New threat to lead shot in the UK

The ECHA European Chemicals Agency have produce a report on lead ammunition. It looks like the UK’s Lead Ammunition Group LAG 2.0.

Many of the LAG committee where apart of the writing team for this report. Just look at the list of  writers below. John Swift Chairman of the LAG, member of the LAG, Rhys Green with, Ruth Cromie WWT, Debbie Pain WWT and Dr Matt Ellis of BASC.

BASC withdraw their support for the LAG after Sir Barnie White-Spunner of the CA walked with the other shooing groups.

BASC had their CEO at the time, 2010, John Swift as chairman, they where running the LAG web site for the LAG and Dr Matt Ellis was the secretary for the Group.

Now Mat Ellis turn up as being apart of the team involved in the ECHA report now being used to call for a total lead ban.


The Dossier Submitter would like to thank the many stakeholders that made contributions to the call for evidence and during subsequent discussions during the development of this report, but particularly:

Alessandro Andreotti (ISPRA)

Barnett Rattner (USGS)

David Scallan (FACE)

Debbie Pain (WWT)

John Anthony Swift (LAG)

Kai Tikkunen (Finnish Hunting Association)

Mario Ge (AFEMS)

Matt Ellis (BASC)

Niels Kanstrup (Danish Academy of Hunting)

Rafael Mateo (IREC)

Rhys E. Green (University of Cambridge, UK)

Ruth Cromie (WWT)

Sergey Dereliev (UNEP/AEWA Secretariat)

Steve Binks (ILA)

Torbjörn Lindskog (AFEMS)

Vernon G. Thomas (University of Guelph, Canada)

Wouter Langhout (Bird Life Europe)

This version of the report has been reviewed for confidential information and any such information has been redacted.



Guns by post

As a gunsmith I use to use TNT to post guns to dealers and other gunsmiths for Blacking and stocking. TNT stopped taking guns and that left Parcelforce.

To use Parcelforce all you have to do is go down the post office and pay BUT not more.

Royal Mail as stopped taking guns. To post by Parcelforce I need account.

Phoned Parcelforce and I do not qualify for an account as I have to do a minim of 100 parcels a year.

However if I’m a member of BASC or GTA I can have a Parcelforce account.

Why should I have to be a member of an organisation to post a Parcel?

I believe this is a restriction of trade.


Trouble at Mill

<meta http-equiv=”refresh” content=”0; URL=/groups/26120381083/files/?_fb_noscript=1″ />Country Sports TV

Comment Country Sports TV

I’ve added the Richard Ali appeal O’Neil report to this page and the press release from BASC saying that they had sack Mr Ali for gross misconduct.

Then we have the press reports regarding the Stephen Curtis employment tribunal in Chester. Mr Curtis is clamming unfair dismissal, as the Hill Dickinson report cleared him.

The Hill Dickinson report was rejected by the BASC council.

I have added the summaries of the O’Neil report and the Hill Dickinson report into “Files” on the page.

Mr Ali has been sacked. Mr Curtis is at a employment tribunal which we still await the up come.

What happens is the tribunal finds in favour of Mr Curtis?

Would that but the council in the wrong?

Did Mr Ali act correctly and BASC council should not have sack him?

If Mr Curtis wins his tribunal case where does that leave the council?

No lead ban


Four key paragraphs in the Liz Truss letter John Swift:

Following receipt of your report, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) sought independent scientific advice from the Committee on Toxicity about the human health risk assessment within it. This advice, which has been in place since 2012, States:

‘To minimise the risk of lead intake, people who frequently eat lead-shot game, particularly small game, should cut down their consumption. This advice is especially important for vulnerable groups such as toddlers and children, pregnant woman and woman trying to have a baby’.

With regard to the impact of lead ammunition on wildlife, we note that the report does not provide evidence of causation linking possible imparts of lead ammunition with sizes of bird populations in England.

In both instances – human health and wildlife – the report did not show that the impacts of lead ammunition were significant enough to justify changing current policy; we therefore do not accept your recommendation to ban the use of lead ammunition.

BASC Involvement in LAG

Save Our lead Shot<meta http-equiv=”X-Frame-Options” content=”DENY” />

BASC involvement in LAG

The following is out takes from the LAG report and show the involvement of BASC staff in the LAG.

It was not just John Swift. see how Dr John Harradine and Dr Matt Ellis fit in the LAG. BASC also set up the web site.

I add John Batley of the GTA to the list as he was the BASC pigeon shooting expert and council member. Note the report does not say he resigned? was he still working with the LAG after he resigned?


Lucy Munro (defra) initially provded the main committee’s secretariat support until 5th meeting in November 2010. Dr Matt Ellis (BASC) succeeded her from the 6th meeting in April 2012.

From the outset in March 2010 John Swift (then chief Executive of BASC but now retired from that role) was appointed as the Group’s chaiman specifically “to provide overarching direction and focus for the group, ………. John Swift has continued as the Group’s chairman since retiring from BASC in 2013.

Primary Evidence and Risk Assessment Subgroup (PERA Subgroup)
The PERA Subgroup’s members have been Professor Levy, Dr Peter Green MRCVS (Veterinary Adviser to the British Deer Society), Professor Rhys Green (RSBP and the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridges), Dr John Harradine (BASC), Dr Alastair Leake (GWCT), and Dr Debbie Pain (WWT),

The Mitigation Subgroup brought together members of the Main Committee and others to consider possible mitigation options to reduce or eliminate the risks identified in the risk assessments The Mitigation Subgroup was chaired by Sir Barney White-Spunner.

The Mitigation Subgroup’s Membership was open to the entire Group with additional invited experts. It has consisted of Sir Barney, Ian Coghill (GWCT), Professor Green (RSPB), Dr Ruth Cromie (WWT) and Dr Matt Ellis ( BASC) although other members of the Main Committee have provided assistance and information.
The main Committee received four risk assessments in 2013.

3. “Lead Ammunition and Wildlife in England (UK)” a minority report by Dr John Harradine and Dr Alastair Leake (see appendix 3)

a. The Gun and ammunition trades have been represented by John Batley (Gun Trade Association)
b. Game dealers have been represented by Stephen Crouch (National Game Dealers Association) and resigned in May 2015

No lead Ban in England

<meta http-equiv=”refresh” content=”0; URL=/groups/386424074747289/?ref=bookmarks&_fb_noscript=1″ />(2) Save Our lead Shot<meta http-equiv=”X-Frame-Options” content=”DENY” />

No lead ban!

Four key paragraphs in the Liz Truss letter to John Swift:

Following receipt of your report, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) sought independent scientific advice from the Committee on Toxicity about the human health risk assessment within it. This advice, which has been in place since 2012, States:

‘To minimise the risk of lead intake, people who frequently eat lead-shot game, particularly small game, should cut down their consumption. This advice is especially important for vulnerable groups such as toddlers and children, pregnant woman and woman trying to have a baby’.

With regard to the impact of lead ammunition on wildlife, we note that the report does not provide evidence of causation linking possible imparts of lead ammunition with sizes of bird populations in England.

In both instances – human health and wildlife – the report did not show that the impacts of lead ammunition were significant enough to justify changing current policy; we therefore do not accept your recommendation to ban the use of lead ammunition.



2009 BASC Research committee minutes

This is the minutes of the BASC Research Committee, this committee meet and the LAG had not been set up yet.

Was this all apart of the plan of Mr John Swift and Co to get us to give up lead. I believe the answer is, yes.

It was agreed that the following recommendation be given to Council:
“In light of the growing evidence of problems with lead ammunition the 
Committee believes that the use of lead ammunition in shooting and stalk-ing is becoming increasingly unsustainable. As a result of the growing and external pace of change the Committee recommends that Council prepares members and other shooters for early change away from lead ammunition. The Committee also recommends that the Deer Committee gives urgent attention to the problems of lead bullets“.
AP3 –  MA to recommend to Council in January that bans on lead ammunition are anticipated sooner rather than later and that members should be prepared for early change

BASC RESEARCH COMMITTEEall Minutes Steering Group

Are BASC still working under this document?

Who many BASC HQ staff are working for a lead ban?


Shooting News – Jan 2016

THINK ABOUT IT – _amendment_

Shooting News – News, Lies, rumour & fact. Reading is believing 

13th January  2016

THINK ABOUT IT – (Amendment 15th Jan)

NOTE: The figure of 670,00 pellets (below) should read 67,000. The comma was wrongly placed. The number is based upon 200 No. 6 cartridges containing 291 pellets each = 58,200 plus a 15% margin allowing for the possibility of some pellets from the previous month, remaining accessible. Apologies for any confusion.



The surface area of 1 square foot will contain up to 17,500 lead pellets 1 layer deep, of No. 6 shot (2.6mm dia.) – fact.

It is a fact to be kept in the forefront of everybody’s mind. For example, take a field that is shot for pigeons. Say it is shot over once a month. Say it is around 20 acres (to allow for containing the range (300yds) of shotgun pellets. Say around 200 cartridges (67,000 pellets) are shot each time it is shot, and say that each time the shooting area is around 70% of the 20 acres available.

That will give you a pellet distribution of around 1 pellet per square foot on the ground, or give a pigeon a 1 in 17,500 chance to happen upon a Lead pellet. 1:17,500 is 0.0057%, which is 57 birds per Million. The WWT and the RSPB claim up to 100,000 (per million?) ducks die from eating Lead pellets in the UK each year. They, (not the ducks) are mad, bad, and dangerous to know.

Even if a pigeon or duck came across a rare lead pellet, hanging around, it does not mean it would actually eat it. The probability of that is likely to be zero. We are left with the fact that the imbibing of a lead pellet is accidental, if at all, a one in 17,500 chance. You live those odds on a daily basis, like falling off your bike, and, as you all know, it might never happen, despite the odds. What is more, you do not deliberately want to fall off your bike anymore than the duck or pigeon wants to eat a lead pellet, they don’t like lead pellets.

Furthermore, that pellet, in that square foot patch of ground, will not be available for accidental consumption by a pigeon, for very long. Wind, worms, rain, frost, flood, gravity, tilling, ploughing, and livestock, all take their toil. That pellet will sink into the ground at around 2.5mm per week, over the year it may have sunk to a depth of at least 130mm, or 5.5 inches.

Now, that all takes place on dry land. Think how much more difficult it all is, under water. For a start, add the force of the tides, and river flow, to the mix. How on earth does a duck get to find a Lead pellet even if it is desperate for one, given the odds again it. Thankfully, ducks do not like the taste of lead (galvanic action in the beak is not a pleasant sensation) and do not actively seek out Lead pellets. They can detect the difference between ‘grit’ and lead pellets. They like food and an occasional pinch grit.


The edifice of ‘studies’ in deception, constructed over decades by the anti-shooting industry is creaking under its own weight of hyperbole and ideology. It is time for it to be toppled.

2016 is the time to bring the many absurdities of NGO’s like the RSPB, WWT, and the AEWA, to heel. Driven to create bad news, and construct bad news scenarios, their self-serving elliptical worldview is fantastical in its conclusions. Without a constant ‘bad news’ agenda they wither on the vine lacking purpose, meaning, and funding. They are media constructs, nothing more.

We need to start afresh in 2016 with a clean slate and real science.

In 2015, the forces ranged against English shooting converged and threw their entire might against the use of Lead Ammunition.

A stalwart English shooting public resisted. It is the English Shooting public who castigated, and urged supine ‘shooting’ organisations (over the preceding 5 years) that have emerged as the real heroes of the day, not the shooting organisations.

The shooting public were betrayed for 30 years by the BASC on the matter. The other organisations were no better, largely ineffective, in complete disarray, in a word, useless. We would not be in the mess we are now if it were not so.

The instigation of the Lead Ammunition Group brought about by the BASC, WWT, and the RSPB finally galvanised the English Shooting Public. At first, disbelieving of the breach of trust over the decades, followed by recognition, and then embarrassment, for allowing their own interests to be betrayed by their own complacency, created a pent up wall of frustrated anger and outrage. It was all their own fault.

It was only at that point of realisation did English shooters finally awake to put a degree of backbone into their representative organisations. Three cheers, keep it up for 2016. What is jaw dropping is that the organisations and their pundits are castigating the shooting public for being critical. Something must be wrong. But then, as mentioned in a previous newsletter the BASC does not consider ‘non-members’ to be part of shooting; “lost to shooting” were the words of one of its officials.

So when Shooting’s representatives drone on against their own members, about their ‘campaign’, for ‘compliance’ with the Lead regulations in England, the 85% who are not members look on, perplexed. Who are they talking to? We don’t shoot wildfowl, and ducks don’t like to eat Lead pellets, even if they could find one. The ignorance of the normal shooter can be forgiven; only around 2% of the Shooting public go out with the express purpose to shoot wildfowl. All of the rest of the noise is pure hearsay and anecdote. Wisely, the Representatives have now scaled back their blanket accusation, to ‘the few’. That being the case please produce the evidence and prosecute, like any other crime. But please do stop threatening to ban all lead ammunition over this; we do not live in North Korea. Who on earth made this stupid threat, the Minister? Or was it that agile director of communications at the BASC, Christopher Grafius? Or, worse still, the BASC council?

Compliance is not science it is law. A law may be introduced based on false science, prejudice, subjective opinion and political agenda. The Law may be unjust, illogical, or plain stupid, but once introduced, must be observed. The English ‘regulations’ regarding the use of Lead Shot is all of the aforementioned. The English Shooting Public is law abiding, and will stand on its head if so instructed. But it is unwise to abuse power and trust in these matters, ask the hunters.

Arnold Chapkis ©2016

This News email is sent privately to a number of recipients. Feel free to pass it on to those of like mind.

Please send your email address if you wish to be added to the mailing list or wish to comment.


The Questionable Record of Steel Shot

The Questionable Record of Steel Shot

By Randy Wakeman on Randy Wakeman outdoors.


Above, Federal’s “Anatomy of a Shotshell.” The result of use of steel shot (99% iron) has reduced or elminated the usefulness of amaller gauges and compression-formed hulls due to case capacity considerations. The 12 gauge shells that were mostly full of air and stacks of wadding in times past are now at or near case capacity.

The debate over steel shot has been going on for years. Some of the information is conflicting. “The average waterfowl hunter cannot break six of eight clay targets at 20 yards,” says Tom Roster. Yet, a CONSEP study showed the average first shot taken on a goose was 67 yards.  In the same study, the average shot on a duck was 53 yards.

Tom Roster objected that the NILO farms study, that illuminated just how poor steel was, was unfair to steel, as the lead loads used were too good: high-antimony, buffered Winchester-Western loads that were the “Cadillac of Lead loads,” and used by just five percent of waterfowl hunters back in the day. Later in the same paper, Mr. Roster claims buffered loads are used by 10% of hunters, however.

Ed Lowry agreed, in part, finding that steel shot retains a minimum of 12% higher form factor than steel, and redid all the SAAMI ballistic tables as well that were completed back on February 26, 1970, to the benefit of steel. Tom Roster complained, in 1978, about the poor 1100 fps early steel loads, though 1365 fps steel loads were already available. Mr. Roster goes on to suggest that steel loads, two shot sizes larger than lead, could be as capable at bagging waterfowl to 70 yards.

Mr. Roster also dramatically misrepresented the pattern efficiency of steel, claiming that while lead struggles to get to 70% pattern efficiency, steel “typically patterns 82 – 90 percent at 40 yards” and 45 – 60% at 60 yards. This is a very long ways from fact, however, as even today (2013) with a factory “modified choke” called “full” when used with steel, 70 – 75 % patterns are typical. The 82% – 90% pattern is not typical at all. As evidence of something, hard to discern what, Roster talks of 1300 fps experimental 1-1/4 oz. #1 steel loads used for six consecutive one shot kills on geese, with nine shots. That would seem to quite be a math problem.

But, Ed Lowry and others loudly disagreed with Mr. Roster. Ed Lowry wrote, in 1989, “There are some very able shotshell development engineers in the industry. But steel’s density limitation is such that that no one of them will ever be able to to develop an effective long range steel waterfowl load.”

Ed Lowry’s research showed Roster’s notion of shot string to be well off the mark, with steel loads producing pattern thinning actually worse than lead. Few folks have agreed on much of anything, and the many of the “studies” performed over the years aren’t scientific studies at all, but just poor collections of interviews. A review of many of them shows pseudo-scientific babble terms like “more effective” and less effective, better and worse patterns, more lethality and less lethality, without any definition of what better or worse means, much less how much better or worse.

Mr. Roster claimed that “energy” was a factor, you need 3 fpe to kill a goose. The wrong-headed notions of energy and energy transfer have long ago been disproved by Dr. Martin Fackler and others. Yet, some still cling to kinetic energy as being a wounding mechanism, though it is transparently obvious that it is not. It is as if someone thinks that arrows don’t work, yet they’ve taken everything on the planet including bull elephant despite their spectacular lack of kinetic energy.

A 1400 fps 3 ft. instrumental velocity load of #2 steel has 3.05 fpe per pellet at 50 yards, according to Winchester Research. A 1330 fps load of #5 lead has 2.39 fpe per pellet at 50 yards. Those that blindly buy into the energy myth would have to say that #2 steel is far superior to #5 lead. Of course, the opposite is more true, for at 50 yards #5 lead creates 1.65 inches of penetration into ballistic gelatin, while faster muzzle velocity, higher energy steel actually has less penetration, 1.5 inches.

Steel shot itself, is mostly iron. Daisy Manufacturing uses low carbon steel 1008 wire to make its shot. Steel wire of a selected diameter is protruded through a hole in a header machine plate. A blade cuts the wire to the desired size. Opposing dies catch the falling piece and press it into a ball. The collected balls are ground using cast iron grinding wheels to a specified diameter. The shot is then annealed to a maximum hardness of79 on the Rockwell 15T scale. The final step is the application an oil coating to prevent rust. There is no polishing. Daisy manufactures steel shot in whole number sizes from #8 to F (TIT) size (14,15). 1008 steel wire is 99% iron.

Though there are few areas of agreement, there is one: steel, while deficient in density by having only 70% of the density of lead, the clear advantage of steel is its ability to retain spherical form factor. However, due to marketing-driven misguidance, the one advantage universally accepted that steel has, the ability to retain its sphericity, is gone with Black Cloud and even worse, Winchester Blindside. As Winchester Blindside has no sphericity to start with, it isn’t possible to retain it.

The standard performance designations of choke do not change regardless of shell or shot type. If you throw a 65% pattern into a 30 inch circle at 40 yards, that is full choke performance regardless. The obvious problem revealed with a comparison of #2 steel to #5 lead, aside from the weaker penetration of steel, is pellet count. One and a quarter ounce of #2 steel approximates 156 pellets. One and a quarter ounce of 3% antimony #5 lead approximates 212 pellets. The 65% #2 steel load is about 101 pellets, while a 65% lead #5 load is about 138 pellets. With a better than 36% pellet count deficit, steel “full” choke loads have a lot of ground to make up.

As a practical matter, they don’t get there. A 1-7/8 oz. buffered lead load of #5 shot is about 319 pellets. Not my idea of a comfortable load to use, but they have been readily available for a very long time. Now, a 65% pattern is 207 pellets or so, more than 32% more than the 1-1/4 oz. steel load has before it is even fired.

Ed Lowry later discussed (September, 1993) what was learned from the two extensive mortality studies at Patuxent and Nilo Farms: “Both programs also disclosed that if two pellets deposited the same amount of lethal energy, the smaller one’s energy is more lethally effective.” Lowry continues, explaining that “the much touted theory of No. 2s “compensating” for steel’s low density, and thereby matching lead No. 4s, is rudely rejected by an elementary law of ballistic behavior.” Lowry also mentioned, “Steel’s density cannot be increased, its pellets cannot be made rounder, and its scouring hardness cannot be made much softer. This tells us that steel shot is now as good as it will ever be. Thus, the doctrine that steel is ballistically equivalent to lead is emphatically contradicted by the laws of physics and the measurements at Nilo.”

A further complication is what shotguns themselves are designed for presently. The CIP has three standards of steel shot proof. Standard 12-65 to 12-70, 740 400, (1310), High Performance 12-70 (1410), and High Performance 12-73 and longer.

The highest standard is “High Performance Steel for 12 Bores, 12-73 and Longer.”

“Where the steel shot diameter exceeds 4 mm (“BB” or larger), only weapons having barrels with a choke less than 0.5 mm (equivalent to half choke) are to be used. The mean velocity measured at a point 2.50 m from the muzzle, for any 12/70 or longer cartridge, must be = 430 m/s (around 1,410 ft/s).”

A 1250 fps #2 (spherical)steel load has 588 fps strike velocity at 50 yards. A 1400 fps #2 steel load has 625 fps strike velocity at 50 yards. Go to 1500 fps, you have 649 fps strike velocity at 50 yards. Any deformed, non spherical version of steel shot sheds velocity even more rapidly, offering lower strike velocities. While it wouldn’t be correct to suggest higher muzzle velocity does nothing, but it doesn’t offer any significant return for the added recoil.

It offers even less in actuality, considering SAAMI muzzle velocities specifications are +/- 90 fps, the lab velocities are not recorded with your hunting atmosphere or temperature, and stated velocities are with 30 inch barrels in 12 gauge . . . which you may or may not be using.



Overall crippling and lost bird rates were 42%, 46%, and 36% at Patuxent, designated as unbagged birds. This is despite using game farm mallards restricted to firing harnesses and perfectly centered electronically triggered shotgun live fire. This level of very poor results should give everyone pause, regardless if you are inclined to favor lead or steel. Neither shot type performed at a high level of effectiveness at long range.

Most every study ever done conflicts violently with other studies. If they don’t have it all wrong, they sure don’t have it all completely right. There are clear reasons for this. Between the Patuxent and Nilo studies, some 4400 game farm mallards were killed in flying harnesses, with shotguns fired electronically to precisely center the pattern.

But that isn’t how ducks (or anything else) are hunted. No one shoots at birds in flying harnesses and it isn’t possible that the harnesses themselves perfectly simulate free-flight. Nor do human beings fire shotguns by remote electronic triggering, not all patterns are perfectly centered, and hunting isn’t shooting at a bird at one exact, precisely known range. We also hunt wild animals, not pen-raised or game farm anything.

Mr. Roster’s lament that buffered lead loads are too good is a silly one. Whether and individual patterns his gun with a wide variety of shells until he finds the most appropriate shell / choke combination for the application is totally the individual’s choice. Certainly, those that take the time and effort to find the best-performing loads have a field advantage, just as those that practice more and are better wingshots do as opposed to those that are not. Who patterns and who does not, who is a better shot and who is not, all of these components are matters of sheer, baseless speculation. Who shoots only within their effect range and who skybusts? No one knows, it isn’t worth the idle gossip, for we can only control what we do, not what someone in another state or country theoretically may or may not do.

Buffered high-antimony lead loads are substantially superior to softer, unbuffered loads. Whether five or ten percent of hunters use them or not is not relevant. What is relevant is that they are better-performing loads. Whether people want to use better performing loads or not is only their decision.

The same scenario is true of steel loads, where use of lead is not an option. Of course they work, within range. Higher density shot materials, from Tungsten-Matrix to Nice Shot to Winchester HD to Federal Heavyweight, along with other tungsten loads are vastly superior to steel beyond any doubt. No one I know claims to be a subsistence hunter; hunting is a recreational activity. The cost per pound of wild game meat makes no strict economic sense. It may make a bit more sense to some than shooting at things we never eat, like paper and clay, but it if it is just food we want, perhaps we should all raise chickens and buy a goat.

The important part is what tools we have available to use, currently, to allow us to become more effective hunters in the field. Shotshell and choke selection are two of the most significant tools that we have.

Minister misleads Westminister Committee

The Minister George Eustise replied to a question from Alex Cunningham MP over the huge level of non-compliance.

The Minister said “that the level of non-compliance was up to 70% in certain areas” This is misleading and does not relate to level of non-compliance.

The figure comes from the Compliance report carried out by the WWT and BASC between 2008-10, in the WWT survey of duck they said that 70% of the duck tested had lead in them.

This is not the level of non-compliance.

They could not prove where the duck where shot. The duck could have been shot in Northern Ireland or Scotland and sold in England. English shooter do not shoot enough duck to fill the market.

I have written to the Minister asking him to correct this mistake.