Air rifles shots up in the air? FSB's team wild
- Thread starter Paul at Fechan
- Start date
Tamus
Well-Known Member
It's a free country.
You're free to be a member of Snowdrop, we're free to chew the fat. Ain't it great?
I'm not sure I'd call it a free country, but ok.
I find it odd that members of a field sport forum would criticise people partaking in a different field sport. Surely one must assume that someone who is firing an air rifle into trees has assessed the possible risks beforehand? It is only common courtesy to allow others the respect that you would expect for yourself. Personally, I'd allow the antis to criticise and then pick apart their argument.
Each to their own I suppose!
What's 'raindrop'??
matt_hooks
Well-Known Member
Picking one special case to support a wider point, interesting arguing technique. Are you telling me that ALL the ranges at Bisley have a "safety area" big enough to ensure that no round will pass beyond it, or are "total energy" certified ranges to use the terminology of the construction guidelines? I don't think so. Most will be LDA or NDA.
The fact remains MOST military ranges do NOT have a safety area that will contain a full velocity shot going over the wall. Sure, Ash Vale does, shot there many a time, but it's NOT the norm.
A civilian range that is approved by the NRA will almost certainly not have a safety area that encompasses the possible fallout zone from any round fired on it. Ok, some will, but the range construction guidelines state that
If you want me to start quoting JSP403 then I can.
So, can we get back to the original discussion? Can a shot be "safe" where there is no solid backstop? Of course it can. I stalked on a Scottish Island, where I would often have several thousand miles of Atlantic ocean as a backstop. However, there are few situations in the UK where a low angle, looping shot with an FAC air rifle can be considered safe. It would be necessary to know exactly where the round was going to land (tricky shooting in to trees with the possibility of ricochet etc.) and be able to see all possible landing points and be sure that there was nothing there that might be damaged.
The fact remains MOST military ranges do NOT have a safety area that will contain a full velocity shot going over the wall. Sure, Ash Vale does, shot there many a time, but it's NOT the norm.
A civilian range that is approved by the NRA will almost certainly not have a safety area that encompasses the possible fallout zone from any round fired on it. Ok, some will, but the range construction guidelines state that
If you want me to start quoting JSP403 then I can.
So, can we get back to the original discussion? Can a shot be "safe" where there is no solid backstop? Of course it can. I stalked on a Scottish Island, where I would often have several thousand miles of Atlantic ocean as a backstop. However, there are few situations in the UK where a low angle, looping shot with an FAC air rifle can be considered safe. It would be necessary to know exactly where the round was going to land (tricky shooting in to trees with the possibility of ricochet etc.) and be able to see all possible landing points and be sure that there was nothing there that might be damaged.
Last edited:
Tamus
Well-Known Member
Fair comment... It's not free of "roolz"... know those (and how to use them) and it's still a pretty free country here though.
Sadly, there are those who feel compelled... but I think you know that
My thoughts entirely.
I'm game to have a go at picking apart anyone's "argument"...and... It's often the way forum discussions progress, with or without me.
No idea mate.
I said "Snowdrop" ... type that and "gun control" into Google if you've a thirst for such information.
matt_hooks
Well-Known Member
Shabz, no, guns are not dangerous as long as they are used properly and with proper consideration to their limitations and capabilities.
I got involved in this thread because people were taking known facts and mis-representing them. The mythbusters did NOT show that it was safe to fire a gun in the air. They might have shown that in some cases a shot fired at high elevation would do little damage as it came down, but they didn't look at lower elevation shots. Whilst I love their shows, I think people need to be careful with how they use and interpret their results!
I got involved in this thread because people were taking known facts and mis-representing them. The mythbusters did NOT show that it was safe to fire a gun in the air. They might have shown that in some cases a shot fired at high elevation would do little damage as it came down, but they didn't look at lower elevation shots. Whilst I love their shows, I think people need to be careful with how they use and interpret their results!
Absolutely!
Sorry, I'm gonna have to work on written sarcasm!
In my opinion, in the same way that you should always assume that a gun is loaded, you should also assume that a projectile will be dangerous for some distance. Whether or not it is.
We should however assume that any person with a weapon of any sort (assuming they are legally going about their business) will have assessed the risks associated with their chosen method any have controls (and insurance) in place.
If people shot responsibly i.e. not into the air then we wouldn't need insurance....
edit..or is insurance there to protect 'us' from the 'accident' were we 'accidently' shot someone 2 miles/300yds away...if you can't see were the projectile will land then don't pull the trigger, be it a catapult, crossbow, airgun, rimfire or centrefire.....simples
Last edited:
kennyc
Well-Known Member
So, can we get back to the original discussion? Can a shot be "safe" where there is no solid backstop? Of course it can. I stalked on a Scottish Island, where I would often have several thousand miles of Atlantic ocean as a backstop. God help the poor fishermen 
sorry couldn't help myself
however there was a case in the late 70's in the States of a young woman driver killed by a ricochet from a .303 fired a mile offshore into the water by a fisherman.
sorry couldn't help myself
however there was a case in the late 70's in the States of a young woman driver killed by a ricochet from a .303 fired a mile offshore into the water by a fisherman.
kennyc
Well-Known Member
perhaps you could write a general disclaimer notice that they could display before and after each show?
Matt
Now I am sorry, but that is just plain daft. It isn't a 155mm howitzer, it's FAC air.
Paul at Fechan
Well-Known Member
doesn't need to big to take an eye out
kennyc
Well-Known Member
nope it just needs to be in close proximity to an eye, and with any sensible use that isn't likely to occur
you really are blindly ignoring half the discussion here aren't you?Now I am sorry, but that is just plain daft. It isn't a 155mm howitzer, it's FAC air.
Totally agree with DavidTS, that is daft. Even an FAC rated air weapon drops away very quickly. My 28 ftlb Air Arms is used constantly and with a bit of common sense is totally safe under all shooting conditions I use it for. I repeat, common sense and know what the rifle will do.
Paul at Fechan
Well-Known Member
Kenny, no not at all, it's just that too many people seem to be brushing aside the potential of a shot to cause injury.
So is a looped shot landing out of sight a safe shot? no
Are straight up and downs dangerous? no
When the fallout area is clear can a low shot in the air be safe? yes
Should a responsible airgun hunter ensure that the shots they fire are safe? yes
What half of the discussion have I missed?
So is a looped shot landing out of sight a safe shot? no
Are straight up and downs dangerous? no
When the fallout area is clear can a low shot in the air be safe? yes
Should a responsible airgun hunter ensure that the shots they fire are safe? yes
What half of the discussion have I missed?
Last edited:
kennyc
Well-Known Member
you missed all the discussion about whether the original FSB shot was safe, and kept swinging the discussion towards out of sight shots, where there was no proof that the beaten area was not clear. by the way I take issue with the statement that straight up straight down shots are not dangerous, in what way can a shot taken where you are underneath the falling shot looking up not be considered dangerous, when a low looping shot into an empty area is considered dangerous ?
even a pellet with significantly reduced energy can cause serious injury at distance.
Who says so. Ever tried to test it. when you see a pellet bouncing on the ground after it has spent its energy is no more dangerous than normal size hail. It might sting a bit if you are unlucky.
Who says so. Ever tried to test it. when you see a pellet bouncing on the ground after it has spent its energy is no more dangerous than normal size hail. It might sting a bit if you are unlucky.
Paul at Fechan
Well-Known Member
oh come on kenny, we settled that ages ago when the statement was made we weren't there so let it lie and moved on to the wider issues for consideration. A falling pellet has limited velocity as it tumbles back to the ground but when a pellet is in the arc of a predictable low angle trajectory it's carrying real venom and hits point first with its most effecient bc. The person firing is in control of safety and my LAST POINT says:
Should a responsible airgun hunter ensure that the shots they fire are safe? yes
As the hunter if you thought it was coming down near you you wouldn't look up to catch it after your shot for goodness sake because that wouldn't be safe.
Should a responsible airgun hunter ensure that the shots they fire are safe? yes
As the hunter if you thought it was coming down near you you wouldn't look up to catch it after your shot for goodness sake because that wouldn't be safe.
Similar threads
