There has been much debate in the shooting press recently about the merits of steel shot compared with lead shot. One of our important research responsibilities is to provide our members with the best-available information so that they can make soundly-based decisions for their shooting. Consequently BASC ballistics research is science-based and statistically robust.

The wider issues surrounding the use of lead shot are being considered by the Lead Ammunition Group set up by Defra and the FSA. The Association's policy is published elsewhere on this website and has been clearly set out in a letter from the chairman on behalf of the Council.

It is far from clear what the outcome of the LAG will be, or how government will react, but that has not stopped some people talking up the prospect of total lead bans. No such ban is imminent or even proposed. However, as substitutes for lead have been available in this country for some 20 years, and must be used in certain circumstances, BASC has researched their ballistic performance and effectiveness, alongside that of lead, for many years to help members who either have to or want to use them. 

To turn to recent articles in the shooting press: in one headlined “What future without lead?” (Sporting Gun Aug 2010 p 80), Charles Bull lauds two previous Shooting Times’ articles on steel shot by Tim Woodhouse (“Is steel up to scratch” 21 April 2010 and “Steel: what size do shooters need?” 19 May) and makes a series of unsupported statements about shotgun ballistics and steel shot. In the same breath he then dismisses BASC’s ballistics research. 

Attached below is our submitted response to the second Shooting Times article which dismissed steel shot as being of little or no use in game shooting. By reproducing it here members can be better informed and make up their own minds on some of the issues covered in the three articles.

“Further to the debate generated by “Is steel up to scratch” (21 April) and my views (“In my opinion” 28 April), we have now seen “Steel: what size do shooters need?” (19 May). 

This second article starts by assuming lead shot sizes 4 and 5 are preferred for gameshooting. BASC research consistently shows lead no. 6 and 7 are the preferred sizes for gameshooting.  Does it matter? – yes, if the proposed equivalent in steel is then problematically large. The article’s proposed steel equivalents come from cartridge tests for Winchester over 20 years ago, using a ballistic model which has known flaws. 

The article focuses on pellet penetration (but does not say what medium is used for the testing). It claims that steel pellets four to five sizes larger than lead shot are needed to equal the penetration of lead. If that were true, it would clearly create problems for shooting. A graph included in the article, for example, appears to show that from 25yd to 55yd steel no.1 penetrates up to 10% less than lead no. 5 (UK sizes).

BASC’s ballistics research measures penetration of widely-available cartridges into permagel, the standard body simulant. In our tests steel no. 4 (Gamebore Wetland Steel) penetrated 14% further than lead no. 6 (Hull Sterling Game) at 40yd. Hull Steel Game no.3 penetrated less than Lyalvale Express Super Game lead no. 5 up to 30yd but by 50yd penetration was, statistically, no different. 

The issue is not straightforward but no contemporary trials here or in the USA to date support a four or five size increase when swapping from lead to steel.

The author emphasises difficulties in achieving killing pattern densities with his recommended pellet sizes for steel. We use the standard of at least 100 pellets in the 30in circle, which is the current minimum for clean kills of pheasant, based on US research.  BASC’s steel pattern counts for UK no. 4 steel (32g Hull Steel Game) start at an average 148 through cylinder choke at 30yd. At 40yd the average is 171 through half choke, but only 90 through cylinder. Larger no.3 (3.3mm) shot patterns start at an average of 127 at 30yd through cylinder choke and, at 40yd, 156 through half choke, again falling below the 100 threshold (88) through cylinder. 

So, by measuring what actually happens with modern cartridges, rather than theorising, we provisionally find steel shot much more capable for gameshooting than the article led readers to believe.

I am not writing to promote steel shot for gameshooting. BASC’s position is very clear: to oppose any unwarranted changes in the use of lead shot unless sound scientific evidence, which is relevant to the UK, shows such changes are needed to protect wildlife, the environment or human health. If shooters want or need to use non-lead shot for game then they deserve reliable and useful information. Our ballistics research is directed at providing just that, whatever the shot material.

John Harradine (Dr)
Director of Research”

A few other points from Charles Bull’s article are also worthy of attention so that Sporting Gun readers are correctly informed.
 
1. There is no scientific evidence that soft shot kills better than hard shot. Damage to vital organs produces the quickest kill. Any shock effect of pellet strikes – if it occurs - may eventually contribute to death but at the risk of an injured bird escaping un-picked.

2. American research shows steel shot wounding may increase initially, with any adjustment in shooting that may be needed, but soon returns to lead shot levels, and may even drop below them.

3. No coated lead shot has yet been found successfully to contain the inner lead. Great care is needed with some coating materials as they can be toxic.

4. The CIP classifies the latest version of Hevishot as similar to lead, and so suitable for older guns.