Rifle Range Regs

I know the military deal with use of Pam 21 for all aspects of setting up a field range and all other ranges.

try aslo searching for JSP 403 volume 2
 
Hi. So it appears that neither the Army or the NRA are in a position to sign off a range any longer. Basically this now comes down you and your insurer.

If you are serious about building and getting a range signed off and I can send you details of an eminently well qualified consultant to help you through the minefield. Excellent bloke and very reasonably priced.
 
Hi. So it appears that neither the Army or the NRA are in a position to sign off a range any longer. Basically this now comes down you and your insurer.

If you are serious about building and getting a range signed off and I can send you details of an eminently well qualified consultant to help you through the minefield. Excellent bloke and very reasonably priced.

Not quite!
The Army still approve military ranges and issue range safety certificates for military ranges but haven't done civilian ranges for many years now. The NRA employ consultants who will certify that civilian ranges comply to accepted standards, the standards that they employ are generally inline with those used by the army.

I would be interested in having details of the consultant that you mention NorthDorset as the club I belong to are considering recertification of it's range and while we have contact details for one consultant his fees are not exactly cheap. So I would very much appreciate it if you could perhaps pm me the details of your consultant please.
 
Last edited:
Sorry 8x57 did I somehow make an assumption that Greener Jim isn't a military base or something?

Offer still stands. I'm just involved in this process myself.
 
I think we are both confused now, perhaps time to start again. :lol:
My excuse is the wife and daughters have just come into the room and are rabbiting away and demanding that I listen to them.

The way that I look at the present system of "certification or approval" is that you have to be able to demonstrate to your insurers if necessary that the design and construction of your range conforms to a recognised approved standard, and that the suitably qualified and experienced consultant provides evidence to this effect normally in the form of certification in conjunction with a set of plans.
 
I think we are both confused now, perhaps time to start again. :lol:
My excuse is the wife and daughters have just come into the room and are rabbiting away and demanding that I listen to them.

The way that I look at the present system of "certification or approval" is that you have to be able to demonstrate to your insurers if necessary that the design and construction of your range conforms to a recognised approved standard, and that the suitably qualified and experienced consultant provides evidence to this effect normally in the form of certification in conjunction with a set of plans.

I have sent you a PM.

What we found is that your build needs to conform generally to the military standard, which is fair enough I guess but then if you have followed this to the letter the insurers will be looking for an authority to have signed it off. The military will not sign off a civvy range as you quite rightly say. The NRA won't either so you end up with a consultant who has the experience and skill to tell you what he expects you to build and will sign off.

So rather than getting bogged down the guidance for military range design, cut to the chase and bring in the consultant early on who will explain what you need, what to look out for and probably even give you a leg up in where to source the right materials.
 
This has been interesting. I find it quite amazing that the NRA have abdicated responsibility for approving civilian ranges. Surely (a) it's in the best interests of the sport to have more places we can shoot and (b) if they don't want to be the ultimate body to regulate the sport and accept the responsibilities attached to that, then they should be replaced by a different organisation that does.
 
This has been interesting. I find it quite amazing that the NRA have abdicated responsibility for approving civilian ranges. Surely (a) it's in the best interests of the sport to have more places we can shoot and (b) if they don't want to be the ultimate body to regulate the sport and accept the responsibilities attached to that, then they should be replaced by a different organisation that does.

The NRA haven't abdicated responsibility M275, they never had the statutory power to certify approval in the first place, so we can't blame them on this occasion. What happens is that when someone approaches them for guidance on range construction they sell them a set of guidance notes and put the prospective builder in contact with one of their freelance consultants. It is the consultant who is qualified to advise if the range meets the required standard and will issue the certificate.

The consultants I understand are or have been in the past mainly guys who undertook this sort of work in the army or as civilian employees of the army following retirement, though there is no reason why someone suitably qualified and experienced shouldn't undertake this work who has had no previous connection with the army. It's a similar sort of position to myself acting as a fire safety consultant/ fire risk assessor. I am retired from the fire service and no longer have any connection with any fire authority. I merely advise my clients on how best to comply with fire safety legislation. My advise must be based on recognised and approved standards. Another probably closer comparison would be that of approved building inspectors who issue certificates to conform that new buildings or altered constructions comply with building regulations. Now these guys do actually issue certificates of compliance based on their professional opinion.
 
Thanks 8x57 for that clarification. I'll take this one off the list of reasons why I dislike the NRA (plenty left, though).

I still feel that the NRA should be the certifying body rather than the independent consultant. This would avoid any doubt being cast upon the credentials of the consultant by insurers. Unless of course there is a recognised standard for range consultants as there are for electricians or financial advisors.
 
I'm no great fan of the NRA either, I think they lost their way a long long time ago. In fact I hope that someone is already making contingency arrangements for when they finally turn up their toes and leave H.O. approved clubs that are affiliated to it in the mire, because that is inevitable unless they change.

Any consultant has to be able to demonstrate relevant knowledge, training and experience. They also have to have sufficient professional indemnity and public liability insurance. In my own case with regard to fire risk assessments I am constantly aware that if I fail in my duty I could ultimately risk the penalty of imprisonment, and yes there has been a case fairly recently where this was done. Therefore while you are working for a client and trying to achieve the most cost effective and effective result for him you also have to cover your own back and only recommend what you may ultimately have to defend in court. I therefore think that the NRA have acted wisely on this one by opting out or subcontracting such work to someone who actually knows what they are doing rather than bumbling on in an amateurish manner.
 
Back
Top