NSW Fly Batemans Bay

[Ackley Improved]

I love the Bay..

[Rinso]

chappo,
Yes the templates are the templates but that is another issue. The fact remains that the FAR (more particularly the inspecting officer for NSW ranges) now wants to see the ratified rules from the SSAA. I believe this is a product of the Qld issue where the Qld Police wont allow the Fly shoot without a formal rule book and suprise now NSW want the same, they must talk to each other.
Yes you could run a Fly shoot using paper sighter material and you might even see your shots on that although with a dam immediately in front of the target line when the mirage kicks up it can be awful. The shoot would be limited to rifles using ammo with less energy than a 308, that rules out an awful lot of guns and bar 1 or maybe 2 all heavy guns. At that point is it still able to be run as the NSW Open Fly Champ's ??????

It is possible that an other event ie a 300yd BR match could be run or something similar but again restricted to 308 or less energy and would the shooters support the event???????

[Tony Z]

Chappo, read it as FAR require rules for a shoot to be legitimized, but insert "how to fuck the shooters around so they get pissed off and leave". It is fine for a copper to walk down a busy city street and draw his service pistol and shoot and kill a dog in a cabin of a ute because it was showing aggression to passers by whilst in the act of protecting its masters property. No range controls needed there, but god help us when a shot is fired outside some sort of match rules whilst on a controlled and fully templated rifle range.
So when does a shot down a range become legal or illegal? I can only assume that a bullet must somehow know that it has been fired without a set of rules attached to its departure from a barrel and in doing so automatically becomes more dangerous than the bullet fired next door during an approved event. Now that makes perfectly good sense to me.
So in what way does individual testing of rifles or just general plinking or the act of running in a barrel on a Saturday afternoon at the local range escape this rules requirement? I have yet to see a set of rules for plinking or is that coming???. If taken to the letter, the only way a shot could be fired down range is while some sort of organized match is in progress that has an approved set of rules attached to it. I don't for one moment think that FAR has our best interests at heart when they say they wish to have a concise set of rules in place so as to protect us from the dreaded threat of litigation, but rather see it as a method of removing the word "accident" from an incident report and have it replaced with "neglect" and a clear path to litigation.
Now this is where the SSAA is really lacking in that this sort of garbage goes unchallenged. The first question that needs to be asked of all the FARs across the country is "in what way does a set of rules attached to a bullet make it more or less dangerous when fired down a controlled rifle range?" The next question should then be "what sort of firearms safety are you teaching your officers when one of them fired several shots into a dog contained inside a vehicle that was parked on a busy city street?"

Loose Cannon Bodine.

[petevm]

Fly Shooters,
I was present and well involved with the meeting in Canberra and am of the opinion that we need the Fly shoot to be formally adopted into SSAA rules as this will enable all States and Territories to run this event without hinderance from their authorites as well as tidying up a few legalities regarding the SSAA insurance coverage. It has always been each club's responsibility to ensure that their range is laid out, equipped and operated as per their approved template. The fact that Batemans Bay has been "caught out" is not the concern of this discussion - and trying to attribute blame for this to the Canberra meeting is irrelavent. It's happened and we must move on.
All rules, as we are familiar with them, were discussed and in some instances clarified (eg Heavy gun weight is un-limited). The only new rule discussed and eventually voted in, is 3.2.4 in the interim rule book - 'No cameras or electronic aids allowed for competitors or spotters'. What this means is that during the time it takes for a competitor to complete his/her target no advantage can be gained by these methods. Obviously spectators may view a monitor but must not pass any information to shooter or spotter. Also once the target is completed the shooter and spotter may view the result as it can no longer assist.
By now you may be wondering how I have a copy of the interim rule book. Well, as a Victorian benchrest delegate at the annual delegates meeting held during the BR Nationals at Silverdale over Easter, the issue of the 'Fly' was an agenda item. As a consequence of the Canberra meeting Kaye McIntyre had prepared the new rule book and tabled it at the meeting. Two delegates from each of 6 States and Territores were present and included 4 regular Fly shooters and one new-comer . After some discussion a vote on the acceptance of the 'Fly' rules into the benchrest rule book was deferred as some delegates felt that the short notice had not allowed them time to canvas their members to obtain a blessing to vote one way or the other. At this stage Vic and Qld are For, NSW is Against and we await decisions from the others with a deadline of end of May.
If the majority vote is in favour then the interim rules will come into force immediately but cannot appear in the BR rule book until 2015. However none of the forgoing will impact on the way we run and shoot our matches anyway.
During the course of the next 4 years we will have annual meetings on the Friday before the Federal Cup to fine-tune the rules if necessary before they become formalised.
Pete

[malcolm]

Gidday Pete, "had not allowed them time to canvas their members to obtain a blessing to vote one way or the other."
Does this statement refer to the 'Target Cams " ?
I know it was voted on at "THE" meeting, but I'm still in favour of Target cams.
Cheers Malcolm

[petevm]

Hi All,
In answer to Malcolm's question - no, the deferral was to allow consideration of the general principal of the 'Fly' rules being added to the BR rule book. As a point of interest I have recently recieved the first of the 'Benchrest Model' target cameras as up-graded due to my suggestions. Have tried it in the backyard and will trial it this weekend during a club match at 500mt. First impressions are excellent and hope to report that field trials will prove positive. The camera (formally 2x) has been replaced with a 1 to 27 zoom with 30mm objective, as well as other refinements - expected price around $2500 with lots of extras included. This unit can be placed up to 10mt from the target and still transmit a decent image.
On to other matters - the interim rule book has a number of questionable points that will need ratification by the active 'Fly' shooters to resolve in the coming years. None of the issues will affect the running of matches meanwhile.
Also mentioned at the Canberra meeting was the formation of a 'Fly' commitee formed from 2 reps from each interested State or Territory. My initial proposal was as below -
ACT - Jim McKinley (as one of the 3 originators), David Groves (as his apparent successor in running things in ACT.
NSW - John Rawson (as one of the 3 originators), Dave Purcell (as a well established competitor & contributor to debate)
QLD - Stuart Elliot (as one of the 3 originators), Daniel Lynch (as the organiser of matches at the Belmont Range)
VIC - Peter van Meurs (as a well established competitor that travels and organises the Vic matches), Jaegen Peet (Another competitor prepared to travel and make a contribution )
SA and WA are invited to add their say.
Please help here with some feedback - as we need to get a 'Fly' management commitee up and running ASAP. Don't forget that at State level a meeting can be called to ratify or re-elect the Sate's delegates before the next Fed Cup meeting where it is hoped a Chairman will be elected, to pass concerns thru to the Benchrest commitee.
Pete

[malcolm]

I feel the names you have mentioned, have great merit.
Let's get this ball rollin'
Malcolm

[Rinso]

With regards to Pete V's post above the key is right here for all NSW SSAA members

By now you may be wondering how I have a copy of the interim rule book. Well, as a Victorian benchrest delegate at the annual delegates meeting held during the BR Nationals at Silverdale over Easter, the issue of the 'Fly' was an agenda item. As a consequence of the Canberra meeting Kaye McIntyre had prepared the new rule book and tabled it at the meeting. Two delegates from each of 6 States and Territores were present and included 4 regular Fly shooters and one new-comer . After some discussion a vote on the acceptance of the 'Fly' rules into the benchrest rule book was deferred as some delegates felt that the short notice had not allowed them time to canvas their members to obtain a blessing to vote one way or the other. At this stage Vic and Qld are For, NSW is Against and we await decisions from the others with a deadline of end of May.
If the majority vote is in favour then the interim rules will come into force immediately but cannot appear in the BR rule book until 2015. However none of the forgoing will impact on the way we run and shoot our matches anyway.

The NSW SSAA BR delegate is against the adoption of the rules into the SSAA BR rules .... The NSW BR delegate is Rob Carnell his email is rob@benchrestbulletin.com.au he also is the owner/operator of the Benchrest Bulletin web forum ... he is supposed to act on the opinion of the majority of SSAA NSW members so send him an email asking him to support the the rules adoption, its in our best interest as shooters to have these rules adopted and to move forward.
What else did you have planned for the next 3 minutes .. thats all it takes you know

[Tony Z]

It will be interesting to see where the Fly will be in a year or two.

Loose Cannon Bodine.

[Whitty]

Dave, the contact details for Rob Carnell bounced for me. The correct address is

<rob@benchrestbulletin.net>

or try

<robbycar@hotmail.com>

[Curtley78]

"had not allowed them time to canvas their members to obtain a blessing to vote one way or the other."

I must admit that sounds rather despotic.

I still think it's rather pathetic that 'Target Cams' and other electronic aids have been Kyboshed given that not everyone can afford a 60 X March let alone a Nightforce.

The one question that needs be asked is Cui Bono...?

I think the whole concept of allowing shooters to 'vote' was utter bullshit. I believe that the old heads had already got together and that it was a foregone conclusion.

"had not allowed them time to canvas their members to obtain a blessing to vote one way or the other."

No doubt electronic aids whether they be Cameras, weather stations or electronic wind flags would impede upon the sale of March and Nightforce rifle scopes and thus banning electronic devices has ensured that the elitists and those with more shekels then sense will continue to dominate the discipline.

Having been out at Silverdale today I sat like Dantes and pondered a few questions. The first. How do these 'new' rules affect the running and convention of a 200 meter Fly being held at ranges such as Silverdale, secondly...a few of us would like to revitalise the Fly match at Hornsby. Now what are the procedures or will it be just too hard...?

Finally....it was always my understanding that Fly shoots were convened under strict protocols of the SSAA given that we sign the SSAA attendance register. Having signed the attendance register this would have ensured that the SSAA had a 'Duty of Care' to those shooters participating as competitors in such event and such 'Duty of Care' also entails responsibility and liabilities.

I personally believe there are ulterior motives and politics being played for the benefit of minority interests.

Regards

Sean

[Matt P]

Sean
As Hornsby is a NRAA range getting it up and running shouldn't be a problem all you have to do is book a Sunday with the range committe, organise targets and a form of sighting as splash plates aren't allowed, run the butts and the mound (require qualified staff), score targets and run the stats and then get enough people to turn up to make it worth while, easy no problem.
Have you looked through a March or N/F in bad mirage (which is most of the time) ?? as I have both there is very little advantage if any to be had when condition get bad which is when you really need to see whats going on. The camera system that Peter refers to isn't cheap ($2500) I think banning cameras is a good thing and levels the playing field, how many people out there could afford that kind of money on something they'll use less than a high quality scope.
There haven't been any changes to the rules (other than there is no weight limit in heavy gun) the issue with the Bay is a range issue which has nothing to do with the rules.
BTW whats the ulterior motive, and who or what are the minorty ???

Matt Paroz

[jimbo]

Sean, I was at the National Benchrest meeting at Silverdale over Easter, when the National Secretary of the SSAA (Kaye McIntyre) attended as an ACT delegate, and dropped these new Fly Rules upon us. It is first time we had seen them. Each State delegate has a copy to take back to their members - I strongly suggest you contact your State delegate and get a copy.

I can assure you there is NO hidden agenda with the ban on electronic devices being used by competitors, and probably for the very reasons that you accuse the importers of expensive scopes of plotting.

No, not everybody can afford a March or Nightforce scope, just as not everybody can afford a personal camera system to view their own target. If the 'well to do' could front up with a camera system, I believe that this would have a much more detrimental effect upon a new 'less affluent' fly shooter than the fact that someone has a 12-42x scope on their rifle.

[Tony Z]

Sorry wrong place.

[BRT]

I think the whole concept of allowing shooters to 'vote' was utter bullshit. I believe that the old heads had already got together and that it was a foregone conclusion.

No doubt electronic aids whether they be Cameras, weather stations or electronic wind flags would impede upon the sale of March and Nightforce rifle scopes and thus banning electronic devices has ensured that the elitists and those with more shekels then sense will continue to dominate the discipline.


Regards

Sean

I normally don't bother with this forum but a few people have told me about this. I have to say Sean, I think your comments here seem to be directed at me and they are way out of line. They are not accurate and you should know that too. You seem to suggest that I had something to do with the arrangement of the meeting in Canberra about target cams with a decision so as to possibly "impede sales of March scopes" etc.
I had nothing to do with arranging that meeting. I knew nothing about it till a couple of hours beforehand. It was John Rawson and others who had that idea of a meeting. When the issue about target cams came up in the meeting I listened with interest and towards the end made some comments that I personally have no view one way or the other on target cams. There were many people at the meeting that can bear witness to this and some of them would also be watching on this forum.
It also shows a lack of respect IMO to Nightforce being one of the sponsors of the event.


Stuart Elliott