Gun Range Rules to strict???

Status
Not open for further replies.
in my experience.. Most Fudds are not shooters at all. They have little to no appreciation of firearms and don't enjoy shooting..

For them firearms are frequently tools or a means to an end. There are also still at least a few left from the Great Depression or lived in rural America in the 1950's. (My wife lived in rural Pennsylvania in the 1950's and some houses near where she lived didn't have indoor plumbing) While guns were and are part of this tradition, equally there is a parallel course that runs in gun culture that says: don't waste ammunition and make your shots count. The idea of taking out a semi-auto rifle or pistol and shooting up a couple hundred rounds or more in one session, is incomprehensible to them. The idea that someone should have a fully automatic weapon is downright alien, because what would a civilian need one for, except to rob a bank? (the old lingering image of the 1920's and 1930's gangsters) There are probably two firearms that you could have found in probably 90 percent of American farms and ranches though at least the 1960's and 70's and that was a shotgun and a .22 rifle. Chances are that the shotgun was a Winchester Model 37 a single shot model produced in the thousands and often referred to as "the farmer's friend" or a Mossberg or a Remington or a brands that carried the name of local or regional hardware stores...the 22 could have been a Marlin, or Winchester, or maybe a Remington or a Stevens perhaps a house branded gun from Sears or Montgomery Ward.

When determining whether they were going to eat or not depended on how well they could shoot and ammo cost money, the will for survival often triumphs. A recurring mantra in American gun culture and one that lingers today is: one shot, one kill, one gun.

I think many of the so-called Fudds appreciate firearms but not the way you do. They appreciate them the way they might appreciate a tractor, or a saw or any other tool. I will give hunters one big plus in their favor: they are not afraid to kill things, and they don't have a lot of the urban angst that so many seem to have today. It was many of these Fudds who when called to don a uniform, proved to be very efficient marksmen in WWI, WWII and Korea, and probably were less apt to have as many reservations about killing. I wonder if someone would call Alvin C. York a Fudd? Was Audie Murphy a Fudd? He grew up dirt poor in hardscrabble conditions down in Texas, he had to hunt so that his mother and his siblings could eat. Going back a few generations one of the greatest shots that ever lived was Annie Oakley. She was a professional huntress (shot small game for pelts and birds for plumes), and meat hunter for her family. She had a natural aptitude for shooting, but she said that she learned to shoot well because she had to out of necessity. A box of cartridges cost too much, so she couldn't afford to practice much when she was young. She had to make sure her shots counted to survive.

It's interesting too, how long the whole concept of suppressive fire took hold in the US Military. During the Civil War the Spencer Carbine and the Henry Rifle proved that repeating rifles had value in combat, yet after the war the new service rifle was a single shot because the brass didn't want soldiers "wasting ammunition." It wasn't until the 1890'a that the Army finally got a repeating rifle: the Krag-Jorgensen, and even then some of the brass in the War Department though that soldiers would waste too much ammunition.

Even our first semi-auto main battle rifle the M1 Garand held only eight cartridges. Want a later example: The M16A1 had a full auto feature on the selector switch, however the Army decided that three-shot groups provide an optimum combination of ammunition conservation , accuracy and firepower hence the M16A2 was issued with a three round burst capacity rather than full auto.

I guess what bugs me the most today is how people are labeled Fudds because they associate firearms with hunting and target shooting, yet for generations these were for the most part, the rank and file gun owners in the United States, the ones that founded and sustained the NRA, built and maintained most of gun clubs and ranges in the United States.

Today, savvy, informed gun owners of all ages realize that the 2A isn't about hunting, that the police are not our friends (as a societal entity) and that the .gov wants to control our lives to a degree unprecedented in times past. A lot of Fudds just don't get it and never will because things have really changed that much (no there were never good old days and no I am not talking about walking uphill 12 miles to school both ways in a blinding snowstorm). Sometimes it bothers me when we go after the Fudds, because many of those Fudds have skills that many of us do not. How many people can dress and kill a deer, stalk game, successfully follow a blood trail, survive in the woods, and in other natural environments, as opposed to those with their ARs, high capacity pistols who like to go to the range, unwind and burn up rounds downrange at zombie targets (I admit I'm guilty of that one, not that there is any inherent reason to be guilty, just expressing a natural right)? How many of us today could take a deer size animal (or a man) at three hundred yards? There are Fudds that can do these things, and frankly if I had to be in a defensive fighting position (fox hole) I'd usually prefer a Fudd than some 18 year old kid that six months before, had never even touched a gun...but that's just me.

The really old ones aren't going to change, and the younger one's may change, but at this point I hate to see a house divided against itself. The recent change in GOAL was a tremendous triumph for the shooters of today and I applaud the new direction that GOAL is taking, but it was the Fudds back in the 70's that prevented the handguns being totally banned in Massachusetts, and that is something to ponder.
 
Last edited:
The really old ones aren't going to change, and the younger one's may change, but at this point I hate to see a house divided against itself. The recent change in GOAL was a tremendous triumph for the shooters of today and I applaud the new direction that GOAL is taking, but it was the Fudds back in the 70's that prevented the handguns being totally banned in Massachusetts, and that is something to ponder.

What you say makes a lot of sense and is important. I also think that there's a VERY important message contained within it - don't denigrate a whole group of people out of hand. However, just because someone did something great in the past or has a different frame of reference doesn't mean that they get a free pass for doing something stupid or nonsensical in the present. The people that made and keep the "only five rounds" rule at a club may have had what they thought was a reasonable train of thought at the time they made it and they likely are not deserving of being dismissed out of hand as "just a bunch of stupid old fudds" or similar. However, that doesn't change the fact that the rule itself is deserving of the greatest amount of ridicule and scorn possible and that thus far I've heard no reason why anyone who would support it in the face of reasoned objection could be called anything other than incapable of rational thought. There's no logical reason for the rule that I've heard and "that's the way we've always done it" or "in my day we had to live in a ditch eating rats to stay alive" are both the height of foolish non-answers. That is totally separate and apart from the great amount of respect that may be due any of these individuals for other achievements/skills in their lives.

Just because someone who lived through the depression can't understand why us young guys would "waste" ammo shooting for fun, they have no more justification to limit the number of rounds anyone loads in a gun than someone has to decide to completely ban handguns in the state.
 
They are in control of the club and they want to keep the mag dump/ blaster crowd out. It's that simple, no justification needed.

B
 
They are in control of the club and they want to keep the mag dump/ blaster crowd out. It's that simple, no justification needed.

B

That makes a certain amount of sense and I can respect the philosophy of "their range, their rules; don't join if you don't like them". However, I still think limiting the number of rounds you can load at a time is a foolish and ineffective way to go about it if that's really the intent. Instead, why not just have a little video monitoring on the range coupled with a "no mag dump" rule enforced with a "we catch you and have video evidence and you're thrown out and banned" policy?
 
Because it's way easier to say 5 round limit. The blammo crowd will go crying on NES and never submit an application.

B
 
It also comes from some old-line NRA thinking.

  • Round limits were frequently tied that what was used in NRA competition (gallery course). The thinking was "If you don't need it for an NRA event, or hunting, it's not legit". Sports where .25 second "splits" were considered mediocre simply did not exist.
  • Until a few years ago, the NRA treated defense, holstered handguns, etc. as the red headed stepchild of the shooting world. Although there was the "Armed Citizen" column, the NRA did not have any course that dealt with carry outside the home and never touched the subject.
  • The NRA had a long-standing policy that any competition that was martial in nature was restricted to badged functionaries only. Sanctioned PPC matches were "police only", and the closest thing to action shooting (Bianchi Cup) used targets that did not represent such objects as a defensive gun would be used at in it's primary intended function.
  • Rules that encouraged the "NRA style" proliferated at clubs, and went beyond loading limits - for example, it was common for clubs to have rules against drawing a loaded gun from a holster.

Much of this has changed - slowly, but in the right direction, and the concealed carry movement that really started when Florida changed the law to issue statewide, rather than county, licenses - and to all qualified people, not just "special ones", cause the NRA to start treating carry, and sports that have clear defensive roots, with greater legitimacy.

Age is not an excuse for fuddism. One of the strongest board proponents of allowing us to move into the modern era at Hopkinton Sportsmens was well into his 70's at time and has, unfortunately, since died. I only wish I knew him better when he was alive as he never told any of us he was a genuine war hero.
 
That makes a certain amount of sense and I can respect the philosophy of "their range, their rules; don't join if you don't like them". However, I still think limiting the number of rounds you can load at a time is a foolish and ineffective way to go about it if that's really the intent. Instead, why not just have a little video monitoring on the range coupled with a "no mag dump" rule enforced with a "we catch you and have video evidence and you're thrown out and banned" policy?

I am dead set against cameras on the firing line!

I'd be all for cameras capturing license plates entering the property however. That way if there are trespassers or damage, you have something to go on without big brother breathing down your neck while shooting.

I've heard rumor of a club I used to belong to mis-using the videos on the range to throw people out that they didn't like.

As for mag dumps . . . if they are hitting the target nobody should care. If they are shooting wildly hitting anything and everything near and far, I don't want them on the range without supervision even if it is one round per minute! Fix the problem, don't create problems for many due to an issue with a few.


Age is not an excuse for fuddism. One of the strongest board proponents of allowing us to move into the modern era at Hopkinton Sportsmens was well into his 70's at time and has, unfortunately, since died. I only wish I knew him better when he was alive as he never told any of us he was a genuine war hero.

I'm pretty sure this is the gentleman who we discussed some time ago. Due to his "wartime profession", I'd say that he'd be all for letting people practice self-defense tactics! [thumbsup]

I wish I had had the opportunity to meet him, however nobody knew much about him until after he died and his Daughter discovered the information and wrote his biography.
 
Due to his "wartime profession", I'd say that he'd be all for letting people practice self-defense tactics!
Yes, this is the retired hitman (for our side) I told you about [smile]

I am dead set against cameras on the firing line!
There is a huge difference between "cameras" and "microphones", plus it all depends on what the cameras are used for. The one club I am familiar with that has cameras has used them to track down damage, and deal with the situation in a positive way, and absolutely does not use them for a game of "gotcha". Said club has also had a couple of incidents of basement flooding concentrated on the range, and the cameras allow Ez-Prez to check to make sure everything is OK from his home.

I am in agreement on one thing - I am dead set against hidden cameras on firing lines, as well as microphones (which are illegal without proper notice, and listening in on conversations crosses a line I feel should remain intact).
 
Last edited:
This is a digression.....or maybe not.

A few years back, we had a work party from hell, all hands on deck, to complete the reconstruction of the rifle range.

BIG, big job.

On the day in question, everybody did something. The young kids (like mine ~10 y.o.) fetched and carried, and tried out any power tools that they could get their hands on; the young adults did the heavy lifting, and the monkey-boy climbing; the more "senior" like me knew, or pretended to know, what needed doing, and organised the others; some of the even more senior members made the eats; the most senior sidewalk-superintended the whole deal.

Afterwards, I asked the kids what they thought the oldsters were doing. "Nothing....watching."

"Wrong. They were providing continuity. Who do you think built the structure that we were adding to?" (note the clever use of a real, and metaphorical example....[laugh])

My point? It's fine to rail against the "Fudd" and "Pulse Dial" crew, but they have paid their dues, both monetarily and time-wise. And when a "Noob" starts telling them all that's wrong with the place (either by saying, "These rules suck" or by meerly suggesting an update) some may take offense.

Justifled? Maybe, maybe not. But the rules were put there for a reason, and at the time a good one. Perhaps times, and opinions, have changed. But perhaps the desired change was a problem 20 years ago, and the restricive rule(s) were a direct result.

But a club is not a business, and it runs on different rules.

So. Find out the rules, and choose a club that suits your needs, or, if you're already a member, chafing under the unreasonable restrictions that the Elders have handed down, work to update them.

I'm not an officer or Director of my Club - I'm meerly the Trap Chairman. I have people constantly suggest improvements, programs, special events or whatever. "Great idea. You take the lead, I'll back you up!" Not too many say, "Cool," and make it happen.

Though to those of you who do, and have done so, my thanks - you know who you are.

If you think that IDPA or a rapid-fire steel dueling tree with mandatory hi-caps is the new thing, offer to run the event. Don't say, "We should do this" - unless you end it with , "And I'll make it happen." Oh....one other thing....make sure that the enrty fees > than expenses. Having the Treasurer on your side is a good thing.

"Night all....
 
Interesting discussion. I can certainly understand that the new kid isn't in a position to dictate what rules are good or bad. What I can say is that in my search for a club I've seen clubs with rules like the 5 round limit or hours of operation that simply don't work for me. I have no intention of telling anyone they are wrong, I will simply vote with my wallet once I find a good fit.

I'm a member of other types of clubs that have been around a long time. I know there is a delicate balance between "the way it's always been" that is cherished by existing members and the way some new folks think it should be. It can be very difficult to make enough change to encourage the next generation of members without disrupting too many traditions and alienating the older crowd. You can't please everyone, but sometimes you need to make a judgement call as to the best interest of the long term health of the club.
 
My club is similar. in any pistol or revolver you cannot load more than 5 rounds. In any long gun, you may not load anymore than 10 rounds. When i asked why only 5 rounds for the handguns, they said, "in case the sear breaks off, you won't have a runaway for that long". I said, "right so when my single action revolver decides to go fully automatic, i'll thank you for possibly saving my life."
 
I have no problem or issue with anyone else's choice in how they want to shoot, or how often, or how rapidly, etc. If someone wants to spend X amount of time with a bolt gun doing some careful low-volume shooting, that is fine and dandy with me. I do it myself sometimes. Same with hunting; I am all for it, and try to get out and bring home something for the table from time to time. Nor do I care if someone likes only guns that are blued steel and wood, or dislikes modern sporting rifles like ARs. That's all fine with me. What I object to, and the only people I think of as Fuds, are those who seek to force everyone else into shooting the same way they do. As long as a shooter is keeping their shots on the range and their gun handling is safe, I don't really care what they do, and neither should anyone else. It shows a lack of respect.
 
....and at nearly 300 total for the application fee and the first year of membership they should let me bring a grenade launcher!!!!!!!!!!!! ...

In that case you should join Hanson, because you can

P1000558.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have no problem or issue with anyone else's choice in how they want to shoot, or how often, or how rapidly, etc. If someone wants to spend X amount of time with a bolt gun doing some careful low-volume shooting, that is fine and dandy with me. I do it myself sometimes. Same with hunting; I am all for it, and try to get out and bring home something for the table from time to time. Nor do I care if someone likes only guns that are blued steel and wood, or dislikes modern sporting rifles like ARs. That's all fine with me. What I object to, and the only people I think of as Fuds, are those who seek to force everyone else into shooting the same way they do. As long as a shooter is keeping their shots on the range and their gun handling is safe, I don't really care what they do, and neither should anyone else. It shows a lack of respect.

Agree completely.

I can't being to tell you how many times I have seen people with Glocks (or even Gene G. with a revolver!) shoot faster than my MP40 and keep them all in the black. At the same time I have seen people "pacing" their shots skipping them off the ground 20' in front of them or miss a berm entirely. But as long as they do it with less than 5 rounds and slowly, THEY are ones that are OK.

Bottom line (for me) is that as long as a shooter is acting safely (to themselves and everybody else) and is in control then let them do what they want.
 
I have no problem or issue with anyone else's choice in how they want to shoot, or how often, or how rapidly, etc. If someone wants to spend X amount of time with a bolt gun doing some careful low-volume shooting, that is fine and dandy with me. I do it myself sometimes. Same with hunting; I am all for it, and try to get out and bring home something for the table from time to time. Nor do I care if someone likes only guns that are blued steel and wood, or dislikes modern sporting rifles like ARs. That's all fine with me. What I object to, and the only people I think of as Fuds, are those who seek to force everyone else into shooting the same way they do. As long as a shooter is keeping their shots on the range and their gun handling is safe, I don't really care what they do, and neither should anyone else. It shows a lack of respect.

While I agree totally with what you wrote, as do many others, we still have to keep in mind that we are referring to private clubs, and it is their rules. Now whether some of these clubs will be around twenty years from now is an entirely different story. I don't know of any Fudd who is forcing you to shoot his or her way except where it concerns their private club. We talk about individual rights, private property etc on this forum, but when it is someone else who is disrespecting what we like, then they are the bad guys and gals.

Now naturally if someone is imposing what they think are the rules, then it is a different story, but if it is in the club rules and you don't like the rules, then don't join that club and shoot somewhere else.
 
While I agree totally with what you wrote, as do many others, we still have to keep in mind that we are referring to private clubs, and it is their rules. Now whether some of these clubs will be around twenty years from now is an entirely different story. I don't know of any Fudd who is forcing you to shoot his or her way except where it concerns their private club. We talk about individual rights, private property etc on this forum, but when it is someone else who is disrespecting what we like, then they are the bad guys and gals.

Now naturally if someone is imposing what they think are the rules, then it is a different story, but if it is in the club rules and you don't like the rules, then don't join that club and shoot somewhere else.

Yes, I said what I "object to" and what - for me - constitutes a fud. I meant it within the context of the thread. I don't tend to call people names, and I don't think it fair to call someone a fud just because they like bolt guns or whatever. To me, it is only when they seek to force others to abide by their idea of what "the right kind" of shooting is that they become fuds in my eyes. I don't care if they do it through club rules or otherwise.

Certainly nobody here is suggesting that anyone break any rules at any private club. And, I agree that at some places, it would be like shoveling sh*t against the tide to turn back the fuddism, but some places have members of varying interests who try to run their clubs in a way that does not alienate some types of shooters.
 
This is why I'm having a hard time choosing a club to join...I want somewhere within the Salisbury area(within 30-45 minutes) that isn't going to limit the amount of rounds I can load and with keycard access.
 
This is why I'm having a hard time choosing a club to join...I want somewhere within the Salisbury area(within 30-45 minutes) that isn't going to limit the amount of rounds I can load and with keycard access.

Well, at least you know the right kinds of questions to ask. Policy on bringing guests is another good thing to ask about.
 
I've heard a wicked rumor about some evil range members loading 10 rounds and pausing after they shot 5..and then! They would shoot the other 5 ! The wicked things some men will do.
 
Wow, talk about a thread revival, almost 4 years between posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
To tell you the truth the round limit does not bother me all that much, as I only get to the club once or twice a month anyway. Or maybe all this Fudd stuff is rubbing off on me LOL!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom