Range Qualification?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

burnt09

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
14
Our club recently instituted handgun qualification requirements: to shoot a handgun on either the main range or pistol range, a member must complete a short safety procedures class, and pass a fairly easy practical test.

The practical test includes demonstrating safe handgun handling, as well as placing 10 of 10 shots onto a 24" x 24" piece of paper at 15 yards; slow fire, off-hand, one or two-handed hold.

There was much bitching and moaning about this qualification. You know, "I've been shooting for the past fifty years and nobody is going to tell me, blah, blah, blah....."

So what are your thoughts? Is such a qualification requirement a good thing?

I, personally, think that a person can always benefit from recurrent training. It also makes me feel better when I know that the others on the firing line have demonstrated safe handgun handling procedures at least once.
 
The question is, if one cannot pass said qualification test, where are they going to practice to learn to shoot better?
Why should you need to qualify if you're shooting for your own enjoyment? Is there something I'm missing here?
 
Hrm...

Mixed feelings on the implementation.

I do agree about the part where the aspirant has to show they can safely handle a gun. Because that affords the trainer a chance to show the aspirant on how to safely handle a gun ... but I'm not sure what can be gained by a test on well they actually shoot.

I don't think you have to be a good shot to be safe at a range. You have to be well ... safe. And whether you can group or not has nothing to do with that.
 
I think the safety thing is a good idea but I don't know about the accuracy portion. I would have said yes, it's not unreasonable to expect someone to at least hit a 2'x2' target at 15yds, until someone pointed out that you can't improve if you can't practice.
 
Have Fun With It~!

Yes, the safety class is a good thing~! Qualification gives shooters a lot of
> bragging rights amongest competitors. Separate them into class'es with
novice shooters grouped together, for more or less the instructional phase.
Better shooter's next, that need little supervision; and the best shooters at
the line competing against each other. That way, all participants will have
fun, and hopefully gain a little knowledge. As you know, learning is a type
of experience that NEVER ends~! ;) :D
 
Waste of time. A dude that's a hazard at the range will always be a hazard. Let's face facts, not everyone can grasp even the simplest instructions. Do you think you are going to revoke memberships?
 
A club I belonged to had similar rules but they only applied to the indoor range. Unqualified people were known to shoot throught the walls, ceiling and light fixtures. They were allowed to shoot at the outdoor ranges until they could qualify for inside shooting.
 
I too do not see the purpose of this "qualification". What goal will this accomplish? Other than safe, what else does one NEED to be while at the range?

Since this is a private membership in which you have to contribute, I.e. dues or work, and a not previously required tends to make me think that members complained and this is the result.

As long as one is safe I could care less how accurate they are. Even further if it is obvious they are struggling, I may ask if they need some assistance. However there are probably some people out there who think, "oh he/she can't hit the broad side of a barn, they have no business shooting a gun". The ONLY way to get better is to practice. That's my feelings anyway.

Shawn
 
Would it really matter if you failed the qualification part? I mean, your at the range to practice and get better right? Then what would be any point of punishment or restrictions of shooting bad?
 
40 year fools

If a shooter can not demonstrate standard range safety procedures a Range Officer needs to work with them until they can. Any time someone balks at demonstrating safety procedures because they "have been shooting 40 years" I take a dose of Rolaids. All too frequently they have been doing it wrong for 40 years and got by on fools luck. Unlearning bad habits with a know-it-all attitude is virtually impossible. If they are competent they should take pride in correctly demonstrating any time.

The marksmanship standards are too strict for many beginning shooters. Too many bring 2" barrel Airlite revolvers which are quite a challenge for all but accomplished shooters.
 
I seem to agree with the consensus here--the demonstration of safe handling makes sense, but as long as you can keep the shooty end pointed where it is supposed to go I don't care how bad of a marksman you are.
 
I have my thoughts on this subject.

Safety & Orientation classes yes along with mandatory requirements of Safety Eyewear with Side Shields and Earing Protection.

Qualification limited to safe handling of weapons and understanding and employment of standard range commands (all clear does not mean it time to shoot).

Older established outdoor ranges have 25yd and 50yd lines for the most part. I argued the merit of that with the club officers of a sportsman’s club that had a 1200 membership. I simply pointed out that most people do not utilize the 50yd line targets.

We added a 7yd line by reducing the number of firing points on the 25yd and 50yd lines. With the addition of the 7yd line usage of the pistol range increased to the point that the pistol range was widened to accommodate more shooters.
 
Last edited:
Not a bad idea, but with entirely the wrong focus -- as others have said.

Perhaps a written safety test. Perhaps an oral safety test, with a demonstration requirement. A live-fire "test" that illustrates the basic safety protocols would be helpful.

But an accuracy test at that level is rather absurd, unless you're looking simply to thin your ranks. If this was my club and I heard of such a requirement (10/10 at 15 yds) I'd immediately assume the BOD wanted to push out the new and less 'serious' shooters in favor of becoming more 'elite' and exclusive.

I wouldn't be pleased.

Ironically, I would have NO problem with a mandatory safety refresher and test.
 
Why did this subject come up at your range? Did something bad happen?

It makes sense to make sure new members know the basics of safe gun handling but I'm not sure I understand the logic of testing current members if they haven't shown any problems.
 
But an accuracy test at that level is rather absurd,
Click to expand...

2 foot by 2 foot target -anywhere on it is an accuracy test?

Sounds to me more like they have had enough of the "spray and pray" crowd shooting up equipment, crossfiring onto other targets, etc. Besides, you never know what their insurance company is requiring, especially after the recent gun range suicides.....

And if the "I been shootin' for forty years" crowd can't pass it, maybe they need some more safety practice - those folks tend to be the most complacent about safety - and the most dangerous
 
A range I used to belong to had a similar rule,but it was slightly different.
The range had a "public" rifle range and a "public" pistol range on weekends. It also had several other "members only" ranges, both rifle and pistol.
The "public" ranges were run by a Range Master. When a member met the qualification requirements, he was allowed to use the non-monitored ranges otherwise he had to used the ones with the RM. The public rifle range had some pretty strict rules (single load, no prone, etc.). the public (weekend) pistol range was also strict. ( at least 2 sec between shots, etc.) Also if a shooter couldn't keep all shots within the target frames (app. 2' x 3' at 25 yds.) they had to take instruction from a RO until they could.
 
After a long hiatus from shooting I re-upped my membership at the private club I used to shoot at. When I first joined there was an orientation and qualification course and after I re-upped I had to go through it again. The only shooting requirement was at a downrange target, the qualification director was only interested in your gun handling and safety rules rather than if you actually hit the target.
The club recently installed fencing around the range access points and went to key cards. And there's a requirement to display your membership / key card while shooting. Besides keeping any non-members off the range I'm told it reduced their insurance rates. And I was told a number of (non-members) were upset, they thought it was a free range even though signs on the driveway clearly state it's a private club!
 
There was much bitching and moaning about this qualification. You know, "I've been shooting for the past fifty years and nobody is going to tell me, blah, blah, blah....."

So what are your thoughts? Is such a qualification requirement a good thing?
Click to expand...
Some sort of proficiency qualification is not a bad thing, ESPECIALLY for the guy that claims to be such a teriffic shooter. I especially watch that type because many times they can't shoot worth a flip and they are dangerious.


On my range I only have two rules, other than the normal safe gun handling rules.
1. Under no circumstance are you to allow a bullet to miss the bern.

2. Do not shoot me.

When someone I don't know shoots for the first time on my range they start out at about 7 yards, just for a magazine or two. Then when I see they are safe and have good sense they can do most anything they feel they can safely do.


New shooters get all the free instruction they need.
 
The club I belong to has a required "new member orientation." The main purpose is to familiarize them with the various ranges and range rules. But it also includes demonstrating safe gun handling - they fire about 50 rounds but there's no scoring. New members don't get the gate combination until they've completed it.

The club is pretty inflexible about this requirement. Though I've been a member for the better part of 25 years, am a certified RSO, and have run probably 100 matches, I let my membership lapse when I moved away for a couple of years so I had to go through the orientation when I rejoined.
 
The club actually announced the qualification requirement about 6 months before they implemented it. You can still currently go as a guest of a qualified member to practice.

Many have questioned the marksmanship requirement. As it was explained to us members, (I am not a voting member), there were far too many holes in the overhead beams, chunks taken out of the concrete forward of the firing line, etc. One overhead beam had to actually be replaced. Our ranges are in the middle of a densely populated suburb, and I think the powers-that-be were also worried about firing over the 50 yard berm.

Along with the qualification requirements, the pistol range was remodeled to include the installation of ballistic board, and a boiler plate to protect the forward-most overhead beam. I have to say, since the qualification requirement took effect, (about 4 months ago), I have seen only one impact in the ballistic board.
 
Last edited:
Just curious...but is this something brought about my the insurance company that insures the club?
 
I would bet a very significant percentage of newbies would have trouble keeping all shots on a 2' square target at 15 yards. Whether that helps with the clubs goals I guess is up to the club.
 
burnt09 said:
The club actually announced the qualification requirement about 6 months before they implemented it. You can still currently go as a guest of a qualified member to practice.

Many have questioned the marksmanship requirement. As it was explained to us members, (I am not a voting member), there were far too many holes in the overhead beams, chunks taken out of the concrete forward of the firing line, etc. One overhead beam had to actually be replaced. Our ranges are in the middle of a densely populated suburb, and I think the powers-that-be were also worried about firing over the 50 yard berm.

Along with the qualification requirements, the pistol range was remodeled to include the installation of ballistic board, and a boiler plate to protect the forward-most overhead beam. I have to say, since the qualification requirement took effect, (about 4 months ago), I have seen only one impact in the ballistic board.
Click to expand...
Ah, this makes the marksmanship test requirement perfectly understandable. I have shot at a couple of indoor ranges that are smaller and require members to pass an accuracy qualification before being granted keyed access to the range. And the test is 5 shots on a standard NRA 50-foot pistol target (not in the scoring, just on the paper) at 50 feet. In comparison, hitting a 2'x2' sheet sounds generous.

My range doesn't have a marksmanship test, just an orientation video and walk around of the range. We are very strict about muzzles DOWN and no rounds going over the berm. Safety always. And I do think our range use has increased with the addition of our 25-yard pistol range a few years ago. It's always busy up there on weekends now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Ft. Jackson Testing New Weapons Qualification Method
Replies
8
Views
2K
Bones11b
B
T
  • Locked
Qualification Day
Replies
3
Views
766
Preacherman
P
G
  • Locked
Ohio CCW training - my review
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Sam1911
S
D
  • Locked
(FL) 2 Hurt In Gun Range Accident
Replies
19
Views
3K
Wakal
W
B
  • Locked
NAA Mini-Revolver .22mag accuracy for qualification
Replies
12
Views
1K
Frizzman
F
Back
Top