Insane slomo
- Thread starter Widow maker 223
- Start date
Shame we didn't have that video back in the late 80's when the neighboring landowner sued our club claiming bullets were hitting a railroad rail at 90* angle, turning 90* upon impact and putting holes in his roof over 200 yards from point of impacting rail. Wasn't happening and we proved the point but that video would have saved lots of lawyers time.
Widow maker 223
Well-known member
Ya thats not even logical.
No it's not. Fortunately, we had a judge who, while not an avid "gunny", did understand ballistics with a bit of educating from our attorney (an avid shooter). The neighbor had a very litigious record, against multiple defendants (also a history of not paying his attorneys over the years
). Our range was an abandoned National Guard 500 yard rifle range which we repurposed for 7/15/25/50 yard pistol/small bore rifle, 200 meter silhouette pistol, 600 yard NM competition w/covered 200 yard firing line w/benches for casual shooting. The small bore/pistol range occupies an offset to the left of the rifle range, shooting at a 45* angle to the left of rifle range into it's own backstop. We pushed up a 35' high backstop berm facing SE, placing the 200 meter railroad rail at it's base (the rail had a sacrificial 2x8 attached to the face to prevent any splash back should a stray round hit the rail during NM shooting, as the target pits were only 18 yards in front of the rail. Had a few stray rounds hit the rail while pits were in service but the 2x8 worked perfectly and we never found any shrapnel in the pit.
The railroad rail was, admittedly, pointed in the general direction of the neighbor's house (Which was a bit over 200 yards away with a 50-100' strip of heavy brush immediately adjacent to his property.)
The plaintiff demanded that the range be shut down and (IDR amount of) damages. Judge did throw the neighbor a bone and ordered a temporary restraining order until we provided "wing berms" @ each end of the rail as an added precaution, which we agreed to do and had them up within a week and were back up and running.
A bit of history, I was in the Guard when the range was in service back in early 50's, using the 18-20 foot high US Boundary & Water Commission levy for the backstop and shot the standard 500 yd. military rifle qualifications there. We posted radio jeeps on the levy to stop any civilian traffic while range was hot. When acquiring the property, we knew getting permission to use the levy backstop would be difficult to impossible, so elected to bury the existing pits and push up our own 35' berm (at a cost of $10,000.00).
When we were sued, knowing of the public use of the B&W levy, I drove it and took many photos of various signs, all riddled w/bullet holes, one of which was pointed directly at the neighbor's house. Pretty obvious that if there were bullet holes in his roof, it was nearly 100% certain that the shot came from the levy, not the range. The judge apparently agreed, but it didn't end there.
He sued us one more time; a ridiculous claim, filed a few days before the statute of limitations ran. Claimed a relative was riding a horse on property directly adjacent to and behind our 35' backstop and was struck in the side of his right eye by a "foreign object". The range would have been to the rider's left. Plaintiff presented evidence of an ER visit (nearly 3 years prior) during which "an unidentified foreign object was removed from right eye". Of course no further evidence was available; the judge poured him out on that one.
Widow maker 223
Well-known member
Gotta love that type of neighbor!!No it's not. Fortunately, we had a judge who, while not an avid "gunny", did understand ballistics with a bit of educating from our attorney (an avid shooter). The neighbor had a very litigious record, against multiple defendants (also a history of not paying his attorneys over the years
Our range was an abandoned National Guard 500 yard rifle range which we repurposed for 7/15/25/50 yard pistol/small bore rifle, 200 meter silhouette pistol, 600 yard NM competition w/covered 200 yard firing line w/benches for casual shooting. The small bore/pistol range occupies an offset to the left of the rifle range, shooting at a 45* angle to the left of rifle range into it's own backstop. We pushed up a 35' high backstop berm facing SE, placing the 200 meter railroad rail at it's base (the rail had a sacrificial 2x8 attached to the face to prevent any splash back should a stray round hit the rail during NM shooting, as the target pits were only 18 yards in front of the rail. Had a few stray rounds hit the rail while pits were in service but the 2x8 worked perfectly and we never found any shrapnel in the pit.
The railroad rail was, admittedly, pointed in the general direction of the neighbor's house (Which was a bit over 200 yards away with a 50-100' strip of heavy brush immediately adjacent to his property.)
The plaintiff demanded that the range be shut down and (IDR amount of) damages. Judge did throw the neighbor a bone and ordered a temporary restraining order until we provided "wing berms" @ each end of the rail as an added precaution, which we agreed to do and had them up within a week and were back up and running.
A bit of history, I was in the Guard when the range was in service back in early 50's, using the 18-20 foot high US Boundary & Water Commission levy for the backstop and shot the standard 500 yd. military rifle qualifications there. We posted radio jeeps on the levy to stop any civilian traffic while range was hot. When acquiring the property, we knew getting permission to use the levy backstop would be difficult to impossible, so elected to bury the existing pits and push up our own 35' berm (at a cost of $10,000.00).
When we were sued, knowing of the public use of the B&W levy, I drove it and took many photos of various signs, all riddled w/bullet holes, one of which was pointed directly at the neighbor's house. Pretty obvious that if there were bullet holes in his roof, it was nearly 100% certain that the shot came from the levy, not the range. The judge apparently agreed, but it didn't end there.
He sued us one more time; a ridiculous claim, filed a few days before the statute of limitations ran. Claimed a relative was riding a horse on property directly adjacent to and behind our 35' backstop and was struck in the side of his right eye by a "foreign object". The range would have been to the rider's left. Plaintiff presented evidence of an ER visit (nearly 3 years prior) during which "an unidentified foreign object was removed from right eye". Of course no further evidence was available; the judge poured him out on that one.