Use of electronic targetry on MOD ranges now banned

[Alpha1]

Oh and by the way at the last range we attended that was previously a electronic range that I am now no longer allowed to use and had to stick a target in the mud at 100 yards to shoot at.
There was a night shoot scheduled on the range that day so I guess the squaddies or who was in charge has been trained to use this system over night and if it goes wrong they will have engineers available to come out and fix it.
But if they don't well I had a good look at the set up and they can all ways contact me and for a huge sum off money I will work it out and fix it.
If I can build and install a control system for a Petro Chemical plant in Singapore or Saudi Arabia I am sure I could sort out a electronic target system. Or maybe not.

[dromia]

This is wrong on every level. I would like to see what Ian has to say about this, given he maintains that the NRA has had no involvement to date. But have been at meetings regarding this problem from the get go. Can we please get an honest answer Ian?

I would like straight answer to this too.

Andrew Mercer NRA CEO has been attending meetings where this has been discussed, people saw him there, the NRA cannot deny this so what is being hidden and why.

Regardless of what Iain thinks my message to be about it is exactly what happened to Alpha1s club at the week end.

For the record here is my email to the NRA on the subject.

"Hi Ian

Apologies for contacting you on this email for an NRA matter but I couldn't find your email address on the NRA website and I have never got replies from using the NRA website form.

Today Durham Constabulary Rifle and Pistol Club had a range day at Sturdy House defence field firing range, part of the Catterick/Feldom ranges run by Landmark.

Whist signing on for the range I was talking with the landmark staff and asking them how the upgrading of the electronic targetry was progressing. All the ranges in the Catterick Feldom area coming under the purview of a Major Fox are being upgraded with new electronic targetry. I was told that things were progressing well but that according to Major Fox the new electronic targetry would not be available to civilian clubs and in his view civilian clubs should not be using the existing electronic targetry.

This would mean that on electronic ranges like Sturdy House field firing range and 6 Charlie ETR at Wathgil we would be restricted to stick ins out to 100 yards only. On the other ranges which have the new targetry installed we would have to use the target frames, this would restrict the range options available to clubs. Also the state of repair of the target frame equipment is getting worse and as it is rarely if at all used by the military now and it takes an hour of the range time just to get past and patches organised. Firing point to butts coms are also deteriorating as the military are using the electronic targetry then there is no need for that coms either.

The new electronic targetry sounds very good and would be a great asset to civilian shooting clubs how ever the military seem hell bent on denying this to us, using existing ETR ranges has become prohibitively expensive as Landmark charge for the whole range as opposed to the number of lanes used. Please correct me if I have picked this up wrong Duncan but this year 6 Charlie has been out with our ability to pay.

If this is the case then this will have detrimental effect on civillian full bore shooing in the north.

Therefore could the NRA look into this on our behalf and ensure that civilian clubs can use at a reasonable cost the new targetry, paid for from the public purse, when it comes on line.

I have cc'd Duncan Mutter into this as he is our club secretary but was unable to be there today.

If you are wrong person in the NRA to deal with this then I am sure that you will field it to the correct person for me.


Best Regards




Adam Sutherland"

[karen]

This is wrong on every level. I would like to see what Ian has to say about this, given he maintains that the NRA has had no involvement to date. But have been at meetings regarding this problem from the get go. Can we please get an honest answer Ian?

Take it from me the last thing you should do is insinuate that Iain is not honest - he may be misinformed but he is not trying to mislead anyone. Anyone who knows him will tell you he is one of the most honest people you will meet.

If Mercer (or others) have "been at meetings from the get go" Iain is unaware of it.

[John MH]

The SARTS system is still under warranty from LM, Landmarc are allowed to do a certain amount of maintenance and reasonable wear and tear defect repair. Any defects on the system should be reported and if they cannot be fixed by Landmarc then LM are called in. Each site holds a very limited range and scale of spares, units beyond local repair have to be returned to Netheravon in Wiltshire, essentially only one set of locally replaceable parts is held at each site, a full range of spares is held at Netheravon. The Training Safety Monthly Reports produced by the MOD have a table of faults associated with SARTS which goes back a couple of years and summarises the issues at each site, these have include reported problems with software, Toughbook screen protectors, battery life, ink pens, lifters, target clamping arrangements, cables, rodent damage, weather related damage. Each issue is addressed by which ever is deemed responsible be it LM, Landmarc or the Army and a note given on what action was taken. There are still issues with this system and a further programme of works taking place to back fit the SAAB shot detection sensors.

There are also at each site, Service Provision Agreements between the DIO and Landmarc on the availability of serviceable equipment, there are no such agreements with Civilian Clubs but you should expect to be refunded if you book and pay for a range and then cannot use it due to defective equipment.

Civilian Clubs have no 'rights' with respect to access to shooting on MoD Ranges and are at the very bottom of the list of priorities when space is allocated. It is an unfortunate fact that as the MoD reduces the size of its Training Estate there will be more Military training demand for the reduced resource, this will inevitably result in even less access for civilian clubs.

Thinking that you are all smarter than the people who make the rules will get you nowhere, assuming that you are more qualified than them to operate and service their equipment will get you nowhere, pestering and demanding answers from people who's job it is to provide military (not civilian) training resources and facilities will get you nowhere. It is quite within the right of the local RAU or Range Officer to deny all access, either openly by just saying no to any booking applications made by a civilian club, or covertly by just never having any space available.

Provide the facts to the NRA, let the NRA do the liaising and wait for the answer from the NRA. Until then stop moaning, the MoD, DIO and Landmarc don't really care if you like it or not.

It will take the NRA as long as it takes, if you are not happy with the progress they are making in getting the answers (they may not get a solution) then write to them quoting your membership number and ask for an explanation, if you are not an individual member then get your affiliated club chairman to write.

I doubt very much that Andrew Mercer will have been personally involved in discussions relating to Civilian Club access to MoD Ranges and certainly not from the 'get go' given that he has not been with the NRA that long and had little shooting background knowledge before he was appointed, however, if people say he was there then maybe he was. Conspiracy theories, wearing tin foil hats and believing things are being being hidden is a little hard to see. IWR is the man at the NRA who deals with this sort of issue and he has been in that position for quite a while and predates AM so if he doesn't know about it the wrong lines of communication may have been used and the issue lost in the NRA ether.

[dromia]

Hells teeth "little shooting background knowledge" what is the point of sending him to meetings that he knows nothing about.

I don't think IainWR is lying and I suspect that he is getting a s*** end of a stick for Mercers failings to understand issues, just as we are.

The NRA are like the bloody banks never admit to getting it wrong.

OK just wait for the NRA to come back with a view, it should never have come to this. Here we have an NRA affiliated club who paid good money in good faith to Landmarc to hire a field firing range and upon arrival the found that at best they had hired a 100yrd zero range. Perhaps the club should think about contacting Trading Standards over this.

To be sure if a club turned up at Bisley (Surrey) having booked a 1000yrd target and were given a target at 100 instead they wouldn't be happy.

Surely the implications of this new targetry to civilian shooters should have been worked through before in came on line and clubs advised accordingly, is that too much to ask from a "national" body.

I despair for the future of shooting if this is the best our representatives can do.

Decry me as a NRA nay sayer If you want but personally I think non Bisley (surrey) shooting NRA members deserve better for their £69 a year.

I have written to the NRA about this see above.

I write to the NRA a lot but struggle to get a reply never mind answers.

If there is no solution and the frame targets fall into disrepair as is happening at 6A Wathgill then all shooting will cease this isn't just about using electronic targetry it is about the future use of MoD ranges because of the introduction of the new targetry.

I'm sure with the right approach, will and experience applied form the NRA a solution could be found, they managed to do it when the issues arose for the need for the introduction of the safe shooters certificates. But they must keep their eye on the ball and get stuck in before the sh!te hits the fan.

[John MH]

Hells teeth "little shooting background knowledge" what is the point of sending him to meetings that he knows nothing about. Did he actually attend, who saw him there and what was their role at the meeting?

I don't think IainWR is lying and I suspect that he is getting a s*** end of a stick for Mercers failings to understand issues, just as we are. I doubt that, if anything its a comms failure.

The NRA are like the bloody banks never admit to getting it wrong. The NRA do get it wrong an I have on many occasions challenged them, the changes to the 100 yard FP on Century were not without its problems. However, they have some good people working there now who are fighting our corner and promoting shooting.

OK just wait for the NRA to come back with a view, it should never have come to this. Here we have an NRA affiliated club who paid good money in good faith to Landmarc to hire a field firing range and upon arrival the found that at best they had hired a 100yrd zero range. Perhaps the club should think about contacting Trading Standards over this. Good luck with that, if you were able to shoot, even if only at 100 yards, your booking was met, as I stated earlier there is no SPA with Civilian Clubs.

To be sure if a club turned up at Bisley (Surrey) having booked a 1000yrd target and were given a target at 100 instead they wouldn't be happy. Quite true, I'd be miffed too.

Surely the implications of this new targetry to civilian shooters should have been worked through before in came on line and clubs advised accordingly, is that too much to ask from a "national" body. Hindsight is a great thing.

I despair for the future of shooting if this is the best our representatives can do.

Decry me as a NRA nay sayer If you want but personally I think non Bisley (surrey) shooting NRA members deserve better for their £69 a year.

I have written to the NRA about this see above.

I write to the NRA a lot but struggle to get a reply never mind answers.

If there is no solution and the frame targets fall into disrepair as is happening at 6A Wathgill then all shooting will cease this isn't just about using electronic targetry it is about the future use of MoD ranges because of the introduction of the new targetry. If the MoD have no use for Hythe Frames why should they maintain them and the targety to put in them. When no longer required they will disappear and there won't be any veneers, faces, patches or paste provided either if the MoD don't use them.

I'm sure with the right approach, will and experience applied form the NRA a solution could be found, they managed to do it when the issues arose for the need for the introduction of the safe shooters certificates. But they must keep their eye on the ball and get stuck in before the sh!te hits the fan. Lets hope so, but what sh!te and fan do you speak of?

[IainWR]

All

I am sorry, I had completely forgotten the SARTS part of Adams letter to me, (which I had not re-read before responding here) in everything else that is going on.

NRA are discussing a great many things with MoD at just about every level. There is a lot of progress. I will not discuss the content of incomplete negotiations on an open forum.

The issue Adam distils out in his last post (booked a FFR and got a 100yd field) is quite different from the implication of this thread. If a club has booked x and been delivered y, that is obviously an issue, and almost certainly a local one. But it is one for constructive direct negotiation, which shouldn't need the NRAs involvement. If it does, PLEASE get the responsible club officials to tell me who /what / where / when, with the contact details and documentation, and I will see what if anything can be done about it.

And would it be possible to confirm that Wathgill 6c is not an ETR and not a SARTS range but some other system that is owned by MoD - that's what I'm taking from recent posts above. If that's correct, it would be good to know what system it is, firstly so as to enter any discussion on an informed basis and secondly so as to appreciate the performance in the field of another type of electronic target system.

Iain

[dromia]

As you confirm the end of shooting appears to be nigh with the bringing in of this new targetry, shame it is only with hindsight that we have found this out. Some foresight from the NRA would have been very helpful.

[dromia]

My post above is in response to JohnMH's post not Iain's.

[dromia]

Iain surely the issue is more than just not getting what you book but the implications of the new targetry on the redundancy of the old target frames.

Also the use of the new targetry would be a great asset to civilian clubs are the NRA working on a way in which this can happen?