Background history of proficiency training.

[Watcher]

Guys,

I'm putting together our club's proficiency course and I wanted to check my understanding of how we got to this position.

Some shooters somewhere (Bisley?) started experimenting with solid bronze bullets. It was discovered that these did not have the same ricochet characteristics as normal rounds and therefore the danger templates were way too small. The MoD then became concerned that they didn't have sufficient control of civilian shooters and wanted to throw us all off their ranges. The NRA stepped forward to negotiate our position and this led to the requirement for proficiency certification, a ban on solid bullets and the need to zero HMV ammunition more vigorously. The emphasis on zeroing in general (in the NRA course) is also a product of the danger area concern.

Have I got that about right?

TIA

Watcher

[Sim G]

Didn't know about the bronze bullets. I believed it all stemmed from a new safety template computer program the MoD had had developed and because of this it was decreed that all of the safety areas were way too small. The rest, pretty much as you say, again from my understanding.

~I don't how good this program is, but it has had target shotgun stopped at Lydd and Hythe ranges, for civilian clubs, bevcause "12bore solid slug requires a larger danger area than .50BMG....."

[pe4king]

I don't how good this program is, but it has had target shotgun stopped at Lydd and Hythe ranges, for civilian clubs, bevcause "12bore solid slug requires a larger danger area than .50BMG....."

But it doesn't stop us from chucking F/O big chunks of lead from our muzzle loaders though does it, shows how crap the system is emrolleyes

[Blu]

But it doesn't stop us from chucking F/O big chunks of lead from our muzzle loaders though does it, shows how crap the system is emrolleyes

Put it this way, if me and the Missus ever decided to leave the US to live elsewhere, the UK wouldn't be one of the choices on the list.

Blu

[IainWR]

Sorry Watcher, but you are a bit off the mark.

The requirement for training stems originally from the conditions for approval of a club by the Home Office, which requires that "The probationary member must be given a course in the safe handling and use of firearms on a one-to-one basis". That is part of the fall-out of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

If you want to shoot on an MoD range, MoD require that such training be done by the relevant National Governing Body or to a syllabus approved by the NGB. That requirement arose mostly from the review of requirements for access to MoD ranges around the time that the management of said ranges was handed to a commercial company, which was shortly after the removal of Crown immunity from MoD's activities. Understandably, the commercial company, fearful of being sued for millions if there was an accident, wanted a supervisory process and audit trail that would enable them to put the liability elsewhere. MoD had a regulation that limited the power of firearms permitted on MoD Gallery Ranges. On revisting that regulation MoD decided to limit it to that needed for their own purposes, and arrived at a limit of 3800 J muzzle energy, which is what is needed for a 144gr 7.62x51 NATO bullet. The NRA led a renegotiation, which raised the limit to 4500 J (which is what is needed for a 155gr bullet at 3000 ft/sec plus a small margin for error) and at the same time negotiated a procedure for use of ME values up to 7000 J. Also, MoD wished to create an audit trail for competence of shooters that was conceptually similar to the Annual Weapons Proficiency Test carried out by military personnel, and thus the Shooter Competency Certificate was created and administered by the NRA - MoD were understandably not interested in doing it themselves and were definitely not prepared to negotiate with hundreds of clubs each issuing their own. Hence the multiple outcomes of NGB-trained RCOs, NGB-authorised SCCs, NGB-approved training courses and ME /MV limits designed around 7.62 firearms. While I don't think it was the case that the "MoD wanted to chuck us off their ranges" it was definitely the case that we either had to set up, administer and assure the validity of the process to maintain the supervisory and competence chain and the audit trail or we had to go away.

It is true that work has been done with monometallic bullets and that such bullets do indeed ricochet with less loss of stability and energy than lead-cored bullets. Also, because monometallic bullets are turned rather than cast or swaged, they can be made very accurately to very low-drag shapes, which means that their extreme range is much greater than for equivalent lead bullets. These factors have led to such projectiles being prohibited from many ranges (including Bisley), but that was not a significant factor in precipitating the MoD revision of regulations.

It is also true that some larger calibres are prohibited from some ranges. The best-known example is the prohibition of civilian use of .338 Lap Mag at Bisley. This is because the Air Danger Height for that bullet exceeds the height of the Danger Zone above Bisley ranges. MoD have a dispensation for their own personnel doing operational training, and accept the resultant residual risk. The NRA hasn't and doesn't.

The emphasis on zeroing is all about ensuring that your first shot (and by implication every one thereafter) goes in the stop butt. Although Gallery Ranges are designed to cope with some shots that hit the range floor and ricochet and with some shots that pass over the stop butt and impact somewhere in the Danger Area, all such shots represent a higher risk than one that goes into the sand where it should. Consequently, zero settings matter a lot in minimising risk. This is the same basis that leads to the NRA rule that requires (subject to some exceptions) your first shot to hit the target in competition - a rule which I am considering extending to be of general application. For firearm / ammo combinations that exceed the 4500 J limit, there is increased potential for a bullet that misses the stop butt to exit the Danger Area. The High Muzzle Energy Zero procedure is intended to ensure correct sight setting by an initial zero check at a distance where the bullet will hit the stop butt regardless of the sight setting applied before moving to longer ranges. I do acknowledge that the procedure is cumbersome, but negotiating a change is not anywhere near the top of our list of issues in our relationship with MoD.

Iain
NRA Range Safety Compliance Officer

[Watcher]

Iain,

Thank you; I do appreciate your spending a good chunk of your Saturday morning typing for my benefit!

W

[Mezzer]

Guys,

I'm putting together our club's proficiency course and I wanted to check my understanding of how we got to this position.

Some shooters somewhere (Bisley?) started experimenting with solid bronze bullets. It was discovered that these did not have the same ricochet characteristics as normal rounds and therefore the danger templates were way too small. The MoD then became concerned that they didn't have sufficient control of civilian shooters and wanted to throw us all off their ranges. The NRA stepped forward to negotiate our position and this led to the requirement for proficiency certification, a ban on solid bullets and the need to zero HMV ammunition more vigorously. The emphasis on zeroing in general (in the NRA course) is also a product of the danger area concern.

Have I got that about right?

TIA

Watcher

Watcher;
I have recently put together a shooter's proficiency programme which we have implemented at our club. I'd be happy to share with you if you are interested (if only to give you a few ideas etc).

Mezzer

[Watcher]

All help gratefully received!

[hitchphil]

Is it necessary to give the historical context? as i find it can come over a bit 'we were hard done by MOD' & just opens a pointless debate? It just raised negative arguments in our club - Might it be better to accept the situation as is & define how we remain compliant? So we have to work out a way of assuring we are compliant vs the scenarios we shoot & the best we have to do that is the Safe System of Shooting.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I (being mostly based at Bisley) show the google earth image of the camp & danger area & point out the ranges, directions of fire from NRA & Pirbright, houses & nominal danger area then I say its a 'Limited danger area range' & that means its effective / safe (ALARP) if the rules are followed. If not then rounds can go outside & if that happened its might threaten our tenure using the range. Then define the key rules: 70mils load on aim, handling safe directions, HME & why zeroing is good.

I don't go into techno arguments of MV/energy/bullet type vs this.

The only thing I say about MOD is we share the danger area with Pirbright & if we all stick to the rules then we assure our future use of the ranges because we reduce the risk of going out of the area & into some housing or over the M3 into that Golf course the one full of Royal Ascot types........

Most get that angle 1st time & are happy with it. Then move on to how to load on aim safely & range rules etc.......

[karen]

Is it necessary to give the historical context? as i find it can come over a bit 'we were hard done by MOD' & just opens a pointless debate?

Unfortunately yes as at the time lots of people blamed the NRA for this and I remember having a huge argument with someone who said the NRA had made it up just to get extra money in!

Love

Karen