually decay and become the same as the old dangerous type.

OK Battlecorp. What about the 4.5 BILLION bullets the USA made alone in WW11. Then the British and Germans and Italians and French and Russians.

Now alot of the German stuff is littering the fields of the midlands to east UK. Most of what is left is littering mainly France but the Germany.

Plus possibly more from WW1 in France and Belgium.

Now all those fields have been growing crops for over 100 years.

Surely the tens of millions of people would have been absorbing this lead and copper from vegetables grain and meat.

How come they arent all dead?

Then added to that almost 100 years of leaded petrol and lead water pipes.

Now I am not saying lead isnt dangerous because I believe everything is if you have too much. But in the cases I highlight here. How much do you need?

Also if you banned lead shot and bullets tomorrow. It aint going to make any difference because in those places you would still be digging those spent bullets out of the ground in another hundred or more years time.

BattleCorp

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

OK Battlecorp. What about the 4.5 BILLION bullets the USA made alone in WW11. Then the British and Germans and Italians and French and Russians.

Now alot of the German stuff is littering the fields of the midlands to east UK. Most of what is left is littering mainly France but the Germany.

Plus possibly more from WW1 in France and Belgium.

Now all those fields have been growing crops for over 100 years.

Surely the tens of millions of people would have been absorbing this lead and copper from vegetables grain and meat.

How come they arent all dead?

Then added to that almost 100 years of leaded petrol and lead water pipes.

Now I am not saying lead isnt dangerous because I believe everything is if you have too much. But in the cases I highlight here. How much do you need?

Also if you banned lead shot and bullets tomorrow. It aint going to make any difference because in those places you would still be digging those spent bullets out of the ground in another hundred or more years time.

Firstly, I'm lot looking for lead shot/bullets etc. to be banned. A ban would be disasterous for the shooting community. I'm just saying that it's true that the stuff is harmful and I posted to counteract someone else saying that modern lead can pass through us with little or no harm.

Any of the stuff I've posted about lead I've gotten from academic journals. In other words it's something that scientists who know a lot more than me have figured out. Studies have shown that this stuff is harmful.

Why aren't people dying left, right and centre from it is probably because they haven't been exposed to enough of it. Maybe people have been dying from it in the past and it wasn't identified as a cause or a contributory cause of death.

Anyway, I don't think the EU are saying they are doing it to protect the public, I think they are saying that they are doing it to protect wetland wildlife........which I don't particularly believe. The goal here is to have us with either no guns or no ammo for the guns.

Bog Trotter99

BattleCorp wrote: »

Firstly, I'm lot looking for lead shot/bullets etc. to be banned. A ban would be disasterous for the shooting community. I'm just saying that it's true that the stuff is harmful and I posted to counteract someone else saying that modern lead can pass through us with little or no harm.

Any of the stuff I've posted about lead I've gotten from academic journals. In other words it's something that scientists who know a lot more than me have figured out. Studies have shown that this stuff is harmful.

Why aren't people dying left, right and centre from it is probably because they haven't been exposed to enough of it. Maybe people have been dying from it in the past and it wasn't identified as a cause or a contributory cause of death.

Anyway, I don't think the EU are saying they are doing it to protect the public, I think they are saying that they are doing it to protect wetland wildlife........which I don't particularly believe. The goal here is to have us with either no guns or no ammo for the guns.

No ammo for guns correct. But having ammo isnt a requirement on gun licence so they would have to change that as well and then admit what they did.

Easiest thing in the world to cast your own bullets so criminals would never be out of ammo in any case.

tudderone

BattleCorp wrote: »

Firstly, I'm lot looking for lead shot/bullets etc. to be banned. A ban would be disasterous for the shooting community. I'm just saying that it's true that the stuff is harmful and I posted to counteract someone else saying that modern lead can pass through us with little or no harm.

Any of the stuff I've posted about lead I've gotten from academic journals. In other words it's something that scientists who know a lot more than me have figured out. Studies have shown that this stuff is harmful.

Why aren't people dying left, right and centre from it is probably because they haven't been exposed to enough of it. Maybe people have been dying from it in the past and it wasn't identified as a cause or a contributory cause of death.

Anyway, I don't think the EU are saying they are doing it to protect the public, I think they are saying that they are doing it to protect wetland wildlife........which I don't particularly believe. The goal here is to have us with either no guns or no ammo for the guns.

Less than 10 cases of lead poisoning a year in the Uk, mostly people who work with lead. If the EU were worried about various causes of what kills people, tobacco smoking would be gone in the morning, ditto fatty foods, a ban of the sale of sugar, salt and alcohol, ladders, motorcycles, most powered vehicles in fact. Lead poisoning is so far down the list of causes of death, its off the bottom of the chart.

Grizzly 45

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

No ammo for guns correct. But having ammo isnt a requirement on gun licence so they would have to change that as well and then admit what they did.

Easiest thing in the world to cast your own bullets so criminals would never be out of ammo in any case.

They are also planning to come after that as well in the directive. Prohibition of lead casting of fishing weights and bullets.

But lets see them ENFORCE all this... Going to have some eco Plod standing outside every time I fire up my oxy-acetylene torch to cut some scrap or maybe melt some lead?

As for the WW1 and 2 battlefields in France and Belguim where there is an estimated 750 million tonnes of lead out there.As well as other delightful heavy metals and unexploded chemical warfare munitions... Lead ,being heavy,sinks even in the soil.So once it goes below a deep plough depth of 12/18 ins?,or a deep plants root depth,it becomes pretty harmless to crops.

Ergo,lead shot and bullets will also sink thru the soil,and doubly quick thru river mud and marsh where most wildfowl is shot. So the next question should be is this;

Has any study been done on game or domestic fowl slaughter from those battlefield sites to see what the lead content is in them Be an interesting comparison.

What breeds of wildfowl are showing up the most with "lead poisoning",as in injested lead in their systems, not injured and died later from gunshot pellets which it seems is also classified as "lead poisoning" in this report.
Are these breeds known for deep mud food sourcing too?

Raptors being flesh eaters have a different ASFIK digestive system to most birds,so how are they being exactly poisoned by consuming wildfowl?

Has anyone conducted an EU wide study on how much toxicity of lead us hunters and shooters have in our systems? As we handle lead in the use of firearms over our lifetimes we should be full of the stuff and dying like flies according to the accepted science?

Cass

Perhaps it was mentioned above, didn't read every post, but did I read somewhere that some EU firearms group has lodged a "stay" on the lead ban. More accurately they are seeking a stay on the implemenation of it due to erroneous data and other faults they claim with the lead ban?

Asking for such a thing is a long way from getting and a million miles from doing anything about it, but is a start if true.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Perhaps it was mentioned above, didn't read every post, but did I read somewhere that some EU firearms group has lodged a "stay" on the lead ban. More accurately they are seeking a stay on the implemenation of it due to erroneous data and other faults they claim with the lead ban?

Asking for such a thing is a long way from getting and a million miles from doing anything about it, but is a start if true.

Firearms United Network.

GooseB

https://www.facebook.com/FirearmsUnitedNetwork/posts/4033363270089650?__tn__=K-R

Just looked at their faceweb site - They're looking for help from clubs and associations across Europe to assist in logging a case. Not sure if anyone is really aware of them around here?

Bog Trotter99

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

As for the WW1 and 2 battlefields in France and Belguim where there is an estimated 750 million tonnes of lead out there.As well as other delightful heavy metals and unexploded chemical warfare munitions... Lead ,being heavy,sinks even in the soil.So once it goes below a deep plough depth of 12/18 ins?,or a deep plants root depth,it becomes pretty harmless to crops.

Ergo,lead shot and bullets will also sink thru the soil,and doubly quick thru river mud and marsh where most wildfowl is shot. So the next question should be is this;

That much heavy metal would still pollute en-mass big time. If an Irish septic tank can pollute I am sure 750 million tons of smashed up lead can leach into the ground water quite easily. The Frenchies, Germans and those in Belgium would have been dropping like stones long ago and the drinking of local water wouldn't be allowed.

Bog Trotter99

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

They are also planning to come after that as well in the directive. Prohibition of lead casting of fishing weights and bullets.

But lets see them ENFORCE all this... Going to have some eco Plod standing outside every time I fire up my oxy-acetylene torch to cut some scrap or maybe melt some lead?

For lead you only need a cooker type gas ring and not oxy-acet or anywhere near it.

Also the melting of lead is used for a whole number of processes in industry and repair. So some EU legislator has never been off his office chair if they try and bring that one in.

Grizzly 45

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

That much heavy metal would still pollute en-mass big time. If an Irish septic tank can pollute I am sure 750 million tons of smashed up lead can leach into the ground water quite easily. The Frenchies, Germans and those in Belgium would have been dropping like stones long ago and the drinking of local water wouldn't be allowed.

Where we live in Germany,was a former Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe fuel storage and processing plant that was bombed to Hell in April 1945. Over 20 million litres of avgas ,diesel ,Tstuff(One of the fuels for the V2 and the komet rocket plane)and tetryl ethl lead,which is absolutely toxic and the former lead additive to petrol was burnt,bombed ,spread and sank into the groundwater.Yet we have the communal well tested every year, as there is a stream running thru the former complex that supplies the ground water,and the residual amounts is negligible and safe for consumption.
Germany has long had laws protecting ground water,and doing things like septic tanks or digging your own well on your property is unheard of under that law and its the council's responsibility to ensure good drinking water.

So,of the stuff isnt showing up on somthing as recent as 1945,on a property you can literally buy for 5 euros off the Bavarian state,(and then pay an est 60million to clean up the environmental pollution and de munition the dud USAAF bombs in the forest)its that polluted.

So where or why isnt this stuff showing up in the groundwaters of Ypres,Flanders, The Marne ,Loos etc?Do the French and Belgians not test for it or do they consider what we would consider an abnormally high reading in un damaged non battle ground to be"normal"?

berettaman

Asus1 wrote: »

Is there any data on numbers and breeds of waterfowl that die by poisoning each year in Ireland or France or any other European country.

NARGC have surveyed duck gizzards for the last 2 years. They tested every region (Covers all counties in the Republic.)
Over 1000 gizzards tested each year. Paid for by the Association, ducks gathered by members.

If I recall correctly, lead shot was present in .002% of gizzards, This is like 2 birds in a 1000.
These birds would not be from your local park but from some heavily shot lakes and ponds around the country.
This Data was part of NARGC submission to Government and EU, REACH etc as far as I am aware.



No one cares that NARGC have this DATA because it is not about bird safety or human safety, really. It is about removing firearms from society for one reason or another.


You can draw no other conclusion.

Grizzly 45

GooseB wrote: »

Just looked at their faceweb site - They're looking for help from clubs and associations across Europe to assist in logging a case. Not sure if anyone is really aware of them around here?

I assume NARGC submitted their findings via FACE on this to Brussels? So the local game clubs will no doubt have submitted via NARGC? Not to say they cant send the same to FUN as well.

So the info is getting there via a different route? What is more alarming is whoever is in charge of the ranges association for Ireland,the CPSAI[?] the NASRPC and most of all IPSC Europe...Them the most,because how will you shoot steel on steel without some dangerous ricochets?

berettaman

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I assume NARGC submitted their findings via FACE on this to Brussels? So the local game clubs will no doubt have submitted via NARGC? Not to say they cant send the same to FUN as well.

So the info is getting there via a different route? What is more alarming is whoever is in charge of the ranges association for Ireland,the CPSAI[?] the NASRPC and most of all IPSC Europe...Them the most,because how will you shoot steel on steel without some dangerous ricochets?

As far as I know this has been submitted via FACE and directly to REACH.
Chairman Dan Curley was the man driving this on.


RGC secretaries would have been notified that gizzards were requested. The word should in theory go out to clubs. It is a simple enough thing to bag and freeze a gizzard. RGC delegates brought the gizzards to the first quarterly meeting after the season ended. They were then sent for testing to an independent lab.


EU are banning lead for their own reasons. Don't tell me that its because of lead poisoning.
How can you reason someone out of a position that they have not been reasoned into?

tudderone

A few thousand rounds of shotgun ammo carrying 1 1/8 ounce of no.5 shot sort of pales into insignificance :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNIBE64CAgs

Cass

berettaman wrote: »

EU are banning lead for their own reasons. Don't tell me that its because of lead poisoning.?

If they were serious about environmental impact and other such "concerns" then this would not be happening:

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Hardly surprising that the cops and armies are exempt....

IOW we're [EU] concerned of the impact hunter/shooters have on the environment, but not so much that we'll cost ourselves billions in forced changes to ammunition, like the way we are forcing citizens to (cos, you know, they'll have to pay for it themselves).

Bog Trotter99

Can I ask why a solid copper or thicker copper coated steel or tin bullets couldnt replace lead bullets. I know that copper is making over £5000 per ton scrap at moment. But that might just improve your aim. Just wondering why a thicker copper jacket over base metal cannot work in standard guns.

tudderone

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

Can I ask why a solid copper or thicker copper coated steel or tin bullets couldnt replace lead bullets. I know that copper is making over £5000 per ton scrap at moment. But that might just improve your aim. Just wondering why a thicker copper jacket over base metal cannot work in standard guns.

I know someone in Scotland using solid copper bullets for a decade now. He reckons they are the business, kills deer just as good as anything else, lead included. So deer stalkers are fine. But someone heading to the midlands to send a few hundred rounds downrange, its going to be expensive. Plus i hear copper rounds in .22lr are not good accuracy-wise, maybe that will improve with developement, but plinking away a brick or two at the range with the 10/22 will also be expensive.

BattleCorp

tudderone wrote: »

I know someone in Scotland using solid copper bullets for a decade now. He reckons they are the business, kills deer just as good as anything else, lead included. So deer stalkers are fine. But someone heading to the midlands to send a few hundred rounds downrange, its going to be expensive. Plus i hear copper rounds in .22lr are not good accuracy-wise, maybe that will improve with developement, but plinking away a brick or two at the range with the 10/22 will also be expensive.

While the ban of lead in bullets is the mid to long game, the short game is lead shot in wetlands. And you can't really coat lead shot with copper, can you?

And if it's environmental protection you are after, copper ain't that good for wetland flora either.

Bog Trotter99

tudderone wrote: »

I know someone in Scotland using solid copper bullets for a decade now. He reckons they are the business, kills deer just as good as anything else, lead included. So deer stalkers are fine. But someone heading to the midlands to send a few hundred rounds downrange, its going to be expensive. Plus i hear copper rounds in .22lr are not good accuracy-wise, maybe that will improve with developement, but plinking away a brick or two at the range with the 10/22 will also be expensive.

I understand but there is no reason why one metal will be less accurate than another.........basically.

The problems arise in this case with bullets of the speed of the bullet not suiting the rifling. But this can be overcome usually.

Being as range lead is all confined and not over water then there is no reason why lead cannot be used and easily recovered. So the cost does not increase for range shooters.

Copper is similar in weight to lead.

tudderone

BattleCorp wrote: »

While the ban of lead in bullets is the mid to long game, the short game is lead shot in wetlands. And you can't really coat lead shot with copper, can you?

And if it's environmental protection you are after, copper ain't that good for wetland flora either.

I think you can yes, also Nickel plated shot. I dunno how well it performs on game, and what the issues are with it though.

Bog Trotter99

BattleCorp wrote: »

While the ban of lead in bullets is the mid to long game, the short game is lead shot in wetlands. And you can't really coat lead shot with copper, can you?

And if it's environmental protection you are after, copper ain't that good for wetland flora either.

You could I suppose do anything but will it be cost effective.

Copper as I have said all metals are bad in large enough quantities. Copper poisoning occurs through industrial and through ingestion of contaminated substances. I do not think copper is absorbed by drinking water the same as lead.

One way of spraying spuds for blight was and is to use a copper solution as copper is anti-fungal. It is in the form of copper sulphate but I think you have to watch over use.

tudderone

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

I understand but there is no reason why one metal will be less accurate than another.........basically.

The problems arise in this case with bullets of the speed of the bullet not suiting the rifling. But this can be overcome usually.

Being as range lead is all confined and not over water then there is no reason why lead cannot be used and easily recovered. So the cost does not increase for range shooters.

Copper is similar in weight to lead.

Lead = 11,370 Kg/M3

Copper = 8,900 Kg/M3

Bog Trotter99

tudderone wrote: »

I think you can yes, also Nickel plated shot. I dunno how well it performs on game, and what the issues are with it though.

Again Nickel can be toxic. But then kids of my age swallowed the odd sixpence and some Granny's even swallowed them in their Christmas pudding.

Bog Trotter99

tudderone wrote: »

Lead = 11,370 Kg/M3

Copper = 8,900 Kg/M3

Its as close a metal you will get next to gold.

BattleCorp

tudderone wrote: »

I think you can yes, also Nickel plated shot. I dunno how well it performs on game, and what the issues are with it though.

You are indeed correct.

https://fieldsports-journal.com/article/copper-coated-shot-demystified

Bog Trotter99

When I was a apprentice if you were welding metals like copper, you got extra money and a free bottle of fat milk. I will let you google to find out why.

tudderone

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are indeed correct.

https://fieldsports-journal.com/article/copper-coated-shot-demystified

The thing is though would that shot be allowed ? It still contains lead

SVI40

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

I understand but there is no reason why one metal will be less accurate than another.........basically.

Eley have been working on a lead replacement for .22 for some time now, and have not got anything that comes close to lead for accuracy.

Bog Trotter99

As far as I can see and its great to be popular. That really if they did ban lead then we could still use copper bullets and possibly even copper shot.

The charge of cartridges can be adjusted to suit rifling and gun proofing and I imagine in a lot of cases this is overcome.

Shooting cost would go up but when did they ever come down and some kinds of shooting costs would go through the roof.

So on that thought which is meant to be constructive and not piss anybody off, I can't see how they could bring in a back door ban of guns, because by banning lead projectiles, they are solving nothing.

Bog Trotter99

SVI40 wrote: »

Eley have been working on a lead replacement for .22 for some time now, and have not got anything that comes close to lead for accuracy.

The metal does not make the accuracy. In fact a metal which could be machined would be far more accurate than a moulded metal like lead.

Also if you were making other types of bullets like copper, you would not cast them. They would be pressure formed. So perfect. Actually a lot of lead is pressure formed anyway now.

Lead bullets were given a copper jacket for one of the reasons, to stop them disintegrating on high velocities.

tudderone

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

As far as I can see and its great to be popular. That really if they did ban lead then we could still use copper bullets and possibly even copper shot.

The charge of cartridges can be adjusted to suit rifling and gun proofing and I imagine in a lot of cases this is overcome.

Shooting cost would go up but when did they ever come down and some kinds of shooting costs would go through the roof.

So on that thought which is meant to be constructive and not piss anybody off, I can't see how they could bring in a back door ban of guns, because by banning let projectiles they are solving nothing.

There would be a lot of people who just couldn't be bothered to get rid of a gun they have been shooting decades and buying something new they don't really want. They'd say feck it and pack it in altogether.

Paying a lot more for ammunition thats nowhere near as good as the old stuff, not so much stalkers like i said, but target shooters would be affected.

The whole thing is a crock of old poop, its annoying millions of people for next to no gain in reality.

Bog Trotter99

tudderone wrote: »

There would be a lot of people who just couldn't be bothered to get rid of a gun they have been shooting decades and buying something new they don't really want. They'd say feck it and pack it in altogether.

Paying a lot more for ammunition thats nowhere near as good as the old stuff, not so much stalkers like i said, but target shooters would be affected.

The whole thing is a crock of old poop, its annoying millions of people for next to no gain in reality.

I know it is but I was trying to point out it wouldnt be the end of the world or shooting.

tudderone

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

The metal does not make the accuracy. In fact a metal which could be machined would be far more accurate than a moulded metal like lead.

Also if you were making other types of bullets like copper, you would not cast them. They would be pressure formed. So perfect. Actually a lot of lead is pressure formed anyway now.

Lead bullets were given a copper jacket for one reason to stop them disintegrating on high velocities.

Eley know how to make accurate ammo, with things like Tenex prove that. If they are having difficulties getting copper accurate, then thats a warning its not good.

Bog Trotter99

tudderone wrote: »

Eley know how to make accurate ammo, with things like Tenex prove that. If they are having difficulties getting copper accurate, then thats a warning its not good.

I would like to see that info because I cannot believe one metal in the form we are talking about is less accurate than another.

Pressures and rifling yes, but metals as bullets no. So correct me and give me a link to the info.