NRA Survey on Handloading

[GazMorris]

And I thought that I was down on the NRA occasionally! I'm prepared to give them some leeway on the evil agenda issue for now, but can see why some people have little faith.

That said, I agree with the points that the survey was poorly designed: many questions didn't consider a wide-enough range of options, and some questions which should have been checkboxes (i.e. tick all which apply) were designed as radio buttons (i.e. select one option and one option only), additionally as has already been said the questions on "incidents" is astonishingly badly phrased because of the lack of definition of the term. This could cover anything from minor gas leakage around the primer up to a full breech explosion! Unfortunately, I fear that data from this flawed survey will later be trotted out by the NRA as gospel.

Gaz

[Christel]

Would it not have made sense to ask shooters to help with the creation of this survey?

The NRA has access to many shooters on a daily basis...range office, "Sir/Madam, would you mind jotting down what you think should be part of Question 7 of this soon to be published survey"?

Or ask here or any of the other shooting forums in the UK?

[ovenpaa]

I am sure shooters were involved in the preparation of this survey, after all it did come from the NRA and as such was catering for the perceived majority of shooters and disciplines shot at the NSC.

[dromia]

At the end of the day someone in authority in the NRA decided that this questionnaire was good enough to go with regardless of the input.

So that decision reflects badly on the NRA, if as has been postulated that the organisation lack knowledge and experience then that is a totally damning situation.

The NRA is more and more becoming a sad joke, they seem to refuse to involve members not only in the construction of the survey but also in failing to give the context and purpose that the results will be put to. If that had been done then some of the criticisms might have been answered. But yet again they fail to take the membership along with them.

[38Super]

Expected outcome - NRA code of 'Best Practice' for handloading sufficiently regulated to ensure that an incident with handloaded ammo can never occur. (with the best of intentions?)

Expected result - Condition on FAC stating failure to comply with 'Best practice' voids insurance hence criminal offence of breach of FAC condition for shooting with adequate insurance.

I wonder what a code of best practice for handloading would include?

[Triffid]

Irrespective of the quality of the survey (and I agree that it could be much better put together), I reckon that the NRA is probably on our side in this one. The report on the incident infers that it was caused by the shooter inadvertently mixing up pistol and rifle powders in his powder measure, with catastrophic results. Nothing to do with older rifles, but getting the MOD very worried about the use of handloaded ammo on their ranges. The NRA knows that even within TR, handloading is very common and for some disciplines (eg F-class) there are no alternatives. What it hasn't got is any data to back up shooters when it comes to discussions with the MOD, so hence the survey.

As to the outcome, I'm not convinced that a compulsory training course is a viable option: after all, who is going to give the course and particularly what qualifications would they need to be deemed competent to train other people in handloading? I don't think that merely a long experience of handloading makes anyone particularly competent and in some cases, probably complacent is a better description.

Triffid

[Blu]

I don't think that merely a long experience of handloading makes anyone particularly competent and in some cases, probably complacent is a better description.

Very true, I know of one old fella who has been handloading for a very very long time. He managed to destroy a beautiful Swedish Mauser with a double charge. Either a moment of distraction or complacency is all it takes.

[John MH]

Irrespective of the quality of the survey (and I agree that it could be much better put together), I reckon that the NRA is probably on our side in this one. The report on the incident infers that it was caused by the shooter inadvertently mixing up pistol and rifle powders in his powder measure, with catastrophic results. Nothing to do with older rifles, but getting the MOD very worried about the use of handloaded ammo on their ranges. The NRA knows that even within TR, handloading is very common and for some disciplines (eg F-class) there are no alternatives. What it hasn't got is any data to back up shooters when it comes to discussions with the MOD, so hence the survey.

As to the outcome, I'm not convinced that a compulsory training course is a viable option: after all, who is going to give the course and particularly what qualifications would they need to be deemed competent to train other people in handloading? I don't think that merely a long experience of handloading makes anyone particularly competent and in some cases, probably complacent is a better description.

Triffid

Well put.

[Mezzer]

Why don't you believe this? I do!

They are just after info - that is all.

Sorry - no conspiracy here sign01

Past actions, perhaps? I fail to see what significant steps the NRA can take to encourage handloading, but quite a bit they could do to hinder it...the problem is, Karen, that I no longer view the NRA as being quite as much as "on our side" as I would like to. Not to say that many hardworking people within the NRA don't deserve, and have, my respect and trust, because they do--but the organisation, and the leadership, seems to be moving in a direction I fear will not bode well for the sport.

I hope to find I'm wrong on this--but I reserve judgement.

+1

Mezzer

[The Cupcake Kid]

What it hasn't got is any data to back up shooters when it comes to discussions with the MOD, so hence the survey.

Triffid

If that is their intention (to gather data to present to the MOD) then they owe it to us, the members, to gather accurate, meaningful data.

What we should all do is contact Mercer requesting he withdraws the current survey and puts together a new one with proper input from the shooting discipline reps and anyone else who is capable of wording the questions unambiguously and with some knowledge of the subject.

Then we might end up with an objective and accurate survey result.