NRAA new range officers course

Malcolm Hill · #1 Postby **Malcolm Hill** » Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:12 pm

Just been looking through the new criteria and rules etc for range officers. Not sure who has been involved with the updates but it seems as though a lot of specifications have been changed. Range safety templates and specifications are changed and it now appears we are getting figures in MILS rammed down our throat when none of our measurements have ever had any relevance to other than minutes of angle which we all understand. Some of the specs are only listed in MILS which means jack shit to 90 percent of our members so it will make it hard for all of us that will have to re sit a test to be qualified to hold an RO ticket. Maybe some consultation should have been done before the updated rules for RO's were written to see if the changes were relevant to our application. Out target dimensions are in minutes, our target rifle sights are in minutes, our scopes are in minutes and our range template requirements have always been in compatible minutes as well. Go figure. Regards Malcolm.

#2 Postby **AlanF** » Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:07 am

I assume you're referring to Chapter 4 of the RO Handbook Malcolm. In fairness the angles discussed in that chapter are generally very large, and MOA would be meaningless anyway. On the rare occasions these figures are needed by an RO, its a matter of knowing a conversion figure to degrees, % grade, or other. Probably they could have added some conversion factors near the start of the manual.

Cliff Austen · #3 Postby **Cliff Austen** » Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:59 am

Mils are probably used because the Firearms Registries are copying military data, at least that appears to be the case in NSW.
Like you Malcolm, I was raised on Degrees and Minutes of, and at 73 I have no desire to change.
cheers
Cliff

PeteFox · #4 Postby **PeteFox** » Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:52 am

Just learn how to multiply by 3.5 to calculate approx. moa, it's not that hard. Problem is the number you get might not mean much.

The stop butt angle specification for a rifle range is 600 mils, do you really want that in moa which would be 2040 moa? How much does that mean to anyone? I use moa for shooting but not for engineering. 34deg sounds better, but then you would have both deg and moa to deal with.
Mils make perfect sense because it is very easy to calculate the length the angle makes at any distance. and because it is the standard that everyone else in the world uses for artillery, rifle ranges etc. that is, it is the common language.

e.g.the cone of fire for supported shooting (page 5 of the RO course book) is 5mils.
What does this mean? how big is the cone of fire at say 800m?

The cone of fire (COF) is equal to distance / 1000 x number of mils
COF = 800m /1000 x 5mils = 4m

for unsupported shooting the COF is 40mils
COF = 800m/1000 x 40 = 32m

If you want the COF at 1351 yards for supported shooting then
COF = 1351yd/1000 x 5 = 6.755 yards = 6 yards, 2 ft, 3.18 inches. You must keep the units the same.

Use mils and keep measurements metric for simplicity

Easy
Pete

Rich4 · #5 Postby **Rich4** » Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:22 pm

Mils also removes any need for math whilst using Metres, eg 1 mil @ 300m = 300mm simply read metres distance as millimetres width

ChrisA · #6 Postby **ChrisA** » Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:21 pm

Not all members are in MOA - all of my scopes are in MRAD and always have been - I just find it easier, but that is a personal thing! Whatever the changes, we will adapt over time

MattyG · #7 Postby **MattyG** » Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:45 pm

I have an idea the new rules have been written by someone serving in the armed forces or recently retired.

lonerider43 · #8 Postby **lonerider43** » Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:09 pm

more confusing unnecessary rules = less RO's in country clubs.
oh&s is going to screw us all.

Bart · #9 Postby **Bart** » Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:06 pm

lonerider43 wrote:more confusing unnecessary rules = less RO's in country clubs.
oh&s is going to screw us all.

Yep, had my RO accreditation for so many years that I can't remember. I'm 63, 64 this year and don't think I'll be sitting down to learn all this.

saum2 · #10 Postby **saum2** » Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:14 am

Bart wrote:
lonerider43 wrote:more confusing unnecessary rules = less RO's in country clubs.
oh&s is going to screw us all.

Yep, had my RO accreditation for so many years that I can't remember. I'm 63, 64 this year and don't think I'll be sitting down to learn all this.

I'm thinking the same thing which leads to how many RO's will we have at club level and available RO's for Prize shoots. The new Accreditation isn't that difficult but complex enough with legal responsibility to possibly deter many.

PeteFox · #11 Postby **PeteFox** » Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:33 am

saum2 wrote:
Bart wrote:
lonerider43 wrote:more confusing unnecessary rules = less RO's in country clubs.
oh&s is going to screw us all.

Yep, had my RO accreditation for so many years that I can't remember. I'm 63, 64 this year and don't think I'll be sitting down to learn all this.

I'm thinking the same thing which leads to how many RO's will we have at club level and available RO's for Prize shoots. The new Accreditation isn't that difficult but complex enough with legal responsibility to possibly deter many.

I don't understand the negativity.
If safety isn't your first concern, then maybe I do, but I am sure that is not the case.
With this new RO course at our small club with 25 members we are looking at getting a third of the membership (8) through the course. The ideal would be to have all members as RO's.
The big plus with the new course if that RO's can be club level only, with an emphasis on range safety and understanding the chain of responsibility. No more having to learn about tie breaks and protests and all that other arcane stuff. Just plain club level safety.
Checking rifles, setting up flags, when to call a cease fire, what to do about misbehaviour etc.
No more leaning on just a few people to take on all the responsibility.
For club level shooting (most of our members) all of the other stuff they had to learn was a disincentive to getting qualified.

Those who want to do PM's etc can upgrade to a higher level and get the extra qualification.
Pete

Triplejim · #12 Postby **Triplejim** » Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:35 am

https://nraa.com.au/wp-content/uploads/ ... l-21-1.pdf
Page 30

saum2 · #13 Postby **saum2** » Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:59 am

Ok Point taken, RO's are covered by the NRAA insurance as long as they abide by all rules and obligations.
And No Peter Fox, I don't have a problem with range safety or being accredited, just saying that a number may find it all a bit daunting. For example; At a recent local PM where i was the RO, nobody (accredited) would accept the job while I shot. A lot of misconception out there regarding the new rules/requirements that are not in force yet. Perhaps the NRAA need to communicate more regarding the new RO accreditation process via each S&T representatives so we don't have everyone on this site arguing unnecessarily.

Bart · #14 Postby **Bart** » Thu Aug 05, 2021 12:20 pm

PeteFox wrote:I don't understand the negativity.
If safety isn't your first concern, then maybe I do, but I am sure that is not the case.
With this new RO course at our small club with 25 members we are looking at getting a third of the membership (8) through the course. The ideal would be to have all members as RO's.
The big plus with the new course if that RO's can be club level only, with an emphasis on range safety and understanding the chain of responsibility. No more having to learn about tie breaks and protests and all that other arcane stuff. Just plain club level safety.
Checking rifles, setting up flags, when to call a cease fire, what to do about misbehaviour etc.
No more leaning on just a few people to take on all the responsibility.
For club level shooting (most of our members) all of the other stuff they had to learn was a disincentive to getting qualified.

Those who want to do PM's etc can upgrade to a higher level and get the extra qualification.
Pete

But this is not just safety as it was by following conduct under the SSR's. If I am understanding correctly the RO will become responsible for example manual handling; if a member injures themself while loading a target into a target frame?
Shouldn't the shooting safety, even at club level, take the priority?

PeteFox · #15 Postby **PeteFox** » Thu Aug 05, 2021 5:47 pm

Bart wrote:
PeteFox wrote:

But this is not just safety as it was by following conduct under the SSR's. If I am understanding correctly the RO will become responsible for example manual handling; if a member injures themself while loading a target into a target frame?
Shouldn't the shooting safety, even at club level, take the priority?

Sorry but we must be on different planets.
Since when did safety not extend to everything that happens on a rifle range. If the RO is in charge on the range, then he is in charge of everything that happens on the range.
If you are you thinking that the only safety we should be concerned with is getting shot! Well the courts don't agree with you.

The point is: the RO is the responsible person on a range. If the RO accepts the responsibility he also accepts the risk - you can't have one without the other.
The RO is in charge............. of well..........everything.
The new course isn't adding to the risk/responsibility, it's actually pointing out that the RO has always been responsible and has always borne the risk, but the RO didn't know it.
The point of the course is to make everyone aware of the risks and responsibilities and to show them how to mitigate them. If you do your best within your training then you have no worries.

Ignorance of the liabilities won't prevent someone trying to take your house in the event of a claimable event.
The NRAA insurer is not your friend, and the insurer won't cover you if you are doing the wrong thing, whether that is through incompetence or ignorance.

Pete