Thread: The future of Rifle Ranges.

Originally Posted by ebf

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...

Greetings @ebf,
Thanks for the sound words in both this and previous posts. Whatever we may think of it range certification is now the law and unlikely to change. We just have to adapt and move on. Your notes on safe targets and their placement with respect to safety are really valid. Range registration is only a problem if people try to ignore it. The current rules on range safety are not new and much can be found in previous publications. It is the need for a person or organisation to be responsible for that range that is.
Regards Grandpamac.

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Range registration is only a problem if people try to ignore it.

Broadly yes, but where the system becomes too onerous or the bar is set so high that most volunteer run ranges have difficulty complying, I do see it being a problem...

Originally Posted by grandpamac

The current rules on range safety are not new and much can be found in previous publications. It is the need for a person or organisation to be responsible for that range that is.Regards Grandpamac.

From my perspective what is new is the following:

- Insistence from police that their version of the "truth" is the only acceptable one. Around Nov 2022 they suddenly dropped recognition of the discipline range manuals, I have still to see a reasonable argument for this. An NRANZ range should easily be able to use a 5 mil COF (effectively 1m dia cone at 100m). My understanding is that they will accept this, but of course the range manual only states 20 mil COF...
- Requiring field shooting ranges (farms) to comply with what is effectively "permanent range" criteria & design principles.
- Fundamentally failing to understand that most clubs and ranges are run by already stretched volunteers. I have major concerns about the willingness of people to serve on committees once the police start prosecuting people for club/range compliance issues.
- Requiring a single SRO to be responsible when in reality on most ranges the facility is shared between multiple clubs - some who may have very different styles of shooting. I had a very brief discussion about this with the head honcho of police clubs and ranges when I did the inspectors course - but he was far more interested in having a single person he could prosecute...

I've been through a recent range inspection by the newly formed police firearms regulator. From my point of view, the focus was almost solely on the contents of the standing orders (i.e. paperwork/documentation). I kinda got the feeling they realize that the physical requirements they have set for backstop / bullet catcher heights are way over the top - and seem to be willing to let that slide (for now). The distinct impression I got was that it is similar to Worksafe - a box ticking exercise until someone gets hurt. Then they come down on the company where the worker got injured like a ton of bricks... I think we will see something similar from the firearms safety authority.

Originally Posted by ebf

Broadly yes, but where the system becomes too onerous or the bar is set so high that most volunteer run ranges have difficulty complying, I do see it being a problem...



From my perspective what is new is the following:

- Insistence from police that their version of the "truth" is the only acceptable one. Around Nov 2022 they suddenly dropped recognition of the discipline range manuals, I have still to see a reasonable argument for this. An NRANZ range should easily be able to use a 5 mil COF (effectively 1m dia cone at 100m). My understanding is that they will accept this, but of course the range manual only states 20 mil COF...
- Requiring field shooting ranges (farms) to comply with what is effectively "permanent range" criteria & design principles.
- Fundamentally failing to understand that most clubs and ranges are run by already stretched volunteers. I have major concerns about the willingness of people to serve on committees once the police start prosecuting people for club/range compliance issues.
- Requiring a single SRO to be responsible when in reality on most ranges the facility is shared between multiple clubs - some who may have very different styles of shooting. I had a very brief discussion about this with the head honcho of police clubs and ranges when I did the inspectors course - but he was far more interested in having a single person he could prosecute...

I've been through a recent range inspection by the newly formed police firearms regulator. From my point of view, the focus was almost solely on the contents of the standing orders (i.e. paperwork/documentation). I kinda got the feeling they realize that the physical requirements they have set for backstop / bullet catcher heights are way over the top - and seem to be willing to let that slide (for now). The distinct impression I got was that it is similar to Worksafe - a box ticking exercise until someone gets hurt. Then they come down on the company where the worker got injured like a ton of bricks... I think we will see something similar from the firearms safety authority.

Greetings Again,
I had another look at the 2005 Police Range Manual. I have not done an extensive comparison but it seems that much of the detail is the same. The principal difference is that the new manual provides a means of compliance where the 2005 manual lists Items that need to be considered. Means of compliance are also found in the standards used in the building industry and are a broad brush to cover a lot of applications. In the building industry you are also able to use a specific design to allow for a narrower range of applications which gives a result less onerous than the means of compliance. I think that this is what is going on with the lesser cone of fire for NRANZ than the manual. The wider cone of fire cone of fire from the manual is probably more appropriate for a common or garden range and shooter. Some I have seen would struggle to achieve that.
Regards Grandpamac.