The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

An unusual memo from the NRA... anyone know the reason behind it?

Mike95

I spotted that, seems a bit pointed whilst being overtly vague.

My guess is something has happened somewhere recently, and this is their tick-box coverall response.

The question would be what, where & when, but I doubt we'll be privvy to that.

What does it say?

shotgun sam wrote:What does it say?

Shooting on ranges away from the NSC Bisley
The NRA recognises that many individual members enjoy target shooting activity on privately owned ranges, ranges operated by Clubs and ranges operated by commercial enterprises.
Members are reminded that they must comply with the conditions under which their Firearm Certificate (FAC) is granted. Firearms and ammunition used for target shooting can only be used on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearm and with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim.
NRA members must familiarise themselves with range safety limits including the muzzle energy, muzzle velocity limits, safe engagement distances before commencing live firing. This information should be available in range procedures and range orders. Members must ensure that they hold adequate insurance cover for their shooting activity.
Club officials including range officers responsible for range bookings must ensure that the planned shooting activity complies with the safety limits of the range and that adequate insurance cover is in place. Further clarification should be obtained from the range operator before any live firing commences.
Nic Couldrey
Regional Ranges Manager

In short-check where your shooting is suitable/legal/insured and covered by your FAC conditions etc.

Two reasons;

1. General ass covering
2. Some FAC's were revoked in lockdown from shooters target shooting on land that (depending on who you believe) they either had no permission for or they had permission for vermin not target shooting.

The rumours are more complicated in that there was a view given that they were using section 1 shotguns to make up their own little cof and have some fun but as the land technically hadnt been signed off as a range that was grounds for revocation.

Thorney wrote:Two reasons;

1. General ass covering
2. Some FAC's were revoked in lockdown from shooters target shooting on land that (depending on who you believe) they either had no permission for or they had permission for vermin not target shooting.

The rumours are more complicated in that there was a view given that they were using section 1 shotguns to make up their own little cof and have some fun but as the land technically hadnt been signed off as a range that was grounds for revocation.

Not a family team by any chance?

RDC wrote:

Thorney wrote:Two reasons;

1. General ass covering
2. Some FAC's were revoked in lockdown from shooters target shooting on land that (depending on who you believe) they either had no permission for or they had permission for vermin not target shooting.

The rumours are more complicated in that there was a view given that they were using section 1 shotguns to make up their own little cof and have some fun but as the land technically hadnt been signed off as a range that was grounds for revocation.

Not a family team by any chance?

No idea, I got the info third hand so very likely a set of half truths

The FB page had mention of someone using HME on a non-HME approved Range - another possible reason which would make sense.
Who knows for sure...??

I'm thinking the new very precise competitions at often great distances may be part of the thinking behind this.