Range Safety Issue

[gp55445]

...I'm all for rapid shots if the shooter is qualified, but let's face it most aren't. Manage the shooters in your range and listen to your customers concerns.

Not in an indoor range I'm not; expressly because of what happened to you. I also think indoor ranges, if they multiple rooms of bays should segregate the hand cannons from the normal weapons (and I shoot two). They can be distracting, frightening and downright annoying.

Just my two-cents.

That's ridiculous. Rapid fire is an important part of shooting. If you prohibit rapid fire, two things happen - no one with any skills will go there because they can't actually train, and the bozos that have no idea what they're doing will never see anyone that knows how to shoot to compare themselves against. This is bad for both the experienced and novice shooter, as well as for the range.

I can hold a 4" group at 7 yards shooting .20 second splits. That's 5 rounds per second. Lately I've been letting accuracy open up in favor of training on speed, but can still hold center silhouette at around .10-.12 second splits. My best recorded time was 5 rounds in .536 seconds. Do you think I'm going to plunk down any money at a place with a 1 round per second rule? Not a chance. I wouldn't waste my time even if it were free.

Long distance accuracy at 25 or 50 yards gets pretty boring pretty fast. Shooting well is a balance of speed and accuracy. Putting an arbitrary limit on how fast a person can shoot, rather than on their skill level is worthless to anyone who wants to become the best shooter they can be. And it would completely eliminate being able to bring my machine gun out.

The solution is to scold poor shooters that are trying to shoot beyond their ability. Also, I've never been hit by a ricochet of any kind indoors, and only minor scratches by a few jacket fragments outdoors when shooting steel at close range. I've been burned by my own brass quite a few times, even had a piece bounce into my glasses and give me a little welt below my eye, but no ricochet. And I've been going to the range twice a week or so on average over the last 9 years or so. The claim of multiple ricochet injuries in a short period of time seems a bit improbable to me. But I must admit I don't go to that range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's great that you've trained extensively and are competent. And so glad you listed your splits. However, every inexperienced shooter that can't control the muzzle of their AR shouldn't be going Rambo. Period. Also, I don't appreciate your comment that my claims are BS.

GP

[UnaStamus]

I have had multiple marks on my body from shooting indoors and in open-air outdoor range structures (walls and a backstop and hanging targets with concrete or asphalt floors). Most of the stuff that has hit me have been fragments, but I've had a several deformed FMJs bounce past my feet as well as one actually hitting me. It happens a lot more than people think, but the fragments are at low enough velocity MOST TIMES to not cause more than minor flesh wounds. This is why it of the utmost importance to wear proper eye protections. This is also one of the reasons why legitimate, competent shoot house training courses mandate body armor use (not just protection against friendly fire) and wearing a ballistic helmet.

[shooter115]

Little frag here and there is common in the action shooting sports. The main reason eye protection is required at all times.

[jshuberg]

It's great that you've trained extensively and are competent. And so glad you listed your splits. However, every inexperienced shooter that can't control the muzzle of their AR shouldn't be going Rambo. Period. Also, I don't appreciate your comment that my claims are BS.

I didn't say BS, I said I thought it was improbable. Apparently it happens more frequently than I thought, but that still doesn't seem right to me. Could be that particular range is messed up somehow, could be you tend to shoot when a bunch of bozos are trying to shoot beyond their skill level, or it could be an exaggeration. I don't know you or the range you go to, or the people that shoot there so I have no idea which one it might be.

My point was that although a lot of people at a public range are basically shooting novices, there are quite a lot of people that can shoot well and want to train. Thing is most people think they shoot well, so I wanted to describe exactly what I mean by proficient rapid fire to avoid the "me too" crowd from using my argument to justify doing something reckless. Basically if your not holding a decent center target group, you're shooting too fast and/or your target is too far away.

If a range decides to implement a total, one size fits all prohibition on rapid fire, they're doing their customers a disservice. It should be at the range officers discretion. Having a policy of no rapid fire without explicit range officer consent is the right way to do this.

There's always gonna be some yahoo that goes to the range once or twice a year who thinks he's Rambo, shooting target hangers and ceilings and missing the target completely. Those people need to be reined in. But to set a blanket policy based off of those guys is just a really bad idea.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snakeman721]

"There's always gonna be some yahoo that goes to the range once or twice a year who thinks he's Rambo, shooting target hangers and ceilings and missing the target completely. Those people need to be reined in. But to set a blanket policy based off of those guys is just a really bad idea."

^^^^^This could be said about ALL things in life. All it takes is one or two Yahoos to screw up and then a rule is made that NOBODY can own or do that particular thing. It's the easy way out for companies and governments to keep things in line.