JR__ Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 Lots of hubbub concerning civvie shooters on MoD ranges, including Bisley. Seems the MoD wants to limit civvie shooting to cartridges producing maximum 3800 joules(2800 ft-lb approx) muzzle energy, which pretty much equals the 144gr 308 exterior ballistics. This could eliminate a plethora of cartridges in F-Class, as well as match rifle and other disciplines. If the government can't get rid of your rifles outright, they'll slick something thru like this right under your noses and deem them 'too dangerous to use'..Nice..Almost glad I'm not going to be around to enjoy this government... Got this from the NRA-UK website: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original posting 31 October Potential Serious Problems for Civilian Shooters At a meeting this morning the National Rifle Association was informed that Defence Estates (DE), who are responsible for safety on all MoD ranges, have identified a risk that bullets fired with a Muzzle Energy (ME) in excess of 3800 Joules (J), have the potential to escape the Range Danger Area (RDA), particularly in the case of inaccurate firing. DE refuse to accept this risk on behalf of civilian recreational shooting. The Defence Land Range Safety Committee (DLSRC) has therefore decided that no ammunition with an ME exceeding 3800 J may be fired on their ranges. However a four week window has been negotiated on behalf of the Association, during which we have the opportunity to produce acceptable operating procedures. These procedures, covering Safe Person, Safe Training, Safe Practice and Safe Place, may allow ammunition with MEs exceeding 3800 J to be safely fired on these ranges, where no bullets will escape the RDA. In practice this means that all shots must be guaranteed to be captured by the Stop Butt. This will demand a considerable amount of work on behalf of the Association, which will need to be entirely convincing to the DLRSC, to guarantee the 100% capture of all shots fired, from all firearms on all ranges. This will therefore require the fullest co-operation from all our members and clubs if this project is to stand any chance of succeeding. Any input from clubs and individuals to help achieve this aim is welcomed. Please contact the NRA by e-mail as we will be fully engaged on this project and are unlikely to be able to answer all your telephone calls during this period. Your input will, however, be fully taken into account. We hope that by working together and using the considerable expertise within our wider membership we can achieve a successful outcome for us all. Updates will be posted regularly on the NRA website as matters develop. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Update 9 November Muzzle Energy and the MoD Along with clubs and individuals the NRA found itself on the back foot when we were quietly told, in a phone call from one of our Regional Members of the General Council, in the last week in October 2007 that the MoD had agreed to change the muzzle energy rates for use of their ranges by civilians from 7000 joules to 3800 joules. This news caused great consternation as effectively it meant that Target Rifle, Match Rifle, F Class and other forms of long range shooting were effectively banned on all MoD ranges and Bisley (which uses the MoD Range Danger Area of Pirbright). Urgent discussions between the NRA and the MoD revealed that a final decision had not yet been reached, but that this was a proposal. However, to induce a bit more concern, Altcar decided to be ahead of the game and to introduce the new proposed provisions with immediate effect. This ensured that the knowledge of the proposed change was out in the general shooting community at the same time as the Association became aware, and panic ensued. At the same time as the NRA was trying to discover how serious the issue was, and what the MoD's intentions were, we were simultaneously under assault from shooters concerned at losing their sport. In early discussions we learnt that the reason for this proposed change of policy was that when looking at the introduction of the .338 sniper rifle the Army had discovered that if fire was not precise, rounds could escape from ranges. The muzzle energy of a .338 is 6000+ joules. The MoD then carried out a general examination to find a muzzle energy figure that would guarantee rounds would not escape from ranges. On this basis they proposed to introduce the 3800 joules limit that meant, in terms of Target Rifle, 144 grain bullets were OK but competition ammunition of 155 grain was probably out. Effectively if no accommodation could be reached most national and international long range competitions could not be shot in the UK on most ranges, including Bisley. A series of urgent meetings took place between the Association and the MoD, to either get the limits changed upwards or find other ways of satisfying the Defence Estates concerns. We were informed that the general limit of 3800 joules would remain however, if we could propose a package of measures designed to ensure that all rounds fired would be contained by the range stop-butt, then the MoD would consider allowing civilians to shoot ammunition that exceeded the 3800 joules figure. To give an example of the scope of this decision to reduce the muzzle energy limit one has only has to look at 'historics', the Brown Bess musket which, when fired using black powder, generates some of the highest muzzle energy figures, accepting that the ball at most travels a few hundred yards. Even though this form of measurement (muzzle energy) is an inexact science the MoD insist that this is the way in which they will judge what firearms and ammunition can be fired on their ranges. Discussions around a different method of measuring or arguments about whether the current 155 grain bullet is 'over or under the bar' will not be worth the effort, because we have tried. We have to realise that to the military there is no 'Defence Imperative' to allowing us to shoot on their ranges. In our discussions however they are willing to consider letting civilians shoot in excess of 3800 joules if we can put in place procedures that will ensure that all shots will hit the stop-butt. The NRA is determined to do everything it can to ensure all legitimate shooters can continue to take part in and enjoy their sport. To this end the Association has negotiated a months grace to allow us to put together proposals designed to meet the needs of the MoD and allow all of you who shoot fullbore to continue shooting. The military have indicted that we need to offer 'comfort' relating to the following, Safe Person, Safe Training, Safe Practice and Safe Place, in that we have the correct procedures in place to guarantee bullets will be captured by the stop-butt. Safe Person/Training The military want to be assured that everyone who shoots on a MoD range is competent and safe to fire the classes of firearm they are using. Initially this will probably require each Club Secretary or Chairman to sign off each individual as being competent and safe, identifying the types of firearms they are able to fire. If agreed the NRA will supply by e-mail and the website an agreed form of certificate for clubs to use. Going forward it has already been indicated that training of individuals will be an issue. As previously notified the Association intends to send to all its clubs the new Probationary Training pack, originally for them to choose to use or not. As with RCO courses, it will probably become a requirement for individuals, new to the sport, to have undertaken an approved course to shoot on MoD ranges. The NRA intends to supply appropriate course material for clubs to meet this need. In the future the NRA also believes that to make things easier for clubs and individuals that we may need to introduce a 'Shooting Logbook' so that a person's qualifications, experience and classes of firearms they are able to fire are recorded in the same document for easy production. Safe Practice It has been suggested that in future on a MoD range it will be necessary for civilians to demonstrate that their fire is accurate from the outset of a range day. It is proposed that if there is no 'zero range' the shoot should start at 200 yards to ensure all rifles are zeroed before moving back. This will be inconvenient and will require that everyone turns up to shoot at an agreed time to get zeroed, with the whole procedure being monitored closely by RCOs. The details of what this means in practice are still to be agreed. In addition a strict understanding of range orders and compliance will be essential for clubs to ensure their continued use of MoD ranges. Safe Place MoD Ranges, as we are all aware, are strictly inspected, maintained and controlled environments. The ranges at Bisley are, incidentally, leased from the Army. As such they are inspected and certificated by them regularly and are thus controlled by the same conditions as those ranges run by the MoD. Effectively, the muzzle energy restrictions will affect Bisley in the same way as any other MoD range. Fortunately we do have zeroing facilities that other ranges may not have. The NRA accepts that what is proposed is possibly onerous and will be seen by many as a further erosion of shooting rights. The Association, however, will be attempting to minimise the effects of these changes and trying to keep everyone shooting. Any input from clubs and individuals to help achieve this aim is welcomed. Please contact the NRA by e-mail as we will be fully engaged on this project and are unlikely to be able to answer all your telephone calls during this period. Your input will, however, be fully taken into account. We hope that by working together and using the considerable expertise within our wider membership we can achieve a successful outcome for us all. Updates will be posted regularly on the NRA website as matters develop. Onwards and Upwards Glynn Alger -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Update 14 November Muzzle Energy Update There has long been a relationship between the military and the NRA which dates back to the origins of the Association. However, over the last forty years that relationship has changed dramatically from one where the NRA was directly supported and subsidised by the MoD to one where the military are independent of the Association. This has been a necessary change by the MoD as relationships and defence imperatives have changed. The military are focusing more and more on their core business, defence, and less on ceremonial aspects of their former roles. The reason this has occurred is that the military have increasingly come under the control of central government who interfere not only at the policy level but sometimes operationally. In consequence the senior officers of our military have less control over decisions than previously. To be successful they have to deal with tight budgets and manage finite resources, while meeting the UK's defence requirements. Currently our relationship with the MoD is good in that they use Bisley to conduct their national competitions for regular, reserve and cadet forces. Even here, though, they have had to tighten their belts, cutting back next year on the length of their meeting on cost grounds. The Army regularly use Bisley for training as well, all of which they pay for. The ranges at Bisley are leased from the MoD on a long-term lease. UK wide we have agreements with the MoD, which allow civilian clubs, affiliated to the NRA access to military ranges. In terms of regulation the MoD has full authority to set the conditions for use of British military ranges (including Bisley, since we use the Pirbright military Range Danger Area) both in the UK and abroad. Basically they are in a position to decide what, how, when and whether any civilian will fire on a military range. As the acknowledged experts in the UK they also influence the conditions that are present on all other ranges - pretty well world-wide. This is because the Police and Home Office are comfortable with military authority and advice. Going forward it is likely that any conditions that feature on a military range on the basis of safety will soon be required elsewhere, including civilian-owned ranges. In terms of the current problems with the lowering of muzzle energy levels, because of difficulties with the new .338 sniper rifle, the military have conducted tests that show there is a potential, as far as they are concerned, for bullets with muzzle energies in excess of 3800 Joules to leave the range danger area. On the basis of safety they have set the new 3800 Joules standard. As previously notified we are currently discussing ways that civilians can continue to use MoD ranges using the firearms and ammunition as now. It is essential that we maintain our relationship with the MoD going forward to ensure civilians can continue to shoot on military ranges. A good relationship is essential. Unfortunately there are forces beyond our control, namely rogue shooters who are not willing to accept the authority of the NRA to deal with this issue in timely fashion without interference. I understand and accept that people are worried, but is it really a good plan to ring up the OIC at Altcar and give him a piece of ones mind, then threaten him with legal action, when he is the individual who will decide who shoots there, and under what conditions? I think not. Is it a good idea to put an allegation on the Prime Ministers website, blaming the Government for reducing the muzzle energy on MoD ranges, then to ask shooters to vote for the return to previous levels? The change in muzzle energy was nothing whatsoever to do with the Government. The Government would not even have known about the change, much less been involved. However, they do know now! What if they decide to direct the MoD to stick rigidly to their decision and not allow anything to be shot over 3800 Joules? Fortunately they probably have other things on their minds at present. However, if this continues it will have the potential to sour relations between civilian shooters and the MoD generally. If this happens you will probably be still able to shoot on military ranges but only under 3800 Joules. The NRA is working hard to keep you all shooting on MoD ranges. To succeed we need your fullest support. We are being quite open about the discussions we are having and the probable implications of them. I accept some proposals are not popular but we have to accept the military own and control most of the ranges in the UK and have authority to set any condition they choose. The NRA is hopeful of a successful outcome for us all. Please let us 'get on with the job' and stop acting in ways, which can only alienate the military who are, believe it or not, on our side! Glynn Alger Secretary General -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Potential Serious Problems for Civilian Shooters Update 23 November The change in muzzle energy rates downwards has been a challenge for the NRA, in that only a few weeks ago we were being told that no one would be able to shoot on a MoD range or at Bisley using anything in excess of 3800J, which would have had an adverse effect on most of our sport. In the interim we have been negotiating hard with the MoD to get that level changed upwards and to agree conditions under which those that shoot disciplines where the ME exceeds the new limit can still do so. As previously stated we believe we are close to getting this agreement in outline. The Association has been under great pressure to release details of its discussions with the MoD. If we were to do this we would send many hares running because I have to remind you we do not have an agreement yet. At the same time if we were to leak details the MoD might well feel they were being put under inappropriate pressure, which would almost certainly blight the current negotiations. I appreciate many of you are worried about the future of your sport but you are going to have to wait until we have a final agreement. There have already been examples of how things can go wrong with unnecessary unofficial interference. At the stage we have a 'broad brush stroke' agreement, we will be involving our Shooting Committee, other bodies and experts to help us look at the detail of what needs to be done going forward to keep everyone shooting as before. Glynn Alger Secretary General -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, at least you guys have the NRA on your side, they've done so well for you in the past...ha.. JR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vermincinerator Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 JR, Only because this time it directly affects them. Ian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John MH Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 JR & Ian If you want, or any shooter wants, their voice heard in the NRA then may I suggest you join and try to change it from within. Traditionally the NRA has been seen as the sole prevail of "prone, single loading, 7.62 target shooters" well there maybe some truth in that but I believe they are changing. They have recently installed a portable ETR target system on Sticlkedown, they are trying to promote "Civilian Service Rifle" style shooting, they make more money each year from the Gallery Rifle events and High Power Rifle competitions than they do from the traditional target rifle so they now know what side their toast is buttered. They are the only body the MOD will deal with whether you like it or not so if you have any suggestions on how to overcome what is a genuine RDA template problem for a lot of existing gallery ranges then put thenm forward. There is no "conspiracy" going on here. John MH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigyboy Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 A guy at my club has just bought a 300 wing mag, Alpine. not to happy at the minute as all we have hear are MOD ranges, they stopped 50cals on my local about 6 months ago apparently there was an incident but we werent told what it was, our ranges back off to the sea and there is a massive exclusion area around them so if a bullet makes it the whole way through the butts it just lands in the sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 50's not banned, they were shooting at Lydd a couple of weeks ago. Nothing is set in stone yet. I believe that Sennybridge, Lydd, Warcop, Radnor (private) are still open for business. If the axe falls on MOD ranges, then I anticipate that Diggle and FCUK (fifty cal UK Association) will have a lot of new members Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigyboy Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Ronin I should have said 50's are banned on our range only until further notice as somehow one got through the butts, apparently now you may need to take this with a pinch of salt I dont know for sure but I did hear it from a respected source somehow a 50cal round turned and came back out of the butts and landed in someones guttering in the town behind us and they reported it, honestly i dont know how true that is or if its possible but 50's are definatley not allowed on our range until further notice, so something happened just dont know how possible that story is ballistically speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stag1933 Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Hi all. The NRA update, 9th Nov. by Glynn Alger [secretary General ?] finishes off by stating `Onwards and Upwards,` Glynn Alger. Hardly sensible words to use when they are discusssing bullets escaping the range back-drop when `Onwards and Downwards into the Butts` would have been more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vermincinerator Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 A friend who bought my 300 WSM Stealth informs me that he can no longer shoot it at Altcar because they have already implemented the 3800j energy limit, even though nothing has been finalised. Now if that is being shooter friendly then i am a chinaman Ian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John MH Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Ian The reason they are sticking to the 3800J limit at Altcar can be gleaned from the update below which JR missed out of his topic starting post: Muzzle Energy Update 20 NovemberAnother positive meeting has taken place involving the representatives from the MoD and the NRA who are responsible for negotiating a national agreement with the aim of continuing to allow civilians to shoot on MoD ranges. The MoD has been informing the NRA what their requirements are. The NRA has been responding, giving options to meet military needs. Often these proposals have been accepted but on occasions we have had to go back to the drawing board. Both parties have now agreed an outline proposal that will have to go through various technical and management committees that will be finalised on 10 January 2008. The Association is quietly confident that if we, our members and our clubs are prepared to meet the conditions set by the MoD, civilians will continue to shoot on military ranges. The details of the agreement and the actions required to meet military expectations will be released to all shooters during the next few weeks in time for the next shooting season. On a negative note we were made aware that the various threatening messages communicated to military representatives from individuals and those purporting to represent shooting organisations had not been well received and had the potential to adversely affect relationships to the detriment of civilian shooting. An example of cause and effect are the current restrictions at Altcar that are in place as a direct response to 'local heroes' doing their best for shooting. Further to this I was informed by the MoD representative that if people wished to verbally threaten their staff in future, those concerned will be banned from shooting on all MoD ranges (including Bisley). Glynn Alger Secretary General If shooters wish to take this attitude then they military will just "F%^&" um off, they don't need the hassle. John MH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 A sad truth John, the UK Mil don't need the UK civvy shooters money to maintain or fund their ranges, something that should be remembered by those who the report referrs to (Altcar). It will be a major problem to those who's main land is the likes of Bisley or other ranges run by the military, however, hopefully some sort of compromise can be come to. I for one cannot understand why Altcar made a knee kerk reaction to the "proposals". It will severly affect the BR, F Class shooters thats for sure. I think that there will be some kind of safety and weapon handling test introduced for those wishing to use high energy calibres, is that a bad thing.......? Could be the start of "official training schemes" before certificates are granted too - a sure moneyspinner for "official bodies" and we all know who they are. Perhaps now is the time to seek out alternative venues to shoot your rifles if you use such ranges - a pity the Radnor thing never came off, it would make thousands now thats for sure.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldie Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Everyones entitled to their opinion, whether Glynn Alger likes it or not.I entirely agree however, that personal threats made to mod staff, should be dealt with , as its not on. I personally believe that the MOD DO need civvy money to maintain ranges. There isnt a pile of money available to run them, and if there is, i want to know, as a british taxpayer, why half the large ice cream army is wearing dpm in the desert, and having to buy their own boots? Crystal ball time. There will be a mandatory test introduced, which will carry an exhorbitant fee, the army and the NRA will split it, and the home office will then put it on a ticket as another bloody condition to gaining that particular calibre....end result? people wont bother. The NRA can kiss my arse, they are as bad as the bloody countryside alliance are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 +1 matey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John MH Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Like it or not, unless your FAC was issued for game shooting or vermin control the only official target shooting body recognised by the Home Office is the NRA. They are trying to come to some agreement with the MOD on what is a sensible compromise to the 3800J limit. The MOD are only interested in protecting themselves from any possible litigation as a result of a stray round leaving the RDA, something that they thought was a relatively remote risk until they redid their sums following the introduction into service of the Long Range Rifle L115 in .338 Lapua. Why 3800J, well it appears that the SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) at Warminster picked an arbitrary figure based on a limit just above that for standard Nato 7.62mm ball, forgetting that L42A2 7.62 is 155grns not 144grns. So in the background there is work going on to find a compromise, given that the SMEs have some egg on their faces, a new figure will hopefully be forthcoming but if you shoot an exotic high energy caliber do expect some restrictions as a result but hopefully do not expect an outright ban. PS. I am a member of the NRA and regularly give them stick about where they should be focusing their attention, I do not shoot traditional TR as a rifle without a magazine is just not for me. 6XC 115grn DTAC at 3000FPS is below 3800J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR__ Posted November 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 John, I did leave that out, because it was about as relevant as tits on a man, and possibly inciteful to the crowd here. I read that as a pre-emptive excuse by the NRA from the MoD, when they tell us they've done everything they can, but due to 'rogues' in the mix, the deal fell through. Bullshit, that is a bloody cop out. If there are 'threats' made to MoD officials, get the police involved and sort it out. I am actually a little bit more concerned with where how and why the MoD came up with their 3800J limit. Once you can't shoot a rifle on an MoD range which exceeds their criteria, that sets a precedent which will trickle down across the lot. The limit should be within reason, and i'd like to hear what the reasoning is, it should be made public. It is a time when the shooters SHOULD voice their complaints to the NRA, as vehemently yet constructive as possible. You forgetting the handgun nonsense? How did that go, ended up pitting one group against another so wouldn't lose guns across the whole, fullbore and shotgun shooters agreeing there is no possible need for a pistol for example, gave the argument legs, everyone was making excuses why it was ok to ban handguns so they wouldn't lose theirs without taking account of the full consequences. Ask those Olympic shooters, ask Baldie!!!With this, it's the fullbore who get to keep their rifles for comps or maybe not, now the minority F-Class could take it in the shorts. Next the police will have that precedent to decide what calibre the shootin populace should have. Divide and conquer, govt has that one figured out. JR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vermincinerator Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 I do believe that this joule limit only applies to civilian shooters and not military personnel This makes the whole affair a complete farce. "We cant have the bullet from a skilled civilian marksman exiting the danger area in case it injures or kills someone but if its a trainee squaddie's bullet thats acceptable" Bull$hit!!! Ian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John MH Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 JR Sorry that you feel that way. Obviously the NRA is not for you, I lost a fair few pistols when the government decided to ban them for political gain in an election year and yes the NRA could have done more but the actual NRA membership is in the few thousands so actually when you look at the lobbying power that represents it's pretty small beer. Now as far as the 3800J limit goes, well let me make it clear, it is not a conspiracy, most of the gallery ranges in operation around the UK were built in Victorian times and the Range Danger Areas are just not big enough to ensure that a .338 Lapua fired from a military L115 Long Range Rifle by a trained sniper will not leave the RDA template. The SMEs at the SACS Warminster have opted in haste for a figure of 3800J which not only presents problems to civilian shooters but also to the military themselves. Discussions are going on to revise the figure as Muzzle Energy is not a good measure to use to determine if a particular caliber is capable of leaving the RDA, nothing is set in yet set in stone. John MH PS: I'm also in the military and a qualified SA90B RCO so know a little bit about the regulations in the JSP 403. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR__ Posted November 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Yes, it is just civvies that are affected. The same ranges we can't use the 7mmWSM's the military can use for 338LM's. I feel there is a simple reason why they chose the 3800J limit, is because it was an easy choice made by balllistically challenged individuals. If the range is safe for 338 in military use, it should be safe for civilian. But, the MoD hadn't adopted the 338LM into the fold, in an official sense, so there wasn't much research involved between the 50 calibre and 308 which is issued. But that's changed, the Brits are going to be issued 338LM's in their sniper units, in an official sense. I think they should start the process over again, accounting for 338LM ME's used regularly on MoD ranges, and then rewrite the 'limit'. Or at least make an effort to fortify the butts to make them safe for 338LM fire, which if they do, keeps everyone safe and no need for ridiculous-ity. JR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redfox Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 JR is right in this and the others make good points as well. At Altcar the ranges point out to sea so to jump on this arbitary limit is nonsense, but getting nasty with the staff is ridiculous and likely to lead to a lot more negative results than they can imagine, in this instance it should have been reported to the NRA first and let them take it up. I agree that it is the tip of the iceberg and could lead to severe limits on calibre and cartridge in the sporting side as well. All this talk of stray rounds ending up in populated/built up areas is guaranteed to get firearms depts twitching and limits of nothing over 243 or at max 270 being allowed and 22cf for foxing etc, so we should all be nervous about this and be supporting a sensible outcome with the MoD ranges. You only have to look at the "helpful" list of suitable calibres drawn up by BASC for the Home Office to see where we are being pushed. A year or two ago I received a memo for me to be aware that "some of the calibres you hold exceed the energy limits for many MoD approved ranges" !!!. So we need to pull together on this sensibly or there will be more than a few long faces everywhere not just on here. What price a 300Wm that is no longer legal for anything and dont expect our friends in Europe or across the pond to be giving much money for what they know you have to sell! Redfox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John MH Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Redfox There is still a RDA template trace for Altcar even though the range over looks the sea, marked on navigation charts for the area will be a warning that you must stay out of the area when live firing is taking place, the marked area on the charts will be based on the existing RDA which now needs to be redrawn. Until the Admiralty issue a Notice to Mariners to extend the danger area or update and reissue the charts the limits at Altcar will apply. Just because you may fire a stray round out to sea does not mean that there isn't a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redfox Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Quite true, but in that case the problem exists elsewhere, still jumping the gun when the calcs are questionable anyway and a proper announcement that the limit is temporarily in place until the matter is finalised might have been the way to go, but not the military way to do things of course. As I said it should have been accepted with good grace and the NRA notified, nothing else is likely to get a good result, particularly threats and abuse. Oh what a PC world/ country we increasingly live in. Redfox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR__ Posted November 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 JR Sorry that you feel that way. Obviously the NRA is not for you, John MH PS: I'm also in the military and a qualified SA90B RCO so know a little bit about the regulations in the JSP 403. obviously the NRA is not for you. Very weak apology, very. Now if you would have said the NRA isn't for me, might be on to something. Time will tell, but I feel the people should have a direct say and a shout when matters like this arise, because the consequences will affect the lot of us. I hope the NRA doesn't get steamrolled again, or feels it needs to back off. Are you in the military then? I'm not, but have been known to advise the MoD and DPA in a supporting yet official role on the odd occasion. So I quite understand the bureaucracy. Plus as a septic tank civvie, naturally a little bit nervous anytime an agency wants to limit my reason for owning a weapon previously deemed OK. JR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldie Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Myself and thousands of others havent forgotten the nra stance on pistols, or the long knife they thrust into the backs of semi auto shooters after hungerford.All the organisation has ever done, is help take from shooters, when it was being paid to defend. The NRA is most definatly NOT for me either. The shooting population of this country just do not trust them, and its as simple as that. Would you care to outline the NRA,s plans for the olympics John? whilst we are discussing them? By the way, thats a very nice looking rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John MH Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 JR Shipmate I'm not apologising. As far as anything outside bog standard 5.56mm, 7.62mm, 9mm, .338 Lapua, .50 cal Browning, or the funny little thing the MOD Plod are using?. Last year at Pirbright with HK before going to AFSAM The military know not a lot about non-military small arms ammunition or rifles for that matter and they actually aren’t at all interested. I’m in no way surprised that you may have offered official advice to the MOD or DPA (same thing) on occasion, and I would not be surprised if you formed the opinion that they don’t know a great deal about the ballistics of anything other that what they get from Radway Green. The only way to have a direct say is through the NRA, it is only NRA affiliated clubs that are able to book MOD Ranges. The MOD will only deal with matters of policy with the NRA, (when I say deal, I mean talk). Where the NRA lacks clout is that it only directly represents a full membership in the low thousands, there are many more FAC holders out there that are members of affiliated clubs (probably in the order of tens of thousands), these clubs pay a nominal annual affiliation fee and the only voice the club have with the NRA is through the club secretary. If the club membership wants to be heard and have a “direct” say then they need to get the club secretary to write/email the NRA. If you want an individual direct say join the NRA as a full member. Now, please don’t think that I’m pushing the NRA as the be all and end all of target shooting in the UK. The NRA has a lot to learn, it needs to adapt and change to the needs of recreational shooters in the UK, what I can say is that things are slowly changing, for starters the dinosaur Chairman Jackman has gone. Hopefully he will be replaced by a more enlightened individual, but you cannot influence who it’s going to be if you don’t have a vote. (Affiliated club with 47 members = 1 vote, individual member = 1 vote) As far as the MOD and serving military go they probably have no desire to limit anything that you legitimately want to do. The uniformed military would like nothing more than for you, the tax payer, to use any of the training facilities you have paid for. However the civil servant bean counters don’t see it the same way; that’s not because they are anti it’s because they have budgets to work within and they also feel that their jobs are at risk if they don’t deliver cost savings. The MOD will spend a £1000 to save £100 as they always have, change the Jock at the Top if you want anything more sensible. (please no offence to my friends north of the border). John MH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John MH Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Myself and thousands of others havent forgotten the nra stance on pistols, or the long knife they thrust into the backs of semi auto shooters after hungerford.All the organisation has ever done, is help take from shooters, when it was being paid to defend. The NRA is most definatly NOT for me either. The shooting population of this country just do not trust them, and its as simple as that. Would you care to outline the NRA,s plans for the olympics John? whilst we are discussing them? By the way, thats a very nice looking rifle. Baldie There unfortunately has been no "full bore" rifle shooting in the Olympics since the 1970's, the NRA have no say in the Olympics as it does not represent any disciplines shot. What I do understand so far, please correct me if I’m wrong, is that all the non-shotgun events are going to take place at a state of the art facility that is going to be built at Woolich. Shortly after the last Gold Medal has been presented the facility will be “decommissioned” and returned to its former use (derelict state). Again if you want the NRA to have a say increase its lobbying power. I think this Olympic approach is crass; all the shooters I know think it’s crass but the government doesn’t give a dam because even if the NRA says it’s crass they only speak for a few thousand of the electorate. John MH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted November 26, 2007 Report Share Posted November 26, 2007 John you are probably correct in the statement about increasing the lobbying power of the NRA by joining. However, there is a great deal of mistrust of shooting organisations (from shooters) who have been sold down the river in the past and i'm referring to the pistol and semi-auto fiasco here in the case of the NRA and the huge amounts of "Best practice Policies" dealt out by BASC as another example. The sporting shooter (fox control / deer stalkers amongst us) will often join an organisation to get the free insurance policy that goes with it - nothing more. Those of us lucky enough to reside in the north use Diggle - which is an independant range. Some of us just use land available for zeroing and practice and never visit an "official" range. If the NRA want support and increased revenue, perhaps they should stand up and fight by way of retaining a sensible (and safe) ME limit rather than the proposed draconian restriction. As someone else has pertianetly mentioned if larger calibres (.30's - .50's) are safe for mil / police use, then it is most certainly safe for civilian use on appropriate (approved) land / ranges. Call me a cynic, but I feel that the proposals smell of hidden agenda to me - as I have previously mentioned , compulsory testing / safety accreditation and the costs that go with it. By the way, i'm not having a go at you personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.0972b4e2bdf0b5a4109eb96f2b1b62ad.jpg)
(200x135).jpg.0fd0a94f065c6cb243fdff1b40e0819a.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.