Introduction

[karen]

Re the Journal. It is very well put together and a nice product, but I really wish that every issue was not based around the Imperial. Other topics which I do not read and fill the pages every season, are the History of the camp and Tours of far flung places.
I was actually wondering how the NRA justified the expense of the added pamphlet earlier in the year when the Target Rifle team visited NZ - I assume it was sponsored.

I believe the NRA could save money by doing away with the printed hard copy and putting everything on the internet site. There are several shooting sites I visit almost daily, but the NRA (NSC) is not one of them. Perhaps by putting the journal on the web, or by emailing it to members, you will get more visitors to the NRA web page.

Um the Journal is only as good as its contributors - I occasionally turn items down but very rarely!
If you want something else in it then please write it and send it to me.

The NZ brochure was indeed paid for by the team (including the extra postage) - thank you Specsavers!

The Journal is on the website - we usually put it up a couple of weeks after its published. However we have many many older members who are not on the internet - I expect one day this will change but not for a few years yet. Besides you can't balance your laptop on your knees when you're in the bog! :shock:

The purpose of the Journal is as a Journal of record - it isn't a gun magazine - so it needs to record boring stuff like AGMs and GB teams on tour and Imperial Meetings etc. The Journal (and previously the Proceedings) go back to 1860 and make fascinating reading - 150 years of people complaining about ammo and toilets. One day shooters of the future will be reading about the 150th anniversary meeting and thinking "Wow"!

I could spend months in the NRA Museum . . .

Love

Karen

[karen]

Thanks Karen.

Does it still apply even though the membership rates haven't come down as much as was intended?

My rate has gone up and I've lost a benefit.

Seems to me the ones that have benefitted are those that are within spitting distance of Bisley. Doesn't help the North/South divide and the NRA being seen as a south of England Target Rifle club.

Winners and losers I guess, just looks like I'm a double whammy loser on this one. As are all members who are outside the 150 mile radius.

Afraid so as the insurance costs have gone up (which is a benefit)

In the last 15 years I have lived in Belfast, Lossiemouth (Scotland) and St Mawgan (Cornwall) and did far more shooting at Bisley then than since I moved here! But I do understand your point.

Love

Karen

[dromia]

Aye Karen thats true insurance is a benefit and also one of the biggest bugbears, everybody gives insurance, that I pay for. This year gone I've been a member of the NRA, NSRA, HBSA, and MLAGB national organisations (I'm a GTA member as well) as thats the spread I need to cover most of my shooting interests except game. I'm also a member of five local clubs to cover all my shooting disciplines, they are all affiliated to one or other of the above national organisations, which I pay for in my subs, and they all give me insurance cover as well. I only need one insurance policy, the ones who seem to benefit most from insurance are the brokers. You couldn't make this insanity up if you tried no one would think it plausable.

I retired this year and don't have the disposable income I used to. I'm not pleading poverty here but we all have to make decisions on where our money goes. So I decided to go with just one national organisation because I feel I should support my interest at a national level. After this year sadly its looks from my situation that the NRA is of the least value to me personally, especially as the promise and hope of change nationally and support regionionaly that Glynn Alger gave when he took over hasn't come to anything. He came and visited the regions, listened, and talked a lot of sense. All that sense has never materialised and we don't see him any more. I'm not angry just very very dissapointed and sad that yet again we have no true national shooting representation. I'm not just singling out the NRA here, all the organisations are culpable of failing shooting and shooters at a national level.

The Home Office, ACPO and all the anti gun lobby must love it.

What happened to all the Sport England money to form one national body? All quiet on that front too. Seems to me from the outside that all the vested interest withinin the national organisations have put the brakes on it. It should be easy enough to do if those involved really want it to happen.

Please understand that its not you that I'm getting at and that I do appreciate the positive opportunity your presence here gives. But as a shooter of some 40 odd years and having gone through the fallout of the Hungerford and Dunblane murders and await with trepidation the outcome from the Cumbrian murders enquiry. I am just so dissapointed that the arts of shooting, which has so many passionate and gifted people in its broad church is so fragmented and dysfunctional.

From where I live and shoot this view is shared by the vast majority of shooters I come into contact with and the vast majority of them are not members of any national body. Most don't know what Target and Match rifle shooting is and regard competition as a small part of their shooting year if at all. I try and encourage people to support national bodies as I know we need them and even with all their faults and failings the lot we have now are better than none at all. However none of them truly represent the honest interest of most of the shooters which, from my experience, is as much if not more an interest in guns and ballistics rather than competition. Shooting is not necessarily the outcome but a part of the whole rich experience that the love of guns gives them.

How will the NRA represent these full bore shooters?

I have a lot more I want to say but enough is enough for now.

[HeatherW762]

Can I just say that the NRA insurance does cover game as well as target. I appreciate that you have to juggle commitments, as do we all, but I've worked hard over the last 4-5 years to make sure that our policy gives good value to all shooters, wherever they are. We have a few revocation cases going through at the moment, all supported by the policy, something not covered by the club policy. Be careful if relying on club insurance as they rarely cover everything the individual needs. They are written from the club point of view so some cover is only on club days etc.
From the regional point of view, what in particular are you concerned about as my dearly beloved, Chris, is the Regional Manager and as such is the one to ask these questions of. He is working on several things at the moment so may be able to shed light.

[dromia]

Thanks for the reply Heather. Its not the quality of the insurance I'm questioning but the multiplicity of it. The insurance issue is only a symptom of the insane "National Body structure", or lack of it.

I like many other people are interested in guns, collecting and shooting as our FAC permissions allow. I have never been a keen competive shot and when I have my primary reason has been to get some shooting in and see how my rifles perform. I go to Bisley to shoot Running Deer and Running Boar and shoot at 800, 900 and 1000 yrds not to compete, although I may have to enter competitions to do so.

I shoot and collect mainly historic military rifles both breech and muzzle loading, I shoot target rifle in the sense of service rifle A and B and a bit if transitional rifle as well. I shoot a lot of .22 mainly HARC disciplines and downloaded full bore 25 yrd bench rest. Bell Target Air rifle. I also shoot muzzle loading shot gun as well as game and rough using rifle and shotgun. My main interest in all this bettering my group size both through improving my shooting and hand loading techniques along with making clean kills.

I want to support a national body as I believe shooting and shooters desperatley need good national representation, so which national body should I support? I feel I am being penalised for having some what eclectic shooting tastes. None of the individual bodies represent all my interests and potential interests, as I get old and my eyes along with other bits start to fail then all this newfangled telescopic shooting might become attractive.

I'm not expecting you to tell me who I should support but hope that you see the dilemma that many outside Bisley shooters have with "National bodies". This difficulty isn't just one of perception but one of a really confused national situation. For example we are getting a lot of new shooters through one of the clubs I am Chairman of, affiliated to the NSRA and the NRA, and they ask me which National body they should join and in all honesty I don't know which to suggest.

I am an ex BASC member but resigned over certain issues I have had with them in the past, however I have to say that when it comes to meeting threats to shooting they seem to be the leaders at present, no doubt all the other national bodies are also beavering away with their submissions and or contributing to the BASC submission but BASC seems to be the one thats is in the limelight and will get any kudos (and new members) from a sensible outcome and good luck to them I say.

But what a situation to be in when the whole shooting message is represented by differing bodies of interest that also fails to represent a whole swath of gun and shooting loving FAC and SG holders in relation to their non competive shooting habits. No doubt all the national bodies will have resource and capacity issues that affect the level of response and pulbicity they can attract for their efforts so surely this fragmentation and duplication of resource is a glaring weakness in its self.

What we need is representation for gun owners and shooters not the specific disciplines or shooting interests that people have, and will move through during their shooting life. Untill such time that the national bodies gives shooters and shooting primacy over vested interest in specific activities then legal gun ownership in the UK will always be a fragile and vulnerable thing.