Thread: The future of Rifle Ranges.

Originally Posted by Jhon

You don't I believe need an approved range for "sighting in". Correct me if I'm wrong. Its bin a while since I read the new regs but I believe they only apply to "formal" ranges -the main part of the legal definition of "formal" being around organised membership (Clubs) or public use, and targets being left in place over night, running events etc. If you are just a small group of 2-3 mates and you get together to sight your rifles in (load testing) any sensible gully or big hillside will do. Yes you need legal access on private land. That's a prob in big smokes but that is also why clubs with ranges exist. The well established big city ranges are well and truly across the new requirements.

Its the little clubs in small towns and rural NZ that have the compliance and cost problem. They also often have membership and survival-as-clubs problems. Frankly some would be better off disbanding as an organization with membership etc, stop calling where they shoot a range, and just come together as mates in 2s and 3s to "sight in". Word of mouth will accommodate youngsters starting out needing to "sight in" also. Oh, and don't leave targets up overnight. Probably sell the clubhouse off too, or put some haybales in it. No more AGMs, Incorporated Society Reporting, Club Accounts & Minutes, Elections or AGMs. Just shooting and reloading and hunting. Of course if you love your Club you will get stuck into the now necessary compliance.

My "sighting in" and load dev is done using 6" steel gongs rated for 30 cal @100m. I can hang them on any wire fence. A large sheet of appliance box cardboard held in place with a couple of electric fence standards tells me where I'm missing lol. Or how I'm grouping. Eminently portable. Great with a buddy or two. Can go anywhere I have permission and is sensibly safe to shoot. I shoot same as I do hunting, off sticks, a strainer post, leaning on a tree or off the bonnet of mates truck (don't like scratching mine)

Having said that, I also belong to 3 shooting clubs with 100m, 220m and 700m formal registered ranges, Pistol and NZDA, all with organised shoots. Sometimes tho life is more simple on your own.

Yes it's the small rural clubs that face extinction they often started as people got sick of lugging hay bales, traps,and steel targets from place to place so arranges somewhere local on a farm to set up. It grows over the years and formally becomes a club to "regulate activities and membership". It becomes one if the recreational activities and social centres for it's local community like a rugby club or gold club. It's members are enthusiastic but lack the skills and time required to navigate and complete the process, find people willing to be certified as ros or take committee positions in this "new utopia" The future looks bleak in many ways.

Greetings Again All,
Hawkes Bay was well served while the Roy's Hill range was open. This closed in the 1990's and rifle range provision has been patchy in HB since. All the mounds and the markers gallery seem to still be in place but there were concerns about the back stop from memory. Houses are creeping over the hill not far from the butts which has likely sealed the fate of the range.
The areas where ranges are likely to survive have multiple clubs on the same site with Taupo and Tokoroa being examples I have visited. I refuse to believe that a decent shooting complex can not be achieved in HB but it is likely to take cooperation of all the clubs and likely input from the local Councils. I see no sign of that yet. Perhaps the range closures may change this. Lets hope so.
Regards Grandpamac.

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...

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.

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 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.

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!!

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

Many small country clubs will have formed before council amalgamation abolished the old county councils. Finding records for these if they ever existed anyway would be problematic.
Anyway wouldn't these be covered by existing use and grandfather clauses in the RMA if actual documents were needed. Asking as a local club is wondering about this