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

dromia wrote:We moved to the NRA from the NSRA because of there lack of support,

Our local club are just doing this as well. We get nothing from the NSRA except insurance.
NRA insurance covers us for small-bore and full-bore shooting and the insurance is suitable for all the ranges we use and for the downloading and handloading of ammunition.
RFCA and the private range owners want a suitable insurance in place before we can book the ranges and the NRA membership and insurance fits the bill, it saves us paying two affiliation fees.

I wonder why the governing body for small-bore and cross-bow shooting thinks it can offer guidance on reloading and downloading with much authority.
Next time I download my rim-fire cartridges I'm sure I'll follow it to the letter. :)

Aye all you got from the NSRA was insurance and even that wasn't fit for purpose.

They still haven't cleared up issue of NSRA insurance only covering disciplines that were recognised by a national governing body. I was told in no uncertain terms by an NSRA employee that as well as having no need to shoot 7.62 at short range the NSRA insurance would only cover people shooting national governing body sanctioned courses of fire on the correct target for that discipline. General "plinking" for example was not covered, neither was UKBR22 shooting as UKBR wasn't a national governing body so their competitions weren't covered.

dromia wrote:Aye all you got from the NSRA was insurance and even that wasn't fit for purpose.

They still haven't cleared up issue of NSRA insurance only covering disciplines that were recognised by a national governing body. I was told in no uncertain terms by an NSRA employee that as well as having no need to shoot 7.62 at short range the NSRA insurance would only cover people shooting national governing body sanctioned courses of fire on the correct target for that discipline. General "plinking" for example was not covered, neither was UKBR22 shooting as UKBR wasn't a national governing body so their competitions weren't covered.

That is extremely alarming sounding. Do you have a copy of that correspondence so I can discuss this with the club committee?

It was phone call with the NSRA at Bisley when this whole sorry mess blew up last year.

is this of any relevance to your discussion?

"This" is what we are discussing here so of course it has relevance.

It is still an extremely bad document.

Its a terrible document a good solicitor would drive a bus through it.

This is a interesting statement.
f) Handloaded ammunition of initially unknown ballistic performance should be batch tested by an officially recognised proof house to ensure that the associated breech pressures and velocities are within acceptable standards.

Doesn't that apply to any down loaded/reduced load of ammunition whilst you are developing the load. For example a new weight and size of cast boolit with a new powder in a mas36.

I've not been in a position to experience the problems some may have had with the NSRA and their insurance wording, so can't comment on that...

...but as a relatively new handloader (3/4 years), I thought the new Code of Practice document was quite good...especially as it now defines 'downloading' in the correct way (i.e. going below the minimum load), but also clearly states how cast bullets can be shot indoors; and even gives an example of a load.

"going below the minimum load"

Now how does that define downloading please?

I would define that as stupidity not downloading.

Read the CoP - haven't got time right now, but will quote the relevant sections tonight if you can't find them...