take a look at the scrolling banner on Sharepoint for full details.
interestingly it indicates that NSW is an incorrect term and now offers three other distinctions.
it would seem what we know as NSWs are now locally purchased weapons (LPWs) and there remains a ban on service ammo used in these weapons.
ie anyone with Martini or Anchtuz rifles need to find a non-service source of ammo (which i believe is new?) so may bring into question (by CWC) the justification of such weapons given the increased “running” costs - but you’ll notice the ban is still in place for these anyway, only shotguns and air rifles are lifted under this update.
looks like the No8 WHT will no longer be valid for all 0.22 rifles too.
does that not imply the same will not be true for the handful of air rifles out there?
what is the difference between a .177" air rifle and a .22" air rifle? Apart from the obvious size of the pellet etc.
What makes a .22" air rifle unsuitable for the ACO?
what is the difference between a .177" air rifle and a .22" air rifle? Apart from the obvious size of the pellet etc.
What makes a .22" air rifle unsuitable for the ACO?[/quote]
.177 is recognised as a target rifle for sporting purposes, whilst .22 is regarded as a rifle for vermin control. As all competitions are for .177 rifles, there is no justification to use .22. Additionally, the greater muzzle energy of a .22 air rifle will probably put the rifle outside the design and safety parameters for air rifle ranges.
An e mail confirming the lifting of the ban was distributed on 10 Jan.[/quote]
Who was in the distribution list? And why isn’t it the same as the “Stop” email?
An e mail confirming the lifting of the ban was distributed on 10 Jan.[/quote]
Who was in the distribution list? And why isn’t it the same as the “Stop” email?[/quote]
At the moment, I cannot tell, as my e mails are on a different computer to my current location. I will check when I can log onto the other PC.
Found it! The e mail was sent out on the evening of 9 Jan. It had quite a lot of recipients, including all the Wing Shooting Officers, so it should have been disseminated by now. I have copied and pasted the e mail below, but have obviously removed names of people from it:
USE OF PRIVATELY OWNED SMALLBORE RIFLES
The ban on the use of NSW or LPW has now being lifted and I enclose
information from HQAC which has to be adhered by all members of the corps.
The Air Cadet Organisations’ involvement in Smallbore Competitions was
compromised, to say the least. Some teams were able to shoot and submit
cards for Stage 1 of the Battle of Britain Competition with the results now
been disseminated by the NSRA however, other top teams did not have the
opportunity to shoot their cards as the ban came into force one week before
stage 1 was due for completion. We will therefore be treating those Air
Cadet scores disseminated from the NSRA as provisional results only, pending
any final decision in consultation with the NSRA now that the ban has been
lifted.
As this is an NSRA competition, I will again be consulting with the NSRA
Shooting Manager, who has been in Australia with a GB team and is due back
shortly, to see if something can be done to allow those teams to continue to
shoot the first stage, even though the second stage is required back with
the NSRA by 9 Feb 2015. In the meantime all squadrons who have been
provisionally selected on the published results for entry to the second
stage shoot should proceed as normal and return their targets to the NSRA.
In addition to the above, we have not received many names for cadets wishing
to shoot practice cards to gain entry to the corps ‘Whistler Team’ of 40 to
compete against the SCC and ACF. I would urge all coaches to please return
names as soon as possible to xxxxxxxxxx *at the Instructor 12 address
above,who will send you information regarding this competition. Hopefully
this will enable us to select the strongest possible 2015 corps team.
The ban on the use of NSW or LPW has now being lifted and I enclose
information from HQAC which has to be adhered by all members of the corps.
On a public forum such as this, I cannot include names and other details of the author and who it went to. I said that the e mail went to all Wing Shooting Officers on 9 Jan - I suggest you contact yours and request a copy of the full e mail.
Yes, that is the level of detail I’d expect to see in any letter rescinding the ban, not a paragraph that appears to be hearsay by someone who is clearly more concerned about the disruption to their competitions.
Excuse me being either a fool or devil’s advocate (I shall leave you to decide) but where does it indicate that we can now use and fire LPWs?
The whole letter reads as a reminder of the policy prior to the ban (so nothing new) and (para 3) hints that LPWs can be fired if 2* dispensation is given….yet fails to indicate if it has been given instead implies the dispensation may not be required and are waiting to confirm…
(and while we wait to find out, surely we should be playing it safe and not do anything rather than carry on in the hope that the dispensation is not required….?)
That to me is not a black and white, “the ban has been lifted” and certainly not a “carry on providing you follow the regs as listed” given the wavy woolliness of para3…
Either we are permitted to use LPWs in accordance with the policy, as approved with 2* dispensation, or the dispensation is not required and we are permitted.
Para3 nor anywhere else states neither of those…
That’s a fair point Steve. It looks like the intention was to say “carry on, but with these extra measures”. All it actually says is “Ban is still in place, but when lifted will have these extra measures”.
And also why has this letter not made it to the announcements page of sharepoint? The LPW announcement was only updated last week - is it too much to ask to re-update it again, rather than relying on OC wings and Wg Shooting Officers to disseminate (which, as we know, is asking for trouble).
and as Batfink mentioned it was an ALL points email to STOP yet to carry on (if that is what this letter is trying to tell us why not offer a similar wide publication, if not all points email, at minimal announcements page?
