Service Rifle Calgary
- Thread starter robpad
- Start date
No you haven't. "Tell us how much you think we owe and the members will cover the vanished funds" is not a satisfactory offer. CSRA had a responsibility to know who their members were, to collect and forward the funds. To keep records of these transactions. It wasn't run well and failed to fulfill its commitment to the APRA and its membership. I don't remember anyone sending an email out to members asking them if they could provide their membership history and what they had paid to the club for dues. This would have been a positive step.
I don't think we did a ####ty job let us back in please is what they want to hear.
We are innocent until proven guilty. Those that have nothing to hide tend not to hide anything. There are enough questions to justify a closer look.
Your understanding of the situation is not even close to the truth. It sounds to me like you are either one of the APRA executive standing up for your prior poor decision making or are a puppet for those in the APRA that do not want to post.
There is and was a large amount of money missing - from both the APRA AND the CSRA.
If the past president has stated he was to make it right and make payments back to both the CSRA and the APRA (and it is my understanding he did), why did the APRA turn down any and all offers to make payment? Please answer the question if you can.
The 'excuses' for the missing money are not laughable as you indicate - they were taken. We know of one (actually two) perpetrators in this, one has apparently confessed, and the other - the APRA knows for sure on that one.
Full, complete, accurate membership lists were given to the APRA - I've stated this more than once. You are either shy on comprehension or refusing to listen.
The APRA never accepted our accounting - fine, they should have accurate accounting of the membership books handed over to the CSRA. It is not unreasonable to expect them to come forward with that info - ESPECIALLY AS IT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO AND IT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BYLAWS OF THE APRA STATE THAY SHOULD DO. I've stated this over more than once as well.
We are not forgetting anyone's role in this - it goes back more than one executive cycle on both the part of the APRA and CSRA.
You are either ignorant of how APRA membership books are controlled or you are just being obstinate.
We did know who the members were and that info was forwarded. Why do you keep harping on the same issue when I have debunked it over and over?
If those funds were not forwarded (an we provided what accounting we could that verified, yes ### dollars seem to not have been paid to the APRA) why is the APRA unwilling to accept that worst-case scenario?
We were open to any and all sanctioning - that was not enough. The CSRA folded and now others in the APRA want to start up the discipline, not tied in any way to the CSRA and they won't let that happen? Sounds to me the CSRA was not the core issue, but having SR on the 900m range was. I think one would have to be blind to see it another way...
Now you're getting somewhere...so when is the APRA going to open it's books LIKE THEY SAID THEY WOULD?
Firstly, let me clarify my remark.
When I said it took 'relatively less shooter skill' - what I meant was that it takes less, (uses less) core marksmanship principles to shoot than Fullbore (or SR for that matter). Not really meant as a slight against the discipline, but I stand by my comment.
Which likely proves it is growing and TR is dwindling. TR is still pretty big on the world-wide scale no? How many TR shooters on average going to Bisley?
But a demeaning slight just the same.
795 TR shooters in the Grand Agg this year by the published results. Can't answer to the average.
Agreed to a point - the whole militia aspect of the Brits leaving Canada post-Confederation, competitions with a limited amount of diversions and everyone had a hunting rifle, etc., etc., etc. ... and I'd also argue that F-Class is closer to present military practicality than Target Rifle. IIRC, the primary purpose of the military supporting civilians shooting on military ranges was to leverage the civilians as experienced shooting coaches in war time.
I disagree with the insinuation that Fullbore instigated a split into "dedicated target rifles". I need to find my reference, but I believe this was the Target Rifle A and Target Rifle B arguement that developed when Canada adopted the semi-auto FN C1 in 7.62mm over the .303 bolt action Lee-Enfield. Fullbore needed to go to bolt action rifles in .308W to continue on.
Still looking for my reference, but from the DCRA website:
During the early years the Annual Prize Meetings consisted of smallbore, pistol, Service Rifle (A) (Military Targets) and Service Rifle (B) (Target Rifle Targets). Upwards of 3,000 competitors, including 800 Cadets, attended the 10 day competitions. All competitions were under the control of DCRA staff. Additionally, in those years all members of the DCRA Bisley Team were Military members, as was the majority of the membership.
In 1957 the Canadian Army introduced the FNC1 as the military rifle. DCRA members were entitled to borrow these firearms from DND for competition purposes in the Service Rifle matches. The .303 continued to be the firearm utilized for target rifle competitions. The matches continued to be conducted by DCRA staff members.
Not meant to be demeaning either. It offers up other challenges in it's own right. I think maybe some of the challenges it is presenting shooters today is what is attracting shooters to it and other sports over TR - that is really all I'm saying.
...in reference to the conditions FL likes to refer to as 'the roadmap back'. In it the APRA indicated we were to provide accurate membership lists and an audited accounting for five years. And they would do the same on their end to 'compare notes' and arrive at a solution. We provided accurate (or at least what we thought was accurate) membership lists - that was not acceptable. We indicated, 'ok, if you believe we had x members in 20xx then we'll agree to that'. This wasn't good enough and he indicated that. At that point discussion ceased.
It is interesting you mention the AGM accounting of APRA memberships though. As far as I know, membership dues were always rounded to the nearest $10.
How did 2008 end up with $36,637.00 and 2007 end up with $39,243.00 collected in membership funds is kind of curious.
rnbra-shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Brunswick
SR(a) and SR(b) ("SR" == "Service Rifle") happened when the FN became our service rifle.
Prior to that our service rifle (No. 4 in .303) was also our target rifle. The FN was not as good a 900y and 1000y target rifle as the No. 4 was (though far from entirely useless either - I've fired a few rounds at 800m in South Africa with an R1 (their FN) and it worked as well as you could expect). Also there was a question as to whether the semiauto FNs would be as freely useable by civilians as the No. 4s had been. Hence the beginning of the divergence. Then No. 4s started to get rechambered to 7.62. Target shooting in Canada was done with a No. 4 in .303 or .308, with only limited changes from the military configuration being permitted (specific bedding mods, and sights, were the main points I think?)
In the very late 60s or the very early 70s, the break became bigger and more complete, with the new purpose-specified "Target Rifle" class, which no longer made any pretense of being limited to being lightly-modified No. 4s.
Prior to that our service rifle (No. 4 in .303) was also our target rifle. The FN was not as good a 900y and 1000y target rifle as the No. 4 was (though far from entirely useless either - I've fired a few rounds at 800m in South Africa with an R1 (their FN) and it worked as well as you could expect). Also there was a question as to whether the semiauto FNs would be as freely useable by civilians as the No. 4s had been. Hence the beginning of the divergence. Then No. 4s started to get rechambered to 7.62. Target shooting in Canada was done with a No. 4 in .303 or .308, with only limited changes from the military configuration being permitted (specific bedding mods, and sights, were the main points I think?)
In the very late 60s or the very early 70s, the break became bigger and more complete, with the new purpose-specified "Target Rifle" class, which no longer made any pretense of being limited to being lightly-modified No. 4s.
Neat. It was about when TR first made an appearance on that I had some of the history. A FN all the way back would be a pile of fun. I've used ARs, and M14s, but I suspect they have much better irons(Never used various FNs much either though).
In the SR(a) and SR(b) days, did the competitors shoot alongside each other all the way back?
In the SR(a) and SR(b) days, did the competitors shoot alongside each other all the way back?
No. SR(a) and SR(b) were fired separately. Different courses of fire. No. 4 rifles used for (a) had to use service sights; the course of fire was the ancestor of the current NSCC SR course of fire. SR(b) allowed the use of precision sights, generally PHs and AJ Parkers, and tweaking of the rifle as described previously. All shooting was deliberate prone, 200y to 900y. Two point slings were pretty much standard. Shot SR(b) in 1962.
Anyway, it is good that a group of shooters are moving toward re-establishing SR in AB.
Anyway, it is good that a group of shooters are moving toward re-establishing SR in AB.
The APRA books have been made public and accepted by the membership. If proper records had been kept and payment made by cheque the CSRA would have no problem proving that it had fulfilled its obligation to the APRA and its own members. It's really just that simple.
