Unless the NRA is going to come up with any intermediate weekends, etc, (âprogramme if eventsâ), perhaps regional activities, that announcement comes across as nothing much happening until Jul 2026!
If there is anything else has been mooted, as a member of the NRA General Council, nothing has been mentioned to us.
As it stands, it would seem that the only way to get in the U19 / Atheling teams from next yr onwards is to shoot as a pupil in a private school.
I think the issue is not just the withdrawal of the L81 but that full bore target shooting will no longer be âan authorised cadet activityâ
In light of the NRA plans, this needs to be re-visited.
Isnât 5.56 x 45 NATO considered full bore?
Does this mean L98s will essentially only be used for field craft and not LFMT?
Yes, 5.56 is classed as FB, but isnt a target rifle.
LFMT will continue - however, perhaps the SDT at Cranditz might be more âfield craftâ orientated than tgt rifle orientatedâŚ
Perhaps a case can be made to allow target shooting as a non-mod activity under NRA & NSRA rules like AT & clay pigeon
What is currently stopping that from happening anyway? We can do pretty much anything under a 3rd party company, except for flying and gliding, I thought?
It would be MUCH easier if the oversight / approval / trg of air rifle (& .22 shooting if applicable) could be moved from the current requirements to NSRA provisions.
Perhaps worth a lobby to head of RAF sports. Now it is no longer provided by service sources perhaps it can be civilianised.
Isnât the head of sports also AOC 22 group? Who wonât allow us to do the same thing for the same reasons with gliding and flying?
Gliding & flying are provided by the RAF so in theory you would have mixing standard. Target shooting is no longer being provided so it can have a separation of processes.
Might be enough of a wiggle - also allows it to trickle over in case itâs every restored.
Head of sports has a different angle & different responsibilities so perhapsthey can lobby AOC 22 but they would have to show the due diligence of both roles - perhaps it might play out like thisâŚ.
As I said on another thread:
A can of worms has been opened. If MoD cease to support target shooting then the exemptions currently in place allowing staff and cadets access to S1 firearms are likely to be removed and the normal provisions of the Firearms Act will apply. This would place cadet forces in the same category as the Scout Association who currently operate under S11(4) Miniature Rifle Ranges. There is no equivalent section that would allow a similar route for Full Bore. The other issue for smallbore is that if the rifles are withdrawn, I cannot see MoD continuing to support and maintain the ranges.
To continue with smallbore shooting it would have to be âcivilianisedâ and that too has challenges. With the L144 being withdrawn units would have 3 options available:
a. Form a Home Office Approved club. Difficult to satisfy all the criteria, but doable with effort.
b. Operate under S11(4), maybe easier than the HO Approval route but still requiring many of the same criteria to be met.
Both the of above would require grant of a Firearm Certificate (FAC)
You would also need somewhere to shoot and if MoD facilities are no longer available this would probably mean local rifle clubs.
c. Reach an agreement with a rifle club whereby all cadets who wish to shoot make an application to join the club. Which, if successful would allow them to access to club firearms and facilities. This is similar to an arrangement currently in place with a number of university rifle clubs.
The problem is that clubs these days donât have that much spare range capacity and have to put their existing membersâ interests first. Because of the insularity that RAFAC has built up, if you are even remotely considering approaching a club in a couple of years time, it might be a good move to start making contact sooner rather than later. In other words go along and see about joining, an approach from an existing member may be better received than a cold call.
exmpa
I disagree with this as
-
the firearms act just talks generally in terms of âcadet corps approved by the Secretary of Stateâ to chamge this either the ATC cease to be an approved cadet corps (which can be done at stroke of a pen) or this section is removed by primary legislation which will be a ball lake so not happening.
-
cadet forces are still using section 5 so will still require the exceptions under the act.
-
in all likely hood cadet forces would revert to pre-2004 practice & be issued firearm certificates as if units were school shooting clubs (which are different to standard HO club approvals)
Maybe, maybe not. S5 is an outlier and it will remain as it always has, completely within the military remit. The issue is that MoD will no longer be providing S1 rifles or ammunition for either smallbore or fullbore target shooting. They will have to be sourced elsewhere and that process will need to be compliant with the Act.
This still leaves the question, if they acquire rifles where will they be able to use them? I just cannot see MoD continuing to mantain the current number of ranges. School ranges may still be available, but with the pressures that they are facing at the moment, this is by no means a given; e.g. Rugby School recently closed their range.
There are a lot of unknowns and many uncertainties.
exmpa
The Firearms Act 1968 is not written in a way that would make this particularly necessary. The exemption for cadet corps applies to all sections in the act. There arenât separate exceptions in section 1 and section 5. Why would they bother rewriting the law when they might want to re-introduce target shooting in a few years? To be honest, the section 5 bit is probably in the most danger, depending on what happens with Project Grayburn. Will cadets get a new cadet rifle? Will cadets just get the new service rifle? Will cadets just get no rifle at all?
Perhaps cadets will get a modified rifle that is a section 1 version of the section 5 rifle regulars end up getting making transport & storage a lot easier & cheaper.
I have a strange feeling of Deja vuâŚâŚ
There are plenty of .22 versions of the AR type designs out there. And I canât see us going for anything else realistically, it will be some version of the alternative individual weapon.
So hopefully no need for modifications. Whether weâd then get a 5.56 and .22 version remains to be seen.
I really hope this doesnât happen - the L98A1 was such a bad design.