Thread: The future of Rifle Ranges.

Originally Posted by ebf

Regarding the "officer on duty" thing for casual use.

It really does not need to be as complex as most guys are making it.

HVNZDA have been running a system for several years where we have an online "safe shooting" course. It basically checks knowledge of the range standing orders. We have made it a pre-requisite to getting a gate access fob. It has been mentioned as a working system at NZDA conferences, and the police have spoken about it in the range certification training courses.

In practical terms, if multiple people arrive to shoot on the range, they agree between themselves who will act as range officer. When that person leaves, he/she hands responsibility over to another person.

Police minimum requirement is that the OD has knowledge of the 12 points mentioned in the range manual. If your online course or whatever else you choose to implement covers that you should be fine.

When we run large/formal events, we have qualified/warranted ROs on duty. Hope that makes sense.

.... I think the issue some have with the rule changes relates to a lack of a problem in the first place - what issue was there previously? Most would argue - there was no issue, and so the changes are just bureaucratic over reach.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

.... I think the issue some have with the rule changes relates to a lack of a problem in the first place - what issue was there previously? Most would argue - there was no issue, and so the changes are just bureaucratic over reach.

I understand what you are saying, but we live in a brave new world...

The point I am making is : don't make it a bigger issue than it needs to be.

Going forward, the major concern I have is the lack of understanding by most range users about how target placement on a range floor affects ballistic safety.

Backstops / bullet catchers etc only really work if targets are placed in very specific positions at very specific heights. That is a far cry from the "let's just chuck out a target somewhere downrange and start shooting at it" ...

If you walk around most permanent ranges, the evidence of this is not hard to spot. Bits of glass where guys are shooting at bottles, brake rotors being used as targets etc. Furrows in the middle of the range floor...

Originally Posted by ebf

Going forward, the major concern I have is the lack of understanding by most range users about how target placement on a range floor affects ballistic safety.

Backstops / bullet catchers etc only really work if targets are placed in very specific positions at very specific heights. That is a far cry from the "let's just chuck out a target somewhere downrange and start shooting at it" ...

If you walk around most permanent ranges, the evidence of this is not hard to spot. Bits of glass where guys are shooting at bottles, brake rotors being used as targets etc. Furrows in the middle of the range floor...

That's the biggest issue. Getting range users to understand ballistics, range design and the effects of hard targets vs soft targets . Rather than just click I understand the range standing orders, I think a basic presentation then test needs to be done, simplified signage to point out the very basic and important information of the RSO at the ranges. So anyone cant say i didn't know.
Then anyone caught using wrong targets, wrong shooting positions or firing line etc, warned, take the test again. Do it again and good bye.
Anyone caught intentionally shooting outside of the backstops, at range infrastructure or other risky behavior should be told where to go and never come back.
Holding people to account for their actions

I would rather my kids do shooting sports than play rugby, Far safer. Generally ranges apply appropriate controls because the level of danger.
Rugby does things to reduce the risk of injury but its always there and even the risk of death and kids have died in nz playing Saturday morning games.

I think we should all support safety in our hobby / sport. But is the range certification over kill? Is it a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Probably in a lot of peoples eyes.