Originally Posted by A458
I realise that it is the responsibility of the shooter to ensure that the rifle that they are shooting is below the legal limit of 12 ft lbs, as such I am sure that all who attend any competition have had their rifle checked before the event to ensure that they do not exceed this, and they all have different chrono's in order to achieve this.
That being said, most chrono's are not regularly calibrated, so we cannot categorically confirm with the utmost certainty that the rifle in question is below the legal limit, however what can be said is that the last time we checked the reading the rifle was "legal" in their eyes and most run their rifle well within the safe tolerances to negate any issue.
Can the organisers of the competitions prove through a calibration certificate, that their chrono has been certified within say the last month, as denying competitors the opportunity to compete and complete the course is an arbitrary subjective decision based upon an uncalibrated piece of equipment, and is surely contrary to all legal decisions: I realise that there are cost implications in achieving this but, if people who are competing are denied to complete the course based upon uncalibrated equipment, then where do the organisers stand if challenged?
This is a thought, that has been banded about at some competitions, so any further comments would be helpful.
Over to you.
Don't confuse the chrono on BFTA events with the legal limit. It's not there to enforce that. It's there to ensure you are under the competition
limit which is 5 fps below your speed at 12ft-lb.
By booking your entry or being booked into BFTA events you abide by their terms and conditions.
The BFTA do have an officer who is read in Law, and are covered by a liability insurance which covers legal expenses. I would suggest any serious discussion about legal liabilities etc would come from proper representation in writing rather than on an internet forum. Until then I wouldn't expect the opinion of a layperson to carry much weight on what surely is or is not legal. Liability is not absolute, negligence has to be shown beyond reasonable expectations. Buying a chrono and testing it, it's reasonable to expect it to be accurate. Not having some unspecified certificate does not equate to negligence.