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

To confirm, the MOD requirements for a range are so discordant for a civilian range I am unable to understand where the idea they are MOD ranges came from? Can you explain further please?

The origin of the RCO course (NOT RSO) meant if the NRA hadn’t negotiated with the MOD to create a qualification that was approved by the MOD, civilian shooting on MOD ranges would have been confined to the history books. The RCO is a bolt on to the civilian RSO. Both have variances and it is right you do the RSO before completing the RCO (my opinion having completed the RSO and now moving onto the RCO).

And to close you down your ‘free choice’ comment. It was the MOD’s ‘free choice’ to state what the rules were to use their ranges. The NRA, thankfully, got the MOD to agree work arounds for civilian shooters. The administration of SCC’s looks a nightmare going by how many people apply for!

You can also thank the NRA for negotiating with the HSE on the outright lead ban. Nothing is perfect but we are still shooting it are we not?

Finally, the NRA is a charity. Its capacity to be a lobbying political animal isn’t in the constitution approved by the charity commission. Instead, its way of negotiating the shooting landscape is clearly more education based as a way of protecting our privileges.

I think it is to do with the shared danger area more than anything else. So what happens on the range is NRA run as long as it conforms to MoD rules as far as the danger area goes.

That's my understanding of it, but I'm sure Iain will be back to put me right or at least explain it better.

dromia wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 6:30 am Maybe if the NRA did its job properly in representing gun ownership and shooters in claiming to be a "national" organisation then we wouldn't be subject these daft conditions imposed by the MoD who don't want civilian shooters on their ranges anyway.

The only reason the NRA does this is because Bisley is an MoD range, if it wasn't then the NRA wouldn't bother their arse for the rest of this country.

UK gun ownership is on it's knees, in decline and withering on the vine directly due to the ineffectiveness and uselessness of our "National" bodies that do bugger all except line their pockets at members expense and look after their own vested interest.

This isn't just an opinion, look out the window at the state of British shooting and it is the evidence of the NRA ineffectiveness and inadequacy.

These petty MoD conditions embraced with alacrity by the NRA is just more of this.

Its not just an NRA problem , its a grass roots problem in some areas .

When you have club officials who are against most forms of shooting (honest) what can you expect .

Their arguement is firearms shooting is dieing , so why should we do anything to keep it alive that we dont have to do .

Well no response from the NRA.

Back in the day when I shot at Bisley the understanding from NRA people was that everything beyond the firing points at Bisley came under MoD purview and that the NRA had to comply with MoD range requirements which had to be at the core of all range control.

Hence the NRA's need to comply with any MoD demand, if it wasn't the case I doubt very much the NRA would be so focussed on meeting MoD requirements for those of us who have to use MoD ranges.

If this has now changed then I am quite prepared to stand corrected.

Concerning complacency/defeatism, of course it is across the shooting spectrum. Part of that is the sense of let down most shooters have because none of our "National" organisations do anything effective in defending and promoting gun ownership.

"National organisations should be taking the lead by being effective, fighting the good fight and being a model for shooters, but no all they are interested in is the own vested interest and fiefdoms.

I am also sick to death hearing about how charitable status is what has cut the balls of the NRA. If there were any balls left then charitable status can be changed to allow the NRA to effectively fill a "National" role championing shooting.

The fact is that legal gun ownership is a political football and that where any "policy" interface exists. Unless an organisation that claims to represent shooters is prepared and able to engage with that in a pro-active, not a supplicant, manner then they of no use to shooters.

The NRA could avoid all this flak if it would just admit that it is Bisley Shooting Club and not masquerade as a national organisation representing shooters who don't use Bisley.

I suppose that would compromise their "charitable" status, not that I see much charity coming from the NRA, as shooting clubs non longer get charitable status.

By claiming a national status that it fails to fulfil is just creating a rod for its own back.

As my previous post, to disregard what the NRA bring to the table is really (I feel) linked to them not communicating better what they are involved in as a national body.For example, if it wasn’t for them, I do wonder who would have dealt with the HSE and lead issues?

Aye well I am sure they go through the motions but if they seriously want stop the rot and decline of British shooting and gun ownership then they are going to have to do a damn sight better, show some leadership and exponentially up their game from what they have done over the past decades that I have been misguidedly a member.

The odd accommodation is just Pyrrhic in the context of all else falling down around us!

They just can't see or admit that they are part of the problem