The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

dromia wrote:So the NRA is charging for an extra course that teaches you nothing that isn't already in the existing RCO course just because the MoD demands it be longer.

For once I will actually agree with you Adam, except that the MOD probably dont want "Civvies" on their ranges anyway......

Recently a strutting RO/RCO/RSO (they should have thought the latter through, Registered Sex Offender is not a label any of us want ) pointed out that "they" (We) are supposed to be on the look out for safety every time we are on the ranges...a sort of safety Police apparently.

Well I dont know about you but does this mean I cannot take 5 when I am at bisley? Are we all not supposed to be on the look out for safety, and if this level of supervison is required, then it needs paying or the training needs improving.

All this said, I suspect it was an "Individuals" approach who kept some tight leather kit at home and a picklehaub!!

Maggot wrote:

dromia wrote:So the NRA is charging for an extra course that teaches you nothing that isn't already in the existing RCO course just because the MoD demands it be longer.

For once I will actually agree with you Adam, except that the MOD probably dont want "Civvies" on their ranges anyway......

Recently a strutting RO/RCO/RSO (they should have thought the latter through, Registered Sex Offender is not a label any of us want ) pointed out that "they" (We) are supposed to be on the look out for safety every time we are on the ranges...a sort of safety Police apparently.

Well I dont know about you but does this mean I cannot take 5 when I am at bisley? Are we all not supposed to be on the look out for safety, and if this level of supervison is required, then it needs paying or the training needs improving.

All this said, I suspect it was an "Individuals" approach who kept some tight leather kit at home and a picklehaub!!

I always thought everyone at a range was responsible for safety? if you see something unsafe you should do something about it if possible, that doesn't mean actively carrying out a witch hunt to find infractions, but should you happen to see something (like a guy open a gate and try to drive across Century !)as to the MOD , I do sometimes wonder if they need reminding that its those same civvies that actually pay for the ranges ! I'm not suggesting that gives an automatic right of access, however its difficult not to get the impression that some just think the whole civilian use of ranges is a imposition on their ordered world.

Reading these posts it seems that there is a divided opinion regarding the validity of the RSO/RCO qualification. Presently at my club which is very small, we don't currently have anyone who holds any range safety qualifications but in the 30 years I have been a member I can't recall any issues. If we see anybody not behaving in a safe, responsible manner they are spoken to before it becomes an issue. My club second thought it would be a good idea if him and I sat the course.

RCO courses are good and qualification necessary, RSO courses are a complete waste of time and money that serve no purpose other than paying money to indulge the NRA's and MoDs surreal relationship.

kennyc wrote:

Maggot wrote:

dromia wrote:So the NRA is charging for an extra course that teaches you nothing that isn't already in the existing RCO course just because the MoD demands it be longer.

For once I will actually agree with you Adam, except that the MOD probably dont want "Civvies" on their ranges anyway......

Recently a strutting RO/RCO/RSO (they should have thought the latter through, Registered Sex Offender is not a label any of us want ) pointed out that "they" (We) are supposed to be on the look out for safety every time we are on the ranges...a sort of safety Police apparently.

Well I dont know about you but does this mean I cannot take 5 when I am at bisley? Are we all not supposed to be on the look out for safety, and if this level of supervison is required, then it needs paying or the training needs improving.

All this said, I suspect it was an "Individuals" approach who kept some tight leather kit at home and a picklehaub!!

I always thought everyone at a range was responsible for safety? if you see something unsafe you should do something about it if possible, that doesn't mean actively carrying out a witch hunt to find infractions, but should you happen to see something (like a guy open a gate and try to drive across Century !)as to the MOD , I do sometimes wonder if they need reminding that its those same civvies that actually pay for the ranges ! I'm not suggesting that gives an automatic right of access, however its difficult not to get the impression that some just think the whole civilian use of ranges is a imposition on their ordered world.

The problem with the MOD side Ken is they have to staff the place, and that costs. They also have dwindling numbers of ranges so range time is often hard to find, or you can get bumped easilly. All this said, you woudl think that any money coming in would be a bonus....


As for policing, Just some of the "Keener" RCOs opinions I guess mate. The only time you need to shout is when something looks like it may go wrong and needs stopping pronto, or you cant be heard, but some do it all the time and seem to have their own slant on the regs. One was adamant that all guns would go on and off the poit bagged. Flag or bag is the usual rule, the net result was a firing point that looked like the main street in Port Stanley after the surrender.

Personally, while I think there should be at least 1 qualification (there has to be in order to take responsibility for an MOD range), the actual RCOs course I attended was a bit telling. Those of us with previous could stand up and "brief" etc, but some clearly had no idea what was required, and had no idea it had "strings attached".

At the other end of the scale you have RCOs running the CSR shoots who are supported by the second detail as safeties, which is just as well because if you get the sequence rong it causes all sorts of bad language clapclap ...particularly if I have to do the rundown twice

They really need to have a decent pre read and an in test. It is a safety course after all, and it needs to eb clear what people are potentially taking on

As my club doesn't us MOD ranges anymore I will not need the RCO qualification. DROMIA I take it you think that the RSO course is a waste of time and money.

Yes I do and so does any gunowner with a modicum of intelligence, it serves no purpose other than help Mercer meet his income target.

The reasons as to why the RSO is sh!te are clearly explained in the thread, it adds nothing to range safety, but does add to the NRA's income.

dromia wrote:Yes I do and so does any gunowner with a modicum of intelligence, it serves no purpose other than help Mercer meet his income target.

The reasons as to why the RSO is sh!te are clearly explained in the thread, it adds nothing to range safety, but does add to the NRA's income.

While I tend to agree with all the above, it's not clear to me that there is now any way to get qualified as an RCO without taking the RSO course first.

Unless you join the army and I'm far too old to go through all that again.

daman wrote:

dromia wrote:Yes I do and so does any gunowner with a modicum of intelligence, it serves no purpose other than help Mercer meet his income target.

The reasons as to why the RSO is sh!te are clearly explained in the thread, it adds nothing to range safety, but does add to the NRA's income.

While I tend to agree with all the above, it's not clear to me that there is now any way to get qualified as an RCO without taking the RSO course first.

Unless you join the army and I'm far too old to go through all that again.

It will be a very cold day in hell before I don a uniform on behalf of our present crop of 'politicians'.

LL

daman wrote:

dromia wrote:Yes I do and so does any gunowner with a modicum of intelligence, it serves no purpose other than help Mercer meet his income target.

The reasons as to why the RSO is sh!te are clearly explained in the thread, it adds nothing to range safety, but does add to the NRA's income.

While I tend to agree with all the above, it's not clear to me that there is now any way to get qualified as an RCO without taking the RSO course first.

Unless you join the army and I'm far too old to go through all that again.

This just another barrier to clubs having range access, less people and clubs will be inclined to take the courses due to the increased time and costs and that will put more strain on the existing RCOs, combine that with reducing range access underpinned by the MoD/Landmark's wish to stop civilian range use and you can see shooting beyond Bisley diminishing as the vast majority of shooters rely on MoD ranges for distances over 100 yrds.

But those shysters at the NRA are only interested in Bisley and the rest can go whistle is their attitude as is blatantly obvious by this meaningless imposition on clubs.