Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

We want to hear what your club is doing to bring in new members. Tell us what works, and give credit to those who are making the effort.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#106 Postby AlanF » Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:30 pm

Wal86 wrote:
Wal86 wrote:...The discussion about brakes is laughable, squadding solves any issues related to brakes...

Squadding may keep brakes away from shooters without brakes, but it doesn't come without cost. The main one is that in most situations less shooting will be done in the day. This is directly at odds with the desire to increase range usage. And any additional risk to shooter's hearing is not laughable. We already have a huge hearing loss problem because many shooters don't wear adequate hearing protection (and the police won't agree to suppressors). Brakes will only make that worse.

Wal86
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#107 Postby Wal86 » Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:02 pm

AlanF wrote:
Wal86 wrote:
Wal86 wrote:...The discussion about brakes is laughable, squadding solves any issues related to brakes...

And any additional risk to shooter's hearing is not laughable. We already have a huge hearing loss problem because many shooters don't wear adequate hearing protection (and the police won't agree to suppressors). Brakes will only make that worse.


Entire quote
Wal86 wrote:The discussion about brakes is laughable, squadding solves any issues related to brakes, hearing protection should always be worn on a range period..


So are you arguing to agree with me or agreeing to argue with me.. ](*,)

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#108 Postby AlanF » Sun Dec 06, 2020 7:43 pm

Of course adequate hearing protection SHOULD always be worn. But clearly some haven't in the past and some will continue not to, whether its by mistake or ignorance or whatever. Regardless of the reason, it doesn't justify increasing the damage to their hearing.

Tim L
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 7:11 pm
Location: Townsville

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#109 Postby Tim L » Sun Dec 06, 2020 8:17 pm

To go all work environment, Safety is EVERYONES responsibility. If anyone sees anyone without hearing protection on an active part of a range (to me on our ranges that is anywhere between the cars and the firing line) they should politely ask them to put them on/in and stand firm with the "request".
As an RO it's not a request.
Perhaps the red firing point flag should be replaced with a blue "hearing protection required" sign when the range goes live?

Wal86
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#110 Postby Wal86 » Sun Dec 06, 2020 8:49 pm

AlanF,

Seriously??? Accountability is a beautiful thing, regardless it's self inflicted (mistake or ignorance).. How this can be used as an excuse baffles me.. Selfish to be honest

Cheers

Tim L
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 7:11 pm
Location: Townsville

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#111 Postby Tim L » Sun Dec 06, 2020 9:56 pm

Wal86 wrote:AlanF,

Seriously??? Accountability is a beautiful thing, regardless it's self inflicted (mistake or ignorance).. How this can be used as an excuse baffles me.. Selfish to be honest

Cheers

I don't disagree with you petsonally Wal but that's not the way it comes out in court case after court case.
A rule or policy may be written but if it's not enforced some liability will fall to the organisation accountable for enforcing it.

williada
Posts: 969
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:37 am

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#112 Postby williada » Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:19 pm

Wal86, things are not clear cut in life and a rant does not solve problems. Solutions have to be found for the sake of harmony across a body of participants where there are different views. That is the reality. It has nothing to do with excuses or mistakes. Otherwise divisions smoulder and club participation breaks down. In our club, membership is not a problem and hunter class participants are increasing. Shooting in Gippsland is relatively strong and collaborative and clubs have great depth of skill to bring new shooters along. We expect to have six new members shooting hunter class next week now that Covid restrictions have been lifted. More will follow with a membership advertisement.

As the President of our club, I have had to convene several club meetings in response to shooters who are well muffed up who complained about the muzzle brakes including new shooters who felt the blast of the shockwave together with the dust expelled getting into gear as they lay down beside those shooters on the mound using brakes waiting for a target. It also put them off their concentration when aiming. The noise on short barreled rifles is excessive and penetrates standard earmuffs and the blast can be physically felt. Reality. I use electronic earmuffs and find the sound cuts all hearing and its a pain trying to communicate at times on the mound when I have to in an official capacity because communication is interrupted by excessive noise shutting down the muffs. Our liability is such that we are obliged legally to protect people by minimizing risk of harm irrespective of the reason behind it. We are expected to cater for the idiot factor where we can. Interpreting this stuff is like knowing the driving rules. e.g. You might be in the right meeting another vehicle, but you are also obliged to avoid an accident at all times. There is the old saying you can be "Dead right". Like earmuffs and hearing protection there are clear expectations but a few don't follow the rules or forget to but legally we are obliged to minimise any possible harm.

Yes, as I mentioned in previous posts, we trialed a number of solutions over many months. The logistical issues apart from the noise and blast issue decided the outcome for our members.

Wal, I think you are being a bit tough on the NRAA with regard to the breach flag issue. While you say our record is sound, I can tell you I have witnessed plenty of idiot acts on the range that were not reported or penalized and could have been catastrophic. Recent idiot acts were a catalyst for the club seeking legal advice and adopt new membership rules and rules for visitors. The breach flag makes it easier for all scorers and range officials and new shooters to determine an action is safe, and makes for more efficient range time and removes any doubt with the variety of new disciplines being shot when you consider some members do not even know how other disciplines gear functions and that in some cases bolts can not be easily removed and magazines may be used when they have not been in the recent past with a transition to single shot rifles. Education takes time. Reality.

Tim, you make a good point about everyone's responsibility to enforce the hearing protection rule. Dead right about the courts too Tim. But like the Covid issue there were varied views and experience about controlling it and there we many who did not agree to follow the rules devised or understood the science behind it. But they had an opinion to rightfully air, but hopefully that is changed when the facts were clearly understood. Thank Christ we live in Australia where wiser heads prevailed, despite the stuff ups by officials, now we see the Americas, Europe Asia and Africa on their knees. That too is a reality. The reality is we can't enforce the rules but we can deny entry based on what the majority think and abide by which is determined the culture of the club and its education program. In the meantime, the solution is for people to find a club and venue that has similar aspirations to theirs.

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#113 Postby AlanF » Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:18 am

On the subject of hearing protection, I'd like to see the a coordinated push by the STAs and the NRAA to have suppressors allowed. Any objective analysis would conclude that benefits of reduced hearing damage far outweigh the police concerns (theories?) about criminal use of silencers. Our case is particularly strong for target shooting with heavy single shot rifles. The rifles would be completely unsuitable for crime, plus our sport involves hundreds of shots being fired in close proximity to other people every week. The police stance on this issue is indefensible.

saum2
Posts: 1046
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:22 am

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#114 Postby saum2 » Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:20 am

Tim L wrote:To go all work environment, Safety is EVERYONES responsibility. If anyone sees anyone without hearing protection on an active part of a range (to me on our ranges that is anywhere between the cars and the firing line) they should politely ask them to put them on/in and stand firm with the "request".
As an RO it's not a request.
Perhaps the red firing point flag should be replaced with a blue "hearing protection required" sign when the range goes live?

I agree tim, more should be done especially in view of this topic. I'll say that I have experienced brakes on the mound right in front of me, didn't like the noise or the blast wave. And I wear double protection, plugs and muffs. One could say that after my hearing loss while shooting, I'm pushing the hearing safety point of view.

Alan, I tried to push awareness of hearing loss & protection to the forefront with the VRA not long ago, I didn't get much of a response and was howled down by a keyboard expert. I'm no expert either, but want more awareness for new and existing shooters before it's to late.

ShaneG
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:25 pm
Location: Cairns

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#115 Postby ShaneG » Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:27 pm

AlanF wrote:On the subject of hearing protection, I'd like to see the a coordinated push by the STAs and the NRAA to have suppressors allowed. Any objective analysis would conclude that benefits of reduced hearing damage far outweigh the police concerns (theories?) about criminal use of silencers. Our case is particularly strong for target shooting with heavy single shot rifles. The rifles would be completely unsuitable for crime, plus our sport involves hundreds of shots being fired in close proximity to other people every week. The police stance on this issue is indefensible.


Agree 100% Alan
I have spent 20+ years shooting rabbits in NZ.
Calibers .22lr; 17HMR; .204 Ruger; 223 Rem; 22/250 - all suppressed.
Between myself and friends in immediate vicinity possibly 100,000 rounds
Once you use them nothing else is agreeable.
Even the UK with pretty draconian firearm laws allows suppressors ( or moderators)!

The problem in my state is WLB driven by a Hollywood mentality of the completely incorrect term of “silencer”! They have even refused an exemption application from their own aerial culler to use when having to work close to a city!

You still need earmuffs but you don’t get battered! And they work to some extent like a brake and reduce recoil too!

But when can we talk logic to government about any subject let alone firearms?!

I see a relatively new crew in National Shooting Council doing very good things!
Maybe they could take up this fight supported by us?
They are the reason my business is operating again and the whole firearm industry would have collapsed in Australia if Qld; WA and Victoria got their way to close dealers “ for the duration of the emergency” ! Which is still in place here!
NSC got WA and Victoria into court over our closures! The cops in those states saw they would lose so reversed the closures! Qld followed suit!

The really big win if suppressors were allowed here would be a way lower issue of public noise
on our ranges!

Wal86
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#116 Postby Wal86 » Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:23 am

AlanF wrote:On the subject of hearing protection, I'd like to see the a coordinated push by the STAs and the NRAA to have suppressors allowed. Any objective analysis would conclude that benefits of reduced hearing damage far outweigh the police concerns (theories?) about criminal use of silencers. Our case is particularly strong for target shooting with heavy single shot rifles. The rifles would be completely unsuitable for crime, plus our sport involves hundreds of shots being fired in close proximity to other people every week. The police stance on this issue is indefensible.



Yes, I agree 100%, we should be pushing to allow suppressors.. The introduction of suppressor would probably save/prolong quite a few ranges... However I don't think this will ever happen, doesn't fit the narrative...

AlanF wrote:Of course adequate hearing protection SHOULD always be worn. But clearly some haven't in the past and some will continue not to, whether its by mistake or ignorance or whatever. Regardless of the reason, it doesn't justify increasing the damage to their hearing.


We should never stop the progression of our sport, because of stupidity or ignorance, you fix the issue and mandate a standard of hearing protection required on all ranges, through our governing bodies.(STAs and NRAA)

Cheers
Alan
Last edited by Wal86 on Fri Dec 25, 2020 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#117 Postby AlanF » Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:09 pm

Alan,

I don't don't think muzzle brakes are a clear cut case of progress on our ranges. Currently its unlikely there is sufficient support for them in any of the F-Classes. As for a new class that would be suited, probably HS Discipline comes close, but competition opportunities for HS are limited by the unsuitability of many rifles for the longer ranges, so that will likely limit its appeal. Progress would in my mind be a class that benefits substantially from the use of muzzle brakes, and promises to attract large numbers of good club members. For most clubs, that might make the sacrifices such as squadding, acoustic barriers and increased hearing protection worthwhile.

Wal86
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#118 Postby Wal86 » Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 pm

Gyro wrote:Interesting talking to a PRS shooter who just recently went to register for a PRS shoot on Facebook and 8 minutes after it was posted there were 50 shooters registered and he missed out.



The example above is not a one off event, this happens regularly and many shooters miss out... Not too mention the very expensive nominations.

I'll use the recent VRA prize meeting as an example/comparison, free noms and large cash prizes for a total of 47 shooters, during a champ of champs weekend... :shock:
(Many thanks too both the VRA and its sponsors for the event.) =D>

18 months of SH class, so far you have crickets...... (Lets be honest with ourselves here, it hasn't worked) at least in VIC. (Club or at Competition level)
Last edited by Wal86 on Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:41 pm, edited 9 times in total.

Rich4
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:33 pm
Location: Chinchilla

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#119 Postby Rich4 » Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:45 pm

But to be fair there is a world of difference between Fclass and PRS, not just muzzle brakes, it's like Big Bash, the old guy's call it hit and giggle, comparing it unfairly to test's, as it's a totally different animal, reflective in some way's of a general lessening of free time or concentration and increase in available funds these day's, not just limited to the younger generation I might add.
(Full disclosure, they both look like a lot of fun)

bainp
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:05 pm
Location: Wagga Wagga, Australia

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#120 Postby bainp » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:31 am

Wal86 wrote:
Our decision making of late and what's priority is tragic, heck the time/resources and money spent on a recent safety issue (Empty Chamber Indicator), we didn't have a safety issue to solve, we have an impeccable safety record... But we solved that issue good job..

Cheers
Alan

I am not so sure about an impeccable safety record.
There was a boy shot on a range in the past, in the time I have been competitively shooting ie 43 years. I have personally had a hire car shot on a range by another person, the shot missed me and my partner only by a matter of a few meters. Probably wrote the car off.
These thing are not widely publicised but the governing bodies try to take all measures to try to prevent similar instances again and learn from these events. Every safety measure taken to prevent a similar occurrence is a step in right direction.


Return to “Helping F-Class to Grow”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests