PRS Talk AI named “Official Rifle of the 2025 PRS”
- Thread starter sidetoss20
- Start date
Think ive seen maybe 2-3 guys using their comp models in the last 2 years. Have very little personal experience with their rifles but this seems surprising.
Agreed, the traditional answer to “why isn’t there more AI in PRS” usually included some form of lack of interest from them/lack of sponsorship, this seems like a pretty big turn from that
I had thought the lack of AI in PRS was more to do with the bolt being harder to operate smoothly and a $2k+ premium over other rifles that are suited for PRS.
They've addressed one of these with the AT-XC, it seems
They've addressed one of these with the AT-XC, it seems
Yep, those points are part of it too!I had thought the lack of AI in PRS was more to do with the bolt being harder to operate smoothly and a $2k+ premium over other rifles that are suited for PRS.
They've addressed one of these with the AT-XC, it seems
Translation AI paid prs the mostest of everyone else. It's all about the benjamins
I had a thread in the last year or so asking about why people love the AI so much, because it is too heavy to carry anywhere hunting, or at least it's a bad option for long walks, or climbing mountains. And then, even the most diehard fans were all willing to admit that it wasn't a good prs option either for a handful of reasons, but foremost the action itself. I'm surprised to see this, but I hope they blow some life into the organization somehow. Seems like people are losing interest on a grand scale with prs.
Just what I was going to post.
Yeah, the whole "official rifle" thing is about the money, but the nice thing is it may signal a transition in the focus of AI. That might be interesting.
Sure, but it's not ideally suited for most hunting applications. The rifle I climb mountains in wyoming with doesn't resemble my coyote rifles, which don't resemble my deer stand rifles, etc. I was thinking about buying one, (still thinking about it), but I just couldn't figure out what I would do with it other than slap steel casually. I just don't see it as well suited to any of my hunting applications. Mileage certainly varies.
Also, where is your suppressor?
You make valid points. Another reason I solds my AIs is everything is proprietary. Barrels, picatinny rails, spacers and spare parts of all kinds are only available from AI and depending on where you are and what you're looking for might not be that available.
As to AI, I’ve always liked their rifles and would like to have an AW. I also don’t really have a specific use case for one.
No statistics, just what's going on in my friend group. For all I know it may be blowing up. Everyone seems to tire of the groundhog day aspect of it within a year or two.
Tikkas. They aren't nearly as fancy but the actions are cheap enough I could buy a couple, the bolts are easy to run, and there are a ton of chassis and other parts and accessories available for them. It works for me.
I still think AI's are cool rifles, they seem almost have a sort of resonance to them that makes them easy to shoot well. They have a good reputation for a reason, although my AE needed repairs a few times which wasn't cheap.
Oh and a heads up to anyone using an AT-X who wants a mag with a bit better cartridge retention or 12 rounds, the metal MDT AICS magazines function perfectly. Not the polymer, not Accurate Mag, just the metal MDT ones.
As I thought. Different regions, different situations. Not big picture.
This is my first thought every time I see an “official PRS fill in blank”
To your point, there's a lot of turnover in PRS. I bet retention rates are very low over a 3-5 year period.
I'm one of those people that tired of shooting off of contrived props.
It’s a game, just like almost any other shooting sport other than actual hunting, though that too could be argued.
If it’s not your thing, then move on. That does not make it any less engaging for those that choose to play it. And your experience does not a reality make.
I have no idea on the stats and don’t care.
For me, my AI is “The Official Rifle of the Bottom Third of PRS Competitors.”
-Stan
-Stan
That's a fair statement, but I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of freshness. Having shooters move around a bit to get their heart rate up would make it feel a bit more like an action shooting sport. Rarely do you move more than a few feet but movement adds a whole extra dimension to it. Power or weight classes like NRL might encourage people to shoot who otherwise might feel outgunned by the 20+ pounds 6mm's. Just my opinion.
They dropped that skills stage with the mag change and support side. I really liked it but only ever shot it once at a match. I guess a lot of shooters/match directors didn't like it.
Last edited:
Damn rimfire blew up like that?!?!?? I know I enjoy it more the centerfire PRS now lol.
I think it’s a bit misleading looking at the chart. Those numbers are additive and the big growth was actually in PRS Region centerfire series. There is growth in Rimfire, but it looks like it’s more steady growth.
I run a small local PRS Rimfire match here and there has definitely been steady growth. Most shooters say they have more fun shooting these. Almost like it’s a break from the centerfire.
I guess that AI needs to make a drop-in chassis for Rimfire…
If you look at how many more venues are now holding prs matches than there were in 2018/2019, then you'd have to say that other than rimfire, attendance is way down per match. I'd venture there are almost double the available matches in 2024 than there were in 2018. In 2022 there were two places I could get to for a regional match within 200 miles, as of 2024, there are four or five (one is pushing the 200 mile boundary). To be clear, I hope the prs organization is hugely successful, and continues to evolve with things like the rimfire category, and now the hunter matches, because I just don't believe there are many people who have the desire to shoot the same prs stages over and over again for years. If it doesn't evolve, it will likely die. Businesses (and prs is definitely a business) cannot survive on stagnation. Growth is absolutely neccessary, so I hope they figure it out. But, seeing your chart makes it clear why Shamnon sold the organization when he did. If you owned this organization and were looking at these numbers, you'd probably realize in about 2022 or so that you either need to make major changes, or create a bunch of hype and find a buyer. I think Shannon did the latter..
I do not believe this statement to be correct. Again you are projecting your personal experiences and your view into a statement of fact that simply isn’t supported.
As to the longevity of the series, who’s to say? If you look at any shooting sport; past, current or present, you’ll see that participation will ebb and flow and they all, without exception fade away at some point. This is not news, it’s reality.
I’ll repeat. It’s a game, like all of them. Choose to participate or choose something else.
So this is comical. In my search to prove what we both actually know is correct, I found my way to the page you got that graph from:
https://precisionrifleblog.com/2025/04/12/how-the-prs-exploded/
In the article it explains that the regional matches have exploded in recent years, and there are more and more available every year since 2015 (which is what I said). They boast that there will be more than 150 regional matches in 2025. Meanwhile, according to the graph you shared earlier (which is in the center of this article), attendance is flat. So.... roughly the same number of people, significantly more matches= attendance per match is dropping. You don't have to be the head cashier at Walmart to understand that math. It is so much more accessible than it used to be (geographically) for everyone, and the total attendance is flat. If the average burnout is 2 years let's say, then without evolution, it will hit burnout saturation within a few years, and it will die entirely. Again, I sincerely hope they evolve and save the sport.
Yes it is comical. I see that since the latest purchase in 2022, attendance has increased substantially to the regional matches.
And since 2015, a raise from about 1000 active shooters to over 13,000 shooters. That sounds like a totally flat line to me all right.
But you just like to argue, so I’ll let you go spouting your imaginary “facts” and move on to something that actually matters.
And since 2015, a raise from about 1000 active shooters to over 13,000 shooters. That sounds like a totally flat line to me all right.
But you just like to argue, so I’ll let you go spouting your imaginary “facts” and move on to something that actually matters.
It has seemed to me that the bigger threat is access to viable ranges. One of our regional MDs got hit with a noise complaint and had to relocate; thankfully he was able to find a spot in the next county and kept rolling. Another range is limited by how much time the MDs can spare from farming the property. Another is limited to a max range of about 625 yards, but thankfully isn't going anywhere. For perspective, the closest of these to me is 4 hours. The corollary to this is that it takes a lot less real estate to spool up a full Rimfire match, and a lot less cost per shot, and a ton less time invested to prep ammo; it's no wonder that these are becoming very popular and people enjoy them a ton. Nearest rimfire match to me is 20 minutes; there are three others within 2 hours' drive time.
As for the argument that "CoFs need to change to be interesting so the sport will survive," it seems to me that golf doesn't evolve much at all but still keeps people coming back year after year, including new players. The big differences that I can see between our sport and golf is that there are multiple golf ranges in town, you need minimal administrative attention for people to be able to play a round, and you generally aren't comparing yourself to the very best competitors in the area. But the longevity of golf as a sport is absolutely not dependent on the novelty of the course; they're not moving greens every month or year to "mix it up." So it seems dubious at best to assert that novelty is necessary for ongoing interest.
As for the argument that "CoFs need to change to be interesting so the sport will survive," it seems to me that golf doesn't evolve much at all but still keeps people coming back year after year, including new players. The big differences that I can see between our sport and golf is that there are multiple golf ranges in town, you need minimal administrative attention for people to be able to play a round, and you generally aren't comparing yourself to the very best competitors in the area. But the longevity of golf as a sport is absolutely not dependent on the novelty of the course; they're not moving greens every month or year to "mix it up." So it seems dubious at best to assert that novelty is necessary for ongoing interest.
7,800 to 8,800 from 2018 to 2024 is substantial growth? 12.8% growth in 7 seasons is substantial?
During covid, most outdoor activities saw growth of 200%-300%.
12.8% is probably barely ahead of population growth in that time frame. That's flat as hell. I realize you are going to think that you're right no matter what data I put in front of you, so I'll stop wasting my time. For everyone else reading this that isn't capable of grand feats of cognitive dissonance, my point is well proven..
And now after googling some golf "norms," since I don't play, some other thoughts:
Golf seems to be more "bite-sized," at least as far as how the typical enthusiast plays. They play for about half the time as a 1-day match, and cost ranges anywhere from $30-100 for a round. If they're only playing 18 holes, then they walk away for roughly a third of the cost and half of the time invested. So, very approachable.
I think the accessibility is the draw, versus our game. If we could all drive 20 mins and play "a round," say 5 stages we create against our buddies, in an afternoon for $100 all-in, we might see more interest. Even if it still cost $5-10k to gear up with the necessary equipment.
Golf seems to be more "bite-sized," at least as far as how the typical enthusiast plays. They play for about half the time as a 1-day match, and cost ranges anywhere from $30-100 for a round. If they're only playing 18 holes, then they walk away for roughly a third of the cost and half of the time invested. So, very approachable.
I think the accessibility is the draw, versus our game. If we could all drive 20 mins and play "a round," say 5 stages we create against our buddies, in an afternoon for $100 all-in, we might see more interest. Even if it still cost $5-10k to gear up with the necessary equipment.
When I show up yo play golf, I've got my golf clubs.
When I go to shoot a prs match, I've got hours invested in manufacturing ammo, $15k in gear, my entire weekend is taken from daylight til dark, and a match is hundreds of dollars, and in most cases at least a couple hours of driving each way. If I want to play a round of golf, it costs $50, requires no preparation, I can make the decision to play and be playing 10 minutes later, and I can do it with a beer in my hand. It's apples and oranges.
We made almost the same post there friend. I think you hit some excellent points. It's just not the same level of commitment. Also, I can play at probably 12 different courses in an hour drive.
Inside every golf course is a rifle range struggling for freedom.
-Stan
-Stan
You can shoot a 1 day match with your buddies for less than $100, many times as low as $75-80. Most times over by 2:00-3:00.
And what’s with the “stages we create” stuff? Do you create your own golf holes when you play? I’m confused.
It seems that too many people have decided that the game of PRS isn’t for them, for whatever reasons. And that’s fine. Life and choices for how to spend your personal time vary. Then instead of accepting their decision as their decision, they feel the need to justify or make reasons as to what’s wrong with the game.
If only PRS was just like hopscotch, where we could draw our own game board and walk away whenever we are bored, then I’d definitely do it.
You can shoot a 1 day match with your buddies for less than $100, many times as low as $75-80. Most times over by 2:00-3:00.
And what’s with the “stages we create” stuff? Do you create your own golf holes when you play? I’m confused.
It seems that too many people have decided that the game of PRS isn’t for them, for whatever reasons. And that’s fine. Life and choices for how to spend your personal time vary. Then instead of accepting their decision as their decision, they feel the need to justify or make reasons as to what’s wrong with the game.
If only PRS was just like hopscotch, where we could draw our own game board and walk away whenever we are bored, then I’d definitely do it.
I think you're referring only to match fees? In which case I agree. But I just crunched the numbers on a 6BR barrel eating handloads: with 3000 rounds of barrel life, it's $1.17 per trigger pull. So for 100 rounds for score, plus let's say 20 on the low end for zero and validation, and a very nice cheap match fee of $30, I'm at $170 before I burn two tanks of gas for the drive.
I was talking about a situation where you're just going to "play a round," as opposed to a formal competition (e.g., a match). If you've ever done a practice or fun day at the range with your PRS buddies, I'd be awfully surprised if you weren't making up your own stages to practice, and for the variety. Golf innately has more variety for a given hole, because playing from the different lies you hit creates a somewhat unique experience. Unfortunately, because the props are the props for PRS, we have to create unique experiences differently.
Fully agreed with you here. I have some empathy for people who want the game to grow and to sustain over the years; I'm just less persuaded that growth is mandatory, or that eliminating the "barricade benchrest" is necessary either. If you approach the game with the mindset of "I haven't mastered this skill until I routinely clean matches," there's probably a lifetime of striving available.
I agree with everything you juat said, but I'd like to point out that you were being very generous with the costs in the first paragraph. I never shot a one day match that cost less than $100, and I was getting 1,500 rounds out of 6cm barrels. I live 20 miles from K&M, and I still ahoot there occasionally, when I want to shoot beyond my 400y back yard range, so I was blessed there, but I know people who were driving hundreds of miles to shoot a weekend match there. The actual cost of competing twice a month in centerfire prs is substantial. I understand why it is, because those ranges are expensive to own and maintain, especially the nice ones. To circle back to the golf thing: a person could play golf 10x a month and they wouldn't spend anywhere near what it costs to shoot two 2-day matches a month.
And despite all of that, I doubt many folks quit because of the cost. They quit because they realize they don't have the time and resources to be in the top 10, so they will be eternally mid pack. Prs matches only work because the majority of shooters accept that they aren't good enough to win anything, so their entry fees buy prizes for the pros. That gets old fast. I've heard people propose a ranking system like league bowling, or some sort of handicap system, so people are competing against their skill level peers, and can actually be rewarded for their improvements. Something like that might work.
The reward is becoming a better and more experienced shooter. Shooting with someone who is outside of your peer/skill group is how you get better. Just like with anything.
So, I've been training in Brazilian jiu jitsu for well over 20 years. Training with people who are better than you is how you get better in BJJ. Well, it's one of the methods of development. Watching pros clean stages will not help you hit one more target. There's no question that if you squad with some pros, you'll probable pick up a few things, but you could squad with pros 3 times a month for years, and if you won't get any closer to the prize table without a hundred other things happening.
Agreed on this. I'd submit that what we often think of as training in PRS is actually competing at matches; I'd expect that you wouldn't get much better by going to tournaments against your BJJ betters.
In the same vein, I bet someone would dramatically improve by going to shoot drills alongside the PRS pros; I've thought about doing something like that, but to be frank I already know drills I need to be running and I'm not lolol, I'll try to rope in a shooting sensei after I'm putting in the work and not seeing the growth
I don’t disagree with your assertions at all. Except I’ll point out that a golfer buys new clubs at least once every two-three years. Check prices on good golf balls today, $20/sleeve of three or shop carefully for good golfballs and cut that price in half. How many do you think you’ll go through in a 9 hole half day fun round?
I’ve yet to go golfing with the guys without a stop at the 19th hole afterwards, even if it’s just to settle up friendly bets and lunch. It’s not as cheap as you think and you still have to go to the range to practice a lot or you’ll suck.
So the fact that you are mostly competing against your peers in PRS escapes you? There are all kinds of ways to compare yourself, yet you feel that the fact that there are others posting higher scores is what’s holding you back? Hahaha!!!
Who do you think actually wins the big prizes in golf? Is it you or your friends? Why not? That’s not fair!
Get real.
Okay. Except you are comparing training with pros in BJJ to shooting a match with pros in PRS. Not the same. As you said earlier, “Apples and oranges.”
Train with some PRS pros. Then you can compare.
Bingo. If you want to get better, you do have to practice and train. It goes faster though, once you commit tour, to train with some pros. It’s no different than anything else. Practicing without proper focus on the right things only goes so far.Agreed on this. I'd submit that what we often think of as training in PRS is actually competing at matches; I'd expect that you wouldn't get much better by going to tournaments against your BJJ betters.
In the same vein, I bet someone would dramatically improve by going to shoot drills alongside the PRS pros; I've thought about doing something like that, but to be frank I already know drills I need to be running and I'm not lolol, I'll try to rope in a shooting sensei after I'm putting in the work and not seeing the growth
Last edited:
Not everyone has an interest in hunting. Or, if they do, they have other rifles for that.
AIs appeal to people who want something bombproof and is as close to "military grade" (to borrow a phrase from the idiotic MSM) as you can get.
Similar threads
