Probably not here. Go read the JSP
3 Likes
We have an archery range in the hall. It’s far less hassle and I’m getting rather good!
3 Likes
That’s great, but if people want to do archery can’t they join the Scouts? We used to be able to offer something extra, which made us stand out.
1 Like
Judging by the cadet and OC survey on shatpoint.
Reading between the lines. .22 might disappear with air rifle being favoured as an easy win.
Nope, Sorry, If people want to do shooting, they can just join the scouts . . .
http://hampshirescoutrifleclub.org.uk/
Of course Target Shooting is far less prevalent in scouting than in the cadet world, but it does exist and probably far easier to run.
Seconded.
Although i don’t know of any 0.22 shooting, i know two local Scout units who regularly pick up air rifles…
You need to read up on the differences between a Structurally Approved Armoury and a Secure Armoury.
Most older CCFs have the latter; make nice to your local unit. (New CEP ones, sadly, don’t for cost reasons, although one suspects that their governors would be nervous about having one anyway!)
It’s not all sweetness and light having a Secure Armoury; not least the on call requirement to respond to the alarm within 20 minutes 365.2422 days a year.
Air Rifle is easier to provision but I don’t think .22 will die off completely but it is becoming harder to deliver and weapon serviceability is a hindrance also.
Lots do and they are goverened by an NGB when delivering not by the military shooting world so delivery is very simple, qualifications are easier to get past but there is less of a focus on them independently operating the rifle and there is very little progression from the air rifle for them.
Our world is built around the Armys training progression model which adds layers of complexity a lot don’t completely understand which causes some frustration. Especially when people ask for air rifle only SAAI etc.
One of our neighbour’s grandsons’ moved up to Cubs a few months ago and a week later was making holes in paper with Air Rifles, I know because his nan got him to show me his targets. This 8 year old was full of it, telling me what he did and so on. So if we get any from Cubs/ Scouts as said chances are shooting isn’t anything new, except the painful training/requal cycle and the fact you may travel many miles for not a lot.
What they shoot and what ‘rules’ they shoot under is irrelevant, the fact it seems to be a lot more accessible is key.
No doubt there would be people in Cadetland getting excited about their training etc etc, but given people can shoot air rifles in their back garden, this becomes a moot point. I can’t be the only one when I was a kid who knew someone with an air rifle and go out for a shoot.
I feel that we the Air Cadets are losing selling points that make us stand out from the plethora of other youth organisations and groups. Given our starting age is one that means we have to potentially appeal to youngsters already doing something and offer something that makes us worthwhile. Shooting used to be in this group of activities but has sadly been allowed to drift in confusing fog of rules and regulations.
7 Likes
I agree with Teflon…
Teflon, it’s not often that I agree with you but on this occasion you seem to have hit the nail on the head. The chances of anyone actually learning to shoot in the cadets ; CCF apart; is becoming diminishingly small. The whole system is hypnotised by process and has lost sight of the objective of imparting a skill.
Today one of our rifle club members took Silver Medal in the 3P event at ISCH Hannover, she started shooting in the scout movement. Another won the women’s British Open Airgun Championship this year, she started in the scouts as well. Go figure.
exmpa
I often think this when watching SAA lessons. We seem to have found a way to not only make a (relatively) simple thing incredibly complex, but also managed to justify that complexity to the point it’s normal.
Example: We manage to make IWT for an air rifle take 2-3 hours. Surely we could teach the safe handling of an air rifle in 10 minutes if we threw out the liturgy and focused on what’s actually important?
Edit: Apologies for thread drift
5 Likes
Just the same as the Brownies getting in with the civil airlines for assistance with their syllabus.
I get the logic of doing things the same across all weapons systems from Air Rifle to L81 as it saves trying to get students out of bad habits later on.
The issue I have is the obsession with EDIP as a training tool, i’m sure it works well with training Squaddies but quite simply put its mind numbing and is pitched too low for the intelligence of your average Cadet.
A proper training system aimed at young people would in my opinion progress Cadets through the lessons far quicker.
2 Likes
Heresy!! Burn him!!! 
You’ll be suggesting next that we scrap formal WHTs for air rifle… Gets my vote.
It’s the same for having to have pre-approved RAMs for air rifle shooting. There is zero flexibility for ad-hoc shooting (raining outside, so drill / fieldcraft, whatever, cancelled) = impossible to use such opportunities. I have been trying for years to get this changed - even worse case to a 6 monthly / annual validity or similar.
3 Likes
I think that taking a look at the clay-target side of things gives an idea of how we could do air rifle shooting…
Nothing wrong with spending an evening introducing the thing (and making sure no bad habits creep in) but there’s no need to do it to death. An air rifle is very much not an L98/L85.
5 Likes
Going to raise my head above the parapet here. There are very many good points, and I agree that the alarm status for CSBTR and Section 5 challenges for L103 are definately having an impact.
I do though, want to dispel some myths on Air Rifle; the Pam contains two lessons to be delivered to cadets. The first takes 30mins and the second takes 40mins, so it is definately possible to train and test cadets correctly in an evening.
Building on that, the Pam for the CSBTR guides for 2 x 40 mins lessons, and 1 lesson with 2 x 30 periods; this would also be possible across 1 slightly longer parade evening, or two consecutive evenings.
I do realise the above requires a course qualified SAAI/WI, and that they are few and between. I also recognise that becoming qualified is hard, especially given that the course requires candidates to demonstrate their skills on the GP Rifle.
I would though suggest that whilst having people to train cadets on the weapons is challenging, having to provide 70mins training to safely use the Air Rifle and 2hrs20mins to use a rim fire Rifle might be more than the scouts, but is probably not an unreasonable expectation.
Finally - I am happy to field any shooting related questions, especially those within Laser and me and my team will assist where we can.
1 Like
This is exactly what I’m challenging.
Given the level of supervision required (practically 1:1, or 1:2 at most), does a cadet need to know immediate action drills and stripping / cleaning to safely handle either Air Rifles or CSBTR (or, arguably, even the GP rifle)?
Could we replace IWT with (essentially) only NSPs and basic firing drills? I’d argue there would actually be an increase in safety if the immediate action for any stoppage was “put the safety catch on (or open the bolt for rifles without one 
), alert member of staff”.
That would be stripping most of lesson 1, most of lesson 2 and all of lesson 3 on AR, and most of 1, all of 2, most of 3 on CSBTR.
Personally, I’d like to see the end of “this is the adjustable butt”, “this is the muzzle”, etc as well - if a driving instructor introduced me to every hinge on their car on the first lesson, I’d be finding someone else… It doesn’t add anything to safety, and artificially increases the complexity of both delivering and receiving training.
Again, apologies for thread drift.
2 Likes
Hi @Squirrel - for first time firers the maximum ratio of Firing Point Safety Supervisors to Firers is 1:3, although actual ratio is determined by the RCO. For not inexperienced firers (pam doesn’t actually say what inexperienced is/isn’t) the ratio is up to the RCO/Senior Planning Officer.
Removing the two points you suggested may save you 25 minutes from training. But then mandating that you have 1:1 supervision means that all of those supervisors need to have gone on a supervision course. It then also means that if you want to scale, you need more and more supervisors. It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul.
1 Like
A good point, well made (although 25 minutes is over 35% of AR training - if you could squeeze out another 10 minutes that makes training and firing in one night achievable).
I’ll add that I don’t feel my suggestions above would require 1:1 supervision (I stated 1:1 or 1:2 what was seen in practice, at least up this way). Given the infrequency of stoppages, I’m sure one safety supervisor would continue to be able to keep up with two or three cadets?
How frequently do you find cadets are able to resolve stoppages themselves (particularly inexperienced firers)? I’ve found that the supervisor has had to step in (at least to prompt) almost every time, unless you have a cadet who is very familiar with the rifle.
Aside, do you have a reference for the 1:3 requirement for first time firers? I had that as 1:1 in my head, and can’t find either scanning CTR18 (I know the requirement’s in there somewhere, just can’t find it 
) .