Shot gun pellet question

[watsthat]

I was out walking this morning with nearest and dearest and there was quite a lot of shooting going on, mainly wild fowl, pheasant and partridge. In one spot there is a trio of small irrigation ponds where mallard are reared for the shoot. Small numbers of other fowl are attracted there as well. The shoot seemed to go well with heavy gunfire continuing for about 15 to 20 minutes. My question is; are shotgun pellets made of lead? If so, could it constitute an enviromental hazard? I recall anglers getting a lot of flack some years ago because of lead ingestion by water birds and I think lead weights are no longer used by that fraternity.

Cheers

Pete

[Fuzzy-felt bloke]

As stated on the BASC website.

Lead Shot/NonToxic Shot: The use of lead shot over salt marsh or foreshore, designated SSSIs important for waterfowl, or for the shooting of any ducks, geese, coot, or moorhen in England and Wales is prohibited. In Scotland the use of lead shot is prohibited for all shooting over most wetlands. Shoot managers are potentially liable for breaches of the lead shot regulations on their shoots.

Fuzzy-Felt Bloke

[johnf3f]

These days shotgun carttridges for wildfowling are normally loaded with "STEEL" shot - actually it's iron. There has been a long debate about the use of lead shot for wildfowling, unfortunately, based on one piece of fairly non scientific piece of research done in the USA. The results of the research suggested that there was a potential problem (maybe there is?) but regrettably the Do-Gooders got hold of it and legislation was introduced without a full investigation. Certainly there is evidence of lead in the livers of some birds that habituate the area researched which (at the time) had been regularly shot over for 125 years - not suprising really!
Obviously anyone who cares for their environment does not want to do unnecessary damage, but this should also include the potential suffering of the wildlife. Without getting technical "STEEL" shot performs poorly, loosing it's velocity very quickly, resulting in a higher proportion (far too high in my opinion) of wounded birds. I was always taught to use the best tool for the job and steel shot simply is not. We need proper research - then if there is a significant problem with lead or some of it's other substitutes we can make a considered decision.
I will probably get shot down for this post but that's life, please note when it comes to shotgun performance (after considerable research) I do know what I am talking about.

[The Woodman]

Do you home load steel cartridges, johnf3f?

[johnf3f]

Originally Posted by The Woodman

Do you home load steel cartridges, johnf3f?

No. I have loaded thousands of rounds of Lead shot but as my guns are not suitable for Steel Shot I have not re-loaded for steel.
I tried a number of brands of factory (steel) ammo through a few friends guns to see if they were viable regarding pattern and penetration. I found that the criticisims I had read in the shooting press were correct in that larger pellets were required to get any performance at range yet were overkill at shorter ranges. Though generally Steel cartridges patterned rather well - a piece better than my early attempts at homeloading!
Generally I was dissappointed in Steel shot and as wildfowling was (to me) only an occasional persuit I took it no further.
A good source of information and components if you want to load your own is Clay & Game Reloaders - note their warnings regarding rapid pressure rises with varying loads. They also have information on other types of non-toxic shot such as Bismuth ( I found a little powdered Graphie mixed in with Bismuth shot helped to reduce it's habit of cold welding into lumps when fired).
With lead shot I always found that mid velocity loadings with a shotsize to give good pattern density rather than penetration worked best.

Hope this helps.

[wanlock dod]

OK, so I don't know much about shooting, but I know a thing or two about lead. There was a voluntary assessment undertaken by the lead industry in the not too distant past, which was reviewed by the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks for the European Commission. The use of lead shot was covered and the reviewers said (amongst other things):
"Notwithstanding some uncertainty the amount of lead released into the environment from these sources is very large (40,000 t/y)."
I'd say that was quite a lot of lead, year on year being released directly into the environment.
The review also seemed to suggest that there is evidence of exposure of wildlife resulting from these sources of lead, and whilst that doesn't necessarially mean that there is a risk it might not be risk free.

You can find the SCHER opionion here:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/p...cher_o_111.pdf

[The Woodman]

Heavy going that, wanlock dod and a longer re-visit will be necessary!

I'm hoping you might be able to shed a little light on my query as you say you know a bit about lead.

There are many driven shoots in this country that have been operating since WWII (and before) but I will use the last 60 year period just for illustration and convenience of calculation. One shoot I am familiar with shoots just six days per season, eight guns firing a total of between 400 and 500 shots usually - lets say 450. Each cartridge distributes between 28 and 32 grams (1 ounce) of size 6 shot (small). The result is 162,000 ounces or 10,125 lbs of lead shot in a concentrated areas over 60 years. This is a modest shoot compared with some. Clay shoots especially the large commercial ones will be firing tons per year but these enterprises haven't been around as long as the traditional shoots.

I have found the odd pellet over the years which have always been corroded or oxidised. Do all pellets eventually decompose due to corrosion? Presumably lead oxide - what does this substance do to the environment?

I'm not aware of any detrimental impact to the environment on these shoots, excluding wetlands. What comparision can be made to the former use of lead additive in petrol?

There is a shoot in north Cheshire at Sealand that, if I recall, tried recovering lead by stripping and processing the top layer of soil some years ago.

[wanlock dod]

Hi Woodman,

A comparison with the organo-lead additive in petrol is not a good one here, as the petrol additive was combusted and the resulting lead probably emitted as a vapour (for ready ingestion by nearby children?)

In your example there is probably somewhere in the region of 5 tonnes of accumulated lead shot (assuming no other inputs) mostly as some kind of lead alloy which is rather insoluble under most circumstances. The key issue may be, as you have identified, one of corrosion/degradation of the shot. This is probably related to surface area and perhaps also soil conditions.

There is another potential issue in that as the quantities are quite large some of the more minor components of the shot (or impurities) might pose as much of a problem as the lead if they are more soluble (some studies of shooting ranges have suggested that this might be the case).

Anyway, given the quantities involved only a small amount of dissolution would be required to elevate lead concentrations in the soil pore water, from where it might be bound up with other soil components, be available for uptake by soil orgamisms, or be transported to surface or groung waters. Concentrations of as little as a few microgrammes per litre of lead in surface waters migth be sufficient to cause a problem for some organisms (snails and mayflies seem to be quite sensitive).

Even if the creatures do not suffer any ill effects from their exposures the larger creatures that eat them might accumulate lead from their food, and also from direct ingestion of lead shots. I'm sure that the toxicity of lead to humans (and presumably also other mammals) has been well documented.

I expect that there would be nothing much obvious to see until it was too late to really do anything about it (although that's just my opinion). It does seem though that factories discharging similar quantities of lead into the environment would be subject to considerable regulation, so why shouldn't shooting be similarly regulated if the releases are comparable?

Dod

[The Woodman]

Thanks for your informative reply, wanlock dod.

I quite agree with your last sentence, it does seem strange that on one hand industrial emmissions are heavily regulated whilst on the other, one group of people can scatter potentially toxic matter over the countryside with impunity. It may also be too late as the quatities are out there, slowly degrading. Would we expect to see the results of this chronic pollution? I might have thought so by now.

I've been visualising a map of areas where there are high densities of shoots and this would show hot spots where lead fall has been the greatest. When and if land drainage picks up these dissolved elements it must be reasonable to expect them to be identified in water samples and bioassays taken downstream?

I'm not aware of any additives to lead apart from a small percentage of antimony to make shot harder but again, my knowledge is scant in this area.

I think the crux of the matter is comparability with other forms of lead in the environment and how it affects it.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by wanlock dod

Even if the creatures do not suffer any ill effects from their exposures the larger creatures that eat them might accumulate lead from their food, and also from direct ingestion of lead shots.

which includes us: Law banning use of lead shot in duck hunts ignored | Environment | The Guardian

It's alright saying that steel doesn't perform so well, johnf3f, so why not modify your shooting and work within the abilities of your tools? It seems that wildfowlers are being triply irresponsible - firstly on welfare for shooting with steel as if it were lead (don't go for higher/longer shots if it's not as suitable!), second for ignoring the law, and thirdly for selling shot game that they know contains lead when the public thinks it doesn't (and may avoid other game for that reason). Not good PR, is it?!

btw, I eat lots of game, so I am a customer of wildfowlers, but i don't want to support something that is unecessarily cruel, illegal, and might send me loopy.