Does your gun range ban .50 BMG?

[bigger hammer]

I don't think a very serious argument can be made for "it tears up the berms too much".

I agree. It's a convenient excuse though.

A good and real and fair argument IS used by some ranges that ban them along the lines of "at some point, some time, some one WILL miss the berm, and over she goes. A .50 goes 4 miles, with a heavy destructive bullet, whereas the other rounds go about 2 miles, with ligher bullets. There's nothing for 2 miles back behind, but there's a neighborhood 3.5 miles behind, so we can't take that chance."

I'll argue with your figures. First it's more than just "missing the berm." In order to get the maximum range the angle of fire must be far more than just a "just over the top of the berm;" it's in the neighborhood of 45 degrees. The JBM Ballistic Calculator says that a typical .50 bullet will travel about 6,600 yards – 3.75 miles. A .308 will travel about 5,000 yards – 2.9 miles. You overstate the .50 and understate the .308. And you've not considered the other calibers that I've mentioned which travel nearly a mile further than the .50 and are (based on the complete lack of answers to my very direct questions) NOT banned anywhere!

You're mention of the relative destructive quality of the bullets is appropriate but I don't think that someone who's "breakfast" is disturbed by either round will discern much difference.

AND it's not all that hard to construct firing spots that will stop bullets that depart the firing line at such an angle to limit such travel to reasonable (safe) distances where there is no habitation. One would think that with all the expertise that one poster has been trumpeting that they'd know this.

It's that the "duck hunters" (apologies all around again) aren't interested. They don't shoot such guns so they really couldn't be bothered.

 

[bigger hammer]

I don't think a very serious argument can be made for "it tears up the berms too much".

I agree. It's a convenient excuse though.

A good and real and fair argument IS used by some ranges that ban them along the lines of "at some point, some time, some one WILL miss the berm, and over she goes. A .50 goes 4 miles, with a heavy destructive bullet, whereas the other rounds go about 2 miles, with ligher bullets. There's nothing for 2 miles back behind, but there's a neighborhood 3.5 miles behind, so we can't take that chance."

I'll argue with your figures. First it's more than just "missing the berm." In order to get the maximum range the angle of fire must be far more than just a "just over the top of the berm;" it's in the neighborhood of 45 degrees. The JBM Ballistic Calculator says that a typical .50 bullet will travel about 6,600 yards – 3.75 miles. A .308 will travel about 5,000 yards – 2.9 miles. You overstate the .50 and understate the .308. And you've not considered the other calibers that I've mentioned which travel nearly a mile further than the .50 and are (based on the complete lack of answers to my very direct questions) NOT banned anywhere!

You're mention of the relative destructive quality of the bullets is appropriate but I don't think that someone who's "breakfast" is disturbed by either round will discern much difference.

AND it's not all that hard to construct firing spots that will stop bullets that depart the firing line at such an angle to limit such travel to reasonable (safe) distances where there is no habitation. One would think that with all the expertise that one poster has been trumpeting that they'd know this.

It's that the "duck hunters" (apologies all around again) aren't interested. They don't shoot such guns so they really couldn't be bothered.

 

[bigger hammer]

What is more likely to go over the berm? Someone rapid firing a pistol or small rifle in a standing position or a 30 pound rifle sitting on the bench? I have heard of only one person being injured by a 50 cal in the USA. How many other firearms can boast of this record?

RanB please stop the reasonable and logical arguments. There are a few here who have made up their minds and don't want to be bothered with the facts.

 

[bigger hammer]

If a range's rules are egregious or unfair, then it seems to me that the thing to do is to take it up with the board in charge of that range.

Been there. It was like talking to a 1950's racial bigot.

Getting all red-faced and accusing people you've never even met in real life of being anti-gun is frankly ridiculous and counterproductive.

No red faces here and no accusations either. Just pointing out that this is the same tactics used by the anti's. As to the "never met in real life" … I've never met Chuck Schumer, but based on his actions and his comments I know he's anti-gun. I've never (that I know of) anyone from this forum but based on their comments I have come to believe that they're (at least towards some guns) anti-gun.

 

[briangsxr600]

I use Knob Creek gun range need I say more.

 

[bigger hammer]

I have to agree with the guy that said he would be more of a bother to the guy with the .50 BMG than he would to me. If I seen one i'd be drooling all over wanting the guy to say "hey you wanna put a couple down range".

That, by far, is the more common response to a .50 showing up at my range than people leaving because they're disturbed by the noise of muzzle blast.

I get plenty of drooling looks shooting my AK-47 there and I try my best to go to the far end so the brass (or rather cheap steel cases) will kick out and not smack someone 10 feet away in the head. If people seem interested I'll let them fire off a few shots with it to see if they like it.

You reminded me of something. I know of a range where the bolt action shooters complained about people shooting semiautos because their brass was flying around "disturbing them." The range banned all semi-autos as the board was the previously discussed "duck hunters who did not care about other guns." They closed soon after because people stopped going.

When faced with this situation my range put up removable wire screens that attached to the side of the bench to prevent the ejected brass from leaving the shooting position. Works great. Some people see problems and some see solutions.

 

[lvcat2004]

I have to agree in essence with Big Hammer.

I think banning 50 BMG only, and letting 416, 408, 338 go is purely ilogical.

NO, I don't know about the details of YOUR range, and I don't CARE, but if you made it so that 50BMG WILL tear-up the berm, but thousands of 223, 308, 408, or 416 will leave the berm untouched, then you are either lying or the berm was poorly desinged, or both.

Having said that, what a private range wants to do is not my business. If the range board consists of a bunch of biggoted old men with 243 bolt action and can't tolerate semi-auto or bigger calibers for reason that they can't back-up by objective data or objective neighoborhood concerns, then I'm going somewhere else instead of wasting my time educating old dogs.

 

[mokin]

Not yet.

While we most of us appreciate those responsible enough to not shoot up the steel at 100 yards and are trying to develope longer diatance ranges there are a few .50 BMG shooters who seem determined to turn us off on the idea of long ranges and big calibers.

But, to be fair, there seems to be a lot shooters who like to blast away at wharever, regardless of whether it is supposed to be shot at or not. I guess the .50s just leave a bigger hole.

 

[Frank Ettin]

If the proper location for the range has been selected the difference wouldn't make a tinker's damn...

Just another example of you not knowing what you're talking about. Our club owns the land it's on and has been there for over 60 years. The worlds grown up around us, and we have to work with what we have.

The first order of business was to have a place for folks around hereto be able to shoot. If we didn't do it, people would have had to travel quit a ways to shoot anything. As it is, the fact that we don't accommodate .50 BMG is a small price to pay for our being able to make good shooting facilities available to a whole lot of folks shooting other calibers. Our members and customers really appreciate what we've been able to provide for them and show their appreciation by filling the range to capacity on the weekends.

...ALSO if the range was designed properly it would be impossible for such an elevation of a muzzle to release a round at that angle. AGAIN I'm surprised that this wasn't considered....

In fact, the firing points are covered and the cover extends considerably forward and is fitted with armored baffles. That prevents shooting high. However, the baffles are insufficient to stop a .50 BMG or its relatives. The cost of armor baffles that would stop a .50 BMG was prohibitive, not only the cost of the material itself but the cost for constructing supports that would bear the substantial additional weight.

As it was, our range remodeling cost our club in the neighborhood of half a million dollars. You didn't pay any of that, so you have no business complaining.

...There are ways to ensure that the problem you describe, shooting too far, noise etc. can be handled...

We did what we could do, given our physical locale, the terrain, the character of the surrounding community and our budget. These are of course more things you know nothing about. If you think you could do better, I'm sure you'd be welcome to try -- as long as you foot the bill.

BTW, how many ranges have you built?

..Your club, in true antigunners fashion..

Now who's calling whom names.

 

[JohnBT]

"You didn't pay any of that, so you have no business complaining."

I'll bet it doesn't stop him from whining about how unfair the world is and how everybody is stupid except him and how anybody that doesn't agree with him is like some racist from the '50s or a duck hunter or something. Wanna bet?

John

 

[bigger hammer]

Just another example of you not knowing what you're talking about.

I've already demonstrated that I know plenty of what we're talking about. I just don't know the specifics of YOUR situation. But that makes no difference, you're dribbling information out as our conversation progresses.

The first order of business was to have a place for folks around hereto be able to shoot.

Everyone that is, except those who shoot guns that you don't like. LOL

If we didn't do it, people would have had to travel quit a ways to shoot anything.

WOW! Quite the humanitarians there. ROFL. Notice that the .50 shooters STILL "have to travel quite a ways to shoot." But that's fine with you, who wants those nasty things around?

As it is, the fact that we don't accommodate .50 BMG is a small price to pay for our being able to make good shooting facilities available to a whole lot of folks shooting other calibers.

As we've seen and will see again, you could have easily accommodated the .50's but you're one of the "duck hunters" I've been talking about. You don't have a .50. You don't like them and so you see no need to have them around. So you constructed your range without regard to their needs to shoot these guns safely.

I wonder if any of your board members are .50 shooters? Somehow I doubt it or there would be accommodations for them.

There are few of us who shoot .50's. We have little voice, compared to the rest of the shooters, and we shoot a weapon that is one of those that is high on the list to be demonized and banned by the antigunners. We're targeted by the antigunners (and you) for these very reasons. But there are still many of us around.

Earlier I wrote,

...ALSO if the range was designed properly it would be impossible for such an elevation of a muzzle to release a round at that angle. AGAIN I'm surprised that this wasn't considered....

In fact, the firing points are covered and the cover extends considerably forward and is fitted with armored baffles. That prevents shooting high. However, the baffles are insufficient to stop a .50 BMG or its relatives. The cost of armor baffles that would stop a .50 BMG was prohibitive, not only the cost of the material itself but the cost for constructing supports that would bear the substantial additional weight.

Nice try. But it's just more nonsense. You wouldn't have to equip the entire range with baffles to accommodate the .50's. You'd only need to provide a couple of those spots. Yes it would cost a bit more money but not nearly as much as you'd like the readers to believe. You're making one excuse after another. LOL.

As it was, our range remodeling cost our club in the neighborhood of half a million dollars. You didn't pay any of that, so you have no business complaining.

Do you think I'm complaining? If so, you're wrong. I'm just pointing out (gee, haven't I said this before?) that you folks have chosen not to support all firearms. You've made your choice and now you're trying to hide behind highly flawed reasoning.

Earlier I wrote,

There are ways to ensure that the problem you describe, shooting too far, noise etc. can be handled.

We did what we could do, given our physical locale, the terrain, the character of the surrounding community and our budget.

Nonsense. You did what you wanted to do. Simply by increasing the range fees by a small amount for a short time you could have done much more. You made a decision NOT to do what could be done to accommodate all shooters.

BTW, how many ranges have you built?

I've been involved in building enough to know that just about any outdoor range that can handle high powered rifles (like the .308) can accommodate virtually any caliber. You, instead of having an interest in learning more, like many established businesses, think you know all there is to know. You've said as much several times. Remember writing this?

…you know absolutely nothing about our range or our situation, so how dare you make such a preposterous statement? We built our range, and we know it's design parameters.

How about this,

we designed our range with the help of an NRA recommended consultant, that we did an aerial survey of our property and the surrounding area, that some of our members are engineers and understand design and construction, and that one of our members has special expertise in dirt moving and grading and understands the construction of berms.

Does this sound familiar?

it is another fact that we know more about our range then you do. And then it is also a fact that we are more qualified to decide how to run our range than you are.

Rarely have I seen such a "know it all" attitude and such a closed mind. But it's something that's not unusual for a business that's been around for as long as your has. It's become a good ol' boys club where "We know better than anyone else."

Earlier I wrote,

There are ways to ensure that the problem you describe, shooting too far, noise etc. can be handled. Your club, in true antigunners fashion, has chosen not to make them. Quite a few ranges have taken these steps. You folks have decided not to.

Now who's calling whom names.

Saying that someone uses similar tactics of a group, is hardly calling people names. Either you're grasping at straws or you really don't have a clue about what name calling is.

BTW can you tell us why you're repeatedly refused to answer my very direct questions? Does your range ban such calibers as the .408 Chey Tac or the .338 Lapua; both of which will shoot about a mile further than the .50? How about the .300 Win Mag that will shoot about 1/3 of a mile further than a .308? I'd bet that you've not answered because your range DOES NOT ban them and you know that will "shoot holes" clear through your specious argument. Heck it already has.

Might we know what range you're talking about so I can be sure never to spend a dime there?

 

[bigger hammer]

I'll bet it doesn't stop him from whining about how unfair the world is and how everybody is stupid except him and how anybody that doesn't agree with him is like some racist from the '50s or a duck hunter or something. Wanna bet?

Interesting viewpoint you have there JohnBT. I didn't pay for something "so I'm not permitted to talk about it. ROFL.

Want to hear some whining? Read some of fiddletown's posts!

But John since you've brought this up please show us specifically where I've "whined about how unfair the world is." While you're at it please show us specifically where I've called anyone "stupid." Quite the contrary is the case, with fiddletown calling me "ignorant," or Mike the Wolf from calling me an "***hole," but somehow you've managed to miss that bit. How convenient for you!

Since I've already made a reference to "a 1950's bigot" and "duck hunters," this is a petty safe part of the bet. ROFL.

 

[JWarren]

fiddletown wrote:

You didn't pay any of that, so you have no business complaining.

This is the trump card.

I have to agree with fiddletown, and I am firmly an EBR owner and a .50 BMG supporter.

Even so, the "Entitlement" is strong in this thread. It is part of the trend that people believe that they should-- for some reason-- get to dictate how others conduct THEIR business.

If you go to a seafood resturant, don't demand that they serve you a steak.
If you go to a Ford dealership, don't demand that they sell you a Dodge.


As I see it, the bottom line is:

- If you are an owner of the range, you have the final say.
- If you are a joint owner (or member depending on your contract), you have a vote.
- If you are a customer of the range, you can give your suggestion.

You may persuade via your vote or your suggestion, or you may not. If not, you have the option of dealing with it, or going elsewhere.

If you have no vested interest in the range, you can pound sand if you don't get your way-- and they don't HAVE to be logical in their reasoning.

If the owners of a range wanted to ban .22 rimfire because the rounds made it rain on Saturdays, that is their right.


I have a private 600 yard range on my land. Occasionally, I have have people come shoot on it. FOR ANY REASON I choose, I can decide WHO and WHAT I'll allow on MY "range." They don't get a vote or input. I pay the property taxes, I paid for the bulldozer to push it off, and I paid for the the equipment and built it with my own hands.



People are being called bigots and other names for not accommodating certain shooters. I suppose I'll be called one as well. However, any posts you will see from me over the last several years will show that I am a huge supporter of EBRs, for which I include the 50's.

I just happen to believe that a person's private property rights trump another's right to impose THEIR will on the private property owner.

-- John

 

[bigger hammer]

JWarren quotes fiddletown

You didn't pay any of that, so you have no business complaining.

This is the trump card.

Even so, the "Entitlement" is strong in this thread. It is part of the trend that people believe that they should-- for some reason-- get to dictate how others conduct THEIR business.

I'm not telling anyone how to run their business. I'm just giving my view of their rationalizations for doing something. And showing how they COULD do what they claim they CAN'T do.

As I see it, the bottom line is:

- If you are an owner of the range, you have the final say.

Not quite.

- If you are a joint owner (or member depending on your contract), you have a vote.
- If you are a customer of the range, you can give your suggestion.

You may persuade via your vote or your suggestion, or you may not. If not, you have the option of dealing with it, or going elsewhere.

That's why I've asked for the name of fiddletown's range. I want to make sure that I never go there, even if I'm shooting something other than my .50.

If you have no vested interest in the range, you can pound sand if you don't get your way-- and they don't HAVE to be logical in their reasoning.

True. But if they're not "logical in their reasoning" I'll be happy to point it out and let others judge for themselves.

I have a private 600 yard range on my land. Occasionally, I have have people come shoot on it. FOR ANY REASON I choose, I can decide WHO and WHAT I'll allow on MY "range." They don't get a vote or input. I pay the property taxes, I paid for the bulldozer to push it off, and I paid for the the equipment and built it with my own hands.

You're wrong unless your range is just for your enjoyment and for your invited friends. If you charge admission for the use of it and you deny someone based on their being a member of a protected class, YOU CANNOT deny them admission. Property right of a business is NOT absolute as you claim.

.50 shooters are obviously not a member of any protected class. Quite the opposite is it the case. We're targets of attack at many levels.

So, do you allow .50's on your range? How about guns that shoot further than them?

 

[Acera]

bigger hammer you have made solid points and I appreciate your passion for our sport. Right now it seems you are preaching to two groups, the choir (where I am as a fellow .50 BMG shooter), and the atheists who will not sway from their predisposed positions not matter how good your argument is.

I am sorry to see you have gone through all the effort, but have no fear in a few years when they ban these guys hunting rifles for the same criticism they pile on you, they will yell unfair.

You have got to remember when they ban the .50 BMG for being the biggest legally available round, that will move them one step closer to their beloved deer rifle facing the same issue.

There is a line in the sand, we can't expect to keep moving it back into we are in such a tight corner we can't fight our way out of it.

 

[JWarren]

bigger hammer,

I'm aware of the nuances of "protected" classes as it pertains to a commercial enterprise. My analogy was not perfect. However, I think we all will agree that caliber choice/firearm choice does NOT fall into the realm of a "protected" class.

In addition, my comparison to MY private property is flawed. I am not a commercial venture. This is for my personal use and enjoyment. For that reason, I can dicate with absolute liberty what or who will be on my property-- including "protected" classes of any sort should I be of that mindset.

However, my reasoning stands. A person that has vested interest has FAR greater say-- even in a commercial venture-- than a person with no vested interest or ownership.

As for allowing shooting of 50's on my range, sure. I'd just hope that I'd get to take a shot or two. If I had enough practical use for a 50 BMG, I'd have one myself. But its hard to find a use in a pine forest-- hence the need to rent a bulldozer just to get a 600 yard shot.


-- John

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I just don't know the specifics of YOUR situation. But that makes no difference,...

Actually, that makes all the difference in the world.

 

[AKElroy]

"Banning guns at a gun range??? How is this different than antigunners banning guns?"

Ridiculous. Owning a gun and having the right to fire it wherever YOU choose are two different issues. I own private property. I own guns. I shoot my guns on my private property. You own guns. Try and shoot them on MY private property without following MY rules, and we are going to have a problem. Sounds like you want to NATIONALIZE the right to shoot, which kind of puts you on the big government side of this issue. Private property is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

 

[lvcat2004]

fiddletown, could you stop talking about YOUR range. We don't care, no really.

This conversation is really much beyond YOUR range. If you insist on talking about it, it reinforces the point that you really don't comprehend the nature of our converstation, which I don't mind reading.

So, can you elaborate on why you don't ban 408, 416, 338 and the like??

 

[Frank Ettin]

We were talking about my club's range only because we don't permit .50 BMG, or its relatives, and I gave our reasons. I did so even though we don't have to justify our policies.

I don't care what other ranges do. Other clubs or commercial ranges, as far as I'm concerned, get to run their ranges any way they like. They don't have to justify their policies and practices to me.

As far as what this conversation is about, again I don't care to the extent that it seems to a gripe session by .50 BMG shooters about having trouble finding place to shoot. But if .50 BMG shooters are concerned about limited venues at which to shoot, I suggest that all the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments we've seen on this thread isn't going to get them anywhere.

They would be much better served by getting actively involved in clubs and ranges in their areas, even if those clubs and ranges don't now permit .50 BMGs, and offering some solid guidance as to how accommodating the caliber can be advantageous. That might include helping design and build improvements necessary or desirable and helping raise needed capital.

Complaining and "Monday morning quarterbacking" isn't very useful. Getting involved and participating just might be helpful.

 

[lvcat2004]

I repeat:

So, can you elaborate on why you don't ban 408, 416, 338 and the like??

Does it have anything to do with the fact that you are in the land of the evil trifecta (Pelosi/Boxer/Feinstein)?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...can you elaborate on why you don't ban 408, 416, 338...Does it have anything to do with the fact that you are in the land of the evil trifecta (Pelosi/Boxer/Feinstein)?

If that's your attitude, no. I don't think I'll bother

 

[lvcat2004]

^^ what attitude?? It's a simple question, and I'm not the first one to ask this, afterall, that's what the OP wants to know.

We have no choice but to conclude that you simply don't have a reasonable answer for it. You have been avoiding that question for the last 10 posts.

After all your rambling about engineering and NRA consultants building your "well-designed" range, it is only natural for all of us to question why you drew the line between 50 BMG and other calibers.

I think we are OK with an HONEST answer that some people just don't like 50 BMG and therefor it was banned California style, and that such decision was not based on any ballistics or logic. I'm fine with that too as long as you don't try to justify it with engineering, ballistics, and yada yada yada that dont' make sense.

If you choose to argue otherwise, then we are all awaiting for your intelligent response.

 

[AKElroy]

I think we are OK with an HONEST answer that some people just don't like 50 BMG and therefor it was banned California style, and that such decision was not based on any ballistics or logic. I'm fine with that too as long as you don't try to justify it with engineering, ballistics, and yada yada yada that dont' make sense.

Never one to avoid anothers' fight, there are a lot of people that have no issue with the .50, and still have no desire to sit next to one at the range. It is ridiculous for you to lump a GUN RANGE OWNER in with antis because he chooses to issue rules you don't like. It is HIS PROPERTY. You are not ENTITLED to take your .50 anywhere except your own property. He is free to justify his choice based on any criteria he chooses, and there is no reason for the disrespect you are showing.

 

[JohnBT]

"but you're one of the "duck hunters""

There you go again, shooting your big mouth off about duck hunters. I'm a duck hunter among other gun-related things I do. What do you have against duck hunters except your irrational prejudice?

You're still talking nonsense.

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Patron