.17 HMR still banned on Melville

[ColinR]

I am surprised that as Bisley is the foremost shooting ground in the UK that, given the new forward looking stance of Andrew Mercer, they do not strive to incorporate new innovations - well new to Bisley. You cannot use .17 HMR on Melvile because it exceeds the velocity for that range. If I remember correctly the limit is 2150 fps, while .17HMR is around 2500 fps. Seems ridiculous given the ME of .17HMR compared to .44 Magnum and the like which are allowed because the velocity is below 2150 fps. I would have thought ME would be a far better way to assess a calibre than pure MV. It seems to be the way with HME firearms so why not .17HMR on Melville. I really cannot see how a .17HMR can pose a greater risk in any way than a .44 Magnum. Maybe the NRA/MOD just cannot be bothered reassessing the range to include this calibre. In the same way I am advised that 22-250 is banned on all ranges at Bisley because of MV. Why the confusion between MV and ME when issuing range certificates? Or are the NRA just burying their heads in the sand?

[shugie]

Presumably there is a reason why muzzle energy and muzzle velocity are considered separately when assessing range safety?

As the ranges "belong" to the MoD, presumably they get the final say anyway.

[zanes]

I'd always assumed it's because, given the same muzzle energy, a very light projectile at a high velocity could travel further (potentially exceeding the range danger area) than a heavy projectile at a comparatively low velocity.

[the running man]

I think you will find its something to do with minimum caliber and re writing the book, so it's easier to just ban it....

[dodgyrog]

Presumably there is a reason why muzzle energy and muzzle velocity are considered separately when assessing range safety?

As the ranges "belong" to the MoD, presumably they get the final say anyway.

Considering Melville's right next to the BSRC where anything goes there is no logic behind the ban!

[Airbrush]

Things might be changing on Melville, plans are afoot to make it 5.56 compatible. Of course this may never happen.

[ColinR]

Presumably there is a reason why muzzle energy and muzzle velocity are considered separately when assessing range safety?

As the ranges "belong" to the MoD, presumably they get the final say anyway.

Considering Melville's right next to the BSRC where anything goes there is no logic behind the ban!

Presumably BSRC can shoot anything upto .30 cal so well in excess of 2150 fps and into the same Danger Area. There is no logic to this decision. And then as Airbrush suggests there might be some consideration of making Melville 5.56 compatible - that's quite a departure from .17HMR in terms of ME and MV, so why not little steps like first getting the range approved for a calibre that has few available ranges in terms of usefulness - I think Butt Zero (expensive) and SS 100 which is virtually impossible to book these days. A 25 and 50 yard range for this calibre would seem necessary.

Maybe 5.56 is a military requirement and then it will be impossible to book Melville!

[Airbrush]

Presumably there is a reason why muzzle energy and muzzle velocity are considered separately when assessing range safety?

As the ranges "belong" to the MoD, presumably they get the final say anyway.

Considering Melville's right next to the BSRC where anything goes there is no logic behind the ban!

Presumably BSRC can shoot anything upto .30 cal so well in excess of 2150 fps and into the same Danger Area. There is no logic to this decision. And then as Airbrush suggests there might be some consideration of making Melville 5.56 compatible - that's quite a departure from .17HMR in terms of ME and MV, so why not little steps like first getting the range approved for a calibre that has few available ranges in terms of usefulness - I think Butt Zero (expensive) and SS 100 which is virtually impossible to book these days. A 25 and 50 yard range for this calibre would seem necessary.

Maybe 5.56 is a military requirement and then it will be impossible to book Melville!

I doubt it, I always say 5.56 as that's what I shoot but .223 would have been more apt in this case.

[ColinR]

Maybe 5.56 is a military requirement and then it will be impossible to book Melville![/quote]

I doubt it, I always say 5.56 as that's what I shoot but .223 would have been more apt in this case. [/quote]

Still seems a huge departure from the NRA intransigence to re-evaluate Melville to allow .17HMR

[Airbrush]

Maybe 5.56 is a military requirement and then it will be impossible to book Melville!

I doubt it, I always say 5.56 as that's what I shoot but .223 would have been more apt in this case. [/quote]

Still seems a huge departure from the NRA intransigence to re-evaluate Melville to allow .17HMR[/quote]

Watch this space, the more members who mention it to the Range Office the better, at the end of the day we are paying customers & if they know what we want & it's not too expensive it's in the NRA's best interest to try to accommodate.