F T/R Competition Dividing F T/R into 2 divisions? Opinions?

[LRRifleman]

Hi. I am finding that experienced shooters are switching to F class for a number of reasons, be it: older age, physical disability (my motive), curiosity, expense, or sheer curiosity. The really nice part about F T/R is that it allows experienced riflemen to adapt equipment they have acquired and developed over time by just adding a bipod. When you look at all of the scopes on the market with all of the bells and whistles, sticker shock is guaranteed.

At my local club, the F class shooters almost equal the number of conventional shooters in the Mid Range and Long Range matches, but the Open class shooters (with the much heavier, and perhaps more expensive) rifles overshadow the F T/R shooters. wonder why? Since F T/R matches are for target rifles firing unmodified 223 and 308 rifles, why not offer two divisions, Iron sight any Any sight, to allow easier (read less costly) transition of existing competitors?

Would anyone support such a move/division in F T/R?

 

[Al_Ski]

No.

If someone can't afford a rifle scope how can they afford to shoot?

 

[damoncali]

I wouldn't. At my local club we get about 30+ shooters on any given match, probably 60/40 tr to open. It's probably double the turnout for the mid range sling matches and close to three times the XC turnout. Aside from iron sight tr not being terribly appealing to me, the more classes and divisions you make, the more you dilute the competition. Everyone winds up competing against two other people, which isn't as fun. Also, a serviceable scope is like $450, which is cheaper than a decent set of irons.

If anything, I wish more people would show for the sling matches. F class is doing just fine.

 

[no1special]

ain't broke...why try to fix??

 

[Tactical]

Brother slap a scope and bipod on any target rifle and you can win most matches if you can shoot well enough.

I am against any more rule changes to FTR

 

[Denys]

I want to make sure I understand correctly. The OP has been a High Power competitor for 40 + years and was in car accident. The resulting injuries prevent him from competing with a sling and jacket but he can shoot F-TR. He does not like the fact F-class uses scopes and think F-Open is belly bench rest. He proposes to divide the F-TR shooters into two groups; one using bipod and scope presumably of F-class targets and the other group using bipod only with iron sights and probably not on the F-class targets with their rings at1/4 the size of the regular targets. He proposes this so people forced to transition from sling to F-class would not have to buy a scope but would still be competitive because they have years or decades of conditions reading and that should easily make up for the difference between using a riflescope Vs iron sights. I'm still unclear on which target he would like this new class F-ISR would shoot on but I suspect they would definitely demand a return to the large target because the smaller rings are unfair.

Presuming the above is correct, I would say that while I am sad to hear about your accident, why should that be an issue for the rest of us? When I switched to F-TR I got a Weaver T-36 for about $400 and I used it for several years before deciding to upgrade to my present Nightforce. I can assure you that the Weaver was not the item that was holding me back.

If you really want to shoot on a bipod with Iron Sights, you should petition the NRA to allow you to use a bipod in the regular (non F-Class) matches where you could be competitive and not always feel like second class because you are the only one shooting with iron sights on an F-class target; nothing good would come out of doing that.

Bottom line is if you can't afford to play the game, do something else, don't try to change the rules of the game just for you.

 

[skibar_tx]

I don't believe the rules state that one participating in F-Open or F/TR must use a scope. I believe the rules state that any sighting system may be used, however whatever sighting system used must be included in the weight of the rifle.

Talking about sticker shock, I recently bought aperture sights for a rifle intended for Palma competition. It astounded me how much good iron sights cost. I sure won't complain about LR scopes now.

 

[farmerbrown]

Funny,

But I, and I'm sure many other shooters getting on in age find the eyes to be the piece of the body that deteriorate the first.

Certainly my biggest issue with the Swiss assault rifle is sight picture (iron sights at 300 meters). I think allowing scopes favors the better shooter and not just the better see-er.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[LRRifleman]

@ Denys, you are partially correct in your interpretation of my initial post. My injuries and how they were repaired are preventing me from assuming the standing and sitting/kneeling positions. When my shoulder was repaired, the upper arm tendon that gives the arm strength snapped, and is not surgically repairable. I am not complaining about using a scope, it is just a device I have never used extensively before.

I am trying to look at the sport completely. When you look at the future of smallbore, this sport is not growing, in part due to the unavailability of domestically manufactured gear. With the exception of the affordability of the AR, traditional service rifles can elude or scare off the curious potential competitor. Match rifles (high power) are no longer catalog items like the old Remington 40X/40XC or the old Winchester Model 70T or International Army. A resourceful beginning F class shooter can get started with a Remington 700 ADL Varmint and scope. F class is within reach of many new shooters. However, over the years I have crossed paths with many competitors that shot NRA Match Rifle exclusively, well armed with competitive micrometer target sights, but didn't own a scope since they didn't shoot 1000 yards because of lack of access to a range.

My contention is that it would appear that existing across the course shooters shooting iron sights (because they already have them) are not exactly welcomed into F class. While many who start with a scope may see it as easy, it takes a bit to transition to a scope. For some, shooting iron sights is more natural than shooting a scope, but the iron sight shooter will generally acknowledge that a scope shooter can outshoot a competitor using irons.

Bottom line, I am inquiring to identify if more conventional shooters would try F class if there were an iron sight sub division. This would be no different than NRA High Power or Long Range with Service Rifle and Match Rifle sub divisions. I am not calling for any other changes, just extending an opportunity to iron sight shooters the chance to compete on an equal par in F class.

 

[skibar_tx]

Why make it a Fclass subdivision? Make it a bipod wielding subdivision under highpower, you can call it "WOOS". For "Worn Out Old Shooters".

Just joking. We already have that. It's called F-class. Everything you have said is exactly what George Farquharson had in mind. It just sounds like you don't want to make the entire jump. You just want to jump a little. Maybe you find it insulting to be an full fledged effer.

If you want to change something to fit you, change your own discipline. Or better yet, go start your own discipline completely independent of any NRA division. F-class was like that once. Been there, done that.

 

[XTR]

My contention is that it would appear that existing across the course shooters shooting iron sights (because they already have them) are not exactly welcomed into F class.

OK, picking myself up off of the floor. Didn't expect that. That is 180 out from reality and the direction that the perceived lack of welcome has gone in the past. I went to Camp Perry for the first ever F class competitions there in '12 and within 10 minutes of showing up I heard a sling shooter say we (F class) were "the end of shooting as we know it". That said I've been shooting side by side with, and coached by sling shooters since the very first time I ever got on the line at 1000 yards. There are very, very few slingers that aren't welcoming to F class shooters. Hell, even John Chubb speaks kindly to me.

At this yrs TN state championships three of my fellow ORSA members, all High Master sling shooters, came out with bipods and shot in the F class state championship, and one even used his iron sights, all did OK for their first time out on an F class target at 1000 yards.

You would be missing something if you think that any shooter is not welcome on the line in F class; however, if you want to shoot with irons that's your choice, but you are still shooting on a 1MOA 10-ring against scopes. Before the NRA creates an F-Irons class I want to see them give different classifications for TR and Open. (because TR is harder)

 

[LRRifleman]

I am sorry I posted what has become a rather controversial question. Yes, while I was a physically capable sling shooter I was relatively oblivious to developing disciplines around me, because I was content. Then an errant motorist crossed the centerline and I spent 4+ years trying to heal, learn to walk again, and continue my career, and I was out of touch with the shooting sports. Then, I spent the better part of 2 years trying to find my way back into shooting, physically relearning the game, to see what I was physically able to do. All the while pushing myself.

I am not advocating a change to benefit myself like some here seem to infer. I am also not trying to water down the gene pool. I was simply asking a question so I could understand why there isn't an iron sight subdivision in F class. I am also thinking that if there was an iron sight subdivision, more sling shooters might try (or move to) F class, especially if they didn't have to go to the expense of buying a scope that may not be in their kit already. Sometimes, you want to try something before you spend the money to buy your way in. I think you can agree, the equipment is not inexpensive.

Never did I intend to infer that the shooting community was clannish and unwelcoming of outsiders. What I was trying to infer was that as applied, F class is not welcoming to iron sight shooters. Glass shooters have a significant advantage, ranging from potentially less equipment they have to carry to being able to fire a string much more quickly since they aren't bouncing between rifle sights and a spotting scope (prior to this past weekend I have never gotten a 20 shot match with sighters fired in 15 minutes). Reading some of the comments here makes it sound as though I don't like the current manifestation of F class, which I do enjoy and find offers attainable challenges for me. I am just trying to find an avenue to draw more shooters in so we can see our sport flourish.

Personally, when I encounter a person interested in our sport, I offer as a guideline the equipment that I use, followed by the advice to go to a match an see what other shooters are using. Quite honestly, from what I have seen at the few F class matches I have been at, Nightforce scopes seem to dominate the line, and you will not find lower cost scopes (I.e.: Weaver T scopes) on the line. The last thing you want to do is scare off a potential shooter with sticker shock.

 

[damoncali]

You seem to be assuming the difference between regular High Power and F class is rest vs. sling. I would argue that the scope is a fundamental part of f class, because scopes are what drive the target size. Allowing rests in regular high power in a an additional class would make more sense, but again, you run into dilution. And you have to wonder if there is really a high demand for shooting iron sights off a rest/bipod.

The shooters I talk to shoot F class for a variety of reasons. "It's just more enjoyable" is a common explanation. Let's be honest. F class is easier and more comfortable than sling shooting. I'd even call it "casual" by comparison. I also think that people get intimidated by the equipment used in sling shooting, which is a shame. Simply buying a set of sights is a pretty difficult task for a new shooter. Looking around at all the guys wearing coats and dicking with fancy european apertures leaves the beginner with the impression that it's harder than it is. With F class, you get a scoped rifle and a bipod or rest. It's very easy and familiar. It's also less rewarding in my opinion, but that's me (I shoot both).

If you really wanted to grow F class (not that I think it needs help - it's doing pretty well), you'd be better off adding a "tactical rifle" class. I wouldn't bother, because it'd be close to F T/R (what would you do, limit the type of bipod and barrel length?). I think a lot of shooters are attracted to F class because their tactical rifles are 90% of a good T/R rifle and can be competitive at the local level. I just don't by that sling shooters who want to try F class are facing any substantive roadblocks. You really can do well with a $425 Weaver or Sightron. In fact, my own entry to F class was to throw a Sightron SII 36X on my prone rifle and use the bench rest I already had. It was that easy.

I also agree that the classifications for Open and T/R are a little jacked. Open is a lot easier. Maybe too easy. But that's why there are two classes I suppose.

So basically, I think you've got it backwards. Sling shooting is the discipline that needs help attracting new shooters, and a lot of those new shooters are heading straight to F class.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

While I appreciate the OP's intentions and motivations (they do, to some extent, parallel my own), I suspect there may be some subtle misunderstanding of just how F Class is defined, and would suggest that they might benefit from a rereading and reassimilation of the rules as they stand.

Then, if the OP still feels those rules are not inviting in the light of their physical limitations, I can sympathize. I have limits myself, and find the prone position is pretty much beyond my capacities these days. It's a dilemma not all that much unlike the OP's.

My solution was to try my own set of rules, that divides shooters into four scoring class, and it was not mine alone. STP here took over the match organizing/directing end of things, as well as co-originating the original concept and refining it over the first year or two. The first two scoring disciplines are essentially F Open and F T/R. The other two differ by allowing the use of benches for those like myself who find prone outside their capacities. Two other differences, the distances are shorter (several local clubs shoot at 180, 200, and ours, 250yd); and finally, the targets use the older 5/V ring format, scaled as the same MOA as the 1000yd F Class target center. We design and print our own targets (two bulls on a single sheet of legal size paper). We've been doing this for at least 3 years, and we have a significant and loyal local following.

Matches are announced and scores are posted on this F Class - F T/R Competition forum, if anyone's interested in more details, do a site search on 'FV-250' and/or 'Odessa'.

Bravo STP!

Also, no prizes, etc., whatsoever; keeps the competition a lot more friendly.

If what you want falls outside any of these classifications, then I invite you to do as we have done and design your own format.

Finally, I would caution against what I may be misinterpreting in your original post. None of the F Class firearms definitions require unmodified rifles, and I would strongly suggest that attempting to establish any such requirement is impractical. Cheaters will cheat, they can get nasty about it, and proving they are clandestinely modifying (ala blueprinting, etc.) can be a true nightmare, far in excess of what any sane Match Director would attempt to accomplish.

K.I.S.S.!!!

Greg

PS Incidentally, The Marine Corps League in Southern NJ shoots at Cumberland. If you aren't already involved with them, their shoots are(/were, I've been o/o Jersey since 1998) usually open to the public; and I am fairly certain they will accommodate shooters with physical limits. There are already a fair number of Marines with disabilities who shoot with them in NJ.

 

[LRRifleman]

@ Damoncali. You are correct in my understanding for the difference between High Power and F class ... and I attribute it to how I got here ... kicking and screaming along the way ... because I wanted to continue shooting and I was indoctrinated to one particular style. F class (and its nuances) are relatively alien to me ... and I am trying to understand. Where I am in the understanding of F class (as a discipline) is comparable to my speaking English, German, and Russian and finding myself alone in a country like Vietnam speaking a completely different language with little commonality to the languages I speak!

My biggest obstacle is that I have become comfortable and familiar with conventional matches ... yes, they are more challenging. After I fired my first F class match I did find it much easier ... but I think for a different reason ... the remaining movement tendon on my arm was not burning like in a sling match, and I didn't face the risk of losing use of my arm if that tendon snapped! One of the biggest problems I am having is not with my shooting or the new discipline, but accepting the limitations imposed on me by my accident injuries. I am beginning to realize that my injuries are more devastating and incapacitating than I allowed myself to accept. I have pushed myself from the moment I awoke from my coma ... when I took my first steps 10 weeks after the accident, I knew what a toddler felt like taking his first steps.

I also agree, equipment intimidation drives many from the shooting sports ... but I feel the AR platform has opened the door for many in conventional highpower, because the rifle can be easily "accurized". When you don't have advertising (or manufacturing) of affordable, basic sights like the Redfields and Lymans of old, you can be very intimidated with what is out there. In my case, the bipod has made it possible for me to return to an aspect of competitive shooting I am familiar with. The scope has lent quite a few changes, also, since I no longer need to drag my spotting scope and stand (except for scoring) and I can read the mirage via my scope. I am also finding that I can finish my course of fire before the end of the allotted time, WITH an increase in scores.

And yes, (grammatically incorrect, I know) F class may be drawing more new shooters than conventional ... but I have only a narrow base to see competitor involvement! When at Camp Perry, I see the dwindling numbers ... last year, coventional was fired only on Viale ... prior to my accident I remember when conventional was fired on both Viale and Ridriquez. At long Range this past year, there were less than 400 competitors; hence, my concern for seeing the sport grow. At my home club, the days of 60+ shooters has passed and we are lucky to see 30. This is what is driving my concerns.

 

[XTR]

There really are two things that define F class, the scope and an artificial rest. If you haven't you should read a little of the history. When George Farquharson came up with the idea and got it approved in Canada the whole point was to be able to shoot his Palma rifle with a bipod and a scope. Another thing to remember is that we've only been recognized by the NRA for a short time. There may be some rules changes in the future, though I don't see the need for many other than some further clarification on boards under bipods for F-TR. I don't think you'll see F with Irons class in the near future. The "field rifle" class will probably happen first.

When I shot Camp Perry in '12 it was the first time they had invited F class to compete. We all fit in Viale, the Sling shooters ended at about target #100 and the F class shooters took another 20 or so targets on the end. (Turnout was pretty low, it's not the National Championship for F class, it's just a regional match). This yr the reason you didn't see many/any F class shooters at Perry was that it was the week before the National and world championship matches in Raton.

Next yr you'll see some more F class shooters at Perry, I'm planning to be there.

 

[LRRifleman]

Hi! I learned alot after I read your "sticky"! From what I gather, F class was not "sanctioned" by the NRA as part of the Nationals prior to '12 ... prior to '12 how was it/who sanctioned it? What entity was behind the F class Nationals with it being fired at Raton? I am a little confused, but want to know as much about this discipline as I can ... I have two children that may be joining the shooting ranks in a few years, and I want to guide them appropriately!

 

[Denys]

F-TR as was sanctioned by the NRA in 2007. That year they issued the new targets, extended the high power rules and started classifying shooters and keeping national records. I shot in the 2011 Nationals in Lodi, 2012 and 2013 in Raton. I forget where the prior ones where. I think Sacramento and Lodi.

 

[LRRifleman]

Thank you Denys. That all seems to have occurred while I was fighting to stay alive and get put back together. Are the F class National Championships being integrated into Camp Perry?

 

[Denys]

I certainly hope not. I've been to Camp Perry and it's a lot of fun but I like a separate F-Class Championship.

I should mention that I am referring to long range championship. I believe mid - range is at Perry. But I hope to be corrected if I'm incorrect.

 

[Al_Ski]

F-TR as was sanctioned by the NRA in 2007. That year they issued the new targets, extended the high power rules and started classifying shooters and keeping national records. I shot in the 2011 Nationals in Lodi, 2012 and 2013 in Raton. I forget where the prior ones where. I think Sacramento and Lodi.

The 2009 F-Class Nationals were shot at Camp Butner.

 

[Denys]

Right. And I think 2010 was in Sacramento.

I wonder if there is a site somewhere that has a history of this.

 

[XTR]

In 2006 or 2007 it was in Oak Ridge, but it was on the old target I think. Jeff Cochran won Open and Dale Carpenter won TR.

 

[Al_Ski]

In 2006 or 2007 it was in Oak Ridge, but it was on the old target I think. Jeff Cochran won Open and Dale Carpenter won TR.

The first U.S. F-Class Nationals was held at Butner in 2004...

 

[Al_Ski]

Right. And I think 2010 was in Sacramento.

I wonder if there is a site somewhere that has a history of this.

The F-Open team site has some of the historical info but it's fractured through out the internet.

 

[anon]

I would like to address the equipment sticker shock. I bought a Bushmaster DCM rifle about 12 years ago and it served me well. My new Savage F/TR and Weaver T-36 cost less in adjusted dollars than I paid for that AR. If I were buying all new components a busy year's ammunition would cost more than the scope did. Also, I surprised myself the other day and found I was actually competitive. Your mileage may vary.

 

[memilanuk]

2006 Sacramento
2007 Raton
2008 Lodi
2009 Butner
2010 Sacramento
2011 Lodi
2012 Raton
2013 Raton
2014 Phoenix

2007 was my first time @ FCNC; my understanding was that in 2006 they used the small 1/2 moa X-ring targets as a test.

 

[XTR]

I had apparently misread or misunderstood some of what I've read over the yrs, and I still haven't found a good reference, but in a 2004 interview with John Brewer, 2004 winner, there is a discussion of the 2005 Championships being in Oak Ridge. I know I got the winners part right, I've shot with both of them and talked about the match. I know that at Oak Ridge they used the Palma Targets. I believe that was the match that Frank Beckman shot an Open match with a 200-20X (demonstrating early on that the target was too big)

So it looks like we can add:

2005 Oak Ridge

 

[Al_Ski]

I had apparently misread or misunderstood some of what I've read over the yrs, and I still haven't found a good reference, but in a 2004 interview with John Brewer, 2004 winner, there is a discussion of the 2005 Championships being in Oak Ridge. I know I got the winners part right, I've shot with both of them and talked about the match. I know that at Oak Ridge they used the Palma Targets. I believe that was the match that Frank Beckman shot an Open match with a 200-20X (demonstrating early on that the target was too big)

So it looks like we can add:

2005 Oak Ridge

Going from memory, I started shooting F-Class in aprox 2003. Shot my first 600 yard competition in 2006 where we used the Palma targets. We had the 1/2 MOA targets at the range at that time due to Brad Sauve & Paul Phillips using them for parctice. IIRC we switched over to the new targets in 2007 for all competitions.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

LL, The Mussacks, the Shumways, and I competed in the first SOA (Spirit of America) Match at Raton in 2002. The F Class and Palma shooters fired alongside each other on the same Palma Targets. The F Class portion of the comp was the conduct same as had been defined by George Farquharson and was already adopted universally across the world with the intent of allowing F Blass to compete on a level playing field, fully integrated with the rest of the Highpower community.

By the time the NRA adopted F Class, the target had been reduced in size, and some other 'clarifications' added that largely isolated F Class as outsiders from the rest of Highpower.

I was not happy with that idea and said so on the Internet, which had the simple result of my dissent being steamrollered, and that was that. I never felt quite right about that and have withdrawn from F Class as defined by the NRA; in part because of that, but mainly because I was never really competitive under the new rule anyway. Water under the bridge; sometimes I get to eat the bear, etc...

These days I do things in a manner more to my liking and actual abilities, and am having fully enough enjoyment shooting in more local, and less formal, FV-250 competitions.

Greg

 

[Denys]

So the Palma shooters dismissed you out of hand and gave you porch monkey treatment and that soured you on F-class competition? I don't get it.

I've competed on and off in various disciplines over a period of 31 years, including Palma, Fullbore, Service Rifle and since 2006, F-TR. At our club we have monthly LR prone matches (1000 yards) and we have sling shooters as well as F-class shooters. Most months we have more F-class shooters than sling, but not all the time.

Because of the target differences, the slingers and the effers do not shoot together on the same target. Prior to getting Match Director duties dumped on me last year, it it had been customary to squad the line thusly: slingers, space, F-Open, F-TR. This deterred the natural affinity between the Target Rifle contingent and the F-Target Rifle crew. What I have done is place the F-TR shooters right next to the slingers on the line and then the F-Openers on their end. Because the slingers and the F-TRs share the same calibers, we have discussions going on between the two categories about loads, rifles, trajectories, etc.

I believe this has helped foster a more acceptable environment for every one. No longer do the slingers see a $3000 whiz-bang chrome-plated, power-driven, battery-operated, GPS-located, laser-aimed, gyroscopically-stablelized, Bluetooth-enabled, USB-connected front rest holding a humongous crew-served-sized rifle topped by a Hubble-class riflescope shooting an exotic caliber with multiple numbers and letters in the name, including at least once the letter X, eating the X- and 10-rings on the targets next to them at semi-automatic speed. Instead they see .308 rifles very similar to theirs, mounted on spindly bipods and shooting loads that may be the same as their own loads or very similar struggling in the conditions just as they do. When they do notice the riflescope and remember the bipod, they only need to take a look at the F-class targets next to theirs when in the pits and they understand.

There is a reason the F-class target is one quarter the size of the Palma target (not one half, we shoot on t-dimensional targets,) and that's because the F-Class scores would be too high on the regular target and that would definitely create animosity from the slingers. As it is, we regularly see one or more F-Openers clean a target at 1000 yards, or even shoot clean for the entire match; the race is not on to see who will shoot the first 200-20X+.

 

[bear458]

Greg, If you remember, I also attended the 2002 and 2003 SOA with you fellows, and I remember our reception as well. It could have been more cordial.
With the recent blow out of the Whittington Centers match attendance at the FC World Championships, I think F-Class has come of age.

Also, most of the rules for FTR were established at the High power matches, through conversations with the competitors that attended those matches and that were shooting FTR with both bipods rucksacks and sand bags, and were a consensus of opinions of those FTR competitors. They were established to be fair to the largest number of participants and be inclusive as possible. Unfortunately not everyone gets it the way they want, most just sucked it up and competed anyway, it worked out pretty well IMHO.

Moving on

2006 Sacramento
2007 Raton of those
2008 Lodi
2009 Butner
2010 Sacramento
2011 Lodi
2012 Raton
2013 Raton
2014 Phoenix

2007 was my first time @ FCNC; my understanding was that in 2006 they used the small 1/2 moa X-ring targets as a test.

Right you are Monte,

2004 was at Butner
2005 at Oak Ridge
2006 at Sacramento was the first year for the smaller targets.


Of interest, at Oak Ridge in 2005. a talented gentleman finished in 3rd place FTR division, using a iron sighted target rifle supported with a sling against all the bipod supported scope sighted competitors.
So, if you want to compete there are opportunities

 

[bear458]

I had apparently misread or misunderstood some of what I've read over the yrs, and I still haven't found a good reference, but in a 2004 interview with John Brewer, 2004 winner, there is a discussion of the 2005 Championships being in Oak Ridge. I know I got the winners part right, I've shot with both of them and talked about the match. I know that at Oak Ridge they used the Palma Targets. I believe that was the match that Frank Beckman shot an Open match with a 200-20X (demonstrating early on that the target was too big)

So it looks like we can add:

2005 Oak Ridge

Quite correct, Frank shot his 200 20x with a 6mm BRX (still pretty awesome for the time)
we kinda knew that the target had to be smaller after Larry B. cleaned the SOA match (I think it was 1800 w ?x') he also ran out of ammo doing a shoot off in Canada in '05,

 

[6Dasher]

Since F T/R matches are for target rifles firing unmodified 223 and 308 rifles, why not offer two divisions, Iron sight any Any sight, to allow easier (read less costly) transition of existing competitors?

The first part of that statement is not correct. You can build any rifle as long as it uses the CIP standard for 223/308 (not that this was ever enforced, as CIP also states leade and twist specs, but the rest is up to the owner. You will not find many standard rifles at the big matches, most are full-blown customs.

F T/R is kind of destroying itself, at least the idea behind F T/R. The organisations don't feel the need to regulate it and keep it the entry level class as it was once created. You now have joystick bipods, 30-34" barrels shooting 210 VLDs at near WM velocities and some shooters tossing brass after 2 firings. A standard Remmy 700 will have a hell of a time competing against that. The original idea behind TR is long gone, it's now just another Open class, just with 308 ammo and funny bippods. Why they won't just allow front rests at this point is beyond me.

I think Canada has it right by starting the F-Class Standard class, where only factory rifles are allowed without any modification. That is indeed trying to accomplish what F/TR was once thought up for, but never realized or tried to protect.

On one side ICFRA regulates things that should not be, on the other they do nothing at all and let things go their way. There is no clear directive as to where the discipline is going and it's just knee-jerk policy in my opinion.

 

[Denys]

First off it is my contention that LRRifleman mistyped the sentence "Since F T/R matches are for target rifles firing unmodified 223 and 308 rifles ". It is nonsensical as written and I think he probable meant to say :"Since F T/R matches are for target rifles firing unmodified 223 and 308 cartridges."

However, even the swap of a single word does not actually state the rule and 6Dasher is further incorrect in bringing in the CIP standard for freebore and twist rates.

The NRA rule book categorically states in rule 3.4 (b) that the definition of an F-Class Target Rifle (F-TR) is:

"A rifle restricted to the chambers of unmodified .308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO or unmodified .223 Remington/5.56mm X 45 NATO cartridge cases."

It does not talk about twist or freebore or anything about barrel length., it talks about the CASE.

So,seeing that 6Dasher is in The Netherlands, and mentioned CIP, I suspect he was thinking about the IFCRA rules and definitions. I looked them up and lo and behold the rules book states:

"F2.3. An F/TR Class rifle is limited to .223 Remington or .308 Winchester calibre chambers or their commercial metrification equivalents. Chamber dimensions must conform to SAAMI or CIP dimensions. Ammunition may be commercially made or hand-loaded as defined in
Rule F2.24. There is no restriction on bullet weight."

Unfortunately the rulebook does not have rule F2.24 in it. Go figure.

NRA talks about chambers and unmodified cases and IFCRA talks about chambers. A chamber ends at the end of the case. Beyond that it's the bore. So length of freebore and rifling twists are not regulated in either set of rules.


Also try as I might, I could not find anything in either set of rules that stated F-TR (F/TR) was "entry level." It was NEVER created as such and I wish people would realize there is nothing "entry-level" about F-TR. In fact it is a harder discipline than F-Open by virtue of its more stringent rules and inadequate for 1000 yards caliber restrictions.

I certainly was no intimidated by people shooting 210gr VLDs or using joystick bipods, and if someone wishes to use up Lapua brass in one firing, that's their problem; it certainly didn't seem to help the one person I know who does that.

 

[XTR]

Denys, it's funny how many opinions about F-TR don't stand up to a reading of the rules.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Call it what you want, it stopped (for me) being F Class the day the NRA decided that what George Farquharson had campaigned for was not good enough, and that the redefinition should be done mainly according to the input of the same folks who told us personally that the "F" stood for "Fuckhead".

Do I remain a sorehead, and bitter to the point of irrationality? You betcha.

Don't be trying to acquit the prevailing regime to me, I departed that discussion right about the time I realized that pissin' into that current of hot air was never going to be productive for me. I learned everything I truly needed to know about F Class and Palma at the National level in that one short week back in 2002. It was a total immersion experience, and the experience sucked. I shot a 197 on the 1000yd line on the last day, and on balance, even that couldn't change the part about how it sucked. I knew even before boarding the plane back home that I would never be making that trip again.

You guys want to champion Modern day F Class at the National level, be my guest; but for me, that ship has already sailed longtime ago. These days, if it requires a boat, I stay home, a lot like the way many folks feel about flying. Committees are an assemblage of many feet and few, if any, heads; what issues from them is compromise and condescension, and F Class was not supposed to be about things like that in my book.

The only distinction within F Class I ever wanted was a division according to support; bipods vs rests. I guess that one was just too simple to accept, we just HAD to define a class that gave the edge to Palma.

I also maintain that a "standard rifle" or "factory rifle" category is an open invitation to subterfuge and squabbling.

I believe along with 6Dasher that the beginner's welcome inherent in the original class definition has gotten deep six'ed in favor of yet another arms race. Leave it to NRA and its internal power factions to screw up a truly good and simple idea. The whole point of F Class, as I saw it, was to simply be able to tell prospective candidates for competition that we had a place for them, and that they could start out in a relatively simple venue that wasn't all bound up in a framework of hairsplitting and contention according to pages of rules referring to other (missing?) pages of rules, etc. So sorry I made that mistake. Obviously, the majority rules; but "which majority?" was my question. In the decade following SOA 1, my questions no longer have meaning. These days, I no longer have such questions; I have my answers, emphasis on "my".

Greg

 

[XTR]

The only distinction within F Class I ever wanted was a division according to support; bipods vs rests. I guess that one was just too simple to accept, we just HAD to define a class that gave the edge to Palma.



Greg

Greg, seriously, you only division be bipod or rest. and what "edge to Palma" are you talking about? The smaller target?

Maybe you do it for the fun of it, but competing side by side on any rest with a 308 vs a 7RSAUM is not competing, yea you may get that one good match, but at the end of the weekend you were just there to round out the field.

The rule as you are writing here would predicate that in order for anyone to be competitive they must shoot what the Open guys are shooting today.

As for the target change. In 2005, before the components were what they are today guys were already shooting clean X-counts. When people are shooting 200-20s more than once a decade something needs to change (hasn't happened yet in Open on the new target, it took until this yr to get the first 200 in F-TR). F-class is not in any way shape or form related to Palma, or Any/Any or Any/Irons HP shooting, we don't compete with Palma. They could be shooting at an 1874 Creedmoor target for all I care. You were shooting in a transitional time when the targets were the same and I'm sure people were comparing scores between the disciplines. It doesn't happen now. F class is a discipline all it's own that operated w/i the HP rules.

My only gripe these days is when we have a small match, like a couple of our recent club mid range matches and the attendance is such that either F-TR or F-Open doesn't have a full field and we get grouped together (its in the rules). I shot a Palma match and shot Clean at 800/900 and dropped 6 at 1000 and lost to an Open gun that dropped 3 points total. I've shot in two mid range matches this yr where the "winner" was an open shooter and all F class was grouped together, in one of those I shot the high score of the 5 F-TR shooters and out shot one of the two Open guns. I don't ever see them group Service Rifle with Palma.

In any case, it's too bad your initial experience was so negative. I've been participating and competing for three yrs now, have been to two Nationals, a Worlds and the first F class event at the Camp Perry Long range matches, shot in 3 State championships, several regionals. I've had great fun and met great people both sling and F'rs. F class is growing, as opposed to the rest of HP that is declining.

 

[Denys]

Denys, it's funny how many opinions about F-TR don't stand up to a reading of the rules.

Wade, you are so correct.

 

[DropinLead]

We all know unmodified rifles makes zero sense but if F T/R matches are for target rifles firing unmodified 223 and 308 "cartridges", no doubt this is what they meant, then is turning and sizing the brass them not modifying them?

 

[damoncali]

I shoot midrange (600) because that is what my local range has. I've discovered that open is just too easy at that range. You need a 595-598 to consistently win even the local club matches, where a 580-585 will do it in TR. There's a lot more shooter and a lot less gun in your score with TR and that's due almost entirely to the .308 restriction. I still shoot open with my repurposed AROS sling gun, but that's only because I have to save up some cash for a proper TR rifle.

I don't shoot 1000 yard matches (because they aren't local), but I imagine a similar issue, except 6mmBR's and XC's get replaced with .284's and 7 SAUMs. No thanks.

This is why I'm bothered by attempts to overtax the .308 with single use brass and potentially dangerous pressures. I would love to see TR shooters agree to use only SAAMI pressures and save the experimentation and limit pushing for open class, not that such a thing is enforceable. But a general agreement would be nice. Perhaps that's a pipe dream.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

No, the edge is that if one wants to shoot bipod, they are forced by the rules to use only two (the Palma) chamberings. Thus Palma shooters get a class that's tailored specifically to suit their traditional implements.

They've already proven they have nothing to fear from the Open chamberings by beating Open to that perfect 200-20x score. So what's the big deal about eliminating the chambering restrictions? I see no problem there, just maybe some petty turf issues insisting that bipods and Palma chamberings are so obviously inseparable. Back before, F Class was about runnin' what ya brung, and using the venue as a harmless intro to competitive shooting, about the only one around. Now, that exists nowhere. Bravo, NRA...

competing side by side on any rest with a 308 vs a 7RSAUM is not competing

Never said anything like that. In fact, that's precisely what is already happening in F Open, on rests. When you're telling me so I'm wrong, at least have the presence of mind to get your arguments straight.

As for the target change. In 2005, before the components were what they are today guys were already shooting clean X-counts.

I know that, I knew that then. I had suggested back then that a 1/2MOA XX paster be stuck in the center of the existing X ring, but noooo, that had to be altered to be pretty much a whole new target. Breaks ties, leaves the rest of the scores open to natural causes. Nobody disputes that F Class rifles shoot well enough to get a perfect score. The only real problem was breaking the ties.

But I'm apparently still getting treatment by those who just LOVE the current setup. I knew going into this discussion that I was going have to face a pile-on, good to see my expectations weren't off by much. Or:

Wade, you are so correct.

In any case, it's too bad your initial experience was so negative.

Too bad it was so negative?

Call it what it was, the most outrageously blatant example of bad sportsmanship I have ever, or probably ever will, witness in a National level rifle competition. It was despicable, it was the sort of harassment that gets NFL players suspended indefinitely. Pooh pooh it all you want, I'm never going back for more.

I made the first mistake here, by thinking this was a forum that's open to dissent. What I got with this post is what I've always gotten with such posts; a pile-on clusterf*ck. I apologize to the forum for the thread hijack, and hope this simmers down and allows the original topic to get the attention it rightly deserves. If others still want to pick at this old bone, I can't help that, but I will be honestly trying not to participate further. If anyone wants to argue this further, I don't.

Greg

 

[6Dasher]

Damon,

That is where ICFRA (and NRA?) falls short. They once split F-Class into Open en TR, but have since not laid out a plan for this TR class as to what the goal is, or made an attempt to protect it. Hence it is turning into another "arms race" where $ talks and all else walks. It is indeed no longer an entry-level class, so it overtook itself along the way.

Cheaters will always cheat, that is not the issue, you'l always have those who try to outside the rules in order to have any chance at all to win. F/Standard class is going back to the roots and attempting to make right was was abandoned right after 2005 after it was conceived. If you make a class for TR rifles, then you must also make clear in the rules what the intent of that special class is and that it must be protected from itself, otherwise there is not much point to having a special class if you allow it to go rabid liek they did F/TR.

The comparisson was made that shooting a 308 vs a 7SAUM was not in the same league. Yet I would also like to point out that shootig a 6BR vs a 7SAUM is not in the same league, yet they are both Open class. NB: a .222Rem shooter will also find himself in the Open class. There is a new wave of calibers coming up with 300WSM, 300 Norma, 7mm Yogi, 7mm Blazer, 300 Blazer etc, pushing the envelope even further and costing even more. A beefed up 308 is on par with, or better than, a 6BR, yet the BR has to shoot in Open. If TR is not meant to be entry level (originally) and protect the 223/308 shooters, than why is it there?

As for the chamber specs, I was indeed referring to the ICFRA (international) rules, not the NRA rules. As I don't shoot in the US I have nothing to do with those rules and do not know them to be honest. I am on the ICFRA F-Class Committee for our country, so do have some insight on ICFRA rules (and as some are throwing credentials around to make an impression; I've been shooting F since 2004).

The subject of standard CIP dimensions was brought up and voted to change the rule to only reflect the case side (like the NRA rule), so indeed freeing the choice for leade dimensions and twist rate. Some members mentioned that they shot other 308 chamber dimensions in past FCWCs, this was never enforced or action taken to DQ after the fact. So making rules, enforcing them or making sure they make sense seems only a secondary objective. Some rules are not made with insight or looking ahead, just blocking single things in the now and not seeing what affects this will have in the future and where it might be headed.

During the last 8 years I've also been involved in creating a new 100m prone discipline which has also split into two catagories that basically follow the F-Class Open en TR rules for caliber and weight. Yet we have made it clear what the goal for the TR class was and are activly protecting it in order not to have it turn into a monster like Open. Rules are needed, but only thought out rules will work. Simpler rules tend to work better and are more managable, singling out single instances will only create a chaotic set of rules as they only target a single specific item and in the end will not accomplish what you wanted to begin with.

I can live with the fact that F-Class goes into a no-holds-barred F1 style shooting, where innovation is indeed allowed and encouraged. But some rules run contrary to this and explanations from some parties try to work both sides when it agrees with them. Either cost is an issue, or it is not. It should not be used on one hand and dismissed on another. Hence the duality in the rules and no clear line to follow imho, and the current situation with F/TR. If you already have a full TR rig then you will not mind, but the beginning shooter with his old Musgrave TR of Remmy 700 with SS 10x42 and harris will stand a snowballs chance in hell of making any kind of dent in the roster.

 

[damoncali]

I think there's another layer here as well. We've all heard jokes that F class is prone benchrest. Benchrest is a game where the equipment is disproportionatly important when you compare it to something like XC high power. There is no point in shooting benchrest at all without a very sophisticated rifle.

High power attracted me because it's more about shooting than fiddling. The ability to have a sport where you can shoot prone with a scope and have it be mostly about the shooter is appealing. But F Open is pushing that to the point where it's getting to be more and more about the rifle. If you need a 598 to win a midrange match, maybe the targets are too big. But they're already pretty damn small. If you make them smaller, then the inherent accuracy of the rifle comes into play. It's no longer ok to show up with a consistent 1/2 MOA rifle. You need a 1/3 MOA rifle or a 1/4 MOA rifle. Then you're into benchrest equipment territory.

TR at least in theory keeps the game about the shooter - if the boundaries of the .308 are respected. You can spend all you want on a TR rifle and bring one that shoots 0.1 MOA and you'll only have a very slight advantage over they guy with the 1/2 MOA rifle. That is why F Class is appealing to me. It's not because it's cheaper (although it's nice to not have to pay extra for the big rounds). I don't care about that. I just want it to be a shooter first endeavor.

And frankly, some of what is being done with .308's strikes me as foolish. Pushing pressures like that is certainly with the limits of engineering, but it's also in the territory where one must know precisely what the hell one is doing or it can get very dangerous. We don't want the barrel to be the component that fails first.

 

[Denys]

No, the edge is that if one wants to shoot bipod, they are forced by the rules to use only two (the Palma) chamberings. Thus Palma shooters get a class that's tailored specifically to suit their traditional implements.

You can shoot F-Open with a bipod.

I know that, I knew that then. I had suggested back then that a 1/2MOA XX paster be stuck in the center of the existing X ring, but noooo, that had to be altered to be pretty much a whole new target. Breaks ties, leaves the rest of the scores open to natural causes. Nobody disputes that F Class rifles shoot well enough to get a perfect score. The only real problem was breaking the ties.

It would still be useless because the score would be 200-?X for every one who was shooting halfway decently. Kinda stupid to set the bar that high right away.

But I'm apparently still getting treatment by those who just LOVE the current setup. I knew going into this discussion that I was going have to face a pile-on, good to see my expectations weren't off by much. Or:

Wade, you are so correct.

My short response to Wade was about his comment on arguments falling apart when rules are consulted. I was answering on my Smartphone and did not see his other response until after I posted my short one. I shall fix that.

 

[Denys]

We all know unmodified rifles makes zero sense but if F T/R matches are for target rifles firing unmodified 223 and 308 "cartridges", no doubt this is what they meant, then is turning and sizing the brass them not modifying them?

Modifying a cartridge case would be to change the shoulder angle or such a things as an Ackley Improvement. To my mind, if your prepped case does not fit in a standard .223Rem/5.56NATO or .308Win/7.62NATO guage, it's been modified.

 

[Denys]

Damon,

That is where ICFRA (and NRA?) falls short. They once split F-Class into Open en TR, but have since not laid out a plan for this TR class as to what the goal is, or made an attempt to protect it. Hence it is turning into another "arms race" where $ talks and all else walks. It is indeed no longer an entry-level class, so it overtook itself along the way.

Once again, F-TR was NEVER designed or meant to be an "entry-level class," please stop posting that canard, it only make you look foolish.

Cheaters will always cheat, that is not the issue, you'l always have those who try to outside the rules in order to have any chance at all to win. F/Standard class is going back to the roots and attempting to make right was was abandoned right after 2005 after it was conceived. If you make a class for TR rifles, then you must also make clear in the rules what the intent of that special class is and that it must be protected from itself, otherwise there is not much point to having a special class if you allow it to go rabid liek they did F/TR.

The comparisson was made that shooting a 308 vs a 7SAUM was not in the same league. Yet I would also like to point out that shootig a 6BR vs a 7SAUM is not in the same league, yet they are both Open class. NB: a .222Rem shooter will also find himself in the Open class. There is a new wave of calibers coming up with 300WSM, 300 Norma, 7mm Yogi, 7mm Blazer, 300 Blazer etc, pushing the envelope even further and costing even more. A beefed up 308 is on par with, or better than, a 6BR, yet the BR has to shoot in Open. If TR is not meant to be entry level (originally) and protect the 223/308 shooters, than why is it there?

Simple answer, whereas F-Open is dominated by proper ($$$) equipment choices with caliber being the main concern, F-TR is always limited by the marksmanship of someone driving a .224 or .308 bullet fired in a conventional case, to a target 1000 yards away. I can assure you that a top notch shooter with a .308 will usually shoot better than a merely competent shooter, also shooting a .308.

As for the chamber specs, I was indeed referring to the ICFRA (international) rules, not the NRA rules. As I don't shoot in the US I have nothing to do with those rules and do not know them to be honest. I am on the ICFRA F-Class Committee for our country, so do have some insight on ICFRA rules (and as some are throwing credentials around to make an impression; I've been shooting F since 2004).

I figured it correctly.

The subject of standard CIP dimensions was brought up and voted to change the rule to only reflect the case side (like the NRA rule), so indeed freeing the choice for leade dimensions and twist rate. Some members mentioned that they shot other 308 chamber dimensions in past FCWCs, this was never enforced or action taken to DQ after the fact. So making rules, enforcing them or making sure they make sense seems only a secondary objective. Some rules are not made with insight or looking ahead, just blocking single things in the now and not seeing what affects this will have in the future and where it might be headed.

So you agree that I was correct there also; the case is the thing.

During the last 8 years I've also been involved in creating a new 100m prone discipline which has also split into two catagories that basically follow the F-Class Open en TR rules for caliber and weight. Yet we have made it clear what the goal for the TR class was and are activly protecting it in order not to have it turn into a monster like Open. Rules are needed, but only thought out rules will work. Simpler rules tend to work better and are more managable, singling out single instances will only create a chaotic set of rules as they only target a single specific item and in the end will not accomplish what you wanted to begin with.

I can live with the fact that F-Class goes into a no-holds-barred F1 style shooting, where innovation is indeed allowed and encouraged. But some rules run contrary to this and explanations from some parties try to work both sides when it agrees with them. Either cost is an issue, or it is not. It should not be used on one hand and dismissed on another. Hence the duality in the rules and no clear line to follow imho, and the current situation with F/TR. If you already have a full TR rig then you will not mind, but the beginning shooter with his old Musgrave TR of Remmy 700 with SS 10x42 and harris will stand a snowballs chance in hell of making any kind of dent in the roster.

So, you are saying that every one should come shooting 1000 yards with 24 inch barrels and 168gr SMKs? Good luck with that.

In the USA, we use a classification system that allows beginners and people obsessed with shooting "tactical" type rifles to actually win their classification. The ones who are more serious about doing well in F-TR will get equipment adequate for the discipline and learn to shoot.

 

[XTR]

Greg, you do realize that since at least 2004 F class has had it's own championship without any slingers?

They've already proven they have nothing to fear from the Open chamberings by beating Open to that perfect 200-20x score. So what's the big deal about eliminating the chambering restrictions?

Who is "they" in this statement? And have you seen anyone shoot a 1800-60 in what ever class to which you are referring? I believe Larry B did that in Open before the target changed. I think you are still referring to sling shooters?

I see no problem there, just maybe some petty turf issues insisting that bipods and Palma chamberings are so obviously inseparable. Back before, F Class was about runnin' what ya brung, and using the venue as a harmless intro to competitive shooting, about the only one around. Now, that exists nowhere. Bravo, NRA...

This is very confusing to me. I shoot long range F-TR, if you are implying that shooting a 7RSAUM off of a bipod has no advantage over a 308 you are quite daft. Run what you brung is fine, you are participating, and at some level competing, but at the top of any competitive endeavor you have to get good equipment. How is anything we do today "harmful" as opposed to your stated "harmless".

As to shooting perfect scores, I'll say again, who gives a rats ass what sling shooters score compared to F class? What they do is different. If I had a 2MOA 10 ring have a couple of weekends perfect for the entire weekend. Yes, I've had a few weekends with no 8s. I don't care if they reduce the target again to a ¼ MOA X-Ring and a ½ MOA 10-ring as long as all of the F-class shooters on the line are shooting the same target it doesn't matter.

I made the first mistake here, by thinking this was a forum that's open to dissent. What I got with this post is what I've always gotten with such posts; a pile-on clusterf*ck.

Gimme a break, if you have a dissenting opinion then by definition others responses will not agree with you. That is what dissent is.


6dasher, you are reading too much online and not spending enough time on the range. I don't know anyone regularly shooting brass that they throw out after one shot. I did it doing load work. It was a mistake. I don't think Nik Taylor was throwing his brass out, Russell Simmons finished 2nd in the worlds by a point shooting 155s and using a Sightron scope. Lots of folks who are not at the top try to find ways to buy points. The get obsessed with doing what so-and-so does. If you can't read wind none of it will get you out of the back of the pack.

I have repeatedly advised new shooters to eschew high priced Berger bullets and buy Hornady or Sierras for pracitce and club matches, because the difference is smaller than any of us can hold, Yes if you are living around the 10 ring the extra ½ inch or inch may buy you a point if you are playing at the top of the game, but for most shooters, they are just throwing an extra 25¢ a shot down range for no real benefit.

Sure, "the beginning shooter with his old Musgrave TR of Remmy 700 with SS 10x42 and harris will stand a snowballs chance in hell of making any kind of dent in the roster", but I'll bet you your bar tab after the match that if I gave that same beginner my full up custom F-TR rifle and my loads and I shot his rifle I would probably drop a few extra points, but he'd finish in pretty much the same place over all. And after he goes to a few matches you think maybe he'll want to quit or improve his equipment.

 

[DropinLead]

In the USA, we use a classification system that allows beginners and people obsessed with shooting "tactical" type rifles to actually win their classification. The ones who are more serious about doing well in F-TR will get equipment adequate for the discipline and learn to shoot.

Heeey, I resemble that remark. But I only shoot 300 yds. We'll see how I do. Even making my own bipod. Too bad mionopods are not allowed, you should see mine.

In all seruiousnes. this thread has a TON of great infpo in it. I learn real info more from this forum section in 1 week than I do in all the other sections of this forum in 6 months.

 

[Denys]

Heeey, I resemble that remark. But I only shoot 300 yds. We'll see how I do. Even making my own bipod. Too bad mionopods are not allowed, you should see mine.

In all seruiousnes. this thread has a TON of great infpo in it. I learn real info more from this forum section in 1 week than I do in all the other sections of this forum in 6 months.

I'm not sure what a mionopod is and I think it way be a good thing I can't see yours.

Just remember that the X-ring is 1.42 inch in diameter at 300 yards.