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

TattooedGun wrote:

Chapuis wrote:"what is the maximal weight allowance for his rifle?"

On first reading I thought that a spelling mistake had been made so I looked it up. Why didn't you simply ask what the maximum trigger pull was?

To be quite honest I didn't know that there was a maximum trigger weight but there again I'm not really into target rifles so am not that interested. The rifles I shoot normally have triggers set about the 2lb mark so I wouldn't be looking to set them as high as possible.
I think the guys concerned were honest and admitted they didn't know so gave good advise.

He didn't say maximal trigger weight, he said maximal weight.

It was my understanding he was checking the overall weight of the rifle to make sure it was under the maximum allowed.

He also wasn't quoting himself, he was quoting someone he overheard in the armoury range-office.

Sorry; Sir,

The rifle was on the scale when the man asked the question. I WAS PRESENT and gave the answer. Incidentally, there was a third person who can attest, if needed...

Whar shocked me was the way it was said...

End of the matter for me. I never srart an argument in a foreign language that I knpw I will loose on dialectic.

R.G.C

let's face it, it is the guy basically saying RTFM. which is never polite or helpful. I even get it from our technical support dept.

tackb wrote:if the bisley bible has pertinent safety related information in then I think a copy should be available in the office at all times in the same manner that the H&S file needs to be available at any work premises or building site ?

it's the safe thing to do.

That's why its a free download on the website

DW58 wrote:Surely with ths being the NRA's busiest time of the year, there ought to be an emphasis on having competent and properly trained/informed staff on the front line. To have new staff on the "Front Counter" at this time of year is ridiculous.

Oh in a perfect world!

However how are staff going to get competent and fully trained if they don't jump into the Imperial for the first time? It's very different to the normal day to day stuff.

Everyone gets it wrong sometime - I certainly did when I was new but I learnt from my mistakes and made sure I never made the same mistake twice. My point is just don't jump on someone or the organisation for something which may not be their fault. If they were rude that is a different matter - if they were just a bit flippant because they didn't know the answer then it's hardly a sacking offence!

Unfortunately I have seen and heard FAR worse from the shooters towards the staff - not that Robert would fall into that category as he has always been a gentleman towards me

Demonic69 wrote:

DW58 wrote:Surely with ths being the NRA's busiest time of the year, there ought to be an emphasis on having competent and properly trained/informed staff on the front line. To have new staff on the "Front Counter" at this time of year is ridiculous.

But that's only Karen's assumption in an effort to defend the NRA. They could be experienced, they never stated that they didn't know or were new.
There really are no excuses, they're not working at maccies. They're either un-trained or un-helpful (or both), neither is good for Bisley or the shooters that pay to use it.

I think Karen's assumption is right (and also feel compelled to balance the thread) - I go in the Range Office every few weeks or so and am usually happy with the responses I get to my queries and even complaints. But if I'm being honest I did get a weird response from two lads in the Office a few weeks back; I didn't recognise them so also assumed they were new...in the end a lady I do know stepped in and answered my query.

To be fair, I can't think of any of the companies I've worked for (including some very good ones) that haven't got things wrong from time to time; recruitment and training can be particularly problematic, and as for customer services...can you imagine having to deal with shooters all day razz

TattooedGun wrote:If Robert is quoting accurately, I have no reason to believe he is not

Yeah but Robert also said; "he dhould not be left alone in contact with the pinlic"...

...I took particular note, in case he only said it once.

Dougan wrote:

Demonic69 wrote:

DW58 wrote:Surely with ths being the NRA's busiest time of the year, there ought to be an emphasis on having competent and properly trained/informed staff on the front line. To have new staff on the "Front Counter" at this time of year is ridiculous.

But that's only Karen's assumption in an effort to defend the NRA. They could be experienced, they never stated that they didn't know or were new.
There really are no excuses, they're not working at maccies. They're either un-trained or un-helpful (or both), neither is good for Bisley or the shooters that pay to use it.

I think Karen's assumption is right (and also feel compelled to balance the thread) - I go in the Range Office every few weeks or so and am usually happy with the responses I get to my queries and even complaints. But if I'm being honest I did get a weird response from two lads in the Office a few weeks back; I didn't recognise them so also assumed they were new...in the end a lady I do know stepped in and answered my query.

To be fair, I can't think of any of the companies I've worked for (including some very good ones) that haven't got things wrong from time to time; recruitment and training can be particularly problematic, and as for customer services...can you imagine having to deal with shooters all day razz

To be fair I don't know their responsibilities, but if it involves firearms in any way I'd expect them to be competent at the least.
I'm not sure I could deal with shooters every day either :-)

I've been in and out of the range office quite a lot in the last few weeks. There are a few new members of staff and I can honestly say they have been polite, very helpful and friendly to me at all times. I'm not doubting the original post but my experience of the new staff is overwhelmingly positive.

karen wrote:

tackb wrote:if the bisley bible has pertinent safety related information in then I think a copy should be available in the office at all times in the same manner that the H&S file needs to be available at any work premises or building site ?

it's the safe thing to do.

That's why its a free download on the website

Wouldn't hurt to have an analogue version to hand though would it?

tackb wrote:

karen wrote:

tackb wrote:if the bisley bible has pertinent safety related information in then I think a copy should be available in the office at all times in the same manner that the H&S file needs to be available at any work premises or building site ?

it's the safe thing to do.

That's why its a free download on the website

Wouldn't hurt to have an analogue version to hand though would it?

If your going to attend a major meeting surely you should sort your admin out beforehand and read the Bisley Bible?

If you can afford to enter you can afford the Bible!