TargetTalk

Thank you to everyone for their support as we've been dealing with this range issue. As of this morning, I'm pleased to report that we're back to shooting at the Purdue Armory. We appealed to the University president, Mitch Daniels, and his response was supportive of our position. See our Facebook page for more details.

https://www.facebook.com/PurdueRPC/

Thanks again,
Andrew

Andrew Berryhill
Coach Purdue Pistol Team

------------

Friends,

As many of you know, in addition to my business 3d-printing target pistol grips, I also coach the Purdue University Pistol Team. In fact these are the young men and women that inspired me to learn CAD and 3d printing. How else was I going to get a set of grips for an XS, left-handed, cross-eye dominant shooter?

Unfortunately the Purdue Pistol and Rifle Club (the team's parent organization) was told by the university a couple of weeks ago that we were no longer allowed to shoot in the Purdue Armory. We were given no warning and no alternative location to shoot. I won't go into the gory details here, but would invite you to learn more about the situation at our club's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/PurdueRPC/?hc_ ... B0&fref=nf.

There you will also see a link to an iPetition. Please don't only read this message, but go the Facebook page and sign the petition. We think Purdue is moving positively to resolve this behind the scenes, but believe it would be irresponsible to just wait around for an answer. This petition will help make your voice heard that shooting sports are important and deserve a place to exist on campus.

Thank you,

Andrew Berryhill
Coach Purdue Pistol Team

Precision Target Pistol Grips

Let me guess, they got a new bureaucrat somewhere up high in the administration and he/she doesn't like guns.

Same thing happened to MIT several years back. They got a new dean who changed their rifle and pistol teams' status from varsity (supported) to club (unsupported). She also did away with the pistol classes that the team coach taught even though he had several year's backlog of students waiting to take the course.

I'll read your FB page.

...

Ah! The old "lead" excuse. Yet it seems that other groups are still allowed to use the "contaminated" armory. That makes a lot of sense. Not!

...

Just got the digital issue of Shooting Sports USA from the NRA. http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/ssusa_201710/ In the article about High Power rifle shooting starting on page 24, they mention that both the Governor of Indiana and his wife are both NRA members, active competitive shooters and instructors. There's a picture of her on the firing line on the bottom of page 27. I wonder if they might be interested in what's happening in one of Indiana's more famous universities.

Best of luck with your range at Purdue.

Let me correct some things about the MIT info just posted. Nothing happened to the rifle team as they are still varsity and have a great coach, facility, and equipment. Pistol went to club and is well supported by alumni financially and coaching. It was not a ‘new dean’ who dropped pistol status but a department head and it included 7 other sports. And, the department still supports the club although in a diminished capacity. Pistol classes are still being taught in the phys ed dept but night courses taught by the alumni club have been curtailed recently. The pistol phys ed courses remain the most popular within the dept.

Sorry, didn’t mean to hijack your important thread but needed to correct the earlier post.

Will Hart
Former MIT pistol coach, instructor, and range master

nglitz wrote:Let me guess, they got a new bureaucrat somewhere up high in the administration and he/she doesn't like guns.

Same thing happened to MIT several years back. They got a new dean who changed their rifle and pistol teams' status from varsity (supported) to club (unsupported). She also did away with the pistol classes that the team coach taught even though he had several year's backlog of students waiting to take the course.

I'll read your FB page.

...

Ah! The old "lead" excuse. Yet it seems that other groups are still allowed to use the "contaminated" armory. That makes a lot of sense. Not!

...

Just got the digital issue of Shooting Sports USA from the NRA. http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/ssusa_201710/ In the article about High Power rifle shooting starting on page 24, they mention that both the Governor of Indiana and his wife are both NRA members, active competitive shooters and instructors. There's a picture of her on the firing line on the bottom of page 27. I wonder if they might be interested in what's happening in one of Indiana's more famous universities.

Thank you, Will, I suspected somebody was making propaganda. Facts are much better - even if they don't fit a favored narrative.

The range at the University of Kentucky (where I once shot smallbore) is part of the ROTC building (i.e. military). The EPA attacked many rifle ranges during the Clinton administration, basically eliminating many high school ranges and some military ranges by imposing new air quality regulations. I don't know about other schools but the army marksmanship corp recruited Olympic and competitive shooters at UK. Perhaps the ROTC or a similar military entity can be of assistance in the Purdue range issue?

I signed. Have you?

Chip

Having signed the petition I am pleased to hear this news. I went back to the petition page and found that there were 326 signers.

I see this as an area we should be much more active as a shooting community, positive support of issues like this.

Is this because we need to develop some sort of notification network to activate a massive number of supportive folks?

Any thoughts?

I agree. I am not sure if competitive shooters are not technically savvy or what is going on. Maybe we are an independent lot? On political issues NRA seems to do a good job, but even at Nationals at Camp Perry the competitors meeting might be attended by 40 people, even though 500-700 shooters sign up for Nationals depending upon the year.

If we would all be willing to send emails, vote, post, we might be able to make a difference.

Chip

william wrote:Thank you, Will, I suspected somebody was making propaganda. Facts are much better - even if they don't fit a favored narrative.

I've PM'd Will as I got this info from him during a level one coach class several years ago. If the facts have changed since then, it sounds like for the better.

If you're saying I'm the somebody, come out and say it. I was relaying what I was told by the guy that it happened to.

I have PM'd Norm regarding some information issues regarding dates, administrative positions, and sexes.

I explained to Norm that after pistol was dropped, almost everyone assumed it was because of liberal administrators and their anti-gun agenda. That was never the case, but rather financial (budget concerns as a result of low returns on the MIT endowment). That, and the fact that collegiate pistol is not under the NCAA umbrella (rifle was and still is).

To all concerned, MIT still has, what I think is, the largest civilian collegiate shooting program in the world. I say this because of the number of students on the pistol team, the rifle team, the numbers of students taking pistol and rifle classes in the physical education classes, the students on the alumni pistol club, the intramural air pistol program, and ROTC firearms training. The MIT alumni have certainly stepped up and continued a great program.

Congrats to Purdue for the continuation of their shooting program! May you enjoy all the success you have worked for and enjoy the competitions with other collegiate programs.

Cheers,

Will

Andrew,
Fantastic news. I am glad common sense prevailed.

Best of luck to you
Alex

10M_Stan wrote:The EPA attacked many rifle ranges during the Clinton administration

It doesn't help when issues of health and environment are framed as political battles. Everyone, regardless of political affiliation, needs to be politically savy enough to identify when excuses are being used.

I found out that our club was at one time hiding the fact that a number of members tested with very high blood lead levels. Hidden from membership and city because of a fear the club would be shut down.

Opposite end of the scale, the club has been shut down on a pretence. Initially, after tests last year we gained a reprieve because the issue didn't go to council when the police, club BoD, and city manager all came to agreement on two issues the wrong testing levels were used and the contamination was limited to the range and well below range tolerances, and the ventilation only needed to meet standards in force when the range was commissioned. But we were out-manoeuvred by the city manager who brought the issue to council and no one in the BoD was connected enough to make sure the council was informed of the club's position before the vote. A lot of this lack of political savy was down to the internalised us vs. them and lack of will to talk to people who might not be full fledged firearms supporters.

The cries and handwringing over "beaurocrats" and "liberals" made the BoD and membership blind to finding allies and the venom was detected by some on council. SO enemies were made. Or if not enemies, simply regular people looking out for the best for the city and city facilities who have to choose between a calm presentation from the city manager and the perception of the attitude of club members being ungrateful for the use of the space and seemingly hostile to the council.

Politics (party and practical) aside, how long do we want to practice our sport in conditions that are actually only acceptable if we a agree to ignore all advances since the 50's?

All to say, a discussion of the EPA (and environment Canada) rules for new and current ranges and how exposure rates affect the health of firearms enthusiasts would be fruitful. As long as everyone is willing to discuss facts and understand the risk-assessment based nature of the norms.

I'd like to see the studies and conditions that exist for the Purdue Armory and what is being done to better the situation or how long shooting sports can continue in the facility before clean-up and focus on other users needs become paramount.

None of that is left vs. right.

Interesting point SBF. I agree when shooting sports are attacked we have to be more intelligent in our approach. As soon as it becomes political, people start taking sides regardless of the facts. Yes lead is an issue, and it will become more main stage as time passes. Ignoring facts and bad data are our biggest obstacles, and those concerns never get to the table with political name calling.
Alex

I suppose the statement that "the EPA attacked high school ranges and shut many down during the Clinton Administration" sounds politically charged. However, it is a fact. Rather than requiring monitoring, or limiting range use due to exposure amounts measured, or any number of other sound scientific safety related approaches, the federal administration shut the ranges down.

I don't think there was much of an opportunity to appeal, nor was there a prepared story or list of alternatives to tearing down these ranges. The USA EPA has a track record of such actions. While it's difficult to argue with health, safety, environmental protection (which factors back into health and safety), it appears necessary.

If the ranges weren't removed during the Clinton Administration, the lack of political motivation would not be a consideration (or quite so obvious). But that's when it happened thorough what I consider the insidious use of the environmental protection agency.

10M_Stan wrote:I suppose the statement that "the EPA attacked high school ranges and shut many down during the Clinton Administration" sounds politically charged.

Enforcing laws/standards is not an "attack". If political pressure pushes for the enforcement of existing regulations, it's not a political attack, it's demanding that the law be upheld.

As soon as you draw battle lines and define the discussion as a battle or debate between those that support a political party or not, you've lost the battle as far as convincing people to change their minds or support your cause despite political affiliation. Even if political motivation is the reason behind changing laws or standards, treating it as an attack only solidifies battle lines and ensures that no new support will be gained on either side.

And gun owners are a minority in most places. So solidifying those battle lines is NOT a good idea.

1. They may have "attacked high school ranges and shut many down during the Clinton administration" but I know some were shut down prior to the Clinton administration. In '84 my range was inspected & passed by an EPA inspector. He just looked around and checked to make sure air moved when the vents were turned on by holding up a lighted cigarette & watching for the smoke to move. He even let us turn on a floor fan while he did this. In '85 they returned with test equipment and closed the range. They advanced a long way, at least in our area, in that one year.

2. EPA needs to do more but of course it will cost more. Safety, including lead management, should be the priority for all ranges INCLUDING air gun ranges. There's a good Guide for Air Gun Management at https://www.usashooting.org/library/You ... SASCMP.pdf

Could someone please explain why people playing football are allowed to choose to participate in a sport which very often leads to serious bodily harm or death but some regulators would like to make it so I may not CHOOSE to use a shooting range where I MAY inhale or ingest small quantities of lead that MIGHT lead to some negative health consequences. I might add that I have been shooting and coaching on indoor ranges since the 1960's, averaging about 8-10 hours per week in that time. I also have been performing maintenance on ranges throughout that time, including removing lead from the traps, often with minimal protective gear. Most recent blood lead level test was 9 micrograms/deciliter. I personally only know one shooter that had to receive medical treatment for high lead levels and that was probably at least in part an occupational exposure unrelated to shooting.

PaulB wrote:Could someone please explain why people playing football are allowed to choose to participate in a sport which very often leads to serious bodily harm or death but some regulators would like to make it so I may not CHOOSE to use a shooting range where I MAY inhale or ingest small quantities of lead that MIGHT lead to some negative health consequences.

Regulators won't let you run a football league without some rules and enforcement. Same for shooting sports.
There's a maximum level of exposure and contamination that is allowed.
See my other thread on testing. But if your range isn't testing and publishing the results, or submitting to regular inspection of equipment and procedures, how exactly are you making an informed choice as to the risk you're taking?