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

Your probably right on that maggot but it would at least allow for the NRA to cover their ass in liability terms. If the handloader fails to comply with safe practice they have been taught then liability falls on them. I'm sure that's the NRAs main concern... Always about liability and finances!

paulbradley wrote:Your probably right on that maggot but it would at least allow for the NRA to cover their ass in liability terms. If the handloader fails to comply with safe practice they have been taught then liability falls on them. I'm sure that's the NRAs main concern... Always about liability and finances!

Would'nt cover them for much I am afraid. The act of reloading has so many if/buts and maybees that a one size fits all "course" (I love it when the NRA uses that term....RCOs course, day and a half, same qual in the mob, took up 3 weeks of the SAAI course...god help us!!) would be shot full of holes in a board of enquiry.

Although of course I guess they could turn round and say..."we never taught him to do that"...job jobbed....but then they have to evidence it.

You would open such a can of worms as even the NRA could not deal with.

My total sum of ammo failures (split and separated cases) to date, all factory ammo, all supplied by the NRA....

Then we move onto the HME zero.....


Lets just hope nobody has a brainfart shall we?

Thanks for the info. It's easy to think with enough planning, rules and regulation that we can completely mitigate risk. In most areas of life that simply isn't possible and we should be adult enough to accept that.

FredB wrote:In the early 1980s, there was a fatal accident due to a New Service Colt cylinder exploding. Apparently, the bullets were insufficiently crimped and moved forward on recoil, causing the cylinder to jam. The shooter used his finger to push the bullets back----too far---increasing the pressure dramatically. The person killed was standing to one side of the shooter---he happened to be the owner of the gun, who had loaded the faulty ammunition.
Two years ago, a Taurus LBR exploded on our range. We have plywood partitions between the shooters and the top strap and bits of cylinder sailed through them without really slowing down. No injury was caused.
When rifles explode, it is usually the shooters left hand which is damaged, but spectators are definitely at risk.
I have never purchased factory ammunition for any of my centrefire guns in more than 40 years of shooting. I must be in the low hundreds of thousands of reloads fired without any problems. That said, there are idiots in the world and we need education and vigilance.

Fred

This is an issue I have at work regularly.

People think that a RA removes risk. It does'nt, it just means you have adressed it, and either decided the risk is negligable, there but dealable with if you are aware and take the right precautions or down right dangerous and not worth taking, so dont do it or try another way.

Most sensible people do this anyway, it used to be called common sense based on experience or ideally, some other buggers mistakes, but risk assessments produce an industry in themselves and is quicker to say tongueout

How do you regulate reloading? Answer, you can't - how do you know about safe pressures, safe loads? You have to trust people, or not. And if not, you ban handloads. That's daft, so option A is best!

One sure fire way to kill off the NRA would be for it to ban the use of reloaded ammunition on its ranges and affiliated club ranges that are covered by insurance sourced through the NRA. Clubs would desert the sinking ship in a flash and seek insurance elsewhere and with it affiliation to other organisations.
If reloaded ammunition were really such a great problem wouldn't the insurance companies have something to say about it, after all millions of rounds of reloaded ammo are shot in this country each year.

Good point well made.

Historic arms are important to the NRA - in terms of all competitions we are not seeking to make a vast profit but a small margin (5% of income) after charging direct costs and standard range hire (which contributes to permanent staff, estate, administrative costs etc.). Efficient range allocation is essential, and our competitions team have made good progress applying these principles with SAW and the Phoenix.

The principle of hand loading ammunition is wholly supported by the NRA - it probably accounts for a majority of the rounds fired by full bore shooters, and is essential for a host of historic and unusual calibres. Despite what some may think ammunition sales are a pretty modest part of our income and contribute a small margin. One of our prime objectives is to increase range utilisation and we view affordable ammunition as a key facilitator to achieve this.

My concerns expressed in the journal are a reflection of those very recently expressed to me by those responsible for ensuring range safety on military ranges - our difficulty lies with providing them assurances that our civilian members are competent at home loading and the resulting ammunition used on MoD ranges is safe. This is a live issue at the moment hence the reason for raising it in the journal - there will be more to follow.

The above was just received from Andrew Mercer.
Fred

I have personally spoken to Mercer about handloading, so I understand the ilandscape he is operating within.

How many issues have arisen on MOD ranges with civilian hand loaded ammunition in recent times? Not that many, but enough for the MOD to question the level of risk which arises by permitting cilvilian clubs to use handloaded ammunition on MOD ranges.

As an anecdote, I've shot next to a person who meters his 223 powder charges by "filling the case up to the top". As soon as I discovered this I moved down the firing point, and kept a safe distance. I'm also aware of a straight pull ar upper destroyed due to poorly constructed handloads, which occurred on a MOD range.

When the MOD became concerned about the risk of shots escaping range danger areas we faced a very bleak situation. The NRA brokered the safe shooting assessment, and the Saftey and Competence Card systems in order to mitigate that risk. As a result we have been able to continue to shoot on MOD ranges. Do not be surprised to see a similar system in place for handloading in the future.

(Just seen the post from Fred, so apologies for any duplication in messaging)

Ceri

FredB wrote:Historic arms are important to the NRA - in terms of all competitions we are not seeking to make a vast profit but a small margin (5% of income) after charging direct costs and standard range hire (which contributes to permanent staff, estate, administrative costs etc.). Efficient range allocation is essential, and our competitions team have made good progress applying these principles with SAW and the Phoenix.

The principle of hand loading ammunition is wholly supported by the NRA - it probably accounts for a majority of the rounds fired by full bore shooters, and is essential for a host of historic and unusual calibres. Despite what some may think ammunition sales are a pretty modest part of our income and contribute a small margin. One of our prime objectives is to increase range utilisation and we view affordable ammunition as a key facilitator to achieve this.

My concerns expressed in the journal are a reflection of those very recently expressed to me by those responsible for ensuring range safety on military ranges - our difficulty lies with providing them assurances that our civilian members are competent at home loading and the resulting ammunition used on MoD ranges is safe. This is a live issue at the moment hence the reason for raising it in the journal - there will be more to follow.

The above was just received from Andrew Mercer.
Fred

Mercer would have done well to have provided that clarity in the journal.