Gerard wrote:Well isn't there some sort of foot-pound level above which a projectile might be referred to as having 'high power?'
No, not really.
Whenever some snotrag gets in the papers for shooting cats or swans it is invariably with "a high powered air rifle".
There is of course no definition as to what constitutes a "high powered air rifle". In the UK it could possibly be one over the muzzle-energy limit at which point it stops being unlicensed and requires a Firearms Certificate.
But since most local newspaper staffers wouldn't know the difference between a shotgun and a rifle, I doubt they're able to make that distinction.
In the US I believe the NRA sometimes use the term "High Power" to distinguish fullbore shooting from rimfire, but I'm not sure on that, I have heard the term bandied around in terms of a specific discipline.
"High Power" means nothing. It's a lazy, throw-away phrase to stuff in front of the thing you are describing for the benefit of a shooting-illiterate readership.
A rimfire is high power compared to an air rifle. A shotgun is high powered compared to a rimfire.
Don't be that guy...
In this case the "power" of the gun is utterly irrelevant. If they'd put her behind a Browning .50 Machine Gun there would have been no danger to life - because the tripod/gimble arrangement that it would neccessarily be mounted on would have taken the weight and the long barrel would have limited muzzle flip. And at a shooting range like that, one would fit limiting stops on the gimble to physically prevent the gun from pointing anywhere other than downrange and below the limit of the backstop.
Giving her an Uzi to shoot from the standing position was a severe lapse in judgement by the Instructor and Range Management. Likewise giving her a 12-bore shotgun, of the sort used for Olympic Disciplines would have been a bad idea and probably knocked her off her feet.
The calibre or power of the cartridge is not really relevant, nor even the rate of fire.
The type of gun, the stock, the size, the fact she was shooting from the standing position. Those are relevant.
Shooting that Uzi off a sandbag from prone would probably have been fine.
Some might be wondering why I jump to defend the idea of shooting machine guns or "high powered weapons" (whatever those are, answers on a postcard next to a usable definition of an "assault weapon"). It's not really my thing either. Spending 10 seconds filling a sandbank with lots of .50cal ammunition seems an expensive way to shoot and not terribly fulfilling.
The answer is "because some people like to do it". And on a properly constructed range, noone -
not noone - has any right to stop them so long as they're not hurting anyone else. I shoot 3P. I love it (and hate it!), and am honoured to have been capped for my Home Nation. That doesn't mean I don't also enjoy taking a Walther CP99 out in the back garden and knocking over some tin cans, or shooting some timed turning-targets with a Ruger 10/22 during the off-season.
My answer is formed from having seen in the UK how the shooting community comes apart at the first sign of trouble - when everyone runs away from the semi-auto rifle shooters, or distances themselves from the Pistol shooters, the internal politics of "why would someone need that" is not welcome or helpful.
I would contend that legitimate Rally car events encourage people to hoon their cars down public forest roads at irresponsible speeds - certainly near me we have a road known as the Cat and Fiddle, which is very popular with motorcyclists (or as my nurse friend at the local transplant ward calls them, "Organ Donors"). If you need a transplant in Staffordshire, summer weekends are open season because that's when bikers are busy offing themselves on the UK's most lethal road. That's not a glib comment. I wish I were joking, but the transplant team roster in a full surgical team if the weather forecast for the weekend is good, because they know the bikers will be out, and some of them will be pushing their luck. And one or two are guaranteed to run out of luck. At that point you're just crossing your fingers that they carry donor cards.
But do we ban rallying, or sports bikes, despite the bad influence they have on people? No. Even though it's not just them - they stand a reasonable chance of hurting the poor innocent motorist they run into when they're careening around a blind bend on the wrong side of the road. Far more hazardous than shooting!
So fundamentally, why should people who enjoy shooting big guns on organised ranges be deprived of their hobby?
They shouldn't be. This isn't a matter for legislation, but one for ranges and instructors to apply a modicum of common sense in how they instruct people. Age limits aren't helpful. I know 8 year olds I'd give a gun to (under supervision), and 15 year olds I wouldn't. I know 12 year olds I'd let shoot a 12-bore, because they're an early developer and well built, along with 16 year olds who are so tiny I'd be afraid of it breaking them in half.
Gerard wrote:And 100fpe is sort of average for a .22" standard velocity round, with such projectiles being considered dangerous to over half a mile - remember that .22" kills more people every year than any other calibre. So if you're shooting alongside someone using 500fpe+ projectiles, or as in this case putting your stupid face right in the path of an obviously likely muzzle rise incident, wouldn't FredB and others agree that this was a relatively high power round for the purposes of getting killed or seriously injured? Or does it have to have the body splattering potential of a .50" at 4000fps before we call it high power?
Why does it matter? As you say, .22 is lethal at over half a mile (Eley put a warning of a mile or 1.5miles on their boxes). Some of the High-Velocity .22 brands carry as much as 200fpe - double the going rate for the standard subsonic target loads. Air rifles are lethal if you hit a soft spot.
Okay, a .50cal will kill you much further away than a shotgun. That's completely and utterly irrelevant if you're concerned about instructors or other shooters on the range being hurt, seeing as none of them are liable to be more than 20 yards away. At a range of two feet a 9mm will make a bigger hole in you than a .22, but less of a mess than a shotgun or a .44. In all cases of head or chest shots you will probably be equally dead however. It doesn't really make much difference unless the undertakers charge more for having to patch up bigger holes to make you presentable for your funeral...
Worrying about calibre or "power" is exactly the sort of wrong-end-of-the-stick idea I would expect politicians to grab onto, not informed shooters. Like I say, she could have been shooting that uzi prone, or a .50cal off a tripod, and whilst you can debate how appropriate it would be, it would have been
safe.
The calibre has no relevance, in much the same way engine size has little to do with how a car is driven. On some of the country lanes I drive along I see far more 60-120hp hatchbacks and beginner's cars in the hedge than I do 300hp SUVs or mid-range executive cars. Because the ones in a hedge were driven by someone who ran out of luck/skill. 50hp is more than enough to get into trouble. One guy at school came from money. His first car was a £50k AMG Mercedes, rear wheel drive with 400+hp (yeah, I know). Didn't put a scratch on it, too terrified of what his Dad would do if he stuffed it in a ditch or worse yet wrote it off (he also had to drive his sister to school with him, so (a), she'd tell if he acted the fool, and (b) He was responsible for her wellbeing as well as his own). Stands in stark contrast to the boy racers in pimped Corsas using all 50hp the engine can offer, going faster than the skinny tyres can take.