Mercer & NRA Against Reloading

[Sim G]

Just to stop the next rumour that is NOT "inside" information sign01

Yeah, but you've got to admit it would solve a problem or two.....! :lol:

I haven't been a member for over 10 years. This year was the first that I didn't bother with Phoenix, nor will I be looking to attend any other shooting/trade events. I'll shop locally instead. But, I have a lot of friends that do enjoy Bisley and we talk regularly about their comps, guns and reloading...

Which does bring me on to a particularly contentious point, the NRA themselves are perhaps encouraging dangerous reloading. And by that I mean being so antiquated in the specifics of calibers, rules, or what have you, there are competitors chasing 3000+ fps with 155gn .308. When you are on the cusp of dangerous anyway, one slight deviation in air temp, humidity, brass quality or what have you, may tip a cartridge over the edge.

30 inch barrels, double based powders, yadda, yadda, yadda....

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

[Sim G]

I foresee in the near future the MoD insisting that any person wishing to shoot on MoD ranges having to be a full individual member of the NRA just so that a full accountability trail is in place.

Well could that be the money spinner the NRA are looking for....?

Mystic Meg prediction or "inside" information?

If you knew anything about the way the MoD operate you would not say that. Anyone who has 'served' and understands the MoD mindset would know that civilian shooting is a complete pain in the arse to them. We shoot at the MoDs discretion.The plug could be pulled on us at a moments notice and there would be nothing that we/the NRA could do about it.

The NRA is not out to make money from this. Making money is a trivial consideration compared with keeping civilian shooters on MoD ranges.

When I served there was without doubt a far greater "can do attitude". Shooting on MoD ranges has become a pain in the ar$e since self serving civvies started running the ranges and the NRA after their work with the SSC, as good as that was, elevate themselves to god-like status in our field. Perhaps a little more stand off and a dose of STFU, might improve the MoD's/Landmarc's opinion towards civilian shooters.

And if the NRA don't wish to be seen as always chasing the next money making scheme, don't pull tricks like they did with the traders of the recent events.

An as an aside, perhaps the MoD actually have a better opinion of civilian shooters as a whole, than the 4000 member NRA. It wasn't too long ago, four or five years, when at the AGM of civilian clubs and the Cinq Ports Training Area, had the Colonel of the CPTA specifically ask the civilian clubs to form youth sections as what the military were seeing in young recruits coming through was not only an inability to develop quickly the skills needed in weapon handling and shooting, but the abject fear in some cases or the blasé Play Station attitude of others when handed a real rifle for the first time....

Actually, something akin to why the NRA was originally founded in 1859, was it not?

[karen]

An as an aside, perhaps the MoD actually have a better opinion of civilian shooters as a whole, than the 4000 member NRA.

Er read the AGM minutes :cool2: :cool2: :cool2:

7400 members (page 11)!!!

Still not enough members by a long way but instead of denigrating the NRA why not try supporting them . . . maybe by becoming a member!

:cool2: :cool2: :cool2:

My head hurts . . .

[karen]

Shooting on MoD ranges has become a pain in the ar$e since self serving civvies started running the ranges and the NRA after their work with the SSC, as good as that was, elevate themselves to god-like status in our field.

I don't get the "god-like status" bit? Please explain!

[Mr_Logic]

Karen! Pause! I AM supporting the NRA; I don't happen to think the NRA will attack reloading, I think it will be others. My concern is by saying that reloading is the cause of incidents, it highlights reloading and puts it in the firing line of others, stupid others, the same folk who brought us SCCs. They would attack it to tick a box on a risk assessment.

Much better not to mention reloading at all, and simply say the rule 150 issue is not the pertinent concern at this time - keeps reloading out of any spotlight. That is my concern with the comment in the journal - it starts us down a path where reloading is seen as 'needing fixing', and that is a big worry.

[karen]

Maybe Journal should have said more however the AGM minutes make it fairly clear that the MoD are ALREADY thinking that way. Whatever is said by NRA is not suddenly going to bring it to MoDs attention.

And let's not even start on bloody Rule 150 . . .

[kennyc]

Kenny C
It matters not how many incidents there are or what caused them. They create work and worry and the MoD can solve the problem very easily from their point of view by just stopping us shooting.

sorry I don't agree with that, if you can prove that the incidence of accidents is almost negligible, then you have gone a long way towards proving that they are not a reason for draconian measures, any accident is one too many, but by ignoring the reasons and possible cures you just repeat the cycle, the Military are no strangers to accidents, and have steps in place to minimise them, where are our steps?

[Steve E]

KennyC
You are presuming that the NRA have a negotiating position with the MoD, wake up they don't. Civilian shooters have access to MoD ranges on sufferance only. The NRA try their hardest to maintain access but there are no rights. Any safety infringements wether firearms and ammunition failures or just failing to follow the fine detail whittles away the privilege of civilian access. We are sitting on a knife edge as regards access/use of ranges. One catastrophic incident and it's game over no more shooting on MoD ranges.

[Dougan]

Kenny C
It matters not how many incidents there are or what caused them. They create work and worry and the MoD can solve the problem very easily from their point of view by just stopping us shooting.

sorry I don't agree with that, if you can prove that the incidence of accidents is almost negligible, then you have gone a long way towards proving that they are not a reason for draconian measures, any accident is one too many, but by ignoring the reasons and possible cures you just repeat the cycle, the Military are no strangers to accidents, and have steps in place to minimise them, where are our steps?

Absolutely - You can't eliminate all risk, and many other sports carry a bigger one than shooting with home-loads...We just need to show that we are taking steps to manage what is already a comparatively safe sport.

The only incident I've ever witnessed was a failure of an LBR on an MOD range - the chamber opened up like a tangerine and the top-strap ended up 50 feet down range - Correct procedure (reporting to NRA and MOD) was followed, and the remaining rounds were examined...they proved to be within maximum with no other issues (seating etc.)...so the conclusion was left open...maybe those 7 chamber LBRs are to flimsy for full magnum loads? - who knows, but unfortunately it was another statistic in the reports involving home-loads.

I agree that a more open system of reporting would be good - while it may highlight incidents to a wider audience they're still recorded officially anyway...and it could help us not repeat the same mistake/accident if we knew more of the details...names and dates need not be given...

[kennyc]

KennyC
You are presuming that the NRA have a negotiating position with the MoD, wake up they don't. Civilian shooters have access to MoD ranges on sufferance only. The NRA try their hardest to maintain access but there are no rights. Any safety infringements wether firearms and ammunition failures or just failing to follow the fine detail whittles away the privilege of civilian access. We are sitting on a knife edge as regards access/use of ranges. One catastrophic incident and it's game over no more shooting on MoD ranges.

and you are presuming to miss the point entirely! , either the NRA have no influence on the MOD or NRA membership may become compulsory to use MOD ranges ! you can't have it both ways... anyway this is besides the point, if there is no robust system of incident reporting in place then the NRA are not in my opinion acting in the best interests of their members, one incident may or may not cause the Military to rethink civilian use of MOD ranges, however a second incident that could of been prevented by timely warnings will certainly raise many questions and start sphincters twitching!