What Firearms would you like to see available ..?

jaycee · 11-10-2005 8:02pm #1

There is a tendency , (following the long absence of much in the way of choice
of calibres and firearms) towards an attitude of "Lets have everything"

But lately I've been thinking , If you could really choose to have a 50 calibre rifle , Or a 600Nitro revolver ... Would you want one..? I wouldn't !

Would you be prepared to pay the price of the firearms involved , the cost of the ammunition etc.. considering the very limited use you would get from it. ?
I've been wondering about this.

There are some calibres with obvious target shooting and hunting applications, but there are some that are very OTT... for either .

So what stuff would people seriously, absolutely, have to have ..
and what would make it to the couldn't be bothered list.

Should I duck now ?

civdef · 11-10-2005 8:31pm

One problem with that question is that just because I don't have a pressing need for say a .458 Winchester magnum, and can't see myself ever having such a need, doesn't mean someone else (big game hunter) won't. If I ever wanted to get such a rifle, I'd be annoyed if someone had talked the authorities out of granting same, because they personally had no such need.

Actually this is one thing the Firearms Act 1925 has right, in my opinion, setting out the follwing as a condition for grant of a certificate:

( a ) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for

provided that the interpretation of "good reason" is generally agreed and covers a wide range recreational shooting types.

What I would like to see, is some element of people wanting to shoot having to "prove themselves" responsible to hold the more potent firearms. There may be a tendency for a newcomer to the sport to forsake the likes of rimfires in order to get "the big stuff", which I think poses risks. A probationary period where you need to hold a licence for a .22 or similar for a year or so before applying for a larger calibre might be a way to achieve this.

jaycee · 11-10-2005 8:48pm

One problem with that question is that just because I don't have a pressing need for say a .458 Winchester magnum, and can't see myself ever having such a need, doesn't mean someone else (big game hunter) won't. If I ever wanted to get such a rifle, I'd be annoyed if someone had talked the authorities out of granting same, because they personally had no such need.

No I didn't mean to exclude anyone or their chosen interests ..good luck to them . I was just trying to get a feel for what people are aspiring to at the moment.

Actually this is one thing the Firearms Act 1925 has right, in my opinion, setting out the follwing as a condition for grant of a certificate:
provided that the interpretation of "good reason" is generally agreed and covers a wide range recreational shooting types.

Agreed...but it's the language that is used and the subjective nature of a "good reason" that is one of our main problems.

What I would like to see, is some element of people wanting to shoot having to "prove themselves" responsible to hold the more potent firearms. There may be a tendency for a newcomer to the sport to forsake the likes of rimfires in order to get "the big stuff", which I think poses risks. A probationary period where you need to hold a licence for a .22 or similar for a year or so before applying for a larger calibre might be a way to achieve this.

Excellent Idea.. :cool:

Coupled with a "driving licence and theory test " type approach this would be a very sane and responsible way to introduce "Newbies" into the sport.
I was reading through some of the Canadian firearms laws recently and this seems to be the rode they went down.. (They do have a few odditys though)

Any chance of you running for Office Civ ...?

rrpc · 11-10-2005 10:29pm

Would it not be easier to ask "What firearms would you not like to see available"

Clare gunner · 11-10-2005 10:41pm

Anything from .17 up to 20mm in whatever action you fancy.You will find that those who buy a huge calibre starting off,promptly and quietly downgrade to a smaller calibre,once they feel the pain of recoil and not understanding the proper techniques learned from smaller weapons.
Using a smaller calibre for a year is not that benefical.As alot of it can come down to statue.I could shoot a 22lr all day,but would quail at using a 50AE all the time[and I'm 6ft 4ins & 280lbs].But I know a little woman half my size who blazes away with a 44mag no problem all day. It is all down to training and technique.
Good reason is always going to be our bugbear.
Supposing you are a big game hunter and are based in Ireland,yet travel to hunt.What is to stop the super from refusing the liscense as there is no big game in Ireland and that you could store the gun in Europe someplace,where you get the connecting flights??
then supposing you have a falling out with your club ,and are looking around for another in the year.The gun club informs your Super that you quit under bad blood,and then he decides that you have no good reason to posses your firearm?
All in all,maybe we are best just getting the "firstest with the mostest" back. then deciding if ,or anything,is unnecessary.

Umiq88 · 11-10-2005 11:23pm

i think guns should only be owned for a practical use e.g hunting target shooting alot of people would like to own guns to maybe go plink at a few cans or show off or something i think this is where accidents tend to happen. If licences where only given out on the basis that you had a use for it and that more clubs where set up for the person that just wants to causually shoot. a training course wouldnt be a bad idea or a test but then again just because someone isnt a perfect shooter doesnt mean there dangerous and vice versa so a safety course seems the only worthwhile thing to do

Sparks · 12-10-2005 12:48am

Anything that's safe, I'd guess. Mind you CG, 20mm? Er, doesn't that come under "artillery"?

There is the argument that the first firearm someone uses shouldn't be a fully-automatic fullbore, that they should learn to shoot first, and it's an argument you often see from die-hard US NRA members, so I don't think it's being overly onerous - after all, there have been needless and tragic accidents caused by a lack of experience with large calibres; but that doesn't mean they ought to be banned. It's not "proving yourself" so much as learning to shoot!

For example, in EARPC, you don't get allowed to shoot on the 50m range until you can put five rounds in the aiming mark on the indoor 25yd range, just so they know you won't be putting rounds all over the place outdoors where there's necessarily less containment (it's not an enclosed room outside, after all

). Something similar in terms of what firearm you could licence mightn't be wholly unreasonable if done properly. The problem is the "if done properly" part

:rolleyes:

Trojan911 · 12-10-2005 1:18am

Good question jaycee,

When I lived in London I had three handguns, a 9mm semi auto beretta, a .357 magnum (6in barrel) and a Walther PPK .22 (for the then girlfriend). Every friday night I jumped on the motorbike, pistols shoulder holstered & popped up to the local range with fellow buddy shooters & we shot & had fun. That was my night out. The guns were kept at my home in a secure pistol cabinet, no alarm system, cctv etc required.

When all Sec1 firearm licences were revoked, after the knee jerk reaction of the government, to the tragic events that unfolded after Dunblane I was at a loss as what to do on my friday night. People, like myself & fellow shooters were genuinely gutted that our hobby/sport had been whipped away from us.

I didn't apply for a rifle or shotgun licence as I lived smack in the middle of central London & would have had to travel miles to continue to shoot.

So in answer to your question, I would like to take up practical pistol shooting again. I would like to be able to buy some handguns.

But from reading some of the threads posted by fellow posters I can't be dealing with the hassle of applying for a licence for a handgun & the red tape that follows it & with some plod (copper) not knowing what end of the gun a bullet comes out of telling me otherwise when I know I am in the right.

I will stick to what I already have.

TJ911...

Babble · 12-10-2005 1:20am

Safety course Yes!! Big thumbs up from me. It was a hassle organising it but it was a good experience, I had a great guy give mine who brought over all sorts of cool guns to lay on my kitchen table

It looked like a major arms deal was going down....I closed the blinds.

Once I had my license I can now buy anything I want without asking anyones permission and its a super easy step to find out what I cant have because the rules are consistent at this point, I just look it up online and if its on the prohibited list its a no go. Then I take my credit card and go here
http://www3.mb.sympatico.ca/~jhipwell/

I think a year is a long time to spend with your shooting L plate on. I would have gotten really tired of a .22lr pistol at that point and just quit. Maybe a 3 month supervised probational period at the club level might be a better option. A .22 is just a lethal to the skull as a 9mm. I do realise that somethings are necessary sometimes to satisfy public concern.

As for limiting firearms to what someone deems to be practical, that sounds a little old fashioned and basically prohibits the existence of collectors.

There are plenty of firearms I have no interest in but I know lots of people who have a great passion for those very ones. I have no great urge to own a blackpower pistol or rifle but I shoot next to guys who do and we get along just fine (I try not to deafen them with my barrage of rounds down range from my Armalite AR)

Going through the motions of getting each firearm approved whether someone thinks you need it or not seams like a draconian powertrip.
Whats good for public safety and what we "need" are 2 different things

When we get ammo for it I'll post some video of us shoot my friends PTRS 14.5mm anti tank rifle http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Heavy/PTRS-41.htm

Not something I "need" to do but its going to be a lifelong memory I bet and a real talking point. Oh its non restricted so legal to hunt with. :eek: :eek: :eek:
Tanks are out of season at the moment, and really hard to skin and clean

jaycee · 12-10-2005 1:59am

Tanks are out of season at the moment, and really hard to skin and clean

Yes ..and what with the price of grinder disks these days .. :rolleyes:
Do they need to be "Hung" for a few days first ...?

Clare gunner · 12-10-2005 2:19am

Sparks wrote:

Anything that's safe, I'd guess. Mind you CG, 20mm? Er, doesn't that come under "artillery"?

Umm, not much more than 50 calibre long range rifles could be classified as "
Arty".
There are some folks in the US that would consider that a bit "wussy"
Some fire old bazookas,4lb artillery field guns, 40mm mortars,rifle grenades etc.They would be in the millionare category,or full auto machine gun shooters.Now some would say why would you want to shoot or need full auto??Some very RARE guns have been kept going by these people.Some of these guns are more costly than a matched set of Purdeys,and are used more often.So it all comes down to what you like shooting.Not to mind the problems of reloading 20mm bofor shells or four lbrs.The innovation of making the taps and dies ,not to mind the reloading presses has to be seen to be belived.

Not only that ,should we not be saying why do we have to justify a NEEDin a democratic society?We should be saying it is our CHOICE to shoot what we want[safely] or how MANY guns we want.By rights if you can afford it and use it safley why do you have to justify to anyone why you need or want it?

To use the car arguement here,why would anyone WANT a 500 BHP two seater 0 to 100 in 3 seconds 4litre V10 that costs 150K plus.Yet our speed limits are 100kmh,and this guzzles petrol like nothing? Yet you never hear anyone in officaldom saying [apart from sandal weraing hairy greenie types] why do you need such a car?Why?Because the govt makes plenty of money out of it in VRT ,road tax,and insurance.S
o by rights with our liscensing laws they should be happy that we own more guns as the liscense revenue makes more money for the Govt.Could you imagine the outcry [well,maybe not in Ireland] if the Govt said you could only drive a car that had the capability of a 1972 VW Bug? And that if you wanted anything faster you must do XYZ courses and prove you need this xtra power.
Saftey courses are fine,but making it a prerequsite is only going to ask for trouble.You get some NGB employed by the govt,who then start adding all sorts of weird and wonderful things into it to give jobs to the boys and girls .Before you know it we will be looking at a two yearplus saftey course with a head shrink test ,writtentests,oral tests etc, with stupidly high pass rates[like 90%,which is ALREADY happening with the Irish deer hunters written test].
Kep it to a US NRA type practical and theoriical test that can be actually done within an intense 12hour course and I am happy.The State concealed carry permit can actually be done from zero hours experiance to liscensed within four days class and range time.
But rember one thing.YOU will pay for this course,and and another way to discourage further prospective shooters is to make the course stupidly expensive.Anything a Govt and NGB get involved in will be.

woody · 12-10-2005 8:03am

.5" Rifles in this country could not be used as we don't have the range facilties and only army ranges such as Gormanstown,Kilbride and Kilworth would be safe ranges to use.

Anyhow a .5" Rifle is a highly skilled weapon to use, extremely dangerous as the penetration is extremely high.

I have myself used the AW and was part of a team doing a firepower and penetration test, the .5" compared to the 7.62mm went through 11 Bricks and halfway into an engine block before it stopped.

As for the 7.62 x 51 mm well that got through 5 bricks.

Calibres above .308" would be a waste and pistols above .45" ACP or Similar would again be enough

rrpc · 12-10-2005 8:33am

Clare gunner wrote:

To use the car arguement here,why would anyone WANT a 500 BHP two seater 0 to 100 in 3 seconds 4litre V10 that costs 150K plus.Yet our speed limits are 100kmh,and this guzzles petrol like nothing? Yet you never hear anyone in officaldom saying [apart from sandal weraing hairy greenie types] why do you need such a car?Why?Because the govt makes plenty of money out of it in VRT ,road tax,and insurance.S

To continue your car analogy, you can have your 20mm, but in lieu of a speed limit you cannot fire it farther than the longest distance available on a range, and the shell can't make any more noise than say a 303 or cause any more damage. Plus if you take the current firearms act(s), how would you define 'good reason for requiring' a 20mm or satisfy the 'without danger to the public safety' requirement?

Sparks · 12-10-2005 8:45am

Clare gunner wrote:

Could you imagine the outcry [well,maybe not in Ireland] if the Govt said you could only drive a car that had the capability of a 1972 VW Bug? And that if you wanted anything faster you must do XYZ courses and prove you need this xtra power.

Tried to get insurance from Hibernian Direct or One Direct lately? No convertibles, no sports cars, and no quotes until you've done the Hibernian "Ignition" one-day safety course. HGVs are meant to have governers fitted to restrict top speed to 55mph (though most drivers remove the fuse on the governer, it's illegal to do so...).

We're heading down the sensible road, just slowly and with a lot of diversions...

Saftey courses are fine,but making it a prerequsite is only going to ask for trouble.

We might ask the deer hunters about that, I'd guess.

You get some NGB employed by the govt,who then start adding all sorts of weird and wonderful things into it to give jobs to the boys and girls .

Yup, hence the comment that "if it's done properly" is the bit that'll cause the problem

Kep it to a US NRA type practical and theoriical test that can be actually done within an intense 12hour course and I am happy.

Thing about those intense courses (and you see it a lot with people who go to South Africa or Florida for two weeks to get their pilot's licence in intensive courses), is that you don't necessarily come away from them much safer than you went into them. It's like the leaving cert - for two or three hours in July/June, the kids can write long essays on King Lear or Macbeth; but ask any of them in August to do it again and how many could?

The best idea I can think of is something like the Irish pilot's licence; you can get a student's licence as easily as a provisional driving licence, then you have to put in a minimum of 40-odd hours flying and pass both a set of theory exams and a practical exam; and then you have to fly for a minimum amount of time each year to keep current; and if you want to fly an aircraft that's significantly larger or more complex than the one you learnt in, or under different conditions, there are various ratings you can get added to the licence the same way; so night flying, flying twin-engined or jet aircraft, flying on instruments alone, those kind of things need additional training. (No-one thinks that's a bad idea, by the way, since not having that training will kill you if you do those things).

Now the thing is, all the training is done, not by the IAA (Irish Aviation Authority), but by the clubs. They run training courses, have instructors and so on and so forth. Same thing happens with amateur radio, similar story happens with driving tests. The government is responsible for maintaining examination standards; the people maintain training standards. We already do something similar with our own training courses, except that various national and international bodies do the training and examination.

A system based on that idea (a basic licence with additional ratings for various other things) could be set up in a fair manner. But we'd have to be involved in constructing it, and frankly, I can already hear responses to the tune of "but this is limiting ourselves!" and "to hell with that idea, we have a right to whatever we want!". The former of which is true; the latter of which certainly isn't. And if we go down the road of "we can have whatever we want thanks", we may find out that when there are only 200,000-odd of us, and 3 million in the electorate, that we get outvoted on the question of this being allowed! Far better to put in place a system that reassures the 14 people there are for every shooter that that one shooter is safely qualified to own and use his or her firearm. Better still to put in place a system that reassures us that we won't be made to use a system dreamed up by people who've never owned or used a firearm!

phantom_lord · 12-10-2005 1:35pm

Sparks wrote:

There is the argument that the first firearm someone uses shouldn't be a fully-automatic fullbore, that they should learn to shoot first, and it's an argument you often see from die-hard US NRA members, so I don't think it's being overly onerous - after all, there have been needless and tragic accidents caused by a lack of experience with large calibres; but that doesn't mean they ought to be banned. It's not "proving yourself" so much as learning to shoot!

Like this guy should have....http://www.big-boys.com/articles/kickback.html

Babble · 12-10-2005 9:56pm

woody wrote:

Anyhow a .5" Rifle is a highly skilled weapon to use, extremely dangerous as the penetration is extremely high.

above .308" would be a waste and pistols above .45" ACP or Similar would again be enough

Some of the most fun I've had shooting is with bigger handguns then .45 ACP. The grin per round factor is through the roof

but I'm still going through 9mm at a rate of 10000/20000 per year

I still consider a .50 cal rifle to be a firearm or tool not a weapon. And yes not all ranges are certified for .50bmg over here but some people like to have "safe queens" and occasionally shoot out to 300 meters, its makes them happy.
The media will tell you that it can bring down a jetliner with one shot, which is my guess as to why traditionalists have such a problem with the guys who want lesser practical firearms, they rock the boat!

Clare gunner · 13-10-2005 1:55am

[

QUOTE]

woody wrote:

.5" Rifles in this country could not be used as we don't have the range facilties and only army ranges such as Gormanstown,Kilbride and Kilworth would be safe ranges to use.

True,but thats not to say that a range could NOT be constructed to handle this calibre.Or a novel idea has been put forward in the US to use a large stretch of water like a lake or a sea.
Germany had the same problem with their 50 cals ,yet now it is the strongest growing aspect of rifle shooting over there.and THEY have less free space per person than we have.
Anyhow a .5" Rifle is a highly skilled weapon to use, extremely dangerous as the penetration is extremely high.

Do we detect a "mere civillians shouldnt be allowed these things that only skilled military and police personel are competant or qualified to use these things." type elitism here ?:)

I have myself used the AW and was part of a team doing a firepower and penetration test, the .5" compared to the 7.62mm went through 11 Bricks and halfway into an engine block before it stopped.

As for the 7.62 x 51 mm well that got through 5 bricks.

And the ammo you were using in the 50 cal was???AP,AP INC, AP sabot,or just plain old FMJ?? Ditto for the 7.62?Sounds like black tips[AP] Also what kind of bricks?what else did you fire into like dirt or sandbags for a comparision?What was the 50s penetration on that?Tests like that can look really impressive,but in reality how many of us are going to be carrying a shooting brick walls etc.Plus getting 50 cal ammo other than FMJ is impossible/illegal.Last US test I saw said a 10ft thick loose dirt revetment will
stop 20mm cannon.

Calibres above .308" would be a waste and pistols above .45" ACP or Similar would again be enough

[/QUOTE]
So the 338 Lapura, the 8mm deer calibres, the old western calibres,and old big game calibres are out???Damn!and I was looking forward to some old blackpowder cartridge shooting in antique guns!
Ditto the 45 win mag,the 357,44 mags,the large calibre mag target shooting,and long range pistols are gone as well?
D

Clare gunner · 13-10-2005 2:03am

[

QUOTE=rrpc]To continue your car analogy, you can have your 20mm, but in lieu of a speed limit you cannot fire it farther than the longest distance available on a range, and the shell can't make any more noise than say a 303 or cause any more damage. Plus if you take the current firearms act(s), how would you define 'good reason for requiring' a 20mm or satisfy the 'without danger to the public safety' requirement?

[/QUOTE]

Without sounding flippant. The noise problem,justifable reason for a sound suppressor,which do exist for a 50.Plus most 50s are single shots so it isnt a continous rattle,about as much noise or less than an commerical jet taking off.
Good reason; ultra long range target shooting.
The range ;a specified range desinged for the one mile shots.
Causing more damage?Well that is questionable,a 303 fired into a choppers gearbox will take it down as quick as a 50 calibre for example.All in all it is too general to answer.

rrpc · 13-10-2005 8:54am

Clare gunner wrote:

Without sounding flippant. The noise problem, justifable reason for a sound suppressor,which do exist for a 50.Plus most 50s are single shots so it isnt a continous rattle,about as much noise or less than an commerical jet taking off.

And that's acceptable???

Good reason; ultra long range target shooting.
The range ;a specified range desinged for the one mile shots.

And how many of them are there in this country? Or likely to be for that matter.

Causing more damage?Well that is questionable,a 303 fired into a choppers gearbox will take it down as quick as a 50 calibre for example.All in all it is too general to answer.

Well I was thinking more in line of the damage caused to range backstops.

Clare gunner · 13-10-2005 5:57pm

rrpc wrote:

And that's acceptable???

In what way?The reason to posses a suppressor or to live near a big calibre range?If the range was there first and you mov to the district,the onous is on you to check out your prospective property for hazards and unpleasent aspects.If they propose to build one,you have to object and have independant proof of the detriment to your lifestyle.

And how many of them are there in this country? Or likely to be for that matter.

None at the moment.But there is nothing to say that one could be built with a thousand plus metre range.If there is an intrest you should build it.

Well I was thinking more in line of the damage caused to range backstops.

Well, if the backstops are designed and built for the apprpiate calibre being shot,whats the problem?

woody · 13-10-2005 6:41pm

We were using FMJ and AP's.

Yep civvies with big guns = chaos

rrpc · 13-10-2005 7:54pm

Clare gunner wrote:

In what way?The reason to posses a suppressor or to live near a big calibre range?

In the way the noise of a commercial aeroplane taking off may or may not be acceptable.

None at the moment.But there is nothing to say that one could be built with a thousand plus metre range.If there is an intrest you should build it.

Big if that!. Ever built or planned a range? According to planning regs that is! Never mind the cost of acquiring land with almost 2000 yards (if you want to shoot a mile) available in a safe direction.

Well, if the backstops are designed and built for the apprpiate calibre being shot,whats the problem?

Most backstops (in fact all backstops) built for long ranges are earth and sand. They have to be maintained regularly, as the lead has to be removed from time to time and the backstop rebuilt. Rounds burrow into the earth and eventually it starts to collapse. The damage caused by .50 rounds would be far greater than that caused by say a 7.62 requiring more frequent rebuilds. It's a very expensive business.

Clare gunner · 13-10-2005 11:13pm

rrpc wrote:

In the way the noise of a commercial aeroplane taking off may or may not be acceptable.

See my post about living near noisey things. If you live near an airport,you cant complain about aircraft noise.

Big if that!. Ever built or planned a range? According to planning regs that is! Never mind the cost of acquiring land with almost 2000 yards (if you want to shoot a mile) available in a safe direction.

I might even know an area near me that could possibly do this.There is a quarry near me.It is not long on a flat plane,but angles DOWN appx 3/4 mile,by 400 ft.Not much building required.Also there is a disused lake quarry with disused buildings,up on the Silvermines in Nenagh,that would make a fantastic clay shoot,practical shooting centre,and ultra long range rifle range across the quarry lake into a 400ft sheer cliff face.Also enquired off a mining company here in Ireland if one could rent/lease a disused mine tunnel for a shooting range.They were quite intrested in the concept,as a mine has air extraction plants,saftey features,lighting etc,plus somtimes the correct distance for a range.AND no one will complain about noise!!!
So yes the grounds are there,it is the INSURANCE that kills it![As per usual] Just think outside the box and get somone who will see a benefit of using waste ground to make £££s.
If I could get financial backing....... :rolleyes:

Most backstops (in fact all backstops) built for long ranges are earth and sand. They have to be maintained regularly, as the lead has to be removed from time to time and the backstop rebuilt. Rounds burrow into the earth and eventually it starts to collapse. The damage caused by .50 rounds would be far greater than that caused by say a 7.62 requiring more frequent rebuilds. It's a very expensive business.

True,but as I said if it is built specifically for big calibres you will take that into consideration.Plus when have some of our ranges been ovehauled?

Clare gunner · 13-10-2005 11:19pm

woody wrote:

We were using FMJ and AP's.
AHA!!! And how much did the FMJ do in damage?I reckon it was your AP that did the spectular damage

Yep civvies with big guns = chaos

Hmmm wouldnt say that too loudly around some civvies I know,they whup soilder boys asses in practical rifle and pistol,much to the embarrasment of their respective COs

.Somthing to do with the primitive art of "aiming" not "spraying &praying"

Babble · 14-10-2005 12:57am

Well out here in the wildwest there is still a prejudice towards the black rifle brigade, it normally comes from hunters who say
"Those guys with their machine guns there going to ruin it for the rest of us" ...well most gun shops are kept in business by people who shoot black rifles and handguns all year round not just hunting season.

"Thats Illegal, Thats an M16" ...No its not its an AR-15 and its semi and 5rd's just like your Mini 14

"Thats just made for killing people" ....Er its made for shooting, and far less lethal then your scoped out .300 wetherby.

I dont really believe that some guns are more evil then others, they all do the same job, just some have different features.
If you can find a club that will welcome heavier calibers and set up a range as such then whats the problem. It will be no less dangerous then a 308

I've shot at ranges that are certified for up to .50 Bmg and have heard of no complaints for the administrators, in fact they boast about it with pride

My local is certed up to 338 lapua which I guess will have to do :rolleyes:

I still find it shocking that some of the worst anti gun attitudes come from inside the firearms communities.

Out in ontario when the current Canadian gun law was on the books it received alot of support and backing from hunting groups who out of cowardliness tried to sell out the black rifle shooters to protect themselves.
The end result was that the new law prohibited and restricted many firearms on looks alone. but the hunters got a big shock because they now have to register all their rifles with the government.

rrpc · 14-10-2005 8:32am

See my post about living near noisey things. If you live near an airport,you cant complain about aircraft noise.

Depends on which came first, the house or the range, and since there are no .50 ranges in the country outside the army, one would have to say the house. In any event, current planning also takes into account the effect on wildlife and domestic animals. It's surprising how little the noise dissipates over distance. An M16 rifle emits 145db at 1m 90degrees from the point of aim. Under the inverse square rule, the noise will only drop to under 100db at 250m from the shooter, and assuming a flat plane you would need to be over 32,000m away before the sound output dropped down to the level of ambient noise (distant traffic, agricultural activity etc.)

It is not long on a flat plane,but angles DOWN appx 3/4 mile,by 400 ft.Not much building required.

Except that shooting downhill is a)considered unsafe (current LRPC range discontinued by army for this reason) and b) less than ideal from an accuracy point of view.

ultra long range rifle range across the quarry lake into a 400ft sheer cliff face

Also a problem because of probability of ground water contamination by lead.

a disused mine tunnel for a shooting range.

This would be a far better prospect, except for the difficulties of shooting under artificial light.

True,but as I said if it is built specifically for big calibres you will take that into consideration.Plus when have some of our ranges been ovehauled?

Currently the only large calibre stop butts are built with earth and sand, and do require regular maintenance. In any event, the current thinking is moving away from these types of stop butts because of the problems of lead contamination of ground water. The EPA in the US issued a Best Management document in 2001 for precisely this problem, and it has now become a stock question for planning authorities (i.e. where does your lead go, and how do you collect it/prevent ground water contamination). In the UK, stop butts are 'mined' annually, and all lead removed and the stop butts rebuilt. Shotgun ranges now have to place water impermeable mats at a distance of about 80m from the firing points, to collect the lead shot and these then have to be regularly 'hoovered' to collect the shot. In this country 'ad hoc' ranges are still being built, but they all run the risk of being closed down at a moments notice under the planning laws due to any or all of the considerations I've highlighted above.

Sparks · 14-10-2005 9:52am

Clare gunner wrote:

If you live near an airport,you cant complain about aircraft noise.

rrpc wrote:

Depends on which came first, the house or the range

It's certainly not a logical thing to do, to complain about aircraft noise if your house was built after the airport, but as the Weston Park Residents Association would tell you, it can be done. Daft buggers... :rolleyes:

Babble wrote:

I dont really believe that some guns are more evil then others, they all do the same job, just some have different features.

More "evil"? Er, they're inanimate objects, so they can't be "evil"!

But they're not all designed to do the same job, and that's where the prejudice against "black rifles" seems to stem from; the AR-15, for example, is (in the correct definition, not the daft US legal one), an assault rifle. Meaning, large detachable magazine, high rate of fire (yes, I know the civilian AR-15s are single-shot or semi-auto, but the original was fully-auto as well), and an intermediate cartridge. And those were designed for use on modern battlefields.

Mind you, the .300 weatherbys and most hunting rifles are derived from the 1898 mauser design, which was designed for use on older battlefields. So frankly, there aren't too many rifles that don't have a military element of some kind somewhere in their design history. So the prejudice doesn't really have a whole lot of ground to stand on, as with all prejudices.

If you can find a club that will welcome heavier calibers and set up a range as such then whats the problem. It will be no less dangerous then a 308

True, and frankly the .338 Lapua Magnum is a far nastier round, but the political view would be different, for two reasons; one, the general man-in-the-street view is that obviously the .50 cals are far more dangerous because they shoot airliners down with just one of these, don't they? And two, the last time anyone was firing a barrett in Ireland, it was at some poor bastard in a British uniform. So there's a fair amount of negative history there that may prove far more difficult to overcome than the technical issues of running a range for .50-cals, or even the economic ones (how much is .50bmg per round these days?).

rrpc wrote:

assuming a flat plane you would need to be over 32,000m away before the sound output dropped down to the level of ambient noise

Yes, but that's a flat plane, as in, mathematically flat. No vegetation, no dips or hills, nothing. Plant a few trees and hedges and you'll reduce that 32,000m by quite an amount!

In this country 'ad hoc' ranges are still being built, but they all run the risk of being closed down at a moments notice under the planning laws due to any or all of the considerations I've highlighted above.

Indeed. Of course, the cost of building a range goes up when you follow the planning laws, but frankly, I've shot on some ranges over the years that were fine for training at but if you'd been asked to go to these places for something other than shooting, you would have balked at the idea. Cheap isn't Better.

There are, of course, places that do it right; and anyone who's ever seen Comber will know what I mean when I say that there's no reason we can't build ranges to be pleasant places to be as well as being good training ranges. And if we did that, (and handled the problem of reducing the initial workload on new shooters with finding gear and getting licensed and so on), we'd probably get a lot more people joining up and a far healthier sport as a result!

rrpc · 14-10-2005 10:47am

Sparks wrote:

It's certainly not a logical thing to do, to complain about aircraft noise if your house was built after the airport, but as the Weston Park Residents Association would tell you, it can be done. Daft buggers... :rolleyes:

I'm aware of this type of problem, but I wasn't even going there, as there are enough of the genuine type to be getting on with :mad:

Mind you, the .300 weatherbys and most hunting rifles are derived from the 1898 mauser design, which was designed for use on older battlefields. So frankly, there aren't too many rifles that don't have a military element of some kind somewhere in their design history.

And the NSRA was started to provide training of civilians to sniper standard for military use.

Yes, but that's a flat plane, as in, mathematically flat. No vegetation, no dips or hills, nothing. Plant a few trees and hedges and you'll reduce that 32,000m by quite an amount!

That's what I said Sparks, the addition of trees, banks of earth, buildings etc. have an attenuating effect, but my point was you have a big task in trying to attenuate that kind of sound pressure. Putting a block wall between yourself and the shooter has an attenuating effect of 6db by doubling of distance. Any holes of 1/4" or greater will reduce this effect considerably. You can see that a large number of measures have to be taken in conjunction to make an appreciable impact. The type of trees makes a difference, as high canopy trees will have a propagating effect on the sound!

Indeed. Of course, the cost of building a range goes up when you follow the planning laws

And unfortunately, that is now the reality.

Clare gunner · 14-10-2005 11:44pm

rrpc wrote:

Depends on which came first, the house or the range, and since there are no .50 ranges in the country outside the army, one would have to say the house. In any event, current planning also takes into account the effect on wildlife and domestic animals. It's surprising how little the noise dissipates over distance.

Thats why I also suggested a very j8ustified use for sound suppressors.Noise reduction.

Except that shooting downhill is a)considered unsafe (current LRPC range discontinued by army for this reason) and b) less than ideal from an accuracy point of view.

Err,it would be proably alot safer than shooting on the flat,with an industrial quarry which is already mining health hazardous material,you are negating the lead poisioning aspect.hence the reason I think disused quarries and mines would be ieal as future shooting ranges.They are usually polluted areas anyway due to non proper clean ups by the mining companies.Plus I think the folks of the Silvermines would rather have a bit of noise compared to the suggestions for the area,like a superdump.
The Silvermines,contray to it's name was a lead mine as well,plus the whole local water situation is dubious at best due to heavy metals from the mining operation.So more ammo lead isnt going to make that much of a problem.
The mine shaft,well you cant have everything.I have shot in the Uk inone club once that was made out of an old railway tunnel.I didnt find it myself much of a problem.Alot of ranges are indoor,so there must be somthing right there?

Why do I get the impresion that you have a problem with big 50s??

Sparks
the AR15 and all civillian semi auto rifles aer NOT assault rifles!!! For it to be a true assault rifle it MUST have a select fire capability!!!Otherwise it is a large capacity semiauto military rifle lookalike.

Babble · 15-10-2005 10:48pm

The public reaction to firearms can really put a damper on things.

Case in point..
Switzerland...no one seams to bat an eyelid that this guy is carrying his Sig 550 home and doing a bit of shopping at the same time.

In regards to the AR-15 vs the M16 yes I can use a lot of M16 parts in mine and the customisable options are almost endless. BUT as far as I know the M16 auto sear wont fit in the receiver of an AR-15, and for me to do so would be a long term in jail.

An assault rifle is defined as select fire, no militaries use semis as their assault rifle. Its one of the most common and customisable sporting rifles out there and I see no reason for a law abiding license holder not to be able to posses one. I think mine is pretty cool

Maybe a Mini 14 would be a stepping stone to the AR-15?

The AR-15 really sits in the same class as service pistols like glocks and sigs.

And Yes i totally agree that the .50cal rifles major stumbling block is its bad press. Thats why I think the firearms communities should support people who want firearms of a less practical nature and not get brain washed by the establishments attitude of "why do you need it"

Babble · 16-10-2005 2:48am

Sparks wrote:

the general man-in-the-street view is that obviously the .50 cals are far more dangerous because they shoot airliners down with just one of these, don't they? And two, the last time anyone was firing a barrett in Ireland, it was at some poor bastard in a British uniform. So there's a fair amount of negative history there that may prove far more difficult to overcome than the technical issues of running a range for .50-cals, or even the economic ones (how much is .50bmg per round these days?).

Its not really that relevent, but the US up to recently had a ban on anything .50cal being exported so a Barrett 50 would be really hard to find. And there are more accurate and cheaper .50's out there

http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/index.php?id=651

less recoil then a 30-06
and the The Accuracy International AW 50, which is manufactured in the UK

Heres a great quote from a guy in alberta!

Actually My 12 year old daughter LOVES to shoot gophers with my heavy 50!
She found this spring if she waits till 4 or 5 gophers are all around the mound in close proximity, if she undershoots the gophers, hitting the mound ALL get tossed up in the air, and hit the ground dead. I am not sure if they die of fright or concussion, I believe it is the concussion however. Shooting gophers at 500 yards with a 50 is very possible, with the right optics and the right rifle. Back stop is critical however as bullets will travel an ungodly long way with plenty of energy left to do bad things, by accident.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

What Firearms would you like to see available ..?

Comments