NATO Template Zones

[Policestate]

I have searched the web trying to find out what is meant by NATO Template Zones.
The NSW FAR (Firearms Registry) now make all rifle ranges comply with NATO Template Zones so what are they and what other countries are forced to use them ????
Seems like another way for FAR to close down target shooting ranges, I thought the elected Politicians in NSW made the laws, not un-elected petty bureaucrats.
Policestate.

[No1Mk3]

G'day Policestate,
You seem to be confused between NATO and the UN. NATO is not even remotely part of the UN bureaucracy and has absolutely no anti-gun agenda. Also, no one is "forced" to use NATO Templates anywhere in the world, including NATO alliance countries, but many choose to do so. Put simply, a NATO Range Template is one whose danger zones are determined by the ballistics of current NATO issued ammunition, ie: 7.62x51, 5.56x45 etc. For NSW it would also include 50BMG templates and failure to comply with NATO standard danger zones would see that caliber restricted from that particular range. Finally, elected politicians do make the Laws with which we form societies, but range danger templates are made by those who are experts in Flight and Terminal Ballistics, not some pea-brained pollie, Cheers.

[Policestate]

Hi No1Mk3
No I am NOT confused between Nato and the U.N.. Shooters in N.S.W. are forced to use NATO template zones by F.A.R.
Given that 7.62 and 5.56 ammo has been around for years why all of a sudden are F.A.R. forcing ranges to use the NATO template zones.
Presumably to close down non compliant ranges that can't afford to upgrade to this standard !!!!!!!
Given the N.S.W. police history in shooting each other, and innocent hostages, I suggest they need to clean up their own safety first before starting on shooters.
I am unaware of any deaths at a rifle range in Australia, caused by shooters.
Policestate

[Chronos]

In order to gain approval for a range license the owners or operators must be able to demonstrate in some way that the range and the backstop are safe. The most economical way is to adopt as existing template and over lay it on your range and this example has been widely accepted for decades. This template simply takes into account likely shot angles and cartridge ballistics to give a basic guide as to where a shot could reasonably pose a risk to persons or property

I'd say 90% of the ranges use this template and the fact is the NATO template only takes into account military firearms of the day (small arms used to train infantry) and chances are many of the ranges having issues have long been in breach of these rules. One example is a pistol range i know of that had federal land included in it's bullet drop zone, that is if a bullet missed the target that's where it might be expected to land. At some point the FAR range inspector either tok it upon himself or was directed to audit lots of ranges (which happens periodically anyway) he found that the range itself had no control of the land in the drop zone and demanded changes be made

the fact is the safetycrats will continue to look for reasons to deem a range unsafe and close it down until changes are made. What ranges need to do it preempt these closures and apply for the government grants put in place to make improvements. That may mean more baffled ranges, reduced templates and stricter controls on shooting positions

Chronos

[Supporter]

I'd say 90% of the ranges use this template and the fact is the NATO template only takes into account military firearms of the day (small arms used to train infantry)

All assumptions here but I guess that means 5.56 and 7.62 only? Not a standard infantry cartridge but .50 bmg (or whatever the Aus Defence Force big banger is) wouldn't be factored in when a standard military testing setup?

[pfricha6]

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/ass ... e_2013.pdf

Men
I am currently challenging the QRA/QPOL WLB 'unfounded' restrictions on RDA for the Belmont range Duncan, 300M range and International ranges, from the angle of the 'lighter' projectile weight and MV restriction of max MV of 3275 ft/sec. As part of my research I stumbled across this link which is to the NSWPOL version of the ADF 9-2. This document, the ADF 9-2 has been replaced by the MLW 7-3-1. The 9-2 is a good read and should be read by all range operators to understand the 'overstated' safety/100% risk adverse requirements of range operations.

[Walt68]

the Australian Army have platforms that use .50 BMG and Rheinmetall M256A1 120mm Cannon, the templates for these would cater for any civilian calibres, the Northern Territory, Victoria and South Australia have ranges that use these large templates. Can get a copy if you need it.

[on_one_wheel]

The NATO template for ranges seems fine to me.
A scientific based safety system is nothing to be worried about.

[Chronos]

The NATO template for ranges seems fine to me.
A scientific based safety system is nothing to be worried about.

WHat about if your club shoots big game rifle? i'd say all of those cartridges exceed the energy limits imposed on ranged like Silverdale in Sydney, what about if you hunt Sambar with a .338WM? more than 8mm so where do you go to sight it in and test your ammo?

the shooting community need to push hard to take back ground on things like ranges not accept tighter and tighter restrictions. The silverdale range i mentioned used to shoot service out to 300m, then it was subjected to tighter and tighter restrictions. the powers there accepted them as it didn't interfear with their favored 200m benchrest discipline. next minute you can't shoot your hunting rifle there if it exceeds the energy limit

Chronos

[Xerox]

the shooting community need to push hard to take back ground on things like ranges not accept tighter and tighter restrictions.

Bang on.

That's how they whittle us down to nothing.