Steeling ourselves for change

The call from shooting organisations to abandon lead shot is precipitous and short on evidence. We need clarity, frankness and sound research, says Jonathan Young

THOSE who recall the Countryside Alliance’s dogged defence of the use of lead shot when its former executive chairman sat on the Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) might wonder why it and other bodies representing shooting have now changed their minds and issued a joint statement calling for the use of lead shot on quarry to cease within five years.

One reason is that they do not wish to fight a battle they do not think they can win; they cite “over-burdening legislative changes coming down the line as a result of work being undertaken by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)”. Another is to protect the sale of dead game domestically and abroad. Several supermarket chains here will only accept steel-shot game and the organisations fear that policy will become mandatory throughout Europe.

Since we are no longer part of the EU, one could question whether we will be subject to ECHA rulings. It should be noted that FACE, the Brussels-based umbrella organisation for European hunters represented here by BASC, only supports the gradual phasing out of lead shot across wetlands. One wonders whether French, Italian and Spanish hunters would ever accept a ban on lead shot. And so far no one has proposed that lead shot be banned for clay shooting.

As for sales of game abroad, whilst all welcome its consumption, those who shoot modest bags might question why they are being asked to make such a fundamental change in shooting practice in order to facilitate the export of large bags shot by others.

Such questions could be dismissed – and are frequently – with the catch-all response that lead is toxic. Indeed it is, but only in specific circumstances, which is why most support it not being used over wetlands. Nonetheless, the organisations have asked us to embrace change and have proposed five years to achieve it. So where do we start?

A good point would be the paramount duty that all who shoot owe to our quarry: to use ammunition that delivers clean kills consistently. With deer, that consideration is legally binding and only suitable calibres and bullet weights can be used.

No such legislation applies to bird shot but centuries of use and extensive ballistics research provides the answer. So whether you wish to shoot a Canada goose or a snipe, you can consult the tables in the Eley Hawk Shooter’s Diary and work out which loads will give you an effective pattern at a given range to ensure a lethal strike of three or four pellets of sufficient energy to effect a clean kill. You then check your gun is proved to fire that load safely and buy the appropriate cartridges.

With non-toxic alternatives, such comprehensive data is scarce but let’s try and find what you need to use in your gun to kill cleanly and consistently the most common quarry in the UK, a pheasant at fair sporting range, that is, 40 yards.

The choice is restricted to bismuth, tungsten and steel, and given the immutabilty of the periodic table that’s unlikely to change.

Bismuth shot performs like lead and can be used in any gun. Bismuth cartridges are currently £1,119 per 1,000. Some say that’s irrelevant given the cost of a driven day but few would choose to use them for practice at a shooting school. Tungsten also behaves like lead but cartridges are £2,227 per 1,000.

Given these costs, steel remains the firm choice of fowlers, who have been using non-toxic loads for years though typically in semi-autos that can handle heavy loads of large pellets as the effectiveness of any load is dependent on there being sufficient pellets of sufficient energy. Shot energy is a combination of the shot’s mass and its velocity. As steel is lighter than lead, we’re told we need to move up two shot sizes to give enough mass but bigger pellets take up more room in the cartridge, resulting in fewer to create an effective pattern. The shot load then has to be kept in a plastic cup, as steel pellets damage barrels. As a consequence, there are no steel-shot game cartridges on sale for 2½inchambered 12-bores, which encompasses most British guns made before 1960.

However, steel shot can be used through many guns, though which type of steel cartridge is safe depends on the gun’s proof and chokes. The Gun Trade Association noted that 1,000 ‘standard’ steel light loads (24gm) were fired through a selection of lightwalled game guns without damage in 1991 but that heavier steel loads might cause barrel bulges. Standard steel can be used in guns of normal proof, that is a minimum of 930 bar, depending on the gun’s condition and chokes. Anything tighter than ½ choke can be a risk as steel pellets, unlike lead, do not compress at they pass through the chokes.

Advocates of steel shot cite much success with such loads on game and wildfowl but provide anecdotal evidence. We do not know at what ranges they shot their quarry and no one seems able to state, with ballistics hard data, whether such loads will kill, cleanly and consistently, a pheasant at 40 yards.

High-performance steel is more effective because the increased velocity makes up for steel’s lighter mass. However, greater pressure is needed to achieve this velocity, so BASC states HP loads “should only be fired through guns that have passed Steel Shot proof. These guns should be proved to at least 1320 bar, be stamped with ‘Steel Shot’ and have a Fleur de Lys proofmark to prove it.”

All this is complicated to generations who’ve used lead and we need clarity and frankness from the organisations exhorting change. Above all, we need them to invest in the ballistics research to provide a simple answer to a simple question: what can I safely use in my gun that will cleanly and consistently kill a pheasant at 40 yards?

We have a paramount duty to use ammunition that delivers clean kills consistently