Lead ban

tudderone · 09-10-2020 6:35pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

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

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

tudderone · 16-10-2020 12:33pm

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

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

Eddie B · 17-10-2020 7:44am

Some positive news

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

Grizzly 45 · 17-10-2020 10:59am

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

tudderone · 17-10-2020 12:21pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

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

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

tudderone · 23-10-2020 5:48pm

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

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

keith s · 25-10-2020 11:10am

Sorry if this has been discussed before.

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

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

meathstevie · 25-10-2020 12:31pm

keith s wrote: »

Sorry if this has been discussed before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

keith s · 25-10-2020 12:58pm

Thanks Stevie,

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

tudderone · 25-10-2020 1:48pm

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

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

keith s · 25-10-2020 1:56pm

Thanks Tudderone,

Yeah, I can't believe how something with so many holes in it, has made it this far and the majority of people who make decisions for the rest of us, have not seen any issues with it.

BattleCorp · 25-10-2020 2:48pm

In short, steel shot is nowhere near as good as lead.

It's harder on your gun (it'll downright break some of them leading to shooter injuries), doesn't kill as efficiently and drops like a stone once it hits about 35 metres.

tudderone · 25-10-2020 5:15pm

keith s wrote: »

Thanks Tudderone,

Yeah, I can't believe how something with so many holes in it, has made it this far and the majority of people who make decisions for the rest of us, have not seen any issues with it.

They couldn't give a flying sh1te, its the mercs, perks, expenses, lotto win wages, massive pensions and contacts to make more money when you get slung out, that are important.

So what if mick the farmers gun doesn't take steel ?

tudderone · 25-10-2020 5:19pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

In short, steel shot is nowhere near as good as lead.

It's harder on your gun (it'll downright break some of them leading to shooter injuries), doesn't kill as efficiently and drops like a stone once it hits about 35 metres.

Yup, its going to massively change game and clay shooting, for no real benefit to the environment.

BattleCorp · 26-10-2020 5:08pm

tudderone wrote: »

Yup, its going to massively change game and clay shooting, for no real benefit to the environment.

And if our gobsh1tes decide to ban the use of lead in all ammo, it'll screw up all other types of shooting too.

tudderone · 26-10-2020 6:02pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

And if our gobsh1tes decide to ban the use of lead in all ammo, it'll screw up all other types of shooting too.

Well i would assume it is a total lead ban, or whats the point ?

Grizzly 45 · 26-10-2020 8:19pm

IT IS
and the ban on lead in rifle ammo, muzzleloading and reloading is the next step... So be prepared to fight this tooth& nail lads.

keith s · 26-10-2020 8:59pm

Makes no sense for target shooting, given the expense already gone in to catchment areas in clubs.

solarwinds · 26-10-2020 9:05pm

keith s wrote: »

Makes no sense for target shooting, given the expense already gone in to catchment areas in clubs.

None of it makes any sense to a rational person.
This is nothing more than a ban all guns at any cost exercise.
Public health and the health of waterfowl has nothing to do with any of this, it is just a back door to getting what they eventually want, an unarmed public where the only guns in use are the ones used by their bodyguards, police and military all of which are government controlled.

solarwinds · 26-10-2020 9:09pm

keith s wrote: »

Makes no sense for target shooting, given the expense already gone in to catchment areas in clubs.

None of it makes any sense to a rational person.
This is nothing more than a ban all guns at any cost exercise.
Public health and the health of waterfowl has nothing to do with any of this, it is just a back door to getting what they eventually want, an unarmed public where the only guns in use are the ones used by their bodyguards, police and military all of which are government controlled.

GooseB · 26-10-2020 9:13pm

A while back I contacted some firearm manufacturers and a large European ammo manufacturer on this. The ammunition R&D manager told me "Our main problem, the ban of lead in all civil ammunition and all terrains (also called “full ban”) is currently under construction. It’s planned to be finalised on 10th of October 2020". I cannot however find any more information online regarding this 10th of October plan that was mentioned. From what I can tell so far, almost nobody in the shooting community here is aware of any of this from asking around a bit - it's news to them for the most part. The narrative from those pushing the total ban (and the shot ban that's way more advanced and a pen stroke from being in effect from 2 years time) is that hunters have the option of solid copper bullets for use in rifles and steel shot in shotguns. They don't use a lot of ammunition, eg: a successful deer stalk may involve one single shot, so the increased cost of the ammo is quite tolerable. Target shooting is never even mentioned at all so to hell with them in otherwords. MEP's that haven't a clue on the matter either way are being told this side of the story only and not the other side of it from a shooters point of view or from the ballistics side of things. Since they may not know better, they're going to vote going by what BS they're fed from the anti-gun crowd, sorry, anti-lead crowd. And fishing weights are being impacted too but they don't have the exacting needs of lead as firearms do. Military use of lead is not affected, this is strictly aimed at civilians.

keith s · 26-10-2020 9:22pm

Yeah, for sure the initial one in the works now (lead shot), is the thin edge, I think most of us would agree on that. Especially given the fact that the perposal is a dogs dinner and nobody in charge even seems to acknowledge that (bar one or two).

tudderone · 26-10-2020 9:42pm

If something is a dogs dinner, as this proposal appears to be, then it is more than likely more dangerous than a well thought out piece of legislation, as there will be unintended consequences for us, along with the intended ones.

Copper vs lead ? Todays prices on the London metal exchange, has copper three times the price of lead. Suddenly a sunday mornings plinking with a brick of .22 in the rifle or pistol looks a whole lot more expensive.

https://www.lme.com

GooseB · 26-10-2020 10:04pm

Forget about .22 in copper - look up the video by 22Plinkster on YouTube using CCI copper rounds, the accuracy is atrocious - and that's at only 25 yards.

Again, from the ammunition R&D manager I contacted - "You have clearly detected the challenge in this project – the accuracy. Lead is an very old material and over the times the best choice for a bullet material. It’s not so easy to develop new materials that fulfil the actual and future requirements of the EU rules. Also the costs are a very hard point in the development and later in the market."

tudderone · 26-10-2020 10:53pm

Commiefornia is the leader in all this lead ban thing. They banned hunting with lead years ago, and are trying to ban the use of lead on indoor and outdoor ranges. Come to think of it, living in this dreary country is getting like living in california, without the good weather :rolleyes:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvovW0jGoSg

juice1304 · 26-10-2020 11:34pm

The only material comparable to lead is gold. The average cost of a rifle round would be 550 and double that for a shotgun cartridge.

All you have to do is look at the periodic table.
They are simply so ignorant they think companies can come up with new materials sure they can make new alloys but they can't do anything about the density. Shortsighted political idiots who have no idea nor interest in engineering.

ayagerard · 27-10-2020 10:36am

solarwinds wrote: »

None of it makes any sense to a rational person.
This is nothing more than a ban all guns at any cost exercise.
Public health and the health of waterfowl has nothing to do with any of this, it is just a back door to getting what they eventually want, an unarmed public where the only guns in use are the ones used by

their bodyguards, police and military will be all exempt ????? from the lead ban WHY and what i would like to know is . why and what theory exempts them, far more likely to be sued if they are though less off than the public discrimination is one word but it works both ways

the case put forward for the ban is lead poising to wildlife in wet lands while lead is toxic and found in bird gizzards may not have been what killed them ,
what will they have to say about birds and animals found dead after copper shot are found weeks later with infectious wounds which certainly attributed to their demise, the lead ban i feel is only cut one, down the road there will be bigger arguments that will be harder won if this is allowed to pass

if the copper is" not good-enough for the world army's or police services to shoot themselves and us with then it is not good for animals either, they can come up with tonnage of lead that hunters use on an annual bases what tonnage do the armed forces (freedom fighters) and their likes use ????
surely 10 fold and that would be a good year,
this is just another control measure that is being put to law abiding citizens and will have no effect on street violence or animal welfare or the environment we live in

meathstevie · 27-10-2020 11:03am

How many multiples of the amount of lead a hunter would shoot does it take to train an infantry GPMG or LMG operator and keep their skill level at an acceptable standard ?

I’m assuming it’ll be in the region of tens of thousands of 7.62 NATO or 5.56 NATO rounds over the duration of their military life. The average deer stalker or fox shooter wouldn’t shoot such an amount in a hundred lifetimes of hunting.

I’m equally assuming then that there’s no wildlife to be impacted on any military ranges or exercise grounds anywhere in the EU if that’s the case.

Grizzly 45 · 27-10-2020 1:23pm

keith s wrote: »

Makes no sense for target shooting, given the expense already gone in to catchment areas in clubs.

Outdoor range,proably built in a "wetland area", earthen/sandy backstops with no or little ground sheeting to catch the lead water runoff...:( About 90 % of target ranges out there.

Grizzly 45 · 27-10-2020 1:26pm

meathstevie wrote: »

How many multiples of the amount of lead a hunter would shoot does it take to train an infantry GPMG or LMG operator and keep their skill level at an acceptable standard ?

I’m assuming it’ll be in the region of tens of thousands of 7.62 NATO or 5.56 NATO rounds over the duration of their military life. The average deer stalker or fox shooter wouldn’t shoot such an amount in a hundred lifetimes of hunting.

I’m equally assuming then that there’s no wildlife to be impacted on any military ranges or exercise grounds anywhere in the EU if that’s the case.

NOTE the military/police exemptions??? Places like Sailsbury plain,Grafenwoher in Germany and all others would be then utter health hazards to troops and cost billions to clean up,if ever...

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Lead ban

Comments