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.

Obviously different NZDA ranges have different rules. Some do not allow casual shooting...

@ebf Much the same at my club except if multiple shooers arrive the agreed RO must be non shooting and he has his turn when someone else assumes the roll, again as a non shooter.

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.

Originally Posted by Doghead

I may have missed it (or forgotten) - BUT has anybody being injured or killed on a rifle range, OR killed/injured by a stray bullet orginating from a rifle range.

IF NOT - then someone has clearly missed the basic cost-benefit analysis.

You cannot best dumb, and dumb is what it is, ideology not facts.
Good to have some training, although I’ve never had a problem at Taupo, why, because you have to talk to the other shooter there on the day, or going forward becomes dangerous. Met many good guys with a common interest when there.

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 Doghead

I may have missed it (or forgotten) - BUT has anybody being injured or killed on a rifle range, OR killed/injured by a stray bullet orginating from a rifle range.

IF NOT - then someone has clearly missed the basic cost-benefit analysis.

NZDA Auckland a long long time ago had someone injure/break a leg by slipping on a muddy slope but never any firearms accidents or ND's causing injury/death.

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.

None of it really matters. The rules delibrately difficult to comply with so fal holders give up trying and thus give up their hobby making the country safer!!

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.

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Yes well done.
If Wairoa, with it's tiny population, can get their act together then the Napier Hastings area with ten times the population should be able to.
Regards Grandpamac.

I think something in this discussion has been missed, you also need all "Council Conscents" in place to my knowledge? Whilst many may fall under existing use categories and no problem in some districts where they understand to try and cater for all constients. Other areas the lengths councils have gone to shut clubs has just seemed to fall in line with current govts overall agendas around sports they don't approve of.

It's not an easy road but it is achievable. There is alot of work be hind the scenes with resource consent range construction signage and range standing orders but the most difficult part I have encountered so far is informing the ignorant, predujucice or those that have no idea that having a range is not dangerous and there are rules and regulations to follow and are now governed as a national standard. In my opinion this is were we as a community or gathering of enthusiasts need to get the message out and get the negative spotlight off our backs.

Originally Posted by country cuts

It's not an easy road but it is achievable. There is alot of work be hind the scenes with resource consent range construction signage and range standing orders but the most difficult part I have encountered so far is informing the ignorant, predujucice or those that have no idea that having a range is not dangerous and there are rules and regulations to follow and are now governed as a national standard. In my opinion this is were we as a community or gathering of enthusiasts need to get the message out and get the negative spotlight off our backs.

I'm glad you have had success for all your hard work but also don't assume once you have achieved something someone new gets into council and the rules or playing field changes on you. A property changes hands to a wealthy overseas wokester for example.
Even if you are right, can become very expensive to fight these battles.

Awesome that you have set up a range and trying to move things forward. Especially having ability to do a 200m zero and possibly pistol. Your community will have a lot of fun with that!

Originally Posted by jackson21

I'm glad you have had success for all your hard work but also don't assume once you have achieved something someone new gets into council and the rules or playing field changes on you. A property changes hands to a wealthy overseas wokester for example.
Even if you are right, can become very expensive to fight these battles.

Awesome that you have set up a range and trying to move things forward. Especially having ability to do a 200m zero and possibly pistol. Your community will have a lot of fun with that!

Thanks we have been lucky and the private land we are on has been surveyed and gifted on along term lease. I hear what you are saying though and will keep on top of things as they pop up

Originally Posted by jackson21

I think something in this discussion has been missed, you also need all "Council Conscents" in place to my knowledge? Whilst many may fall under existing use categories and no problem in some districts where they understand to try and cater for all constients. Other areas the lengths councils have gone to shut clubs has just seemed to fall in line with current govts overall agendas around sports they don't approve of.

The range certification process requires the range operator acknowledge they have all necessary Local Territory Consents. For a new permanent range (i.e. doesn't fall under existing use) with build firing lines, berms, buildings, infrastructure, etc. this will likely need building and earthworks consents.
For a new range that just has some target frames out and no substantial infrastructure (i.e. more of a field range) then in many areas shooting is considered a legitimate secondary land use for farmland (i.e. range doesn't change the primary land use in the eyes of the Council hence no consent required.

Overall my view on range certification is that it is bureaucracy because the bureaucracy knows nothing else - it is driven by Police perception and a Government that didn't listen to actual users. Historical incident rates prove existing ranges (including "unofficial" target shooting on farms) don't have problems - and they haven't had a certification regime either. Range certification is therefore a complete waste of taxpayer, and range operator money.

For example how will the effectiveness of the money spent be measured in 5 years time? By a reduced incident rate?
But there isn't a measurable incident rate at the moment?

Originally Posted by Gillie

The range certification process requires the range operator acknowledge they have all necessary Local Territory Consents. For a new permanent range (i.e. doesn't fall under existing use) with build firing lines, berms, buildings, infrastructure, etc. this will likely need building and earthworks consents.
For a new range that just has some target frames out and no substantial infrastructure (i.e. more of a field range) then in many areas shooting is considered a legitimate secondary land use for farmland (i.e. range doesn't change the primary land use in the eyes of the Council hence no consent required.

Overall my view on range certification is that it is bureaucracy because the bureaucracy knows nothing else - it is driven by Police perception and a Government that didn't listen to actual users. Historical incident rates prove existing ranges (including "unofficial" target shooting on farms) don't have problems - and they haven't had a certification regime either. Range certification is therefore a complete waste of taxpayer, and range operator money.

For example how will the effectiveness of the money spent be measured in 5 years time? By a reduced incident rate?
But there isn't a measurable incident rate at the moment?

Totally agree. This should have been a process to encourage people to join clubs & organisations to teach best practices. Using participating users of what would practically work in this country and achieve whatever goal they are trying to achieve?

Cynically to me it is just yet another Trojan horse by bureaucrats in part of a wider agenda to wind down and severely limit firearms use in New Zealand through economics.

Make every part of shooting sports expensive, cumbersome and hard so numbers dwindle over time. Eventually death by a thousand cuts you have a tiny group that politically then you can do what you want with.