Printable View
Here's the map.
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558...LT1_028780.pdf
It looks good to me. I'm curious what you guys are going to write in about. Would you change it in any way?
Here is the main page.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/arnf/project...?project=32622
Seems to me you used to be able to shoot further than 100yds, thats the only downfall I see to it.
The public comment period appears to open on the 24th. Anyone interested has 30 days to say something. They'll accept email comments.
I do not have suggestions so much as questions
Timeline is a big one
Funding???
If this is simply something that will be 10 years in the making and intended to try to placate us for those 10 yrs then it stinks
You could accomplish the same thing by simply adding supervision to the existing site
Like everything else, it will be nice when it is finished.....whenver that is
Nice and crowded probably
Will you be able to shoot at very close range?
Will you be able to work from a holster/concealment
Rapid fire ok?
I remember being able to shoot over 100 yards as well, but since they are making more use of all the space, it just wouldn't fit. They would have to go diagonally and remove the shotgun pad and possibly some other stuff.
I apologize in advance for the long reply... most of this is Devils Advocate type of thinking with the idea that reasonable discussion now among the shooting community, about what concessions we may be willing to make, will help us present a calm, rational point of view to the Forest Service as they consider building a permanent shooting facility at the old dump. There are lots of strong minds in here and we could potentially help turn a perceived negative into a positive and quite the voices of an irrational gun-fearing segment of the public who would assume we're all going to lob random bullets their way.
This is the range I grew up with in Alaska. City-owned, free for all to use, suggested CHEAP usage or member rates but not required, 100-yd and 400-yd ranges, covered positions. I have wished for something like this around here ever since I moved to Colorado.
http://sites.google.com/site/hankharmonrange/
Long-range and short-range shooting --
I would LOVE the ability to train at short range (say, 3 to 5 yards). As long as the range takes into account the massive surge in CCW permit holders and defensive handgun purchases in general as well as the rise in competition handgun shooting, I think the shorter pistol range would be great! I've never seen a pistol range that said "no, you will shoot at OUR distances" so I don't see close-range shooting being an issue. Now... contact drills I see being a bit of a problem only because you don't typically have a sight picture and it's impossible to insure your rounds are not going up instead of into the berm without strong supervision. Again... Devils Advocate...
Likewise, being able to shoot out to 100 yards without having to guesstimate distances or have someone set up their bench 10 yards behind you and move the firing line back for a half-dozen groups is a good thing. I don't think it was safely possible to shoot more than 130 yards or so out there without hanging your target high on the backstop or shooting at a very oblique angle to the rest of the informal firing line. I'd love to see a 200-yard range open to the public, but I'd take a 100-yd line with benches open to all for starters.
Holster/Concealment and rapid-fire shooting --
We are a CCW shall-issue and open-carry state -- in my opinion it would be a mistake to prohibit shooting from a holster or from concealment. That said, almost every range I've belonged to with the ability to allow it (aka, no bench or ability to remove the bench) has some sort of qualification in place. A range officer watches for muzzle and trigger discipline while working from the holster with an unloaded gun before you're "cleared" to proceed. Some sort of plan in place at a public outdoor range with no full-time staff would be tough. Having worked as a full-time range officer and instructor, there are folks out there who could definitely use a little training / help in order to safely present a handgun to the target. Being a public range, I definitely favor less restriction over more restriction and would not be happy if I were told I HAD to shoot off the bench (even standing behind it). If that's how it goes, though, it's better than no range at all.
As for rapid-fire, that's another tough one. In general, as long as you have a sight picture on each shot, squeeze away. That said, (again, DA argument) indiscriminate fire is, in my experience, most often a result of guys and gals performing "mag dumps" in the general direction of a target. While it was technically permitted, it usually gets you the stink eye from your friends at the firing line. I would HATE to see a restriction or policy prohibiting rapid fire as I train for defensive / competition shooting and that requires the quick, accurate delivery of multiple rounds on target. Our challenge here will be in convincing the FS (IF it comes up) that not all quick shooting is irresponsible shooting.
Dates & Funding --
If the USFS were truly interested in building a permanent shooting facility, how long would it really take to install? A season / year? They'd have to bulldoze each shooting area and its berms, pave the "hardened" access lane, build the benches and support structures, and open it to the public. I could see that taking one season (Spring to Fall).
As for funding, unless the USFS received some sort of subsidy from Obamacorp to get this going ASAFP, that could hold things up. I'm sure they'll discuss fees... that would require someone on site to collect fees and dictate hours of operation other than sunrise to sunset. I'd LOVE to see it be a FREE and public shooting range. Convincing the FS that all we need are basic creature comforts -- safe berms and a bench -- may aid in that effort. Enlisting the local shooting community and organizations to donate funding toward the project could greatly ease the cost burden, too. We're going to have to pay for it somehow... I just hope we're given a voice and a chance to contribute to the process.
Random thought --
It would save time and money to build ONE 50 yard range for pistol and rimfire rifle shooting only instead of separate 25, 50, and 100 yard firing lines. Handgunners can peacefully coexist with plinkers and it would save time, cost, and speed up the process.
There is no doubt -- our North Site is closed and will remain closed until something like this takes its place. I'd much rather see a formal public shooting range open up than have to risk taking a 7.62 round to my ass in Big Elk Meadows / Johnny's Park and it may require us to make some concessions. That said, those concessions could potentially yield something much nicer than the dirt lot we used before and what we'd potentially "lose" would, in my opinion, be overshadowed by the facility we stand to gain.
Excellent,
should we make a generic letter what we all could sign and send to USFS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfTheGriz