# Firearms range off limits for militia



## John Nayduk (27 Sep 2005)

Firearms range off limits for militia
Department of Defence won't allow soldiers to use ranges operated by city
  
Roseann Danese 
Windsor Star 


Thursday, September 22, 2005


Members of the local militia are being forced to head out of town for firearms training because they can't use their guns at the new joint military-police training centre.

The Department of National Defence isn't allowing local military personnel to use two state-of-the-art firing ranges that are operated by the city because they haven't been approved by federal inspectors.

"Ottawa is saying under their procedures military people can only use ranges approved by the Canadian military," according to police Chief Glenn Stannard.

Despite the fact the $15.5-million Major F.A. Tilston V.C. Armoury and Police Training Centre is located close to home, Windsor soldiers have had to travel to Cedar Springs -- more than an hour away -- for firearm training.

SHARED FACILITY

Located on 18 acres near Ojibway Parkway, the facility features a central building shared by police and soldiers for offices and classrooms and two other structures funded by the city and designed for police firearms training.

The federal government didn't help pay for the portion of the centre that houses the firing ranges because the expense couldn't be justified with military ranges only an hour away, according to Major Mark Douglas, deputy commanding officer in Windsor.

The police recently offered to open the ranges to militia members free of charge, Douglas said, so now "the chain of command understands local units would like to take advantage of those facilities here ... rather than going an hour down the road and compete with other users of that facility."

The defence department is in the process of validating the firing ranges according to Canadian military specifications, but "like anything else with the government it takes time," Douglas said.

INDOOR RANGE

The facility features a computerized 10-person indoor firing range and a 20-person outdoor range enabling sharpshooters to hit targets, including moving targets, up to 100 metres away. There is also a five-storey rappelling tower located outdoors with three different types of covering and windows facing the firing range so police snipers can practise long-distance shots.

The high-tech simulator -- which is owned by the defence department -- allows trainees to practise weapon drills on a large video screen.

The Defence Department, Douglas said, wants to be sure any training site is safe and "in accordance with national regulations and procedures."

A long-term use agreement will likely be signed between the defence department and the city for use of the firing ranges and the rappelling tower, Douglas said.

But soldiers will still have to travel out of town for some "long-range" firearms training because they must qualify to fire weapons up to 300 metres.

© The Windsor Star 2005

Would be nice to get this cleared up soon.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Sep 2005)

Another Recce Guy said:
			
		

> The facility features a computerized 10-person indoor firing range and a 20-person outdoor range enabling sharpshooters to hit targets, including moving targets, up to 100 metres away.



Hah.  Reminds me of the Barrie ETF

"This here's our AR-15 rifle.  They enable our marksmen to engage targets up to 100 meters away."

uhhh....

we do it from 300...

from a variety of positions....

while running around a lot...

"oh.  well.  umm...this here's a taser...."


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Sep 2005)

Oh wah, as they say in Calgary - we travel 4 hours to Wainwright or 3.5 hours to Edmonton to use the ranges...


----------



## a_beautiful_tragedy (27 Sep 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Hah.   Reminds me of the Barrie ETF
> 
> "This here's our AR-15 rifle.   They enable our marksmen to engage targets up to 100 meters away."
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (27 Sep 2005)

not surprised....
they closed down all our old indoor ranges due to ventilation and lead contamination.
given that it's the city's range, the CF beancounters and spin doctors have their concerns and responsibilities over the ventilation and disposal of contaminated filters used in the range..... 

same thing happened here in LFQA


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Sep 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> not surprised....
> they closed down all our old indoor ranges due to ventilation and lead contamination.
> given that it's the city's range, the CF beancounters and spin doctors have their concerns and responsibilities over the ventilation and disposal of contaminated filters used in the range.....
> 
> same thing happened here in LFQA



And if you got lead poisoning and became seriously ill, would you abstain from suing the 'beancounters' because they didn't adequately protect your health?


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2005)

Bean Counters shut down the upgrades to the ventaliation systems...  The Heath Guys shut down the ranges due to the lack of ventilation...


Back to the topic at hand - since it is a .gov range...
All that should be required is for a CF Range Master to do a range survey and ensure it is templated in accordance with CF stanadards.


----------



## Kal (27 Sep 2005)

Regardless of the lack of size of the range, the opportunity to train there shouldn't be shunned.  In the future, exercises may include training with the Windsor tactical police unit.  I'm sure many of the Reserve members wouldn't mind training in CQB shooting, structure clearing, response to active shooter, etc, as training like that isn't normally readily available...


----------



## geo (27 Sep 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> And if you got lead poisoning and became seriously ill, would you abstain from suing the 'beancounters' because they didn't adequately protect your health?


Michael, 
don't get me wrong. have no problem with beancounters as a whole - my civilian quals are in that field..... but, once the CF puts in a brand spanking new range @ 4R22R.... you would think that they would be hammering away on targets at all hours of the day, seven days a week..... You'd also be wrong - the beancounters in question closed down the range cause the filters were costing too much.... and this is after they approved & installed this top of the line filtration system...

That's my beef!!!

(OK - rant over )


----------



## Old Ranger (28 Sep 2005)

I remember being able to use the State of the Art OPP indoor underground range in Aurora, Ontario.   I believe it was just after we switched to the C-7's.

$2,000,000 just for the range.   Lights, sounds, multiple target options.
Half of that was just for the ventilationystem.   The back wall was a micro screen for sucking up particles from the firing line.

Hey 48th, I guess you heard about the Barrie OPP TRU team being disbanded for another Native reason last year (Avoiding details to avoid controversy this time).  Or were you referring Barrie City ERU?
Those Tasers are pretty cool at $50.00 a shot.  I keep egging them on too use it, but their good at negotiating.  I guess it's more of a threat to be Zapped than Popped.


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Sep 2005)

Yeah, talking about the Barrie city ERU.  They have some cool equipment, but I think they went into the exercise thinking they'd impress the crap out of us, and got a big surprise.

Although, seing a bunch of GNSF fools volunteering to get tased was a lot of fun  ;D


----------



## geo (28 Sep 2005)

Hmmm... to watch a bunch of guys get Tazered & do the funky chicken.....
Sounds interesting.... wouldn't want to do it myself but willing to watch

Cheers!


----------



## John Nayduk (28 Sep 2005)

Some pictures of the ranges can be found here - http://www.windsorregt.ca/ranges.htm


----------



## SoF (28 Sep 2005)

Damn I'm from Windsor and was hoping we'd get to shoot a few rounds at the new range on sandwich st. This is totaly pointless to drive 1 hour to another range. Why can't we use the ranges at General Guns & Supply; it's not perfect but at least it's in the city.


----------



## kcdist (29 Sep 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Yeah, talking about the Barrie city ERU.   They have some cool equipment, but I think they went into the exercise thinking they'd impress the crap out of us, and got a big surprise.
> 
> Although, seing a bunch of GNSF fools volunteering to get tased was a lot of fun   ;D



Sorry to deflate the ego bubble, but having served a decade in the reg infantry and almost the same in a city police service, I would not be boasting about general CF marksmanship skills to anyone. The average city copper in my dept fires their weapon easily five times as frequently as the regs, and double that again for the reserves. Additionally, time spent on the range during initial academy training was phenomenal compared to a typical QL3 course. A typical full time city ERU lives on the range...and has a small arms ammunition budget that puts a reg force rifle company to shame....

I would wager that if a competition was held between the two groups, Barrie EPU would have impressed the crap out of you....


----------



## Old Ranger (30 Sep 2005)

Speaking of which,
Anyone going to be at "Round UP" in Borden next Week?

Ben


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Sep 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Sorry to deflate the ego bubble, but having served a decade in the reg infantry and almost the same in a city police service, I would not be boasting about general CF marksmanship skills to anyone. The average city copper in my dept fires their weapon easily five times as frequently as the regs, and double that again for the reserves. Additionally, time spent on the range during initial academy training was phenomenal compared to a typical QL3 course. A typical full time city ERU lives on the range...and has a small arms ammunition budget that puts a reg force rifle company to shame....
> 
> I would wager that if a competition was held between the two groups, Barrie EPU would have impressed the crap out of you....



Doubtful.  They don't have ranges larger than 100 meters, and they train for a different way of shooting.  Wether they're better shooters or not is debatable, however, that wasn't really the issue.  We just found it amusing when buddy stated that their "marksmen" have to engage targets out to 100 meters 

And I'm pretty sure your average ERU guy doesn't get to fire, say, the M72, m-203, or 84 mm.  They looked like a bunch of excited little school-kids.  "WOW!  Did you see that??!!  Suddenly I don't feel so safe in my cruiser....."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2005)

Gentlemen,
Put your ruler away while you are posting,....you can measure your wee-wee's on your own time......


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Sep 2005)

Oh yeah that reminds me, here's that ruler I borrowed last week Bruce....

I have nothing but respect for the Barrie ERU.  Great bunch of guys and very well trained.  Doesn't mean I can't laugh at them at the same time.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2005)

Can't be, mines a yardstick...

Hmm, didn't read like a whole lot of respect but, OK,......however comparing any of these things is pointless as all have different objectives, mandates, etc. So in the end its just self-measurement.


----------



## Spanky (1 Oct 2005)

Just to try something totally different, I thought I'd respond to the actual topic of the thread.

It's too bad we can't use the range.  Even though it is only a hundred meters, it would be a valuable resource.  I would be able to take my troop on a two minute walk to the range on a Thursday night and spend some quality time improving musketry skills.  Far better than25/30 rounds a year an hour away.
We have an excellent resource down here, and it's frustrating to see it not being utilized to it's fullest potential.


----------



## Michael Shannon (1 Oct 2005)

Spanky said:
			
		

> Just to try something totally different, I thought I'd respond to the actual topic of the thread.
> 
> It's too bad we can't use the range.   Even though it is only a hundred meters, it would be a valuable resource.   I would be able to take my troop on a two minute walk to the range on a Thursday night and spend some quality time improving musketry skills.   Far better than25/30 rounds a year an hour away.
> We have an excellent resource down here, and it's frustrating to see it not being utilized to it's fullest potential.



   Exactly and if your unit could LPO small arms ammo think of how much better the troops skill and morale would be as well as your "foot print " in the community.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (1 Oct 2005)

Michael Shannon said:
			
		

> Exactly and if your unit could LPO small arms ammo think of how much better the troops skill and morale would be as well as your "foot print " in the community.



Until some nervous, just out of BMQ Trooper accidently flicks to full auto and sprays the range with a full mag 5.56 before the safety staff can jump on him, potentially (for all the risk-adverse lawyers out there) killing/injuring one of the civvy "supervisors".  We have DND ranges for a reason.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2005)

Teddy - The above is the first comment I have disagreed with you on.

 1) That "could" happen at any range.
 2) That could happen with LE as well.

 3) Final point: Any CF member could go off at any time - we dont since we have been indoctrinated and diciplined - but if you design a  range for the What if's - where are the safe guards that ensure someone does not decide to steal a LAV off a range and go Mad Max...


Michael Shannon's point in this regard are 100% -- I cannot see a legitimate downside


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2005)

Kev

I think the point is more along the lines of bringing wpns and ammo to a DND Range Practice and the legal ramifications of what will happen if they are involved in an accident.  There are strict rules what we can and cannot do, and the AJAG quite often thinks only in Black and White, with no shades of Gray.  We are limited by our Regulations, which are there to keep us from excessive liabilities.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (1 Oct 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Kev
> 
> I think the point is more along the lines of bringing wpns and ammo to a DND Range Practice and the legal ramifications of what will happen if they are involved in an accident.   There are strict rules what we can and cannot do, and the AJAG quite often thinks only in Black and White, with no shades of Gray.   We are limited by our Regulations, which are there to keep us from excessive liabilities.



Exactly.  My point was poorly expressed.  Note to self:  coffee, then post!


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2005)

I guess I also left out the key word "Civie" wpns and ammo.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2005)

Roger that - I understand that side of it - However a gov't range is a gov't range.   I have shot .mil weapons on .gov property in the past.

 I still believe that all that should be required is the Range to be certified by a competant (CF) individual.   If it is properly templated it should not matter if it is owned by the Tooth Fairy.

Believe me I have seen an AJAG make some BIZARRE rulings - but since we can do it on RCMP ranges, it should not be a long stretch to allow municipal/provicial rnage usages as they are not public and any users are governmentally insured.


As for civilian ammo - weapons -- they are authorised for CF gun clubs.  My recomondation IF the unit wants to shoot their prior to it being authorised as a CF range - have the unit buy a few Diemaco C8LE carbines (semi auto) and then hold them on a shooting club DA and buy Winchester RA556M855 (a US M855/SS109/C77 clone loading)


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Oct 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I still believe that all that should be required is the Range to be certified by a competant (CF) individual.  If it is properly templated it should not matter if it is owned by the Tooth Fairy.



And therein lies the crux of the matter. Other government ranges have been used because they have been templated in accordance with the Training Safety manual, local regulations developed when necessary, and everything run in accordance with existing range practices.

i do not believe that we (the CF) have developed a standard template for baffled ranges, or have an existing practice to sanction the use of such ranges built by other agencies. This would then require the appropriate staff action to have the template guru at NDHQ create the safety parameters from scratch to satisfy our requirements. This would be outside the bounds of responsibility for a unit/brigade staff to "template", nor would it be within the purview of the ranges Staff Officer at Area HQ level.

It may be a perfectly safe range, and the local unit may well be capable of conducting safe and worthwhile practices on it ...... but, in the event that something does go wrong, and there's no established documentation stating that it meets our safety expectations and how it is to be used, then the range staff, including the Commanding Officer who designated the OIC/RSO can be held liable for any accidents or incidents.

The exiting restrictions aren't in place to deny training opportunities, they are there to avoid unnecessary risk to all parties.

My question would be, through the unit staff to the chain of comand, 'What has been done to initiate the staff action to request that the range be inspected and sanctioned?'


----------

