Restrictions on MoD Ranges

[Orka Akinse]

7 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

Don't tell 'um your name Pike!

If I was RCOing at a military range I'd want to apply the Nelson touch to .303 and 7.92 Mauser but I suspect the consequences of getting 'caught out' by an audit might be too damaging to the club in the long run.  If this turns into a permanent restriction I'd expect the NRA will champion the historic rifles.

Allowing activities to take place on the range that are clearly outside the agreed parameters for use of said range that have been imposed on the range, coupled with it being in direct contradiction of the RASP you or the club submitted,  will end very very badly for the individual(s) and the club and may well have wide reaching implications for ALL civilian use.

[Popsbengo]

1 minute ago, Orka Akinse said:

Allowing activities to take place on the range that are clearly outside the agreed parameters for use of said range that have been imposed on the range, coupled with it being in direct contradiction of the RASP you or the club submitted,  will end very very badly for the individual(s) and the club and may well have wide reaching implications for ALL civilian use.

yes I fully agree hence "I'd want to...but". Hypotheticals all.  A few RCOs I have met, might like to consider your wise counsel though..

[SMLE]

Agree completely with Orka. However, I believe the ban is calibre specific and not bullet diameter specific and therefore in my opinion, 303 would still be OK.

After all, Mosin Nagants are 7.62 yet fire the same .312 bullet as the 303.

Happy to be proven wrong of course, particularly as I am likely to be RCOing at Kingsbury in October.

Basically, the pongos don’t want us there, that’s the upshot of this I suspect, it’s their range and we can’t play with it!

[Popsbengo]

3 minutes ago, SMLE said:

Agree completely with Orka. However, I believe the ban is calibre specific and not bullet diameter specific and therefore in my opinion, 303 would still be OK.

After all, Mosin Nagants are 7.62 yet fire the same .312 bullet as the 303.

I agree, surely it's how the FEO defines calibre - "it's what's stamped on the barrel that matters".  The MoD haven't banned "greater diameter than 7.62/308" after all.

 

[SMLE]

That’s my take Pops and 303 is still less than 308 even with my mathematical skills.

[One on top of two]

3 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

I agree, surely it's how the FEO defines calibre - "it's what's stamped on the barrel that matters".  The MoD haven't banned "greater diameter than 7.62/308" after all.

 

tenuous..... 

[Popsbengo]

5 minutes ago, One on top of two said:

tenuous..... 

Why so?  It's a factual point - the Police & Firearms define calibre by the designation on the firearm not by some measurement of actual bullet diameters.  The MoD has limited calibers to 7.62mm which is .300"  - so best not use a 30cal bullet by your logic as it's .308"  ??

Perhaps the NRA could usefully clarify what the MoD are actually trying to achieve and what is/isn't allowed under the current restrictions?

[One on top of two]

8 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

Why so?  It's a factual point - the Police & Firearms define calibre by the designation on the firearm not by some measurement of actual bullet diameters.  The MoD has limited calibers to 7.62mm which is .300"  - so best not use a 30cal bullet by your logic as it's .308"  ??

Perhaps the NRA could usefully clarify what the MoD are actually trying to achieve and what is/isn't allowed under the current restrictions?

Time  will tell if your definition is the correct one. 
 

I do hope it is the case but I also believe there needs to be some serious clarity on this for the sake of all concerned. 
I will however for the time being stick with my opinion 🤔

[Popsbengo]

Just now, One on top of two said:

Time  will tell if your definition is the correct one. 
 

I do hope it is the case but I also believe there needs to be some serious clarity on this for the sake of all concerned. 
I will however for the time being stick with my opinion 🤔

A sensible personal choice.  Hopefully clarity will follow soon because there's an awful lot of historic shooters going to be very p@**ed off with yet another hit on range availability.  I'm very glad indeed to have access to civilian ranges for my primary club that permit "any legal calibre" (excepting HME) whether it loads from the breech or the muzzle.

[One on top of two]

2 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

A sensible personal choice.  Hopefully clarity will follow soon because there's an awful lot of historic shooters going to be very p@**ed off with yet another hit on range availability.  I'm very glad indeed to have access to civilian ranges for my primary club that permit "any legal calibre" (excepting HME) whether it loads from the breech or the muzzle.

I couldn’t agree more. I have had to put some plans on hold with a nice little Jungle Carbine. 
 

fingers crossed 🤞 

[SMLE]

The directive was clear. No CALIBRE greater than 7.62/.308

My Lee Enfields are all less than that, being .303 CALIBRE 

No where have I seen any reference to diameter.

Whats tricky about that?

[Popsbengo]

15 minutes ago, SMLE said:

The directive was clear. No CALIBRE greater than 7.62/.308

My Lee Enfields are all less than that, being .303 CALIBRE 

No where have I seen any reference to diameter.

Whats tricky about that?

Agreed.  In fact the directive wording is only "7.62" they don't mention .308 - possibly because they don't actually recognise / understand the similarities or indeed understand much other than military issue ammo. 

It needs an NRA clarification as I believe it would be fruitless asking Swynnerton  (or more likely frustration at a hard-line position) for advice.

[Orka Akinse]

2 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

Agreed.  In fact the directive wording is only "7.62" they don't mention .308 - possibly because they don't actually recognise / understand the similarities or indeed understand much other than military issue ammo. 

Perhaps they don't, why not ask them?  

[Popsbengo]

50 minutes ago, Orka Akinse said:

Perhaps they don't, why not ask them?  

why not?  No point in poking the bear with a stick,  better coming from the NRA - it's what we pay them for.

[No i deer]

2 hours ago, Orka Akinse said:

Perhaps they don't, why not ask them?  

A similar sort of thing goes on with the firearms department.

They give you authority for 1000  of .284 projectiles and they also grant for 1000 of 7mm projectiles 😁. These bodies don't know alot about what they are doing it seems.better for us I guess 😉

[Mattnall]

I have been lead to believe this is because the traces for larger calibre cartridges are not up to date or have never been completed in the first place. As soon as the MoD complete traces for the larger cartridges (calibres?) this restriction should be removed.

However I wonder if the traces for a .338LM (which I guess they'll want to draw up as it is in use by the forces) will cover other calibres larger than 7.62. Would a 300WM act in a similar way to .338? Or .50cal? If the trace cannot be guaranteed to cover all calibres likely to be used then I doubt those calibres/cartridges will be allowed on those ranges.

[Ralpharama]

If the military  do decide to continue this nonsense, I may well trade out my .308 for a 6.5mm Creedmore, though it will of course cost me dearly. Fortunately Warminster is not being silly so I can at least enjoy my .300 Win Mag there.

[DaveT]

The calibre issue for me is that my 6mm and 6.5 cover 1000 yards+.easily with legs to spare.

My 338 really needs Salisbury back.

I have shot 338 at Warminster but what an expensive hole in close range paper!

[Popsbengo]

Eskdalemuir is worth the trip if you have a .338 or similar

[One on top of two]

I’m a little confused. I could have sworn the ban notice that was first put up on the NRA site on the 19th said no larger than .308 

yet when I checked just now it’s says  temporary restriction on all firearms that exceed 7.62mm calibre is now in place. No mention of .308 .

Now am I going mad or has the wording been changed? 

Also does this mean I can’t use my .308 as it’s got a bullet diameter of  7.82mm ?.

Can somebody put me right please .

 

[Popsbengo]

10 minutes ago, One on top of two said:

I’m a little confused. I could have sworn the ban notice that was first put up on the NRA site on the 19th said no larger than .308 

yet when I checked just now it’s says  temporary restriction on all firearms that exceed 7.62mm calibre is now in place. No mention of .308 .

Now am I going mad or has the wording been changed? 

Also does this mean I can’t use my .308 as it’s got a bullet diameter of  7.82mm ?.

Can somebody put me right please .

 

It says " not to exceed 7.62" Well, a .308 doesn't exceed 7.62 calibre so I think a fair assumption is .308 is the limit.  That then brings in other .30 cal rifles - or so a reasonable man might say.  It's still for the NRA to clarify in my opinion.

[One on top of two]

Just now, Popsbengo said:

It says " not to exceed 7.62" Well, a .308 doesn't exceed 7.62 calibre so I think a fair assumption is .308 is the limit.  That then brings in other .30 cal rifles - or so a reasonable man might say.  It's still for the NRA to clarify in my opinion.

Confused.com 

cant understand why the NRA is demanding some clarification ? 

Its obviously causing some confusion. 

I might give them a bell tomorrow and see what they say .

 

[Popsbengo]

Maybe they're unaware of the level of confusion?  Perhaps an update to their notice would be useful and make it "official" advice.

The NRA say "greater than 7.62"  Offa's have emailed members to say "bigger than .308/7.62" and I'm assuming Offas' have had it direct from Swynnerton.

All I can add is that in my dealings with DIO Swynnerton in a "past life", the T.O. was less than helpful (although his Landmarc staff did their best for us).

 

[Popsbengo]

I understand that the NRA are meeting with DIO in a couple of weeks to better understand what's behind the calibre limit ban on West Midlands/Wales military ranges.

That should be interesting...

[One on top of two]

 It’s always Money ! ! 
it will be about the damage to the butts caused by larger calibre rifles , and who’s gonna pay for the damage .

note . I’m not saying the larger cals ARE causing damage , just that will be there reason . 

And NRA will just get into a stalemate argument which will only end one way .....

us paying more money in some way , shape or form.

wait and see .