Cybershooters Forum Index Cybershooters
The internet's leading source of information for shooters
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Backdoor ban on large calibre rifles?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Target Shooting
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
franchi



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 84
Location: North Manchester

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="cybershooters"]I got a response from Glynn, he said discussions are continuing and is somewhat hopeful of a positive resolution, whatever that means.quote]

i think we will find that the limit will be raised slightly so the nra members can shoot 150g bullets at bisley.

they will not give a fig about anyone shooting any larger calibre weapons, any calibre that produces more engery than they need in their competitions, and certainly no private ranges!

if people really want nra to help, they need to threaten to pull their club affiliations away not their personal membership.

without all the association funds every year, the nra will soon become financially, what it has been in reality for many years. the bisley target shooting club

if this, or any other, limit is brought in anyone who shoots outside of bisley is screwed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JonathanL
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1013
Location: North East

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Potential Serious Problems for Civilian Shooters

Update 14 November
Muzzle Energy Update
There has long been a relationship between the military and the NRA which dates back to the origins of the Association. However, over the last forty years that relationship has changed dramatically from one where the NRA was directly supported and subsidised by the MoD to one where the military are independent of the Association.

This has been a necessary change by the MoD as relationships and defence imperatives have changed. The military are focusing more and more on their core business, defence, and less on ceremonial aspects of their former roles.

The reason this has occurred is that the military have increasingly come under the control of central government who interfere not only at the policy level but sometimes operationally. In consequence the senior officers of our military have less control over decisions than previously. To be successful they have to deal with tight budgets and manage finite resources, while meeting the UK's defence requirements.

Currently our relationship with the MoD is good in that they use Bisley to conduct their national competitions for regular, reserve and cadet forces. Even here, though, they have had to tighten their belts, cutting back next year on the length of their meeting on cost grounds. The Army regularly use Bisley for training as well, all of which they pay for.

The ranges at Bisley are leased from the MoD on a long-term lease.

UK wide we have agreements with the MoD, which allow civilian clubs, affiliated to the NRA access to military ranges.

In terms of regulation the MoD has full authority to set the conditions for use of British military ranges (including Bisley, since we use the Pirbright military Range Danger Area) both in the UK and abroad.

Basically they are in a position to decide what, how, when and whether any civilian will fire on a military range. As the acknowledged experts in the UK they also influence the conditions that are present on all other ranges - pretty well world-wide. This is because the Police and Home Office are comfortable with military authority and advice. Going forward it is likely that any conditions that feature on a military range on the basis of safety will soon be required elsewhere, including civilian-owned ranges.

In terms of the current problems with the lowering of muzzle energy levels, because of difficulties with the new .338 sniper rifle, the military have conducted tests that show there is a potential, as far as they are concerned, for bullets with muzzle energies in excess of 3800 Joules to leave the range danger area. On the basis of safety they have set the new 3800 Joules standard. As previously notified we are currently discussing ways that civilians can continue to use MoD ranges using the firearms and ammunition as now.

It is essential that we maintain our relationship with the MoD going forward to ensure civilians can continue to shoot on military ranges. A good relationship is essential.

Unfortunately there are forces beyond our control, namely rogue shooters who are not willing to accept the authority of the NRA to deal with this issue in timely fashion without interference.

Er, screw you mate! How dare you suggest that the NRA has ANY authority to insist that I allow them to speak for me. I'm not a member, have no intention of becoming one - unless it's unavoidable, and only have anything to do with them because I have to be in an affilliated club.

I understand and accept that people are worried, but is it really a good plan to ring up the OIC at Altcar and give him a piece of ones mind, then threaten him with legal action, when he is the individual who will decide who shoots there, and under what conditions? I think not.

Is it a good idea to put an allegation on the Prime Ministers website, blaming the Government for reducing the muzzle energy on MoD ranges, then to ask shooters to vote for the return to previous levels? The change in muzzle energy was nothing whatsoever to do with the Government. The Government would not even have known about the change, much less been involved. However, they do know now! What if they decide to direct the MoD to stick rigidly to their decision and not allow anything to be shot over 3800 Joules? Fortunately they probably have other things on their minds at present.

However, if this continues it will have the potential to sour relations between civilian shooters and the MoD generally. If this happens you will probably be still able to shoot on military ranges but only under 3800 Joules.

Big deal. There is no way the MOD are going to change at the behest of the NRA anyway. It's the MOD who have soured relations by issuing dictats with no consultation, or the provision of any evidence as to danger, as far as I can see.


The NRA is working hard to keep you all shooting on MoD ranges. To succeed we need your fullest support. We are being quite open about the discussions we are having and the probable implications of them. I accept some proposals are not popular but we have to accept the military own and control most of the ranges in the UK and have authority to set any condition they choose.

Bend over chaps and take it like men.

The NRA is hopeful of a successful outcome for us all. Please let us 'get on with the job' and stop acting in ways, which can only alienate the military who are, believe it or not, on our side!

When it's agreed in 3 weeks that the military will get their way at 3800J, will there be an announcement underneath the clock-tower at Bisley involving someone waving a piece of paper in the air telling us all the Government have promised a permenant end to hostillities toward shooting?

Glynn Alger
Secretary General


J.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the moral of the story is that if you depend on a third party like the Army for your range time, they've got you by the balls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oddbod



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 310

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you believe the NRA will do much more than roll over & play dead, then I have $12 million in a Nigerian bank I need your help to move......


Glynn Alger needs to wake up to the genuine anger this ruling has generated & NOT attack fellow shooters for voicing their views - no matter how outspoken.

I still remember the NRA's treachery over semi automatic rifles Mad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4631

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JonathanL wrote:
They bloody well should do. How many British and Commonwealth military lives have been saved because the British armed forces have the Worlds best sniping rifle - designed by civillians? How many have been lost because they have the worst infantry weapon - which wasn't designed by shooters? Not to mention the billions of pounds wasted in development because it was so bad that no one else bought it?

J.


Which basically tells you all you need to know about the mentality you're dealing with.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4631

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

franchi wrote:
i think we will find that the limit will be raised slightly so the nra members can shoot 150g bullets at bisley.


155gr. I'm sure the vast bulk of civilian target shooting with rifle calibre centrefire rifles probably is with 5.56mm, .303 and 7.62mm, so I have some sympathy with the idea of moving the MoD slightly so that those calibres are unaffected (and most loads in those calibres wouldn't be, we're talking about certain 7.62mm loads when you limit it to those three calibres). As Alex pointed out, you can't shoot stuff like .338 or .50 at Bisley anyway and there never have been many ranges where you could, so what would we be talking about in terms of the effect of some new range regulation on stuff more powerful than common 7.62mm loads?

What ranges previously allowed things like .300 Win. Mag. and wouldn't allow them now as per the MoD's change of mind? Anyone know?
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4631

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oddbod wrote:
I still remember the NRA's treachery over semi automatic rifles Mad


This is not a unique situation to the UK though, I still meet people down at Bisley who have come over from the Netherlands or Belgium because range access is so limited there. In Spain it's next to impossible also. And they had a similar fiasco in New Zealand not long ago.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
NeilMac



Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: UK Midlands

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oddbod wrote:
If you believe the NRA will do much more than roll over & play dead, then I have $12 million in a Nigerian bank I need your help to move......


Glynn Alger needs to wake up to the genuine anger this ruling has generated
& NOT attack fellow shooters for voicing their views - no matter how outspoken.

I still remember the NRA's treachery over semi automatic rifles Mad


Wrong. Glynn Alger needs to resign.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeilMac



Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: UK Midlands

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
franchi wrote:
i think we will find that the limit will be raised slightly so the nra members can shoot 150g bullets at bisley.


155gr. I'm sure the vast bulk of civilian target shooting with rifle calibre centrefire rifles probably is with 5.56mm, .303 and 7.62mm, so I have some sympathy with the idea of moving the MoD slightly so that those calibres are unaffected (and most loads in those calibres wouldn't be, we're talking about certain 7.62mm loads when you limit it to those three calibres). As Alex pointed out, you can't shoot stuff like .338 or .50 at Bisley anyway and there never have been many ranges where you could, so what would we be talking about in terms of the effect of some new range regulation on stuff more powerful than common 7.62mm loads?

What ranges previously allowed things like .300 Win. Mag. and wouldn't allow them now as per the MoD's change of mind? Anyone know?


Well you're wrong. You always could shoot 338 lap mag and similar at Bisley and on other MoD ranges until the ban on 338 Lap Mag specifically came in about 18 months ago. Even, then, you could shoot something ballistically identical to 338 Lap mag as long as it was called something else.

The NATO standard for 146 grain ball (probably fired from a 20-22" barrel) is 93 feet per second below the 3800 joule limit. You can get that much variation from rifle to rifle let alone with varying barometric and temperature conditions. MoD have had a bit of a fright over an incident, decided that anything over 7.62 is too worrying and looked up the theoretical numbers for L42 A1 155 grain rounds from the L96 and said "That is the exact limit"

No science was involved.

The senior management at the NRA, having no technical expertise themselves and having employed a "so called" expert who is unable to justify his own parameters to the MoD are left with no scientific argument to rebuff the MoD stance and so fall back on their usual ploy of " let's not make a fuss, sell everybody out but try to save TR for the Surrey members."

They sold us out in 1958, 1988, 1997 and they are doing it again now.

Shame on them.

Lord Elcho must be turning in his grave.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4631

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, when it comes to Glynn Alger, the problem he has is that he's not from a shooting background. However, the advantage he has is also that he's not from a shooting background.

Which makes him a more competent administrator than Colin Cheshire ever was but less adept when it comes to anything technical like this.

I know everyone wants to complain about the NRA, but I have no doubt if Colin Cheshire were still in charge, the first we would hear about this is when Alex or someone posted here telling us that they'd just seen TR shooters having to zero at 200 yards because of some silly new rule the NRA had just introduced.

Glynn is better at getting the word out, it's just the technical details he falls over on. I just hope the NRA have got someone with the technical details talking to the MoD. I have to say I'd be astonished if the MoD didn't move slightly upwards to accomodate 155gr loads out of slightly longer barrels, which is no doubt what the NRA is hoping for.

The real question to my mind (and has been for a pretty long time actually) is how many target shooters actually have on their FACs rifles that would normally be used with loads more powerful than the 155gr Palma load, and actually use them on a regular basis?

I've been wondering this ever since conditions started appearing on FACs about 10,000 ft/lb ME limits.

A 4000J limit for example doesn't affect that many disciplines, 1,000 yard benchrest maybe, PR out to long ranges with fairly exotic stuff, etc.

I know none of us want more regulations, but it would be nice to know the scale of the problem. If the MoD want shooters using pretty exotic high-end stuff to have a bit more training, how much of a problem would that be, precisely? Because I can pretty much guarantee the bureaucrats at the MoD are not going to back down from this 3800J limit in the short term. Maybe very slightly but not much.

Look at this way, maybe if there is an agreement about training, then perhaps the MoD will be open to .338 Lapua Magnum being used again.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
NeilMac



Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: UK Midlands

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

8mm Mauser exotic? i don't think so.

If MoD hadn't cancelled our range day today I had been planning to obtain true muzzle velocities from a variety of common calibre/ barrel length combinations and post them up. I have already begun to develop a list that indicates max velocity for any bullet weight. I shall make this available to NRA although frankly they ought to have done this already.

Glynn Alger's problem is that he wants tight control over everything NRA members do. I'm all for people getting training and our club runs a comprehensive training course. He wants mandatory training and "shooters logbook" that will detail which calibres of rifle they are considered competent to fire.
He proposed this years back and is using the current situation to push it forward again.

More than anything else his mission to irrevocably destroy the NRA by turning it into a sports club is one I cannot accept. Of course he wouldn't know anything about Defence of the Realm because as far as I know he never served.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
franchi



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 84
Location: North Manchester

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sniper Rifle L96
Calibre: 7.62mm
Weight: 6.5kg
Length: (adjustable) 1124-1194mm
Muzzle velocity: 838m/s
Feed: 10-round box
Effective range: 900m, harassing fire 1100m

Long Range Rifle L115A3
Calibre: 8.59mm
Weight: 6.8kg
Length: 1300mm
Muzzle velocity: 936m/s
Feed: 5-round box
Effective range: 1100m plus

anyone know whether the new L115A3 will come under the 3800j ruling? could be slightly embarrassing if it does not!

150g or 155g it matters not. the point is that the nra will try to raise the limit just enough so THEY can continue to shoot in THEIR competitions. i know far more shooter that shoot for fun when they hire an mod range, that i know shooters that shoot nra competitions.

try taking a trip to sennybridge or warcop when the 50 cal club are there. you will see plenty of 300 magnums, 338's, even 8mm mausers being used for long distance target work. none of them are being used in nra competitions!

we are gonna get screwed again. if this comes in its time for all clubs to refuse to renew their nra affiliation. let the surrey shooters know that we are just as important as them!

btw neil, just because this chap has not served does not mean he does not know anything about defence of the realm. this is not about him not being ex-forces, its about him being thick!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeilMac



Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: UK Midlands

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

338 lap Magnum is way over 3800 joules.

146 grain 7.62 Ball is within 93 fps of exceeding the limit and that's from a short barrel, let alone a sniper rifle.

I'll post full details when I can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeilMac



Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: UK Midlands

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry about the formatting but here's a table showing the limiting velocities for various weights of bullet:

Energy Ft lbs / Energy Joules / Bullet weight / MOD velocity Limit / Remarks on Bullet weight
2802 3800 55 4790 Typical 223
2802 3800 62 4512 5.56 Nato
2802 3800 100 3552
2802 3800 110 3387
2802 3800 120 3243
2802 3800 130 3116
2802 3800 140 3002
2802 3800 146 2940 7.62 nato Ball L2A2
2802 3800 150 2901
2802 3800 155 2853 Radway Green Sniper/match L42A1
2802 3800 168 2741 Sierra Match King 308
2802 3800 174 2693 303 MK VII
2802 3800 180 2648
2802 3800 185 2612
2802 3800 190 2577
2802 3800 200 2512
2802 3800 215 2423
2802 3800 230 2342
2802 3800 250 2247 338 Lapua Magnum (typical)
2802 3800 275 2142
2802 3800 300 2051
(SQRT (Energy in Ft Lbs x 450400/ Bullet weight in Grains))


It's a start at any rate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex Hamilton



Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Posts: 80
Location: Berkshire

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:29 pm    Post subject: MoD Limit on Muzzle Energy - progress Reply with quote

Gentlemen,

I am pleased to be able to report that I have received a favourable response from the NRA and the extract of that exchange of emails is below. NRA replies are in blue and if your system does not recognise it, I have prefixed each line with XXXX

Copy starts here ---------------------------

Now let me tell you what I want and what I think is a better, probably
the only way forward, assuming that the military are not prepared to
raise the limit.

a) 303 and other historic military calibres that are below the
3800Joules limit to be excluded and people shooting them allowed to
continue as now!

XXXXCorrect. This is exactly what we discussed at the meeting yesterday morning.

b) 7.62mm ammunition that is below the limit to be excluded and those
shoting it or hand loading to same specification permitted to continue
as now.

XXXXCorrect. This is exactly what we discussed at the meeting yesterday
morning..

c) Those shooting at 100yds and 200yds to be automatically excluded from the requirement to Zero, because in their case that would be pointless.

XXXXCorrect. This is exactly what we discussed at the meeting yesterday morning.

d) That a detailed list of calibres that fall below the 3800Joules limit
be published on NRA website without delay, so that the clubs and
individuals with stocks of ammunition above the limit can decide what to
do with it. They would be able to use it at 100 and 200yds under
option (c), of course.

XXXXCorrect. This is exactly what we discussed at the meeting yesterday morning.

e) New sources of ammunition in 7.62mm within the limit, suitable for
up to 1200yds to be sought and stocked in NRA shop and the users of that
ammunition to be also exempt for the need to zero.

XXXXGood point I will keep this in mind. Thank you.

For those that have to shoot ammunition above the limit you have to do
what you can and be seen to be doing it. I cannot see that even the
military would not accept that Match Rifle and F Class attract the most
accurate and best shooters we have and forcing them to zero at 200yds
prior to shooting at 1200 will not enhance safety. It is not just
laughable, it is an insult! No one is questioning the authority of the
military, but are insults ever necessary and productive.

XXXXI have explained above the origin and reason for this proposal, which is that at 200 yards, even with grossly misplaced sights (most probably telescopic rather than iron), no-one could miss the stop butt.

Copy ends here -------------------------

If the military accept these proposals, then for most of us nothing will have changed. Not a victory by at least the best compromise that could be achieved, in my opinion.

Alex
_________________
Alex Hamilton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Target Shooting All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group