NEW INDOOR RANGE

Local shooting clubs and leagues

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby autobahn on Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:37 pm

bensdad wrote:The left has failed misserably with their attack on guns and gun rights. Their next angle of attack has been (and continues to be) to come after lead. I'd skip a place with such restrictions on principle alone.


Why is everything a partisan political battle to you? Can't you argue a point without having to yammer on about the left?
autobahn
 
Posts: 437 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:42 pm

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby Bessy on Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:50 pm

1911fan wrote:It will fail. Cost differential istoo great. Most serious range users shoot reloads.


This...

if you are actually looking to attract people. People who will lay down a ton of cash to come in and shoot during winter months, the frangible ammo is going to be an issue.
In Soviet Russia program executes you!
User avatar
Bessy
 
Posts: 1485 [View]
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:14 pm
Location: Rochester, MN

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby bensdad on Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:47 pm

autobahn wrote:
bensdad wrote:The left has failed misserably with their attack on guns and gun rights. Their next angle of attack has been (and continues to be) to come after lead. I'd skip a place with such restrictions on principle alone.


Why is everything a partisan political battle to you? Can't you argue a point without having to yammer on about the left?


Yeah, that's it. It's not you, it's me. :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :rotf:
I got nothin'
bensdad
 
Posts: 2113 [View]
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Lakeville

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby mmcnx2 on Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:03 pm

I would not go if I could not shoot my reloads. Also this would rule out 22's wish again would be a deal breaker for me.

In this economy I can't see why anyone would open a business that limited its traffic significantly. Either these guys have more money than they know what to do with, are not active shooters themselves or are from california.
User avatar
mmcnx2
 
Posts: 2208 [View]
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:59 pm
Location: Hanover, MN

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby SAM on Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:03 pm

Thank you for your comments gentlemen. I will be meeting again with these people in the near future and the tone here will make a huge difference in their decision to go lead-free or not. I have been arguing for lead for the same reasons posted here. They are trying to save 250,000 dollars. I think this will help alter their course. Thanks again.
STAYIN' ALIVE DPS/BCA Approved Instructor Organization
NRA Instructor-Pistol-HFS-PPIH
NRA CRSO
N.D. Concealed and Dangerous Weapons Test Administrator
Mn. FAS Instructor
CSI P2C Instructor
Federal Law Enforcement Safety Act of 2004 Trainer
User avatar
SAM
 
Posts: 1262 [View]
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:42 pm
Location: Right smack-dab in the middle of deer f---ing heaven

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby PhilaBOR on Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:03 pm

If they're trying to appeal to the "green" crowd, I'm thinkin there might not be a lot of overlap between greens and gunners.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations..."
User avatar
PhilaBOR
 
Posts: 601 [View]
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:19 am
Location: SW Suburbs

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby tman on Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:17 pm

autobahn wrote:
bensdad wrote:The left has failed misserably with their attack on guns and gun rights. Their next angle of attack has been (and continues to be) to come after lead. I'd skip a place with such restrictions on principle alone.


Why is everything a partisan political battle to you? Can't you argue a point without having to yammer on about the left?


What practical reason would the range have to be "lead free", if it were not for the left's position on lead in the first place?

Bensdad just skipped to the heart of the matter, I think.
Badged Thug & MN Permit to Carry Instructor
Slowly growing 1911 Glock collection. Donations accepted
User avatar
tman
 
Posts: 2981 [View]
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: Centrally isolated in Northern MN

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby autobahn on Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:13 pm

tman wrote:
autobahn wrote:
bensdad wrote:The left has failed misserably with their attack on guns and gun rights. Their next angle of attack has been (and continues to be) to come after lead. I'd skip a place with such restrictions on principle alone.


Why is everything a partisan political battle to you? Can't you argue a point without having to yammer on about the left?


What practical reason would the range have to be "lead free", if it were not for the left's position on lead in the first place?

Bensdad just skipped to the heart of the matter, I think.


Lead is an extremely toxic metal. It's pretty easy to see why someone would think going without it would be an attractive idea. But there are ways to mitigate the risk without going "lead free".

It has nothing to do with the "left's position". Do you sit around all day stewing about what the left does to make your life more difficult? I bet you think asbestos is the greatest thing since sliced bread, too. What practical reason does a person have to not cover their house with asbestos insulation? Damn those liberals, banning all that lead paint that poisons children, because they deserved they brain damage they got eating those paint chips!
autobahn
 
Posts: 437 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:42 pm

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby Steelheart on Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:25 pm

SAM wrote:Thank you for your comments gentlemen. I will be meeting again with these people in the near future and the tone here will make a huge difference in their decision to go lead-free or not. I have been arguing for lead for the same reasons posted here. They are trying to save 250,000 dollars. I think this will help alter their course. Thanks again.


Trying to save a quarter million bucks make sense but not at the cost of the business as a whole. If also sounds like they're not shooters (doesn't mean that they aren't gun owners, remember that there is a difference). They can have every degree on the books but if they're not smart enough to actually research and learn their target market they're going to fail.

If they're going to have multiple bays they could try having one bay just lead-free ammo but I doubt it'll get much use overall. And they better have a plan in place to convert it to lead ammo use if the bay just sits there.

Steelheart
NRA & GOA member, http://www.taurusarmed.net/
http://www.appleseedinfo.org/ Basic Rifle Marksmanship with some neat history thrown in.
Steelheart
 
Posts: 85 [View]
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: south central Mn

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:49 pm

autobahn wrote:Lead is an extremely toxic metal. It's pretty easy to see why someone would think going without it would be an attractive idea. But there are ways to mitigate the risk without going "lead free"...


Lead exposure can be easily measured and prevented. I don't think lead is "extremely" toxic. You can hold a bar of it in you hand, and it's ill effects are well documented. The cost point of $250k seems pretty high for a lead-free vs lead safe range.

http://www.rangeinfo.org/resource_libra ... d-OSHA.pdf
"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
gyrfalcon
 
Posts: 3467 [View]
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby cmj685 on Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:34 am

Don't one or more of the nationally famous shooting school also have a frangible ammo requirement--I am thinking that it is frontsight right off the top of my head? Anyone know for sure? If so, why that requirement? And is it something mandated by the state or ...?
I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
User avatar
cmj685
 
Posts: 1201 [View]
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:53 am
Location: Shoreview

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby xd ED on Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:53 am

cmj685 wrote:Don't one or more of the nationally famous shooting school also have a frangible ammo requirement--I am thinking that it is frontsight right off the top of my head? Anyone know for sure? If so, why that requirement? And is it something mandated by the state or ...?


I've read that about Thunder Ranch. Haven't been to any of the big schools. From my reading, some (Gunsite) have ammo requirements(frangible) depending on the class.

Thunder Ranch has this on the front page of their website:

http://www.thunderranchinc.com/home/index.html
"...THUNDER RANCH IS A FRANGIBLE LEAD FREE RANGE ALL COURSES EXCLUDING MRRC AND H.A.R.T ARE TO BE LEAD FREE FRANGIBLE..."

The only way a lead free indoor range would seem to make economic sense is if perhaps it were located in a large , urban area, with a huge demand for range lanes, and environmental code restrictions.
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9228 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby xd ED on Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:08 am

autobahn wrote:
Lead is an extremely toxic metal. It's pretty easy to see why someone would think going without it would be an attractive idea. But there are ways to mitigate the risk without going "lead free".

It has nothing to do with the "left's position". Do you sit around all day stewing about what the left does to make your life more difficult? I bet you think asbestos is the greatest thing since sliced bread, too. What practical reason does a person have to not cover their house with asbestos insulation? Damn those liberals, banning all that lead paint that poisons children, because they deserved they brain damage they got eating those paint chips!


Not long ago asbestos shingles were very popular for siding. They remain in place on many houses under various aluminum/ plastic/ steel sidings. A large number of houses in the TC have asbestos pipe wrapping. The problems that occur with asbestos are not found in buildings where it is used. It is/ was the manufacture and installation of asbestos-containing products(and now due to forced removal). Asbestos in a home or other building is a bit like a rattlesnake under a rock: Don't bother it, it likely will not bother you.
So yes, it's a bit like lead- a little bit of expertise in safe handling goes a long way
My apologies for the thread drift.
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9228 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby Pezhead on Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:38 am

Keep us posted. I have a friend that lives near St. Cloud and this might be a place I could take her shooting.
User avatar
Pezhead
 
Posts: 4714 [View]
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:20 am
Location: Shakopee

Re: NEW INDOOR RANGE

Postby RobD on Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:10 am

xd ED wrote:I've read that about Thunder Ranch. Haven't been to any of the big schools. From my reading, some (Gunsite) have ammo requirements(frangible) depending on the class.

Thunder Ranch has this on the front page of their website:

http://www.thunderranchinc.com/home/index.html
"...THUNDER RANCH IS A FRANGIBLE LEAD FREE RANGE ALL COURSES EXCLUDING MRRC AND H.A.R.T ARE TO BE LEAD FREE FRANGIBLE..."

The only way a lead free indoor range would seem to make economic sense is if perhaps it were located in a large , urban area, with a huge demand for range lanes, and environmental code restrictions.


Thunder ranch is an outdoor range, I can understand the requirement for an outdoor range much easier than an indoor range, as it is significantly harder to try to reclaim the lead.
RobD
 
Posts: 2846 [View]
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:22 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Leagues And Shooting Clubs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron