TargetTalk

David Levene wrote:

TenMetrePeter wrote:

renzo wrote:...(IDK how they will arrange things in Tokyo, in a country were weapons possession is largely forbidden)...

In London 2012 where cartridge pistols of the type used in OG are forbidden to most civilians they used Army barracks some miles away. So no "Olympic legacy" for shooters.

To say that they used Army barracks is a bit misleading.

It was officially the Royal Artillery Barracks but in reality it was a large open field in front of the barracks.

Before the shooting complex was built it was open to the public and used for dog-walking, horse-riding etc. After the complex was removed it reverted to being just a large open field.

It could just as easily have been built in any similar sized field with reasonable transport links.

I am glad that the ranges were removed after the Olympics/Paras. There is no requirement for such a large facility in the UK and would have quickly bankrupted any organisation that tried to run it.

I cant disagree with anything you said David Nor can I see anything misleading with my statement. This is a global forum and "Army Barracks" is near enough for most readers wondering how we managed teams wirh prohibited weapons (renzos question).
Yes there is no use for a shooting legacy of that size.. That was my sad point.

TenMetrePeter wrote:I cant disagree with anything you said David Nor can I see anything misleading with my statement. This is a global forum and "Army Barracks" is near enough for most readers wondering how we managed teams wirh prohibited weapons.

My point was that the handling of firearms was nothing to do with the proximity to an Army barracks.

Do you not think it helped with the security and legality?

TenMetrePeter wrote:Do you not think it helped with the security and legality?

Not in the least.

The barracks had nothing to do with the shooting venue, apart from the fact that you could see them from the shotgun layouts.

The shooting venue was a self contained unit that could have been placed in any large open field.

I believe that the barracks might have been used to house some of the troops who were doing security at all of the venues.

@renzo. forget what I said. It was crud apparently.
However they will use the Asaka shooting range built in 1964 for the OG but using a temporary setup like London.
It is 27km from Tokyo and near the Asaka army post.

renzo wrote:...(IDK how they will arrange things in Tokyo, in a country were weapons possession is largely forbidden)...

They make exceptions and issue the necessary permits. Same as the UK did for Pistol Shooting in London. It is a condition of hosting the Games that the Government backs the bid - this usually refers to passing legislation regarding the protection of IOC trademarks, rights for official sponsors and preventing guerilla marketing, etc. However, they are also obliged to "deal" with any other legislative impediment - such as making visitor's firearm permits happen one way or another.

TenMetrePeter wrote:In London 2012 where cartridge pistols of the type used in OG are forbidden to most civilians they used Army barracks some miles away. So no "Olympic legacy" for shooters.

Or to put another way... a parkland in the heart of London, next door to another OG Venue (the Equestrian - Princess Anne was trotting between both giving out medals), and a short distance from the main Olympic Park.

David Levene wrote:I am glad that the ranges were removed after the Olympics/Paras. There is no requirement for such a large facility in the UK and would have quickly bankrupted any organisation that tried to run it.

Buildings or "brick and mortar" aside, it was unfortunate however that there was a very limited physical legacy. The targetry for instance would have been of immense value either in updating Aldersley (or some other selected regional range(s)), and/or replacing the EOL hardware on the Cooper Range. As it was, there was very little physical material carried away other than some firing point gear that wasn't bolted down (mats, boxes, the WTSF ended up with quite a bit of the Equipment Control hardware, etc). Some sports got a new world class facility. We didn't want that, and it was a shame that this was not leveraged to let us walk away with a more equipment.

David Levene wrote:I am glad that the ranges were removed after the Olympics/Paras. There is no requirement for such a large facility in the UK and would have quickly bankrupted any organisation that tried to run it.

That's why I really think the international competitions need to find a way to make installations easier to move.

If too big a range is built it won't help the local sport. It might kill it.

I really wonder how much use the large range built for the Toronto PanAm games will get.

As an aside, here's a strange and wonderful temporary sporting installation: a temporary swimming pool in a hockey arena (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summe ... -1.3887285).

A world-class pool like this one — that costs $1.2 million and can be built just about anywhere in seven days and disappear again in four — is the innovation of Myrtha pools, A&T Europe, an Italian-based company (https://www.thestar.com/sports/amateur/ ... entre.html).