• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more

  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Colorado Rifle Club Bans Steel Targets on the 1,000 Yard Hi-Power Range

#101
Yes, I looked at it and agree that shrapnel does 360, but only on the plane of the target face. So if you aren't close to the target in that 20 degree area in relation to the face of the steel the shrapnel isn't a problem.

My point is that only edge hits cause a problem for people to the sides of the steel shooter, because they don't disintegrate the bullet into light shrapnel, the bullet on an edge hit could retain mass and energy while deflecting. This is what would be dangerous for people on the the other ranges to the side(s), not the light bullet fragments that result from a square hit.
 
#102
Would it be possible to add it east of the east berm/ pistol bays? The restrooms from the pistol range could service the new range. berms already exist to protect the shooters on the pistol range and would need only extension. It would provide distance from the Highpower and Silhouette range but would involve only a short extension to the existing road reducing cost.

As a side note, I spoke with the orientation director and he has agreed to let me into the shop this Saturday AM before the orientation. If anyone would like to join me, you are more than welcome. Also Does anyone know where I could find barrels akin to the ones used at the Schuetzen range? There is always tons of brass left at the Silhouette range and it might help to have a place to put it.
 
#103
c ward said:
Every club that I've shot at has the grouchy old guy's that come around and see something and straight away it's" that ain't safe I'm goin to the board " and they have the time to keep making noise till you or the board gets tired of it and does something to shut them up . There is a whole lot of " WTF do these guy's think there doin on MY range " going on too
Click to expand...
I dealt with this at another "local" range for years when I was running the 3Gun. The ONLY thing that stopped it was when a majority of the board were practical shooters and the president was the same guy who ran the USPSA matches.
 
#104
Lowlight said:
The club recently went to the NRA for an evaluation and that prompted the changes that took place in the last few months. This suggestion is a bit late, but needless to say, the governing board is very NRA centric so more than likely they would consult the NRA Range committee again.

They are a bit adverse to things outside of the NRA's support system. Hence the references to the NRA, as they have default to them in the past.
Click to expand...

When I joined the CRC six or seven years ago and had my new member orientation with Club President Denny Reul, I remember him saying "We don't require NRA membership for CRC members because we 'don't want to be political'". The CRC still doesn't require NRA membership ..... So it's ironic that the CRC on the one hand doesn't require NRA membership, yet on the ther hand is all wrapped around the NRA axel with respect to range certification.

I got the invitation to the recent Annual Meeting, and there was a comment in the invitation about the CRC aknowledging in the CRC membership the transition of interest from "bullseye shooting" to "action shooting" - but the steel ban on the Hi-Power Range is of course contrary to what was stated in the Annual Meeting invitation. I agree with Chuck W. - a buch of grumpy old men on the BOD who don't want any change. The CRC mangement is clearly still dominated by bullseye shooters.

Anyway, I think there's an opening here. I think a new 1,200 yard range is overly ambitious for the CRC, but maybe it would make more sense to take the baby steps of trying to reverse the new steel ban on the existing 1K range.

Just my $.02
 
Last edited:
#105
The 1k range is their " sacred cow " out there , always has been if they think they have to ban steel to protect it there ain't a whole lot your gonna do to get them to change their minds .

Its real easy to see when your out there and have to deal with the " why don't you use a sling and shoot like a real man " crowd when all your trying to do is shoot in peace .
 
#106
As has been said, it SHOULD be a member driven club. I think a lot of people have reasons that they would not want a steel range, but my guess is the new blood in the club is mostly in favor. We just need to crack the old man club and get people responsive to us in leadership. That means actually participating in board meetings and taking a night off from Sniper's Hide, or the reloading bench.

Otherwise you have no right to complain if not willing to take action that can make a difference. Squeaky wheels and all that.
 
#107
Only way your going to change the board is replace the board . The rub there is the people with the time to be on the board are the same people that your trying to get rid of .

There is a flat spot on my head from beating it on a wall from dealing with gunclub boards . Best analogy I can come up with for the boards I've dealt with is its like watching a room of spoiled 5 year olds fighting over crayons .

Every time we've gone to the board armed with proven facts about whatever it was that offended them at the time the exact same thing happens . Take time away from whatever would normally happen , wait all night to address the issue , get shut down before introducing facts , end the general meeting and get kicked out for there executive session , and find out in the next news letter that they did exactly what they were going to from the start .

As a wise man once said you got to pick your fights and this isn't one that I think is winable .
 
#108
Well if that's the case C ward that is very discouraging. Sounds like you have been fighting the good fight for a while now. Hopefully there will be enough backlash on at least the steel on the High Power range that that stupid ruling will be reversed. If not I can see a lot of people leaving, which may be what they had in mind anyways.

Get money and "first" year fee's and then run things exactly how they would anyways but with cash to fund their projects. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and a chance to show that change is possible, but it sounds like many have had that mind-set before and been screwed.

Mark, any word?
 
#109
Word!

Yes, I have continued my conversations. I have been provided the opportunity to attend the BOD meeting next week, so I am going to try to have the proposal done by next Monday. Heck, it might even be best to have 3 or 4 options? My goal is to not garner a No, but at least get a discussion going so that members can voice their desires.

I know that Chuck and Frank mean well, and get thumped and fingers smashed does not bode well. However, I never would have been so bold to assume 5 years ago that CRC (progress for practical shooting) would be where it is today. There are some really old dudes the DO get it, and some that need to be prodded a little more. I'll stop there. :)
 
#112
c ward said:
Trust me I do hope I'm wrong , 1200 yard steel 40 mins from my front door would be nice .

Though to say I have a pessimistic view of gunclub politics is an understatement .
Click to expand...

Agree. I have seen some gunclub directors that make congress look like downright geniuses.

There have been lots of good ideas provided to me by various members. Just trying to get it all organized in the best format to make the best pitch to the BOD.

If you are following this, I will plan to put up the summation of the written proposals that I will present to the board by Monday afternoon. If any CRC member that wants their name and membership number included (Send to me by PM or Email) I will need that by Tuesday at the latest.
 
Last edited:
#113
I'm in and can let several others know that I'm sure will sign. Will watch this thread for the proposal Mark. Anyone have contact info for the new board members so we can be emailing all the correct people?
 
#114
Here it is. Not in stone yet, but getting close. :)

LR Steel Range Proposal submitted to CRC BOD on March 13, 2014.

The CRC high power range has been utilized for persons who desire to shoot long range steel, however, some recent problems have occurred. This proposal seeks to:

1. Address the interests of the wide array of CRC members
2. Allow those who desire to shoot LR steel at CRC that opportunity
3. Minimize policing of the ranges and member conflicts
4. Minimize costs to CRC for maintenance of this range.
5.
There are several options for how CRC can provide members with the opportunity to shoot LR steel.

Option 1

Placement of two permanent steel gongs placed at the far East side of the High Power impact berm. The gongs would be AR500, 10” and 16” rounds (~$500). Signs would be placed at the flag pole, the covered line, each intermediate berm , on the road to the pits and near the pits that states:

The ONLY approved targets are the two gongs and paper targets the pit raised frames.

Option 2

Create a new range between East Range berm 1 and the Silhouette range. The firing line would face North to Northwest. Berms would be constructed at distances of 600, 800, 1000 and 1200 yards. The firing line will be uncovered and defined by signage and boxed in flattened earth approximately 20 yards N-S and 40 yards E-W. On the East edge of this area, a roof, a barricade and a doghouse will be constructed and utilized as shooting positions. CRC owned steel (2 per berm, ~$2000) is an option as would be member owned steel. Both options have pros and cons that should be explored.

Option 3

Add new berms at 800, 1000 and 1200 yards to the Silhouette range. The new berms could be placed slightly to the east of the current berms and 3 or 4 positions on the .22RF side of the canopy could be designated for LR steel.

Option 4

Build an unknown distance range between the Schuetzen and High Power ranges. With the combination of some berms already present, this would reduce the cost. A berm placed 30 to 50 yards to the east of the newly built Schuetzen range combined with an end berm at 1200 to 1300 north of the Schuetzen firing line would create a range more appealing to both Long Range shooters as well as military and police agencies desiring to train and or practice unknown distance shooting without a defined firing line. The shooting area could be defined with minimum and maximum forward lines.

Other Options?

There may be other viable options as well. For instance, it may be possible to create LR berms beyond berm 13 on the East ranges.

Implementation

Regardless of option, the members who desire this type of shooting acknowledge that persons lacking the skill and or experience to practice this type of shooting can be problematic. While restrictions are not desired, these members would be willing to adopt some use restrictions if the BOD is willing to explore one or more of these options. A qualification process can be subsequently proposed that a member would have to complete prior to use. Irrespective, it would make sense for CRC to implement a zero tolerance policy with respect to unapproved target use. None of us want the range property damaged, or worse yet, to have it closed due to improper use. Sign-in, sing-out logs, lock boxes for the range “HOT” and “CLOSED” signs or flags and even the actual targets, are viable means of controlling access to a LR range or set of targets.

Other than the construction of the berms, the members bringing this proposal are willing to furnish the time, labor and material to construct shooting line, lockboxes , constructed shooting positions and the targets/hangers. We will also create a safety protocol and conditions of use agreement for CRC BOD approval if so desired. Further, it is anticipated that if option 2-4 are implemented, it will be utilized for at least one monthly match.

Option 1 could be implemented in short order while it is understood that options 2-4 would require times and resources of the BOD and volunteers. We believe that a dedicated long range steel range is practical, will generate income for the club, and will solve some of the issues that have occurred by incompetent persons using steel on the High Power range. Once a LR range is completed, the High Power range steel use allowance could be modified.

These proposals were presented to the CRC BOD with the support of the following members:
 
#115
Mark, let me just say first, thank you. You have helped turn this thread from just complaining about an issue to action that will hopefully benefit all us LR steel shooters.

The only thing I would change in this initial proposal would be to Option 1 for now. I think the ability for us to set our own steel is important on the HP range. If the two steel targets you proposed were to be installed and then a sign stating "only AR500 steel targets placed in line with permanent targets along the berm" or whatever. Then there is a clear place to put the steel, and if multiple groups show up we can have different targets to shoot at. This enables more use for more people wanting to shoot at the same time and is safe.
 
#117
verdugo60 said:
The only thing I would change in this initial proposal would be to Option 1 for now. I think the ability for us to set our own steel is important on the HP range. If the two steel targets you proposed were to be installed and then a sign stating "only AR500 steel targets placed in line with permanent targets along the berm" or whatever. Then there is a clear place to put the steel, and if multiple groups show up we can have different targets to shoot at. This enables more use for more people wanting to shoot at the same time and is safe.
Click to expand...

How would you suggest that we make sure only AR500 targets are used? That is my one sticky point on members using their own targets. I certainly don't want to have to get my targets "certified". I will make a change to that to:

Placement of two permanent steel gongs placed at the far East side of the High Power impact berm. The gongs would be AR500, 10” and 16” rounds (~$500). Signs would be placed at the flag pole, the covered line, each intermediate berm , on the road to the pits and near the pits that states:

ONLY approved AR500 targets are allowed on this range. Member targets may only be placed directly west of the steel gong on the impact berm up to 50 feet from the west gong.
 
#118
Mark - I think another big consideration of the board, which was confirmed the other day by some emails I received, is that they are concerned about foot traffic on the berm and eroding the berm. Not sure how much of this is a valid concern, perhaps someone with more experience could speak to whether or not this is a valid point. If so, it would be a more favorable setup to have permanent steel. Although I am MORE for the idea of allowing members to use their own steel, I think that is very important, otherwise in the summer you're going to have 15 guys shooting at the same damn steel target, and then you've got the guys who show up early and "lay claim" to the steel and if you shoot it while they are shooting it, they bitch you out because THEY painted it (speaking from stories I've heard, this happens on the Silhouette range). So perhaps there is a solution or idea that could be proposed that would silence any concerns over foot traffic on the berm.

Also, I'm all about the ZERO tolerance policy about steel. If proper signs are posted, if it's part of orientation, if we make them sign off on a form in orientation (which I would gladly provide, print out, etc) and then someone is caught using mild steel or putting a target in the wrong place, no excuses, they are done. Some type of mailing would need to happen, as you stated, to existing members. Perhaps requiring a sign-off and mail back? I know that could be a challenge logistically speaking, but I'm just tossing ideas out here.
 
#119
Even the club's steel is not AR500, the stuff on the silhouette range is soft and pitted and probably not very safe. This is not an argument FOR allowing that kind of steel on the HP range but shows that education needs to happen with the board and with members. WE know AR500 is safest to shoot. Multiple signs and educating people (at orientation, in a newsletter, etc) about the proper type and placement of steel is apparently needed to avoid situations that led to damage of the pits.

How do we keep people from looking down their barrels when they have a mis-fire, or from not shooting when people are down range, or from stopping half-way through a ladder test when there are pressure signs? Should we require members to show they know pressure signs before shooting re-loads? At some point you can't control everything. The quality of steel was brought up by us, not the board. If we make it a rule and someone is found in violation of that rule then appropriate action can be taken. I don't see why we have to provide for controlling every aspect, as it really is an illusion anyways. What's to keep someone from getting steel "certified" and then put up "non-certified" steel? It really is more about education than control. Again, we don't even know it was a member at all that shot the pits, as there was a hole in the fence. Non-members that don't care pose a danger to all shooters at every range, if they don't know/abide protocols.

If permanent targets are on the berm and instructions on how to properly place AR500 targets are obvious to a first-timer AND we send out a newsletter about this then I feel we have done due diligence and someone placing soft steel in-properly would have no excuse. It would be smart to work this into orientation, just like the HP flag protocols already are.

So what if last paragraph of option one read:

"ONLY AR500 targets are allowed on this range. Member targets may only be placed directly west of the steel gong on the impact berm up to 50 feet from the west gong."
 
#120
Verdugo - just as an aside, not that it really matters, but I do know for a fact that at least 2 of the people who put steel on the pits were member. It turned into a VERY heated argument with one individual who is a match director out there when the members were confronted about it (which, by the way, took place in front of an entire group of people doing orientation when they were driving to view the High Power range). Not only did they do this, but when confronted about it, they lied and said "I've been a member out here for 10 years!" and when asked for their badges, they had only been a member for the last year. More to the story, but basically it got really heated and the police were almost called. These are the types of morons that are ruining the fun for us.
 
#121
verdugo60 said:
"ONLY AR500 targets are allowed on this range. Member targets may only be placed directly west of the steel gong on the impact berm up to 50 feet from the west gong."
Click to expand...

Has already been placed into the document replacing what was there in post #114.

Someone also asked me about option 4, and more details for layout. While I think most of us would prefer something like #4, I am not going to even attempt to identify all the details. If the BOD is open to considering option 4, then I would likely propose a working group from the BOD and those whose name and member number are on the proposal. My hope is to get option #1 in place along with consideration of 2, 3, or 4.
 
#122
afate45 said:
Mark - I think another big consideration of the board, which was confirmed the other day by some emails I received, is that they are concerned about foot traffic on the berm and eroding the berm. Not sure how much of this is a valid concern, perhaps someone with more experience could speak to whether or not this is a valid point.
Click to expand...

There may be some minor concern there in reality. However, a few railroad ties and some steps are all it would take to eliminate that. I am of the firm belief that if a solution is desired, it can happen.
 
#123
afate45 said:
So perhaps there is a solution or idea that could be proposed that would silence any concerns over foot traffic on the berm.

Also, I'm all about the ZERO tolerance policy about steel. If proper signs are posted, if it's part of orientation, if we make them sign off on a form in orientation (which I would gladly provide, print out, etc) and then someone is caught using mild steel or putting a target in the wrong place, no excuses, they are done. Some type of mailing would need to happen, as you stated, to existing members. Perhaps requiring a sign-off and mail back? I know that could be a challenge logistically speaking, but I'm just tossing ideas out here.
Click to expand...

I would be fine with the zero tolerance policy on steel placement as well and signing a waiver that you understand where it should be placed and what type.

Then the burden is on you the member as it should be vs. the club controlling every thing on the range which is not possible anyways.

As for the erosion of the berm, I'm not an expert on that. The board probably doesn't realize how often steel has been placed, and I have not seen any erosion from foot traffic in the two years we have been doing it. Sounds like kind of a weak excuse.
 
#124
Wow, good to know. That is so stupid. In a case like that we would have a waiver, signs and be able to tell the idiot he was done.

afate45 said:
Verdugo - just as an aside, not that it really matters, but I do know for a fact that at least 2 of the people who put steel on the pits were member. It turned into a VERY heated argument with one individual who is a match director out there when the members were confronted about it (which, by the way, took place in front of an entire group of people doing orientation when they were driving to view the High Power range). Not only did they do this, but when confronted about it, they lied and said "I've been a member out here for 10 years!" and when asked for their badges, they had only been a member for the last year. More to the story, but basically it got really heated and the police were almost called. These are the types of morons that are ruining the fun for us.
Click to expand...
 
#125
I have no dog in this fight, I am not a member.
I hope this works out for all of you.
Mark, my hat is off to you for spearheading this effort and I wish you the best of luck.
If you all are successful I would be glad to make a trip up there and volunteer my labor to help get it done. Regards, FM
 
#126
Good conversation all around. I agree that it's important to keep the ability to place our own steel on the HP range. I like the idea of permanent steel to mark where member's steel may be placed, posting the rules so we avoid confusion/conflicts and a little education for the board regarding AR500.

Thanks for your work Mark. Count me in.
 
#128
The Board voted unanimously to remove the restriction of no steel on the High Power Range. A notice should be up on the CRC website in a day or two which will also state that the steel must be placed on the impact berm.

In addition, the board desires to implement Option 1 with club owned steel that will be restricted to use by members who sign off on a use policy and the steel will be in a lockbox. An area will be constructed on the East side for the target hangers as well as a leveled area where members can place their own steel. They would like a recommendation for usage and restrictions of same.

The Board also agreed to evaluate Options 2-4 to create a place for LR steel shooting.

Don't know what more we could ask for.
 
#133
Very good, thanks Mark! Really appreciate you organizing that proposal and going to the board. And great news that the Board was great to work with and was responsive.That's very encouraging.

I will plan to come help on the 12th of April, Saturday. Feel free to PM me details when we get a time nailed down.
 
#134
I have attached a drawing that may help some of you know where to place steel.

FWIW, I take a shovel, make a flat spot in one of the gouges made from impacts shooting at paper and make a level spot to set my steel. When I am finished, I dress it back out like it was before I got there.

If you are daring, you can collect bullets and load them as "once fired".
 

Attachments

  • March 14th Image.pdf
    305 KB · Views: 49
#136
Just a little follow-up...

Those of you who sent nasty-grams to the BOD over this issue might consider an apology-gram at this point.

Those of you who sent e-mails with your requests, a follow-up thank you to the BOD might also be nice.

People tend to bitch and moan and then never say thanks. The BOD serves the membership by being voted into office and your support for decisions you agree with is just as important as letting them know when you do not agree.
 
#137
Great point Mark. I emailed them this morning to say thanks and how happy I was to hear about their decision. Most importantly I wanted them to know I appreciate their volunteer time and the fact that they obviously listened to our concerns.

As I said before, I think this incident has been good for most everyone. It got us to work together and come up with some good ideas to move forward. Excited to see how the rest of the proposals go and to get permanent hangers on the HP range, along with a flat area for my own stands.
 
#138
Mark - very good point.

It's disheartening to hear that people were sending nasty emails to the BOD. I hope anyone that sent one of those is reading this, and understands that they were NOT the people the board had in mind when they reversed the decision. Sending a shitty email to the board is going to do nothing for the cause.

Staying tuned for more info on how we can get the signs set up and any other materials/labor that we need.
 
#139
MarkCO said:
The Board voted unanimously to remove the restriction of no steel on the High Power Range. A notice should be up on the CRC website in a day or two which will also state that the steel must be placed on the impact berm.

In addition, the board desires to implement Option 1 with club owned steel that will be restricted to use by members who sign off on a use policy and the steel will be in a lockbox. An area will be constructed on the East side for the target hangers as well as a leveled area where members can place their own steel. They would like a recommendation for usage and restrictions of same.

The Board also agreed to evaluate Options 2-4 to create a place for LR steel shooting.

Don't know what more we could ask for.
Click to expand...

To clarify tgis then, steel placed on the berm is permissible again, and they are also planning on club steel on the berm but if we have our own we don't have to wait, correct?
 
#142
#143
BountyHunter said:
Based on the wording of that letter, I see the LEO guys getting a long term contract. Which of course member shooting would have interfered with and what better way than to limit shooting at steel and bet 10-1 the LEOs will be waivered on shooting steel in their contract!!

I smell a fox in the henhouse!!!
Click to expand...

So, the cops renting an INDOOR shooting facility affects the OUTDOOR ranges how?????

BTW, the members are allowed to shoot steel.
 
#145
I went out Saturday and took a look at the range in light of putting the "steel garden" on the East side of the HP berm. Certainly will work. The steel guy is working on getting a mock up for the permanent steel and I have some re-bar inbound to anchor some landscape ties.
 
#147
BountyHunter said:
Based on the wording of that letter, I see the LEO guys getting a long term contract. Which of course member shooting would have interfered with and what better way than to limit shooting at steel and bet 10-1 the LEOs will be waivered on shooting steel in their contract!!

I smell a fox in the henhouse!!!
Click to expand...

Most If not all LEO rifle training at the CRC is on the Sillouette Range (<500m).

Cops don't formally train at 1K.
 
#150
Is anyone willing to hang the signs on Saturday at the HP range, during the work days? If yes, please send me a PM as they are ready.

I will be at the RM Steel Quest in Douglas.

The steel is not ready, but I hope to get it up in the next few weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JG26_Irish
Prepping a pair of Safari Rifles SH-style
Replies
7
Views
398
JG26_Irish
JG26_Irish
pangris
Review of Roaming Shot Range (1000 yard facility) Slaughter, LA
Replies
13
Views
723
pangris
pangris
Hogstooth
Training Courses Private lessons DFW, Tx.
Replies
2
Views
323
MK20
MK20
E
URSA 3000 Yard Challenge (2025) - Announcement
Replies
0
Views
91
ELR researcher
E
Q
Need advice on scope
Replies
10
Views
707
Q_Sertorius
Q
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts