Alright, let's put up some base facts before I continue:
In the past five years the only time I have been at a range that even had Range Officers was when I was with the military. And at all of those times I was either the Range Officer or the XO.
That being said, I am quite aware of how unsafe novice or unwilling shooters can be.
So, stuff like this is simply uncalled for:
Nushif it seems you have a little problem with RSO's
I seem to recall a post of your when you had a run in with one.
[...]
If you are just upset because someone dare tell you to cease fire. Grow up and get over yourself and quit acting like the man has his boot on your neck.
As such, I don't recall ever having a run-in with one. Because while my personality may be complex, I don't fight with myself. Often.
Here is where my problem comes in with some of the "safety" practices I hear preached very often here.
The RSO, the "Range Safety Officer" is still very much a human. As such their judgement of what is safe or not safe depends on a lot of factors that have *nothing* to do with your behavior or how safe it is.
While I'm sure the largest part of ROs are courteous, knowledgeable and even handed, take for example ROs who think nobody ought to have thirty rounds in a magazine. Are you going to tell me, that they are really going to sit there and not throw you off a range for practicing a fast follow-up shot with your M4? Especially if they have a mild headache?
Or for instance the RO who thinks that any gun older than ten years can't possibly be in good shape. Will they let you do a mad minute with an Enfield? How about a dedicated hunter? How about someone who doesn't like big bore guns?
My point is that these ROs as a whole are human and not infallible by any means. This means that their word isn't gospel, ever. Would I simply tell an RO "No" about ceasing fire? Of course not, why would I? But dare I question the RO who is so caught up in reading text off the wooden pillar next to his PA for the threehundreth time today? Yes!
That is where there needs to be a stronger emphasis on INDIVIDUAL SAFETY, so that the RO isn't so taxed with twenty-eight people on a range and forced to micromanage all of them, because they dropped their thinking hats and are drones on command, to a guy who is stressed out and overseeing the every small action of over two dozen people!
I feel, for some odd reason, that an RO should have better things to watch out for than the removed bolts, removed slides and dismantled guns of the entire line. I'd much rather my NCOs worry about PVT Soandso who keeps flagging his buddy than chasing thirty experienced soldiers behind an arbitrary line in the sand for their own "safety" with their assigned weapon.
I'm not "hatin' on the RO" ... what I'm doing is pointing out, that with a truly unsafe shooter, no amount of bolt removal, thirty second shot rules, one round per magazine rule or any such measures address the problem: The guy behind the trigger.
In my ideal world everyone mildly polices each other and themselves, leaves well enough alone and the RO can actually take aside an unsafe shooter and give them quality instruction. But in the world of standardized commands, warning signs, standardized commands, restrictive measures that make 90% of ranges unusable for 90% of the shooting world are the easier solution, it seems.
