In my last article, “Think Smarter, Leaner,” I laid out how various standards for indoor ranges have changed over the years, leading to shorter lanes and narrower shooting booths. However, what I didn’t touch on was the overall range footprint and shape and its effect on total cost.

Likely the largest component of your building, any changes to size or shape of the range have a drastic effect on the total building square footage.

Triangles vs. Rectangles

Historically, range shape was not open for discussion. Every equipment provider was set up to outfit the rectangle of your dreams. With each lane measuring 25 yards long and 4 feet wide at both the firing line and target line, the result amounted to an expensive bowling alley encased in ballistic steel. However, from research and observations, I knew most shooters don’t care how wide the target line is as long as their target isn’t overlapping that of their neighbor’s. I also knew my bank account couldn’t afford to outfit a traditional 10-lane shooting range.

My solution was to taper the shape of the range so the firing line would remain a standard width, but the bullet trap would be 50% smaller. With this design, a 25-yard taper range is visually identical to a traditional 50-yard range.

Influenced by telescopes, this concept creates an optical illusion, tricking the human eye to naturally taper rectangular shapes. Look down a straight stretch of highway and you’ll experience this same effect. Regardless of which lane you’re in, your eyes will instinctively be drawn to the same point in the horizon.

Tapering the range shaved $100,000 off my equipment quote, which happened to be the exact reduction I needed to qualify for a small business loan. Born out of necessity, Taper-Range — which was finally granted a patent last year — was key to opening my first range seven years ago and, to date, is used in four ranges across the country and all of our franchises.

Counterintuitive Costs

Despite my range’s smaller footprint, I was shocked to learn ventilation costs do not vary logically or linearly. For example, a 10-lane system may cost the same as that handling 12 lanes, but add one additional lane and your HVAC costs may increase dramatically. This price jump will depend on your climate and chosen system, but it’s not a difficult business decision to pay $330,000 for 12 lanes versus $400,000 for 13 lanes.

This counterintuitive price jump is based on the fact typical systems can only handle so much air flow. When you exceed a set amount, you either install a very complicated and expensive stadium-sized system or use two smaller and equal systems. The latter is less expensive, but only slightly. Anytime you can keep your range sized just under this price jump, you are sitting at the optimal value.

I also found the math behind fire suppression, aka sprinklers, to be counterintuitive. A fire suppression system for a 9,800 sq. ft. building may cost exactly zero, while a system for a 10,200 sq. ft. building may cost over $100,000. Most building codes have a clause permitting buildings under a certain threshold to not need a suppression system while buildings over the threshold — even by one foot — must be sprinkled.

You can probably guess my favorite building size is under those thresholds. Todd Heirls from Denver-based ArcWest Architects, who has done multiple range projects, always advises clients to be aware of these thresholds and question if they really need the additional space.

For the record, I believe fire suppression systems are both valuable and lifesaving, but I would also like to have the option to decide which areas of a building need sprinkled. Most range owners can tell you horror stories about sprinkler heads being shot out and flooding the range.

Why fire departments insist on having sprinkler heads placed above an empty steel and concrete shell still evades me; it’s the least flammable enclosure you could design.