https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-se...o-clubs-ranges
Printable View
Well that could be an issue for those of us shooting low / medium power large calibres , 35's, 9.3 and 45-70. We can only shoot on the 50cal range while the long range uber mangnum 7mm and 30cals can shoot on the up to 308/8mm Cal T6 range.
Total Danger area distance from firing line,
T6 308and up to 8mm bore is 2900 Mt
T7 338cal is 3700 more
T8 50cal is 5200 mtr
Our fat dumpy heavy bullets have much lower BC's than the big heavy 7mm and 30cal bullets.
Z
Seeing the price of land now, it might be cheaper to have an indoor range than outdoor range with the two or 3 km of spare land behind it.
I've just been reading through it and topography cliffs, hills or being in a gully will be the salvation of many.
I realise its a pre release draft and there may be changes but on inital reading it seems unneccarily complicated and Several things are not clear at least to my mind
A/ the range control officer, seems they have to be trained/recognised by a national body representing the discipline in question. Where do unaffiliated and or private outfits sit.
B/ applications for range certifiers appear to only be accepted through national bodies why should private individuals not be permitted to do this.
C/ multi discipline outfits appear to require multiple certifications
D/ range templates are only listed for rifle (and pistol ranges which are already regulated) clay target and simulated field are omitted. Cancel that it's in the appendices
E/ costs mentioned but not detailed.
F/ it appears to be heavily time consuming and costly for estalished clubs and organisations and for the likes of gpre tlrs, nortrack, deerstalkers etc who hold events around the country on private land at differing venues it seems unmagable. The ad hoc sighting in "guidelines" make the obligations for clubs even more absurd.
I have a lot more reading of it to do in order of understand it fully but at first glance it's flawed. Hopefully public consultation will be meaningful this time (tui billboard idea)
I wish this was true but have a read of Section 5.10.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
56 degrees! You will need a cliff or a bluff!Quote:
On outdoor shooting ranges where the CofF is captured by the slope of a man-made structure or topographical feature the following is to be considered:
a. where the slope is less than 56 deg ricochet is to be considered and managed,
b. where the slope exceeds 56 deg the danger area is cut off at the point where the CofF intersects the slope establishing a RDA range.
I would guess most if not nearly all target shooting done on farms won't meet this requirement.
Will read with considerable interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krameranzac
GPM.
"With considerable dismay" could be more appropriateQuote:
Originally Posted by grandpamac
this all seems unnecessary and burdensome.....which sums up the woketards that penned it.
I see that the requirement to have all necessary territorial and regional authority consents to operate a range is included.
Does anyone here know if the clubs they belong to have such consents? I know of 4 that do and the costs incurred in doing so would have bankrupted them if they hadn't been metropolitan and had very large memberships to draw on.
I'm on the committee of a small club and am struggling to make headway with this mess, so any assistance would be appreciated greatly.
Greetings @Marty Henry,Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
Consents, where appropriate, have always been required for rifle ranges particularly Planning Consents so the clause in the Exposure Draft is more of a cover note and has no authority over the requirement of a consent. I applied for a Planning Consent for a 100 metre .22 range at our clubrooms back in the 1980's. Normal building, drainage an plumbing other consents have always been required. The actual Range Requirements don't seem drastically different to previous documents at first glance. The section on Ad Hoc ranges, to me, is a welcome addition. I have seen too many dangerously deficient private ranges in the past.
Regards Grandpamac.
Greetings @Gillie,Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillie
As I read it it is only the cone of fire and not the whole backstop that needs to be at 56 degrees. I have been working my way through the document. I have been looking primarily on how my Ad Hoc (Formerly known as Private Range) and I don't think complying will be any problem. Noise will be the big factor and I am onto that.
Regards Grandpamac.
That's great for you @grandpamac, but finding a natural 56 degree slope on most properties is not easy at all. You are also correct it is only the cone of fire that needs capture so if i had a target at 100m and based on a 20MIL cone of fire i would need a 4m by 4m area of slope at 56 degrees with the target placed in the center. At 300m this goes to a 12m by 12m area of slope at 56 degrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by grandpamac
Lets say at 500m i only do supported rifle shooting. The cone of fire drops to 15MIL - this equates to a 15m by 15m area of slope at 56 degrees with the target placed in the center....
Thanks for that @grandpamac I certainly have no issue with the building consents etc and certainly hope that is the only type of consent intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by grandpamac
Te indoor range you mention was built in the 1980s before the resource management act came into effect in 1991.
What I was specifically referring to was consents under the rma to "discharge contaminants to air and land" that could be applicable to outdoor ranges.
If this is the case it will force the closure of many established clubs. I have the approximate amounts such consents cost two clubs and little change is available from $100,000.
Perhaps the grandfather clause in the rma could be invoked but as one of those clubs had been in operation at the same location since long before the rma was dreamed up I'm not hopefully.
Maybe im being alarmist and should wait for the full thing. But with only 6 weeks for "consultation" once it's released best start thinking early.
The final note in the document sets the tone, after a list of working group contributors who were engaged in the preparation of the range manual it states that the final content is solely determined by the police.
Greetings @Gillie and @Marty Henry,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that compliance with the Resource Management Act could be the fly in the ointment for many Ranges, especially shotguns. This was already happening. The new Range Manual has little in it that was not alluded to in previous manuals from 1998 and 2005 plus some I have missed. The new manual just gives more detail of what is needed to comply. The main difference is in how Ranges are managed and by who which is already in the Act. It is obvious to me that the days of a small club having its own Range are numbered and more composite Ranges like the two I belong too are likely to be the way forward. It is hard for some of us to accept that but that is how it is. I don't know what Ranges there are in your respective areas but in Hawkes Bay there are two main ones plus an unofficial one, the gravel pit, that is unlikely to remain. As mentioned I have an An-hoc sighting in range at home which is used sparingly. Any load development is done either at SH50 or Taupo. Not my preferred option but that is how it is.
Regards Grandpamac.