Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/6/2006 11:48:26 AM EDT
Please read the text below, I am seeking any constructive comments to me please by COP Sunday (before I have to head off to work in Wales) :-

Item 7 - Approval of Targets

Council has decided that all targets used in events run by, or under the umbrella of, the NRA should be reviewed and a list of approved targets prepared. The Shooting Committee has been requested to carry out this review. In essence the question is; "Is there a good reason for disciplines to shoot on targets other than round ones and if so, is there any problem with the targets that they use?" Our job will be to look at the alternative targets used, understand the background of why they are used and ask whether there is any potential Œrisk¹ to the NRA from continuing to use these targets. The Shooting Committee will then produce a list of approved targets. I would like to think that if there are questions about the continued use of a specific target, then the Committee will be able to come to an agreement with the Discipline over a suitable alternative. This is actually quite a large task and I am going to have to ask those whose Disciplines are involved to form a working party to look into this. It would certainly be best if the Discipline Reps on the Shooting Committee were to be part of the working party and this is to give you a chance to consider how your Discipline should be best represented in this review process.

This has a potentially huge impact on any non-TR shooting at Bisley, from Gallery rifle through to Civilian Service Rifle and Practical............

Imperial Meeting and Civ SR / PR

Following a successful trial, the following amendments to the 'NRA Rules of Shooting and the 137th Imperial Meeting Rulebook' are proposed.

Although concerned mainly with the Any Iron / Any Optics Classes, I would welcome any proposed rule changes that are required for the No4 or SMLE Classes :-

Para 154.

Muzzle Brakes Prohibited - delete in Toto

Para 242 (b) Standing -

"For Practical Rifle or Civilian Service Rifle, Any Optic and Any Iron Classes, a forward vertical grip may be used"

Para 242 (d) Kneeling -

"For Practical Rifle or Civilian Service Rifle, Any Optic and Any Iron Classes, a forward vertical grip may not be used"

Para 242 (e) Sitting:-

"For Practical Rifle or Civilian Service Rifle, Any Optic and Any Iron Classes, a forward vertical grip may not be used"

Para 245.

"In the case of Service Rifles or the Cadet General Purpose Rifle, the magazine may touch or rest on the forearm or on the ground. In Practical Rifle or Civilian Service Rifle, Any Optic and Any Iron Classes, all 5.56mm Rifles, and those of the C7 or C8 (AR15) design firing single shot, the magazine may touch or rest on the forearm or on the ground. Those Rifles chambered in .303 or 7.62mm may either touch or rest the magazine on the forearm or on the ground: Or they may use a forward vertical grip as a single point of contact in lieu of the magazine.

Para 243

"For Practical Rifle or Civilian Service Rifle, Any optic and Any Iron Classes, rests shall not be used where the distance to the target is 300 yards or less"



Link Posted: 1/6/2006 12:28:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2006 12:29:07 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 12:48:07 PM EDT
Correct answer,

Now, I need some help in putting this view accross on paper, ready for the Meeting.......
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 1:08:56 PM EDT
I've had enough of all this PC nanny state crap and I think we should block any banishment of targets as much as we can.
They're only paper targets after all.

Once we start caving in, they'll have us over a barrel
Did you know that in Norway, even the military can't shoot at figure targets? Seems the greens and anti's over there got their way

Mark
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 1:28:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2006 2:04:23 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 4:59:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2006 5:01:57 PM EDT by Taffy223]
I think the round targets look too much like a head. Ban them also.

I recomend square or triangular targets just to be safe.....it's for the children.

The black colour looks evil too...I think a nice shade of pastel colours for the target centre.


What the fuck is this country comming to
Not very constructive sorry...

Taffy


(before I have to head off to work in Wales) :-

Should I get a brew ready for you?
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 11:25:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Taffy223:
Should I get a brew ready for you?



I am up in Anglesey (Valley) bit North of you, but thanks for the offer!
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 2:00:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2006 2:01:15 AM EDT by Scope-eye]
I started drafting an email, but as it's on here I'll just cut-n-paste.

As far as targets go, it's all been said before and above.


However,
I'm still concerned about the double standard of the P245 rule change. Have you noticed all the other potential rule changes apply evenly to all rifles in a class?

I have no problem with the fact that the rule needs looking at and changing, but my problem comes with the help afforded to certain rifle marques, and the handicap given to others.

We should ask ourselves why the rule needs looking at.
Is it to help those with inferior equipment (for the type of competition entered), or to stop the plethera of HPSs that seem to dominate certain stages?
If it is the latter then the rule should be evenly applied to all competitors of the class(es).
If it is the former, I would suggest the competitor enter a competition more suited to their ability and/or equipment (if I only had a 5 shot rifle would you change the timings to allow me to reload?)

If you shoot class IV then you should have blanket rules for the whole class, not penalise certain rifles - this is not a handicap competition. Bearing in mind that many individual SR matches are used as a qualifier for other matches (not least the International) it would seem unfair to hinder the performance of those who use certain rifles and improve the potential of others to qualify. In the matches thus qualified for, the competitors will then be on a level playing field and the team may suffer becaus, potentially, not all the best shooter/rifle combinations will have qualified. I am all for removing the bipods if it will stop the glut of HPS, maybe allowing magazine rests, or even forward handgrips, but it should be applied evenly to the whole class.

Would such concessions be given to the Military if one of them shot the SR matches with an Accuracy International?

Who are we trying to accommodate? If it is only to appease one or two bolt gunners then this rule change is completely unjust and unwarrented. The test would be if it were to win a vote of the competitors concerned, if not, and still it goes ahead it, will be making a rule to please the minority at the detriment of the vast majority.

Matt
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 3:41:16 AM EDT
+1
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 3:59:15 AM EDT
With regard to the use of targets other than the "standard bull" the NRA must understand that to make any further changes to non bull targets will do nothing but further alienate the "real" shooting community from the NRA and could end up with splinter organisations being formed in opposition to the NRA, as a result of their belief that political correctness will prolong shooting within the UK.

As you have rightly pointed out it would mean the end as we know it, to shooting SR/PR and many of the Phoenix events on already heavily modified, politically correct, humanoid targets at Bisley or if they (NRA) get their way all ranges in the UK.

The NRA is supposed to represent all (target) rifle/pistol shooting in the UK and yet again they are pandering to the needs of the TR shooter and the old guard within the council.

Link Posted: 1/7/2006 4:42:04 AM EDT
I'm rather disappointed to say the least with this sort of attitude from the NRA, especially since Glynn Alger appeared to be making some sort of effort to bring the NRA into the 21st Century....

FFS, these guys are supposed to be on 'our' side, defending us from the idiots in Gov't who wish we would all just pack up and play tiddlywinks instead....

I've really had enough of this PC bollox about targets.....
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 4:46:26 AM EDT
Any proposed changes will be based on the majority not the minority
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 6:27:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2006 6:31:03 AM EDT by Mousegunner-UK]

Any proposed changes will be based on the majority not the minority




Does that mean it would go out for a vote to the membership, with one vote per member?

Or would it go to a council vote?



With something like this it should go out to the individual member as well as all clubs etc affiliated to the NRA.
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 6:32:48 AM EDT
Nice idea, but no time! Publication / meeting deadline..........

I suspect given the replies so far, to have a decision as follows :-

Mag resting only

No Bipod / mono-pod at 300yrds or less

No use of vertical grips for any position



However, another day to go yet..............
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 6:50:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mousegunner-UK:
With something like this it should go out to the individual member as well as all clubs etc affiliated to the NRA.



Yer right, with 30 or so Civ SR shooters in the Imperial!

This sort of thing in other disciplines is handled by a sub-committee, guess what, we don't have one.......

I e-mail all I can to get the majority view, better than me making the executive decision.......

+ The NRA info arrived on my PC on Thursday; I get back from Wales Friday.
The meeting is this Thursday……………

We need a SR / PR sub-committee.........
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 7:02:42 AM EDT
Ummm................I think Davey-Man means the targets issue and not the mag resting thingy

As for me, I want to shoot at figure targets from a mag rest
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 7:03:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ACR26:

We need a SR / PR sub-committee.........



Too f**king right we f**king do
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 10:45:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2006 10:45:54 AM EDT by Scope-eye]

Originally Posted By Mousegunner-UK:

Any proposed changes will be based on the majority not the minority




Does that mean it would go out for a vote to the membership, with one vote per member?

Or would it go to a council vote?



With something like this it should go out to the individual member as well as all clubs etc affiliated to the NRA.



If it went to a vote the papers would go out to those who specified SR as their main discipline, not second or third choice, but main one. As many of us put PR first and SR second, and I'm sure there are many more LERA members, amoung others, who have got SR as first choice, I know where the vote would go. The people who vote, on the whole, would not be the ones it would affect.

Affiliated clubs wouldn't get a vote and non-SR members wouldn't either.

Link Posted: 1/7/2006 12:31:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ACR26:
Nice idea, but no time! Publication / meeting deadline..........

I suspect given the replies so far, to have a decision as follows :-

Mag resting only

No Bipod / mono-pod at 300yrds or less

No use of vertical grips for any position



However, another day to go yet..............



I'd go for :
1) Mag resting only
2) No bipod/monopod at 300yrds or less
3) Vertical grip ok in any position (As it's not allowed to touch the ground in any position anyway due to 1...)

Nick

Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:12:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By target-hunter:

Originally Posted By ACR26:
Nice idea, but no time! Publication / meeting deadline..........

I suspect given the replies so far, to have a decision as follows :-

Mag resting only

No Bipod / mono-pod at 300yrds or less

No use of vertical grips for any position



However, another day to go yet..............



I'd go for :
1) Mag resting only
2) No bipod/monopod at 300yrds or less
3) Vertical grip ok in any position (As it's not allowed to touch the ground in any position anyway due to 1...)

Nick




It doesn't need to touch the ground, put your last finger of the grip-hand on the ground and it's just as steady. You'll need a clause such as " no part of the arm forward of the wrist/elbow/whatever may touch the ground".

My prone position unsupported is so low that my whole forearm is on the ground, the rifle can rest on that and it's almost as good as using a bag rest, slight pulse to contend with but wear a thick jacket and no problem.

I can see this getting messy.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:30:17 AM EDT
The majority of the replies go with NO Vertical grip:-

1) Not everyone has them or can afford / be able to modify the rifle

2) It is difficult to Police, the SASC won't have a clue.

3) The overseas teams are not allowed to use the vertical grip on the Styr Aug.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 1:14:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 6:19:27 AM EDT by Mousegunner-UK]

Originally posted by Scope-eye

If it went to a vote the papers would go out to those who specified SR as their main discipline, not second or third choice, but main one. As many of us put PR first and SR second, and I'm sure there are many more LERA members, amoung others, who have got SR as first choice, I know where the vote would go. The people who vote, on the whole, would not be the ones it would affect.

Affiliated clubs wouldn't get a vote and non-SR members wouldn't either.



Then its about time all affiliated clubs fucked the NRA off as they appear to be turning into the

GUN CONTROL LOBBY

and some other association formed who stands up for the rights of all gun owners simialr to the other NRA across the pond.

Lets face it the NRA would lose a huge amount of revenue if every club or association fucked them off, at local club level we all still shoot figure targets of one form or another.

I hope the NRA council and particularly Jackman the Chairman understand how the majority of UK shooters feel with regard to any further changes regarding targetry etc and that political correctness is a SHAM

Perhaps a vote of no confidence is required by the NRA Membership with regard to Chairman JACKMAN.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:27:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 4:05:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 4:07:33 PM EDT by Scope-eye]

Originally Posted By Mousegunner-UK:

Originally posted by Scope-eye

If it went to a vote the papers would go out to those who specified SR as their main discipline, not second or third choice, but main one. As many of us put PR first and SR second, and I'm sure there are many more LERA members, amoung others, who have got SR as first choice, I know where the vote would go. The people who vote, on the whole, would not be the ones it would affect.

Affiliated clubs wouldn't get a vote and non-SR members wouldn't either.



Then its about time all affiliated clubs fucked the NRA off as they appear to be turning into the

GUN CONTROL LOBBY

and some other association formed who stands up for the rights of all gun owners simialr to the other NRA across the pond.

Lets face it the NRA would lose a huge amount of revenue if every club or association fucked them off, at local club level we all still shoot figure targets of one form or another.

I hope the NRA council and particularly Jackman the Chairman understand how the majority of UK shooters feel with regard to any further changes regarding targetry etc and that political correctness is a SHAM

Perhaps a vote of no confidence is required by the NRA Membership with regard to Chairman JACKMAN.



I was actually talking about the mag rest, no bipod and vertical grip thing, so steady on, Dave, it had nothing to do with the NRA butt-f**king us over targets. You mentioned a vote and I outlined the voting process that the NRA has used in the past. It had nothing to do with the antis or the target situation.

But who would you offer the vote, to ban figure targets, to?
Any interested parties? That would have to include the antis as they are 'interested parties'.
SR shooters? OK.
How do you know who's an SR shooter? you go to the NRA register of members and find out who put SR as a preference - same as any vote for council members for each discipline.

I reckon you're wrong about the feelings of the majority of UK shooters, despite what they'll shout in the pub or at the range.
I think the majority of UK shooters couldn't give a damn either way. Most are hunters of one sort or another, and the vast majority of target shooters are content to go to their local range once a month only if the sun shines and make a noise. They wouldn't care if they shot tin-cans, circles on bits of paper or skittles.

Let's face it, how many actually cared enough to write to their MPs about any ban in the past? The last motion to go through parliament had approx 4000 letters or emails sent in. and about a 50/50 pro-shooting/anti-shooting split. So only about 2000 shooters actually gave a damn, the rest will go with the flow.

Sad state of affairs, but true.

Edited to correct speeling and grammer like.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:39:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 11:39:32 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 4:29:07 PM EDT
I'd be careful about the no bipod at 300yards or less, as a general rule. That would make the Mc Queens a bit tricky to say the least. Especially for me having to single load a Remmy700. It's just about doable from a bipod but with one arm hung up in a sling it's a non starter with some of the away times being 3 seconds. For SR or practical I don't really have a problem with it as I have a scope, but figure 14's at 300 yards with ironsights ain't easy either.
Matt's right about the supported position thing too as the Hawkins prone could be used ,which is almost as good as a bipod, unless you add the no part of the arm below the elbow.....

As for figure targets, I say keep them! It's service rifle, so we use service rifle targets! We practise on the same targets we are presented with in the competitions, which are figure targets! Otherwise it's a complete fuck up in the butts if there's two different sets of targets when we are shooting alongside or , as is usually the case, mixed in with the army. Also, figure targets have quite destinct aiming marks and the "civvie" or "cadet" swirly versions aren't so well defined so that would put us at a disadvantage to start with.
Same for Practical rifle, why go to the expense of stocking two types of the same target? Bollocks to the PC crowd.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:43:55 PM EDT
McQueens doesn't come in to it as it's not a SR match
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 11:46:52 PM EDT
But it is shot at the Imperial Meeting , isn't it?
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 12:35:21 AM EDT
Yes, but not as part of the SR matches, and the no bipod rule will only affect those.
Problem is, as you know, everyone is shooting possibles these days, prone at 200 & 300, and the match is won and lost at 100yd standing, so nit's all aimed at making it all more challenging

Mark
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 8:22:19 AM EDT
I don't want to seem pedantic , but, the topic starts with the quotes...

Council has decided that all targets used in events run by, or under the umbrella of, the NRA should be reviewed and a list of approved targets prepared.

and....

Following a successful trial, the following amendments to the 'NRA Rules of Shooting AND the 137th Imperial Meeting Rulebook' are proposed.


I don't have a problem with the rule change applying to the service rifle stuff as too many of us are ending up with 'possibles' but the wording implies the rule change will apply to the entire Imperial Meeting. I just want to make sure that doesn't slip by unnoticed and bugger up the non SR stuff too.

Does the first bit mean anything shot at Bisley? How long before some bunny hugger complains about running deer?
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 8:56:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2006 8:16:17 AM EDT by streetfighter]
I think you're reading too much into it.
The bipod thing only relates to Service Rifle matches during the Imperial Meeting and nothing else.

As for targets...well, we already have approved targets, namely the DP1, DP2 and DP14.
These have already been accepted and there is no need to change, nor will there be any further change as far as I believe.


Nothing has been decided and will not be decided upon for some time to come.
I believe his motives will be strongly opposed by the other discipline reps.

As for the Imperial SR matches...as long as Civvies are allowed to take part in these, we will continue to shoot at genuine fig targets, same as the .Mil.
The NRA/NSC have already stated to me, and others, on several occasions that Military figure targets can and only will be used....only when no other targets are available. This means that as the targets are provided by the military, they will be the only ones available.
And as you know, on occasion, military competitors shoot on our Butt for logistics or re-shoot reasons, it is inconceivable that other target types will be provided.

Furthermore, these measures are only aimed at Bisley and not other ranges throughout the land
Top Top