LEAD BAN – PROBLEMS AHEAD?

The lead ban on certain categories of ammunition has been moved forward. The industry believed they had five years to make the change, now they have three. Pau Bradley looks at the implications from an industry and user perspective, with the focus on rifle ammunition.

The first point of discussion is what many are lauding as “good news”: that lead ammunition will still be allowed on ranges which have taken measures to control the proliferation of lead into the environment and remove it from the range safely. This has, for many years, been the vast majority of rifle ranges. They are already regulated via health and safety policy regarding backstops and the required regular de-leading of them.

While target shooters will be happy about this, it does create a slight issue for the industry. Ammunition manufacture and sales are all viable based on economy of scale. The manufacturer purchases raw materials in bulk, and sells and ships the finished product in bulk. This helps reduce cost and, in turn, the price we pay at the shop. Despite rumours to the contrary, there are no “huge mark ups” anywhere in the chain. It’s a high-volume, low-margin game.

Because the lead ban isn’t definitive, it will create two smaller markets in the UK: the standard products which contain lead for use on approved ranges, and a much smaller volume of lead-free options for hunters and shooters on ranges lacking encapsulation. This won’t help drive down the price of lead-free ammo, which is still seen as a niche product throughout the industry. The situation is further compounded by exemptions for the defence sector, which consumes a huge amount of ammunition. Production of lead-based rounds isn’t slowing down anytime soon, and lead-free projectiles will continue to be somewhat of an afterthought.

Even though lead-free ammunition is required for hunting in many countries, the volumes are still relatively small. This goes on to impact R&D in this area. Development always requires a business case. The cost of developing the product must be offset by sales in a reasonable timescale. Sales require volume, which is an issue. Hunters and specialist long-range shooters are typically not high-volume users, and both pastimes are relatively stagnant in terms of growth. So, this leaves us with a problem: it’s not a particularly cost-effective business strategy to produce new lead-free projectiles. Companies are doing it to keep customers happy and to test the market, but prices remain high due to limited economies of scale.

In the UK, we’re a relatively small consumer when it comes to ammunition of any type. We also have fairly unique requirements. We tend to have quite small parcels of land to shoot on. The land is often multi-use, meaning there may be others nearby, and there are likely to be dwellings within the maximum trajectory range. The species we shoot are in the small to medium category, and we don’t have a large wild boar population. This leaves us with another issue, we have specific requirements for lead-free projectiles, but we represent a relatively small market. There are already issues with overpenetration and ricochet for smaller species such as muntjac (a rapidly growing population). This is further complicated by calibre restrictions, which arguably need to be reconsidered.

There’s also an education piece for users to consider. When the industry does provide a lead-free projectile to fit UK hunting performance requirements, many will turn their nose up, because it will deviate from what they’ve become used to. Customers tend to attribute effectiveness to projectile weight: “heavier is better”. An excellent lead-free projectile for this market will be significantly lighter than the standard norm. Monolithic products made from copper or brass, or bimetal with other alloys, will need to expand effectively. Mass tends to thwart expansion somewhat when the materials lack the malleability of lead. In my last R&D venture in this area, the projectiles giving the best results for .308 Win (safest, most ethical) were in the sub-100 grain range. This raised a few eyebrows, not least because it didn’t seem very manly! It’s the industry’s job to provide good technical education in this area before the lead ban comes in.

So where does that leave us? Are we in good shape to deal with the incoming lead ban? In short, no. We currently have limited options and the prices are high. Long-range shooters running monolithics will already attest to this, as will hunters who have already made the switch. While new products will appear, my concern is that they may not cater well to the UK’s specific needs. As I already mentioned, this isn’t due to a lack of understanding on the manufacturer’s part, it’s a lack of commercial viability. When new products are released, the cost will no doubt be higher for all the reasons already discussed. And that’s the last thing shooting sports need in a time when consumers are already being squeezed financially from every direction. The conspiratorial might suggest this is by design from those in power. I’m more inclined to believe it’s just more incompetence, leaving the industry playing catch-up and the consumer out of pocket again.

And I haven’t even touched on the subject of shotgun cartridges. This is arguably a much bigger issue due to the volumes involved and the lack of any real exemptions (save for elite competitors). I don’t think there’s much issue in terms of performance, steel shot and non-toxic pellets perform relatively well, but there’s a serious issue with the timeline. Raw materials are often ordered years in advance for high-volume production. This ensures supply chain consistency. Cartridge manufacturers will have no small job on their hands trying to change incoming materials far faster than expected. Meanwhile, some Scandinavian countries are now monitoring run-off from oxides as steel pellets degrade and leach into water sources. We may be blindly jumping from the frying pan into the fire...