Inconsiderate shooters at Atterbury

[Bapak2ja]

.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Never mind.

 

[churchmouse]

And we all survived. We took turns like adults and nobody got butthurt. We didnt pitch a hissyfit, and you didnt get uppity. You didnt dominate the bench for box after box after box, and wrapped up when you were ready in a reasonable amount of time. Its all good.

Haven, a brake redirects the gasses of a high power rifle backward (and sometimes up) to control the kick. it uses the gasses like a rocket to help drive the rifle forward to reduce the felt recoil. Thats how you can shoot a 50BMG without dislocating a shoulder. Some also direct some gasses up to control muzzle rise. They are awesome for the shooter, not so for neighbors on the line.

I did giggle when I found myself alone on the bench and a small crowd was behind me. Sissy's.....

 

[Ggreen]

That is ridiculous, range courtesy is of utmost importance especially if they plan on coming back. Any time I’m shooting a rifle with a brake I try to stay away from others.

You cannot get away at atterbury. The 100yard lanes are directly in the middle, maybe 4 lanes total. If they moved away from the bench on their left they would be blasting the guy to their right. Catch 22.

 

[Libertarian01]

To my thinking the issue of whether muzzle breaks are bad or whether the OP was right or wrong or whether issues can be avoided at the range, is, at this stage, irrelevant.

The issue is how Indycar responded when people disagreed with him. Let us not be misdirected or overlook the "...So F U if you disagree with me and call me out as a *****. I think the same of you."

Really? I mean REALLY!?!? I have been alone on my island in my bunker more than once and don't take it that bad when people disagree with me. I try to keep it friendly, courteous and civil. When I get my nose rubbed in the dirt I try to ponder and consider if, maybe, I am wrong. Maybe I am. If I still think I'm right I'll try to reclarify or take a different approach. I try to sell you on my side of the story. I don't fly off with FU A******s. Even if I think it I don't say it.

He is not wrong for posting. He is not wrong for disagreeing. He IS WRONG for throwing a tantrum and posting as he did.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Sling10mm]

.....sandpaper a wildcats butt..... love it!

 

[ljk]

I showed this thread to a few friend from behind the lines while I was in San Diego.

They were all rolled their eyes like what's OP's problem. They would take the blast to their faces every time, if they can reverse the bullcrap gun laws there.

 

[JettaKnight]

INGO delivers me an interesting read for the morning coffee.


Oh, and Hough...

That's so passé.

 

[Zed]

I won't judge as to whether it is or is not acceptable to discharge a 338 Lapua Magnum, equipped with a muzzle brake, at the Camp Atterbury shooting range. Personally, I don't mind being near the muzzle blast from a big-bore rifle like that (with or without a brake), but that is simply my preference. However, I was shooting at Camp Atterbury on that day, and I would like to provide an outside observer's context of the situation to the members of this forum. I was an adjacent bystander and witnessed the majority of the situation. The shooters in question followed all of the range rules as far as I could tell, and were assigned the only 100-yard lane left available at the time. Unfortunately, the lane happened to be located pretty much in the middle of everyone at the range. When the shooter was done, he was angrily approached by the individual in an aggressive manner and told that, "he can't shoot that gun at the range". The shooter was actually pretty gracious and apologized, stating that he has shot that rifle before at Atterbury, and has never received a complaint in the past. The situation appeared to end at that point, and a cease-fire was called. The shooter went down-range to retrieve targets, and at that point the individual began to loudly complain to the range officer, his friends, and pretty much everyone standing behind the yellow line, about the irresponsibility of shooting that caliber of rifle at the range. At that point, one of the companions of the shooter interjected, and that is when the verbal confrontation began. The shooter's friend told him that the rifle can be very loud, and it helps to have foam plugs in under ear muffs. He even offered a spare pair to the individual, but was refused. The argument then escalated from there until the Range Officer interceded. In reality, the shooter was actually down-range for the majority of the time.

I can sympathize with the individual about being in the muzzle blast of a 338 LM with a muzzle brake. If you don't have a tolerance for that kind of concussion, it can be unpleasant to say the least. However, reading his description of the incident, I didn't feel that it was entirely objective or accurate. I just wanted to give my perspective to this forum, and I'll let you judge for yourselves.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I won't judge as to whether it is or is not acceptable to discharge a 338 Lapua Magnum, equipped with a muzzle brake, at the Camp Atterbury shooting range. Personally, I don't mind being near the muzzle blast from a big-bore rifle like that (with or without a brake), but that is simply my preference. However, I was shooting at Camp Atterbury on that day, and I would like to provide an outside observer's context of the situation to the members of this forum. I was an adjacent bystander and witnessed the majority of the situation. The shooters in question followed all of the range rules as far as I could tell, and were assigned the only 100-yard lane left available at the time. Unfortunately, the lane happened to be located pretty much in the middle of everyone at the range. When the shooter was done, he was angrily approached by the individual in an aggressive manner and told that, "he can't shoot that gun at the range". The shooter was actually pretty gracious and apologized, stating that he has shot that rifle before at Atterbury, and has never received a complaint in the past. The situation appeared to end at that point, and a cease-fire was called. The shooter went down-range to retrieve targets, and at that point the individual began to loudly complain to the range officer, his friends, and pretty much everyone standing behind the yellow line, about the irresponsibility of shooting that caliber of rifle at the range. At that point, one of the companions of the shooter interjected, and that is when the verbal confrontation began. The shooter's friend told him that the rifle can be very loud, and it helps to have foam plugs in under ear muffs. He even offered a spare pair to the individual, but was refused. The argument then escalated from there until the Range Officer interceded. In reality, the shooter was actually down-range for the majority of the time.

I can sympathize with the individual about being in the muzzle blast of a 338 LM with a muzzle brake. If you don't have a tolerance for that kind of concussion, it can be unpleasant to say the least. However, reading his description of the incident, I didn't feel that it was entirely objective or accurate. I just wanted to give my perspective to this forum, and I'll let you judge for yourselves.

Imagine that! I'da never thunk it.

Thanks for the input.

 

[indiucky]

This is a first world problem...

At Clark County Gun Range in Henryville you worry about getting shot while you are in the porta potty or walking down range to change your targets....

 

[indiucky]

This will be my final post on this forum as it is apparent that idiocy, testosterone, Snowflakiness and macho egotism have made INGO a site that allows idiots and imbreads to try to be as astute as people who have experienced life in the shooting sports for over 50 years.

I've been a shooter for over 50 years. Shot 3 gun, high power matches, FNS, Bowling pin, 22 BSA camp matches, PPC, NRA National Match,
Silhouette, IPSC, skeet, trap, five stand, clays, bullseye, NRA nationals, etal.

I've shot 50 BMG rifles with and without a brake, 45-70 and 45-100 Sharps, 300 Win Mag, 338 Weatherby Mag, 308 w/brake and with out.
muzzle blast. When ever I've shot a high conncucsion/muzzle blast rifle, i ALWAYS warned the ;neighboring lanes what I was going to do so
as a COMMON COURTESY!

Yeah, going to Atterbury, I would expect, .300 Mag, .30-06, 308, blah, blah, blah.

But when RICH SNOWFLAKES, with no caring of whether the effect of a blast of a .338 Lapua Magnum with a muzzle brake has on their neighboring
lanes and doesn't give a damn lets lose with a blast that blows targets and ,223 stripper clips off my shooting bench is too much.

So F U if you disagree with me and call me out as a *****. I think the same of you.

Now sing those words to this music...

[video=youtube;ov4epAJRPMw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov4epAJRPMw[/video]

 

[indiucky]

INGO a site that allows idiots and imbreads to try to be as astute as people who have experienced life in the shooting sports for over 50 years.

We prefer the term "inbred's".......I think William's bakery sells "imbreads" but I am not 100% certain....

 

[Libertarian01]

I won't judge as to whether it is or is not acceptable to discharge a 338 Lapua Magnum, equipped with a muzzle brake, at the Camp Atterbury shooting range. Personally, I don't mind being near the muzzle blast from a big-bore rifle like that (with or without a brake), but that is simply my preference. However, I was shooting at Camp Atterbury on that day, and I would like to provide an outside observer's context of the situation to the members of this forum. I was an adjacent bystander and witnessed the majority of the situation. The shooters in question followed all of the range rules as far as I could tell, and were assigned the only 100-yard lane left available at the time. Unfortunately, the lane happened to be located pretty much in the middle of everyone at the range. When the shooter was done, he was angrily approached by the individual in an aggressive manner and told that, "he can't shoot that gun at the range". The shooter was actually pretty gracious and apologized, stating that he has shot that rifle before at Atterbury, and has never received a complaint in the past. The situation appeared to end at that point, and a cease-fire was called. The shooter went down-range to retrieve targets, and at that point the individual began to loudly complain to the range officer, his friends, and pretty much everyone standing behind the yellow line, about the irresponsibility of shooting that caliber of rifle at the range. At that point, one of the companions of the shooter interjected, and that is when the verbal confrontation began. The shooter's friend told him that the rifle can be very loud, and it helps to have foam plugs in under ear muffs. He even offered a spare pair to the individual, but was refused. The argument then escalated from there until the Range Officer interceded. In reality, the shooter was actually down-range for the majority of the time.

I can sympathize with the individual about being in the muzzle blast of a 338 LM with a muzzle brake. If you don't have a tolerance for that kind of concussion, it can be unpleasant to say the least. However, reading his description of the incident, I didn't feel that it was entirely objective or accurate. I just wanted to give my perspective to this forum, and I'll let you judge for yourselves.

First, welcome to !!!

Second, your post seems to corroborate the general conclusion of what some of us have already arrived at.

However, and I mean this with NO disrespect and/or insult, but I am reminded of Humphey Bogarts famous line, "Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine..."

There are hundreds of thousands of forums online. I couldn't find a number. There are probably a thousand or more gun owners forums. And your very first post here just happens to be an eyewitness account an unpublished incident that maybe 100(?) people saw.

I do not question that you were there, but I would like to hear a little bit of the backstory of how you came to find this thread on the internet. This seems highly improbable to me unless you have been lurking for awhile or a friend of a friend saw it or...?

And if you tell me to go pound sand it's none of my business, welll... I won't treat you the same way the OP treated everyone on here when he didn't find the sympathy he was looking for.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope you continue to contribute throughout our threads.

Regards,

Doug

 

[churchmouse]

I won't judge as to whether it is or is not acceptable to discharge a 338 Lapua Magnum, equipped with a muzzle brake, at the Camp Atterbury shooting range. Personally, I don't mind being near the muzzle blast from a big-bore rifle like that (with or without a brake), but that is simply my preference. However, I was shooting at Camp Atterbury on that day, and I would like to provide an outside observer's context of the situation to the members of this forum. I was an adjacent bystander and witnessed the majority of the situation. The shooters in question followed all of the range rules as far as I could tell, and were assigned the only 100-yard lane left available at the time. Unfortunately, the lane happened to be located pretty much in the middle of everyone at the range. When the shooter was done, he was angrily approached by the individual in an aggressive manner and told that, "he can't shoot that gun at the range". The shooter was actually pretty gracious and apologized, stating that he has shot that rifle before at Atterbury, and has never received a complaint in the past. The situation appeared to end at that point, and a cease-fire was called. The shooter went down-range to retrieve targets, and at that point the individual began to loudly complain to the range officer, his friends, and pretty much everyone standing behind the yellow line, about the irresponsibility of shooting that caliber of rifle at the range. At that point, one of the companions of the shooter interjected, and that is when the verbal confrontation began. The shooter's friend told him that the rifle can be very loud, and it helps to have foam plugs in under ear muffs. He even offered a spare pair to the individual, but was refused. The argument then escalated from there until the Range Officer interceded. In reality, the shooter was actually down-range for the majority of the time.

I can sympathize with the individual about being in the muzzle blast of a 338 LM with a muzzle brake. If you don't have a tolerance for that kind of concussion, it can be unpleasant to say the least. However, reading his description of the incident, I didn't feel that it was entirely objective or accurate. I just wanted to give my perspective to this forum, and I'll let you judge for yourselves.

This seems to fit what I have seen from the OP in the past.
Also fits a few bits of info that has been shared since he decided to call the entire forums some names that in another setting might not end to well for him. I guess it did not end well here either.

There have been a couple of incidents like this of late.

 

[Zed]

Hi Doug--

Fair challenge. I'm not proud of this...but I've been a passive "lurker" on this forum for a while. I have learned so much doing this, but I've never been one to really engage in on-line forums and social media. However, reading what was posted about the incident at Atterbury last weekend motivated me. What was described versus what I observed/experienced were so incongruous that I felt the need to join and provide my input for the first time. I didn't want the group of shooters to get an unfair reputation, based on the original post, if there is anyone on this forum that knows them and recognizes them based on the description of the incident (e.g., probably not a lot of people shooting a 338 LM at Atterbury). Again...not proud of being a lurker in the past, but I am motivated to continue to participate in this forum. Thanks.

First, welcome to !!!

Second, your post seems to corroborate the general conclusion of what some of us have already arrived at.

However, and I mean this with NO disrespect and/or insult, but I am reminded of Humphey Bogarts famous line, "Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine..."

There are hundreds of thousands of forums online. I couldn't find a number. There are probably a thousand or more gun owners forums. And your very first post here just happens to be an eyewitness account an unpublished incident that maybe 100(?) people saw.

I do not question that you were there, but I would like to hear a little bit of the backstory of how you came to find this thread on the internet. This seems highly improbable to me unless you have been lurking for awhile or a friend of a friend saw it or...?

And if you tell me to go pound sand it's none of my business, welll... I won't treat you the same way the OP treated everyone on here when he didn't find the sympathy he was looking for.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope you continue to contribute throughout our threads.

Regards,

Doug

 

[JettaKnight]

Well, by lurking, you've avoided making stupid posts that us non-lurkers perpetrate!

 

[printcraft]

Well, by lurking, you've avoided making stupid posts that us non-lurkers perpetrate!

Speak fur yerself!

 

[rhino]

I won't judge as to whether it is or is not acceptable to discharge a 338 Lapua Magnum, equipped with a muzzle brake, at the Camp Atterbury shooting range. Personally, I don't mind being near the muzzle blast from a big-bore rifle like that (with or without a brake), but that is simply my preference. However, I was shooting at Camp Atterbury on that day, and I would like to provide an outside observer's context of the situation to the members of this forum. I was an adjacent bystander and witnessed the majority of the situation. The shooters in question followed all of the range rules as far as I could tell, and were assigned the only 100-yard lane left available at the time. Unfortunately, the lane happened to be located pretty much in the middle of everyone at the range. When the shooter was done, he was angrily approached by the individual in an aggressive manner and told that, "he can't shoot that gun at the range". The shooter was actually pretty gracious and apologized, stating that he has shot that rifle before at Atterbury, and has never received a complaint in the past. The situation appeared to end at that point, and a cease-fire was called. The shooter went down-range to retrieve targets, and at that point the individual began to loudly complain to the range officer, his friends, and pretty much everyone standing behind the yellow line, about the irresponsibility of shooting that caliber of rifle at the range. At that point, one of the companions of the shooter interjected, and that is when the verbal confrontation began. The shooter's friend told him that the rifle can be very loud, and it helps to have foam plugs in under ear muffs. He even offered a spare pair to the individual, but was refused. The argument then escalated from there until the Range Officer interceded. In reality, the shooter was actually down-range for the majority of the time.

I can sympathize with the individual about being in the muzzle blast of a 338 LM with a muzzle brake. If you don't have a tolerance for that kind of concussion, it can be unpleasant to say the least. However, reading his description of the incident, I didn't feel that it was entirely objective or accurate. I just wanted to give my perspective to this forum, and I'll let you judge for yourselves.

Thank you for sharing your observations of that incident. Your version is consistent with the temper tantrum the guy had here, so I am inclined to believe that yours is the more accurate of the two.

This seems to fit what I have seen from the OP in the past.
Also fits a few bits of info that has been shared since he decided to call the entire forums some names that in another setting might not end to well for him. I guess it did not end well here either.

There have been a couple of incidents like this of late.

Hah! I'd like to know where he went for the whining.

 

[Hawkeye]

Hi Doug--

Fair challenge. I'm not proud of this...but I've been a passive "lurker" on this forum for a while. I have learned so much doing this, but I've never been one to really engage in on-line forums and social media. However, reading what was posted about the incident at Atterbury last weekend motivated me. What was described versus what I observed/experienced were so incongruous that I felt the need to join and provide my input for the first time. I didn't want the group of shooters to get an unfair reputation, based on the original post, if there is anyone on this forum that knows them and recognizes them based on the description of the incident (e.g., probably not a lot of people shooting a 338 LM at Atterbury). Again...not proud of being a lurker in the past, but I am motivated to continue to participate in this forum. Thanks.

You need to get your post count up! Remember: 50 Quality posts! But they dont have to be long!

Welcome!