Mercer & NRA Against Reloading

[lapua338]

Reloading certification?

It's utterly worthless because it's a policy that would be virtually impossible to police.

People need to understand that they're solely responsible for their own health, safety and welfare of other people who may be affected by their reloading practices.

[Dougan]

No, not 'reloading certification' - I'm not talking about teaching people how to load or to certify their competence in doing it...I'm talking about a course that explains some of the facts they need to be aware of (as you say "people need to understand") when either beginning to, or continuing to load their own ammunition...it would simply be a certification that the person is aware of the dangers and their responsibilities...

[Mr_Logic]

Pointless, apart from the newest of newbies, and certainly not as a prerequisite for shooting on NRA ranges.

[DaveT]

I can't see a problem with some sort of loading certification...especially if it helps maintain access to MOD ranges.

To teach people to actually reload would be long-winded and difficult to set up, but a simple 'awareness' course wouldn't be hard to organise...

...a couple of hours of theory; explaining some of the basics like SAAMI specs, head-space and how ammunition fits a chamber ect...and some do's and don'ts, going into things like OAL, compressed loads, crimping ect...

...show some examples of when loading has gone wrong; buggered actions etc..,

...then a quick test to prove you were listening, and a signature to acknowledge you understand the responsibilities of loading your own.


I am not in favour of 'enforced' training BUT given that when we reload it can create major safety issues if done badly and in ignorance of a number of critical measures etc: I set up a comprehensive reloading course and training facility which failed to attract much custom.

What it did highlight though is that you cannot learn to reload properly in a couple of hours......there is too much to absorb (if starting from scratch) and it needs a very focussed DAY of truly expert tuition to really turn out a properly educated student ...and even then I offered post-course support to ensure safety and confidence until experience builds. Some may disagree but I do seriously worry about a mate showing you 'how its done' in a spare few minutes!!
Some reading materials could be sent out to beginners so the course doesn't have to be too long, and so that the content is detailed enough that people who've been loading for years could still get something out of it...

...apart from taking care of some liability issues and appeasing the MOD, it could even help some to follow best practice and prevent incidents in the future.

[ovenpaa]

I am not convinced a training course would mean all shooters were competent and safe to reload to within SAAMI or CIP standards. Some people just *need* to push their rifles and loads to the absolute limit, they are virtually shooting a proof load with every shot because they feel they must do this to be competitive within their chosen disciplines. I personally find such a cavalier attitude positively frightening and I have heard the excuse 'It is a modern action so it can stand it' and 'everyone else is doing' or 'I need to do it to be competitive' which are utter crap in my mind.

Some disciplines have mandatory rifle weight checks or trigger pull checks so people comply to these requirements and it makes me wonder how some people would get on if their rifles were subjected to ammunition pressure testing as well.

Equally there are some people who simply cannot get their heads around the technical nuances of reloading and as such adopt a grit your teeth and close your eyes approach to the first couple of rounds of a new load and assuming they can still see afterwards just carry on.

[DaveT]

Totally agree with all ovenpaa comments....a course is no guarantee that someone will not act stupidly afterwards.

The most that we can do is to highlight the likely consequences of bad practice or ignorance both to themselves and their shooting neighbours...... and the risk they can create to our sport in very real terms if they insist on 'pushing' things by ignoring all advice and warning signs.

Poo can happen ....but its normally directly caused rather than being 'an unfortunate / unforeseen accident'.

[Dougan]

I totally agree that a course teaching reloading is a waste of time; a lot of time...but that's not what this is about...it's about liabilities.

I used to teach the PADI system of diving - There are better agencies for producing well trained divers (PADI does it in 4 days where as BSAC can take a year), but the system was very good at managing liability...

...for example - You present a module during which you explain that if you hold your breath while ascending you can damage your lungs...you repeat the fact at least 3 times, and even show a little video/picture of a balloon rising up under water getting bigger and bigger until it bursts - You then give a multiple choice quiz about the module, with a question about lung expansion, and a final exam with another question about it...

...instructors are obliged to keep their student records for 7 years, so that if a lawyer approaches you to say that an ex-student has died from a lung expansion injury you can show them the quizzes and exam where the student got the question right.

This approach could be taken for a simple reloading course - e.g. You state clearly in a classroom session at least twice that you should never exceed the powder loads in the manuals...

...then in the exam, have a question that asks:

You can exceed a reloading manual's maximum powder load if,

a) Your action is sufficiently strong enough.
b) You are very experienced.
c) You are shooting F-class beyond 1000 yards.
d) You should never exceed the maximum load in the manual.

Then; anyone who doesn't answer 'd' would need to take the course again (or a re-take after further guidance on specific questions) - And, if someone, after passing the course, blows a rifle up and injures someone with an overloaded round, it'll be their responsibility...not the NRAs or the MODs.

You can't prevent genuine mistakes and accidents (just like in driving) but an simple course to show that loaders understand the basic safety principles could help manage liabilities, help us keep access to MOD ranges...and would make people take due care when loading ammo they intend to use on the range with other shooters.

[knewmans]

Its a shame its not easier at Bisley to develop a load. Because of the cost of half a day hire and difficulty of getting a target for a short time I end up working up new loads during a group hire at a range which is really too long for me to objectively assess accuracy. I can see where there would be a temptation not to work up from a minimum load but jump in with too high a starting load.

I would also say that the NRA reloading course rammed home the safety aspects. Worth the money.

[kennyc]

I totally agree that a course teaching reloading is a waste of time; a lot of time...but that's not what this is about...it's about liabilities.

I used to teach the PADI system of diving - There are better agencies for producing well trained divers (PADI does it in 4 days where as BSAC can take a year), but the system was very good at managing liability...

...for example - You present a module during which you explain that if you hold your breath while ascending you can damage your lungs...you repeat the fact at least 3 times, and even show a little video/picture of a balloon rising up under water getting bigger and bigger until it bursts - You then give a multiple choice quiz about the module, with a question about lung expansion, and a final exam with another question about it...

...instructors are obliged to keep their student records for 7 years, so that if a lawyer approaches you to say that an ex-student has died from a lung expansion injury you can show them the quizzes and exam where the student got the question right.

This approach could be taken for a simple reloading course - e.g. You state clearly in a classroom session at least twice that you should never exceed the powder loads in the manuals...

...then in the exam, have a question that asks:

You can exceed a reloading manual's maximum powder load if,

a) Your action is sufficiently strong enough.
b) You are very experienced.
c) You are shooting F-class beyond 1000 yards.
d) You should never exceed the maximum load in the manual.

Then; anyone who doesn't answer 'd' would need to take the course again (or a re-take after further guidance on specific questions) - And, if someone, after passing the course, blows a rifle up and injures someone with an overloaded round, it'll be their responsibility...not the NRAs or the MODs.

You can't prevent genuine mistakes and accidents (just like in driving) but an simple course to show that loaders understand the basic safety principles could help manage liabilities, help us keep access to MOD ranges...and would make people take due care when loading ammo they intend to use on the range with other shooters.

d) is not strictly the correct answer though is it? it is the acceptable answer, and there lies the fallacy behind most multple guess exams, ie- "the student answered with the the correct answer thus the student understands and is competant to be allowed out on their own"
too many exam boards and organisations kid themselves that this is a viable way of testing competance, when at best it is merely an auditable method! (which is really all that matters to a lot of organisations)
I'm sorry but a compulsary qualification will, by its own nature, be nothing more than an audit trail for the buck to skip happily along, it will not stop the cowboys, or the mistakes, it create another morass of paperwork, another expense for the average shooter and a considerable amount of stress each time it has to be renewed, resulting in a gradual fall off in people shooting due to expense.
I have had 20+years of experience in living in an industry that had to introduce such exams and each qualification has to be renewed every 5 years, I still see poorly trained and motivated people passing the exams without understanding or following the procedures set out by law and regulation, however they manage to pass a multiple guess exam and so they are "in"!
surprisingly, I am not in favour of such an exam.

[Dougan]

Kenny I totally get what you're saying; but if reloading does become an issue (and I'm getting the feeling it could), then we can't afford to either bury our heads in the sand, or over-complicate the issue...

The example I gave was just off the top of my head...any real materials would need to be reviewed and scrutinised, to ensure they were fit for purpose...

...and when I say 'fit for purpose', I'm not talking about the 'ideal' but about the reality.