Hilltop applying for planning for three new ranges

rrpc

It's published in one of the Wicklow Newspapers, but I presume it's a re-submission of this application.

100m, 200m and 300m. They must be planning a danger area range, because a 6m backstop wouldn't even be high enough for a 50m range.

cooperjeff9

rrpc wrote: »

It's published in one of the Wicklow Newspapers, but I presume it's a re-submission of this application.

100m, 200m and 300m. They must be planning a danger area range, because a 6m backstop wouldn't even be high enough for a 50m range.

That's a bit of a leap from the info in the planning application. Wasn't aware that we had planning/range design experts on boards, your obvious expertise and knowledge of range construction could have been useful when Leinster RPC were trying to develop a range.

rrpc

cooperjeff9 wrote: »

That's a bit of a leap from the info in the planning application. Wasn't aware that we had planning/range design experts on boards, your obvious expertise and knowledge of range construction could have been useful when Leinster RPC were trying to develop a range.

I'll make the assumption that you weren't being sarcastic there Jeff and explain my conclusions.

Butt stop height is a function of range length and is calculated from expected cone of fire from the firing point. The generally accepted cone of fire as quoted in JSP403 and other range manuals is roughly 7 degrees. A 6m butt stop at 300m gives an elevation of less than one degree from the sightline. I think anyone would accept that one degree is not acceptable as a safety angle under any circumstances, so you would extrapolate that a danger area must be in place in order that any shots that go over the butt stop will fall harmlessly within the danger area.

I am assuming that no baffles are being used as these would have to be included in the application, being permanent structures.

Sparks

To be fair jeff, rrpc does have lots of experience in planning permission application and range design, and he did offer it in the past but it was ignored (and the planning permission was subsequently denied on the grounds that he warned about, if I recall correctly).

bunny shooter

The dynamic duo

foxshooter243

rrpc wrote: »

I'll make the assumption that you weren't being sarcastic there Jeff and explain my conclusions.

Butt stop height is a function of range length and is calculated from expected cone of fire from the firing point. The generally accepted cone of fire as quoted in JSP403 and other range manuals is roughly 7 degrees. A 6m butt stop at 300m gives an elevation of less than one degree from the sightline. I think anyone would accept that one degree is not acceptable as a safety angle under any circumstances, so you would extrapolate that a danger area must be in place in order that any shots that go over the butt stop will fall harmlessly within the danger area.

I am assuming that no baffles are being used as these would have to be included in the application, being permanent structures.

seems to be a reasonable "leap" to me..

patbundy

best of luck hilltop, hope ye get it

rrpc

The thing with planning is that they look at the planning issues only. It's the Range Inspectorate he could run into trouble with if he doesn't have the danger area required.

However if the range inspector asks him to raise the backstop, then he could be back to the County Council for permission for that.

I hope it works out for him; we could do with a fullbore range this side of the country.

My (math whiz) flatmate says that the required backstop would be 37m high for a 300m range.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

I hope it works out for him; we could do with a fullbore range this side of the country.

I agree, the more facilities, one would hope, the more people take up shooting as a hobby/serious sport

I too hope it goes well for them


sako dude you are coming very close to breaching this rule

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055171178

meathshooter

best of luck to hilltop

rrpc

Deleted User wrote: »

My (math whiz) flatmate says that the required backstop would be 37m high for a 300m range.

Yup, he's pretty much spot on there. It depends on the height of the sightline above ground level; the accepted height for prone shooting is 450mm which gives a butt stop height of 37.5m.

That's just not possible. It would have to be baffled to work without a danger area.

fluffyduffy

word of this latest commercial venture has reached the locals and noise pollution is the concern not back stops or safety

Well safety should be the concern!! It does not take much time on the internet to see that he has a great safety record so far. I am sure that backstop will be built to the proper size. The backstop mentioned in the planning application is probebly just to see if the council will go for the idea. Perhaps if he said 37.5 meters straight off he would not get permission.

Late night shooting by floodlight,rapid fire from handguns and all day clay shooting has had an ill effect on the locals

I find this hard to believe. This range has been going for a long time now without any problems. Already there are lots of dynamic pistol ranges there and no problems.

Sparks

Problem with planning objections is that they don't often make much sense fluffy. Take Weston airfield for an example. Been there for over 50 years IIRC. Lots of small aircraft and even a Stearman flying out of it - in fact it's the biggest general aviation field in the country. Then they build a housing estate near it. Those living there knew the airfield was there before they bought; but once they got there, they started a campaign to close the place down and they've wreaked havoc on the place. Shooting ranges face similar sorts of problems from objections about rather technical things by people armed with misconceptions and a narrow viewpoint that results in what appear to us to be highly irrational objections. Thing is, it's not us that does the judging of the case...

rrpc

fluffyduffy wrote: »

Well safety should be the concern!! It does not take much time on the internet to see that he has a great safety record so far. I am sure that backstop will be built to the proper size. The backstop mentioned in the planning application is probebly just to see if the council will go for the idea. Perhaps if he said 37.5 meters straight off he would not get permission.

37.5 metres isn't feasible really, it's over 120 feet high :eek: . His best bet would be to put in baffles, far cheaper and easier and still could be done with a six metre backstop. By my calculations, two baffles at 30m and 100m on the 300m range about 3.5m high and starting about 2.4m above ground level would do the trick.

How do you make that out RRPC?

rrpc

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you make that out RRPC?

Which bit Zara? the 37.5m not feasible bit or the baffles bit?

baffles..

bigred

Deleted User wrote: »

baffles..

All this maths has me baffled

rrpc

Well for a guy that likes spreadsheets you'll appreciate this. I have a spreadsheet model that although still a bit rough will calculate baffle size and placement depending on the other fixed factors.

For the 300m range the 30m baffle starts 2.4m above the ground and extends to 4.56m. The one at 100m starts at 2.57m and extends to 6m high.

I picked 6m as an arbitrary figure as this gave me almost 3 degrees, I then used the closer baffle to finish off the angle from 3 degrees up to 7 degrees. The trick is to avoid your baffle being too close to the ground and at the same time not too tall.

These were only worked for prone shooting. It gets more complicated when you add in standing or kneeling or all three.

can you send that to me? i was looking at it graphically but an analytical solution would be interesting!

rrpc

Email sent Zara

Hope you can figure it out, I always find myself head scratching a bit every time I open it.

the_syco

rrpc wrote:

I have a spreadsheet model

Depending on how big the spreadsheet is, you could put it up here in a
table | | | /table
format. Example, putting 1 2 3 4 into a table would look like this
table 1|2|3|4 /table
with square brackets around the table words, so that it appears as
1|2|3|4 Also, once the number of columns are the same, the length of each column will be the same as the one below it and above it. Eg:
1|2|3|4
Food| bleh| 1| run forest run

[/off topic]

That's all my input. The rest goes over my head.

rrpc

the_syco wrote: »

Depending on how big the spreadsheet is, you could put it up here in a
table | | | /table
format. Example, putting 1 2 3 4 into a table would look like this
table 1|2|3|4 /table
with square brackets around the table words, so that it appears as
1|2|3|4 Also, once the number of columns are the same, the length of each column will be the same as the one below it and above it. Eg:
1|2|3|4
Food| bleh| 1| run forest run

[/off topic]

That's all my input. The rest goes over my head.

Thanks Syco, I was looking for that info a while ago and Sparks showed me how to do it as well. The spreadsheet I have is a calculation model, so although I could put it here it would not be much use in the vBulletin format.

Sikamick

Best of luck Pat, our club would be happy to affiliate to help support your full bore range.


Michael O'Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club

Bananaman

Best of luck Pat +1

Late night shooting by floodlight,rapid fire from handguns and all day clay shooting

Bollox - be careful with statements like that. They are inflammatory and are of no help.

There is no late night shooting at hilltop - you need floodlights at 3/4pm in winter. The latest I have seen is clay shooting finish at 8pm and that was only by prior arrangement.

There is no rapid fire from handguns. There are 10 firing points on the pistol range and if you were walking past it while they were all in use it may give this impression. You will not hear them unless you are very close by. There are many bays on the oudoor range. If many of them are in use at once - during competitions - it may also give that impression.

All Day Clay Shooting - I don't know of any other type of Clay shooting - if there are early morning or afternoon disciplines that you only wish to partake in I'm sure Pat will cater for you. Give him a call and ask.

already there are lots of dynamic pistol ranges there and no problems.

All pistol ranges are dynamic pistol ranges.

B'Man

Bananaman

Pat knows well what he is doing. He has one of the best all round shooting grounds in the country catering for a very wide range of disciplines.

He is very progressive in what he does and is well ahead of the game when it comes to minimum safety requirements on all his ranges. This one will be no different.

His best bet would be to put in baffles,

If Baffles are what are called for by ballistics - rrpc has made a good case for it aswell - then that is what he will do - be under no illusiuons that Pat knows well what is required already but no matter who we are we must go through the proper channels and achieve the required permissions first - of which this PP request is but one part of.

I look forward to this range coming to fruition. (I realise it won't be today or tomorrow ) I have an interest in rifle and am already a member of Hilltop. I do not wish to join another club as Hilltop caters for everything I have wanted to do so far. (Including 50m smallbore rifle) I also do not wish to travel from one end of the country to the other just to practice different disciplines (I'll do it for competition though) - this will broaden my and every other members horizons.

As a member of the club this is the very thing I like to see. Pats membership is quite reasonable but the facilities on offer and those proposed - this PP being but one example - are some of the very reasons that I joined this club.

I worry when I see threads like this on boards as they sometimes head off on a tangent and end up with a negative tone which is then associated with the topic for discussion.

As a member of Hilltop I would be quite annoyed if that were to happen here.

If you are a member of the club or have attended as a visitor or a competitor I'm sure you also hold the club in as high regard as I do and would feel the same.

If you have never been then I would recommend making the call and going for a look rather than allowing anonymous comment to define your views.

Here endeth the rant.

B'Man

rrpc

I am completely in agreement B'man. As I said earlier in the thread, a fullbore range is badly needed on this side of the country and it looks like Hilltop will be able to supply this need.

How long it will take is a matter outside everyone's control and one can only hope that there are no objectors or other hindrances. Having been through the planning process myself on a number of accasions, it's a long drawn out process with many hurdles.

But all in all it's great news and that's why I posted the thread in the first place.

It wasn't me!

Will the proposed 300m range cater to ISSF 300m? That would be an interesting development indeed.

Bananaman

I don't see why not.

Do ISSF need something other than the use of the range for it to be suitable ?

B'Man

cooperjeff9

Bananaman wrote: »

I don't see why not.

Do ISSF need something other than the use of the range for it to be suitable ?

B'Man

Yes, people to actively compete at 300m:D