Thread: Rifle range in Hastings in trouble ?

Originally Posted by 30.06king

Yeah ..... I'm sure that slow projectiles "bouncing" off the tyre wall happens all the time and everybody desperately wants to keep it hush-hush so nobody is saying anything about it .....

...benefit of the doubt: I'm sure you have a point.
Whatever your point is, it may be relevant for some ranges, probably not in this case.
Your comment suggests you have not visited this range.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

...benefit of the doubt: I'm sure you have a point.
Whatever your point is, it may be relevant for some ranges, probably not in this case.
Your comment suggests you have not visited this range.

Correct, I have not visited this range. So maybe my comment is out of context.
My point is I suspect that potential bullet "bounce" is more an imagined than actual problem and it seems, to me, a dubious reason for shuttering this range as "non compliant". However, I admit no expertise on this and fall back only on my own experiences of shooting against tyre wall backstops without issue ( even with 22LR ) and in wider context neither have I heard of a single problem, ever.
However, we have the new regs now and ranges must comply. Too late for bitching now and work must be done to satisfy the guys who certify ranges for use. In the end though, I ask myself, how much safer have we made ourselves now compared to the almost or actual completely safe operation ranges up and down the country have exhibited for many, many years.

Originally Posted by 30.06king

My point is I suspect that potential bullet "bounce" is more an imagined than actual problem and it seems, to me, a dubious reason for shuttering this range as "non compliant". However, I admit no expertise on this and fall back only on my own experiences of shooting against tyre wall backstops without issue ( even with 22LR ) and in wider context neither have I heard of a single problem, ever.
However, we have the new regs now and ranges must comply. Too late for bitching now and work must be done to satisfy the guys who certify ranges for use. In the end though, I ask myself, how much safer have we made ourselves now compared to the almost or actual completely safe operation ranges up and down the country have exhibited for many, many years.

The main two technical guys in the range design/safety area at FSA are very experienced with military ranges and have great experience with backstop materials and the problems and benefits associated with them. The tyre wall backstop thing was discussed with them more than a few times by the national shooting organisations.
I am not personally aware of an incident of projectiles "bouncing" off the tyres but these guys were. I can only assume it is a very low likelihood event - which speaks more to the underlying risk acceptance part of the range certification regime.

I do agree with your last point though - I don't see how FSA will be able to demonstrate the safety benefits of the range certification regime (and justify the expense) if the "currently non-existent" incident rate doesn't drop even further...

Originally Posted by Gillie

The main two technical guys in the range design/safety area at FSA are very experienced with military ranges and have great experience with backstop materials and the problems and benefits associated with them. The tyre wall backstop thing was discussed with them more than a few times by the national shooting organisations.
I am not personally aware of an incident of projectiles "bouncing" off the tyres but these guys were. I can only assume it is a very low likelihood event - which speaks more to the underlying risk acceptance part of the range certification regime.

I do agree with your last point though - I don't see how FSA will be able to demonstrate the safety benefits of the range certification regime (and justify the expense) if the "currently non-existent" incident rate doesn't drop even further...

And I can't see the certification of ranges lowering the rate the police shoot themselves, that is down to the Police person handling the firearm, but perhaps they can now charge the acting RO.

Will we ever see the statistics that show ranges are now a safer place because of these new laws and regulations, and given the low incidents on ranges being so successful when are they going to apply the same regulations and laws to the way our roads are built and maintained? That would save more lives than the firearms, clubs and ranges laws and regulations.

Originally Posted by 19Badger

And I can't see the certification of ranges lowering the rate the police shoot themselves, that is down to the Police person handling the firearm, but perhaps they can now charge the acting RO.

I am fairly sure the Police are not subject to the current range certification regime... neither are Defense Force. I don't know how it works in practice with Police using civilian ranges and how much they need to comply with the now mandated RSO and OoD requirement.

Originally Posted by Gillie

I am fairly sure the Police are not subject to the current range certification regime... neither are Defense Force. I don't know how it works in practice with Police using civilian ranges and how much they need to comply with the now mandated RSO and OoD requirement.

Police must comply with Range Standing Orders. The End.

Originally Posted by BSA

Police must comply with Range Standing Orders. The End.

Which is why in years gone by the Police have been kicked off NZDF ranges....for not complying with Range Standing Orders.

I am surprised that any range is now permitting Police to use their facilities. With the amount of grief they have delivered to the firearms community, I would think that it was high time they (the organisation, not the individual members) were encumbered with having to build and maintain their own facilities.

Originally Posted by Gillie

I am fairly sure the Police are not subject to the current range certification regime... neither are Defense Force. I don't know how it works in practice with Police using civilian ranges and how much they need to comply with the now mandated RSO and OoD requirement.

The Defense Forces are subject to the law and have Military Manuals which cover all range types , shooting in box & short long & explosive etc ,and have had them for ever and a day . They cover a lot of the usual and things like placing explosive ranges at least 1.5 km from historical buildings etc .
The NZDF is not what civvies think it is and those Majors only get their rank so they can supposedly talk to the big boys with some authority.