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

Demonic69 wrote:So do the NRA want to run additional level 2 and 3 IPSC matches, alongside those run by the UKPSA?
Would this be another Bisley-centric league or is that the point of the affiliation between the NRA and F4I as F4I have a better national reach?

The NRA bid document is for control of the IPSC franchise held within our region.

Its important to understand that clubs run matches NOT the UKPSA, they simply oversee the events & give IPSC sanctioning for level 1 & 2, all levels higher than that require international sanctioning.

The NRA league is not Bisley centric as it includes several matches held at other clubs, many of those clubs also support the four4islands events.

Four4Islands is affiliated to the NRA just like many other shooting clubs, the same way the UKPSA is affiliated, the difference is four4islands supports the NRA bid.

I see you shoot at thurnscoe, some of the guys who run PSG events there are UKPSA council members, so will no doubt promote things accordingly.

I suggest now that you have done your safety course you expand your match experience to include matches not sanctioned by them, in that way you will gain a better understanding of why four4islands was created.

Hope to see you there..

4I

I will indeed mate, do you have a list of clubs shooting F4I matches?

Demonic69 wrote:I will indeed mate, do you have a list of clubs shooting F4I matches?

Check out the supporting clubs section on the F4i forum....


http://four4islands.org/forum/viewforum ... bf06662bc8


4I

Cheers :-)

Countryman wrote:Guys

I read this that shooters rocking up to shoot shotgun comps at Bisley run by the NRA had better make sure that they have adequate insurance. If they aren't members of the NRA they might not be covered and UKPSA shooters had better specifically check if they are covered shooting NRA comps.

Can't see much wrong with this but then I recently joined the NRA so I'm horribly biased.

Not quite , UKPSA members need to check they are covered at all. ( excluding circumstance listed below)


All that has been said is that some of them think they are covered by NRA insurance policy when in fact they are not because they are not members of NRA or members of clubs that have purchased the NRA insurance.

Anyone attending the matches at Bisley are automatically covered by the entry fee if not already an NRA member.

Latest:

UKPSA: We have insurance, what’s the NRA on about?

The UK Practical Shooting Association has hit back at claims made by NRA chief executive Andrew Mercer that their members may be shooting without insurance – as it emerges that the NRA have refused to allow them to re-affiliate.

More: https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/20 ... -on-about/

Yay, more bad-blood in shooting, just what the sport needs.

This is not a criticism, but why do the NRA and F4I think they could take IPSC from the UKPSA? What do they have to offer over the organisation that has run practical shooting in the UK for ages?
This is an honest question, not a dig

I think the NRA are behaving in a disgraceful manner.

Demonic69 wrote:This is not a criticism, but why do the NRA and F4I think they could take IPSC from the UKPSA? What do they have to offer over the organisation that has run practical shooting in the UK for ages?
This is an honest question, not a dig

Demonic

First of all the NRA are the ones who are making the bid, four4islands found out about it when the NRA realeased details after the submission to IPSC had already been made, we (F4i) had no input into the document at all.

Secondly article 5.7 of the IPSC constitution specifically allows for a challenge to be made to control the franchise from within a region by a second organisation, once a bid meets the criteria, it is then put forward by the IPSC executive for a vote at a general assembly, (IPSC AGM) the regional directors from all the other nations then get to vote on whether or not a change is to happen, the UKPSA will have just one vote to cast, as will all the other regions who are eligable to vote

Clearly the NRA believe they can do a better job for the practical shooters of the UK than the UKPSA are doing or have done previously, everyone will have their own opinion of that but given some of the things that have been done in recent years by the current holders of the franchise, I believe any change would be a positive step.

I believe we would be better served by a larger organisation that owns its own range complex & has a greater number of clubs affiliated to it, unlike the UKPSA who do not own any ranges of their own & whose declared aim is to accumulate a large pot of money for an unknown purpose.

Also the NRA bid says access to events would not require membership meaning it would be cheaper to get involved with.

A change to the NRA would also force the various factions to find a way forward under one governing body.

Until four4islands came along the UKPSA had no direct competition, they have now been forced to get off their backsides & compete, the ones who benefit from that are of course the regular shooters.

However in the process they have also chosen the dark path of vengance in the form of expelling some members, this I find quite distastful.

If the NRA were to gain control it would be like a parent controling two squabling siblings & UKPSA & four4islands would have to just get on with it, win win in my book.


4I