Sand bags? "22lr backstop"

ivanthehunter

Whats the best type of material to use for the actual sand-bag itself?

Also what sort of sand is the best! ..

Thanks in advance for any answers!

Regards ITH

rrpc

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Whats the best type of material to use for the actual sand-bag itself?

Also what sort of sand is the best! ..

Thanks in advance for any answers!

Regards ITH

Sandbags are not a great idea as backstops. Main reason being that the bags get holes in them and the sand falls out

Earth bank with a sand cover is always the best approach.

Ordinary building sand is fine, the stuff you get for €200 a load.

Grizzly 45

E200 a load !!!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

ivanthehunter

rrpc wrote: »

Sandbags are not a great idea as backstops. Main reason being that the bags get holes in them and the sand falls out

Earth bank with a sand cover is always the best approach.

Ordinary building sand is fine, the stuff you get for €200 a load.

Well if these bags were rapped in a second layer of material and/or the were held back with a sheet of Airo-board they might last long enough.

I only want to make a small timber target backstop a bit quieter and a bit safer. I'll be the only one using it and its only for check the zero and making any adjustments.

ghostmantra

I only want to make a small timber target backstop a bit quieter and a bit safer. I'll be the only one using it and its only for check the zero and making any adjustments.[/quote]


what about a round bale i dont think a .22lr would go throught it open to correction:p

ivanthehunter

ghostmantra wrote: »

I only want to make a small timber target backstop a bit quieter and a bit safer. I'll be the only one using it and its only for check the zero and making any adjustments.

what about a round bale i dont think a .22lr would go throught it open to correction:p[/QUOTE]
Well it might work but the center is the least dense part, i have seen arrows travel up to their fletching when hitting the center.

chem

Ive seen the blue chemical drums been used on a range. Fill them with sand and put them on there side. Open end facing you. Keeps everything together.

kakashka

rrpc wrote: »

Sandbags are not a great idea as backstops. Main reason being that the bags get holes in them and the sand falls out

Earth bank with a sand cover is always the best approach.

Ordinary building sand is fine, the stuff you get for €200 a load.

Sand bag full of soil be a good compromise?or 500kg builders bag, so long as you didnt need to move them!!or large bag with smaller bag inside,smaller full of sand and sat into bigger,fill space between two bags with earth/soil?soil wont run out,inside bag could be something cheap

cavan shooter

couple of years ago i mqde q pliking box using 10mm steel plate box with the back plate set at approx 45°, I use a couple of bags of builders sand at the sides. It was q brilliqnt job:D

ivanthehunter

Yes the soil placed around some sand bags might help to stem the flow of sand through tiny holes.. I suppose any material with some sort of natural cohesion would be better on the working face of a back stop that mealy sand filled bags.

Sparks

Can't wait to see how you raise the 1000 euro fee when you're inspected by the Firearms Range Inspector for compliance with the Ranges and Clubs SI Ivan.

ivanthehunter

Sparks wrote: »

Can't wait to see how you raise the 1000 euro fee when you're inspected by the Firearms Range Inspector for compliance with the Ranges and Clubs SI Ivan.

Its purely for zeroing,
Its good practice to employ safe methods..


also:

The reason why i wanted sand was to keep things quite on my hunting ground..

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Its purely for zeroing,

I've not yet actually seen legislation, primary or secondary, which makes that distinction...

ivanthehunter

Sparks wrote: »

I've not yet actually seen legislation, primary or secondary, which makes that distinction...

I'm not willing to risk a bad shot on any living creature! so i'm going to check the condition of my firearm prior to the shoot and during the shoot if i suspect something has gone a miss.

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

I'm not willing to risk a bad shot on any living creature! so i'm going to check the condition of my firearm prior to the shoot and during the shoot if i suspect something has gone a miss.

And therein lies the problem with the law.
As we've known since it was drafted.
And as we pointed out at that stage.

kakashka

Sparks wrote: »

I've not yet actually seen legislation, primary or secondary, which makes that distinction...

Well Ivan better get animal shaped sand bags then:D

cavan shooter

I maybe wrong but I thought zeroing a rifle for hunting purposes is exempt??

and I think that was discussed here a while back

kakashka

I would imagine your right CS,bit hard to zero on a moving target!!!

Rovi

cavan shooter wrote: »

I maybe wrong but I thought zeroing a rifle for hunting purposes is exempt??

and I think that was discussed here a while back

I seem to remember the Minister (or someone from DOJ&LR) saying something along those lines all right, but no-one has clarified what exactly is to be considered a 'range' under the legislation.
Firing a few shots across a field into a paper target pinned to a bale or a tree would appear to be acceptable as 'zeroing', but where does what the OP is talking about (constructing a structure of timber and sandbags explicitly for holding a target and catching bullets) move into the realm of becoming a 'dedicated range', and thus possibly subject to the inspection and authorisation system?

That's a question no-one in DOJ&LR is able (or willing) to answer.

ivanthehunter

Anyway-
the sand makes some difference to the sound. Its a small dull sound thats alot quieter than the previous thwack from sheets of ply. And the little Bunny's hear nothing till its all too late;).

As far as the politics goes, I'm staying out of it.

clivej

And what you now have is a Dedicated Structure for only zeroing your gun.

Now this may require that you have to shoot off 50 rounds every once and a while to confirm that your zero is on the ball.

Oh lucky Ivan you have a zero range.

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

As far as the politics goes, I'm staying out of it.

Good luck with that, let us know how it goes...

meathstevie

What's wrong with the high bank of bog or a field with a steep slope ? A couple of million cubic feet of peat or soil is definitly going to be a decent backstop for a .22.

Grizzly 45

So whats to stop you from building a private range and getting it signed off by the DOJ inspector??Is there somplace in law that a range has to be owned/leased/rented/associated by a club,or vise versa??

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So whats to stop you from building a private range and getting it signed off by the DOJ inspector??Is there somplace in law that a range has to be owned/leased/rented/associated by a club,or vise versa??

Yeah, the Range SI - see the thread about the FCP seminar from earlier this year. Unfortunately at the time folks were more interested in ineffective venting at the wrong people about the handgun ban and the Range SI and Club SI seems to have been overlooked. (It's not that it wasn't a legitimate grievance, you understand, it's just that it was downright stupid to yell at people who didn't cause the problem, couldn't give the fix being asked for, and who couldn't even give their personal opinion on it at the time).

ivanthehunter

meathstevie wrote: »

What's wrong with the high bank of bog or a field with a steep slope ? A couple of million cubic feet of peat or soil is definitly going to be a decent backstop for a .22.

Nothing wrong with peat but clay banks sometimes have stones just below the surface.

Nothing wrong with using a few sand bags IMO.

Grizzly 45

Soo in other words Sparks,yes,no,maybe???

Sparks

The SI's still a draft Grizzly, but from what we saw at the seminar, no, unless you have ten members shooting there.

ivanthehunter

Sparks wrote: »

The SI's still a draft Grizzly, but from what we saw at the seminar, no, unless you have ten members shooting there.

Could that not be taken as the rule! that if ten or more are shooting then its a range and should be governed as one?

Also what about people shooting a few clays in a field or bog?

Sparks

That's not the way the SI was drafted ivan - the rule isn't "if you have more than ten members, you're a range", it's "you have to have more than ten to run a range".

Clays aren't covered - clay pigeon shooting isn't considered as target shooting under the law.

ivanthehunter

Sparks wrote: »

That's not the way the SI was drafted ivan - the rule isn't "if you have more than ten members, you're a range", it's "you have to have more than ten to run a range".

Clays aren't covered - clay pigeon shooting isn't considered as target shooting under the law.

Forget the S.I. for a moment and take a practical look at some other obvious facts:
It is not a requirement that rifle owners must be a member of an approved range for the purposes of owning a rifle and for that matter using a rifle

It is a necessity that all rifle owners check and maintain their zero's as its unfair to live targets and as such a shooter not acting with due care or responsibility could be leaving him/herself open to charges of cruelty for knowingly taking bad shots at any animal.

Also an approved range must have ten or more members to be considered as an effective range and thus receive the appropriate licence.

PS i know i said I'd stay away from the politics but alas i was drawn into battle once more,
regards Ivanthewarmonger