F T/R Competition F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Darrell

Thanks for the response. Agreed; I'm not sure how palatable the bullet pulling will be here in the states.

The alternative of COAL limitation eliminates the need to pull anything apart and can be done quickly to every competitor. If a limitation of some sort is imposed, COAL looks, at least from this discussion, like the easiest and fastest to administer.

Jeffvn
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Sure, next let's vote on three more things...

...and then what, alter the class in three more ways to suit the ephemeral wave of public opinion? I think not.

I started in F Class because I liked the original idea. Farky was, simply, a genius.

Then, lesser mortals decided it needed improving. I was one of those first folks who got 'Riffed' by the changed rules. I left. I left because the playing field refused to remain stable, predictable, and was just about never changing toward anything like my idea of what F Class was supposed to be, according to Farky.

I.e. I was shooting the .260 from a bipod among other bipod shooters. The 'other' side was rests, also any chambering. Then; if I wanted to shoot bipod among other bipod shooters, I had to rebarrel in .223 (Duh!) or .308 (almost as Duh!). Thanks, but no thanks.

IMHO, when you mess with a good thing, better is not what you get. But there's always some genius with a better idea. So I did an elective early flunk-out, to avoid the June rush...

You want to know why it's getting harder to get a decent turnout? Change it again and find out.

Oh, here's a question. What did Farky have to say on the subject?

Better yet, if you want to change it and see how it affects turnout, try something truly radical. Go back to the original concept, as envisioned by Farky.

Never happen....

We had a good thing. Now...

What we are observing, in slow motion, is how a good thing goes bad.

But again, nobody needs to listen to me, I'm just another of those hapless Neaderthals, mired in the past, unable to accommodate change.

Just ask anybody...

Greg
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sapper524</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Good info on the 223 slow fire OAL ... heaviest I shoot is 77g and I load all my rounds to mag length(s) be it 308 or 223. Now, with that said, I understand why guys load so long in chasing accuracy. Isn't that what Open is for though? Keeping the OALs short and near factory/SAMMI with normal rifle specs is what F-TR should be IMO. Keep the equipment race in Open. </div></div>

Since you use strictly maglength bullets, I suspect you have never shot LR F-class. The 77SMK does not get to 1000 yards supersonically at sea level out of a .223. As for a 308, the shorter bullets that would fit loaded in a magazine would be iffy at best at that distance, even without considering the accuracy issue that Monte brought up.

It's one thing to think of limiting what some may perceive as going "too far", whatever that means, but it's another to simply render the discipline impossible and even dangerous.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Newb here as I have attended only ONE match, ever....so FWIW:

What interests me about FTR is that it's not a rich man's game. Meaning you can have all the money in the world with the most tricked out (throated, yada yada yada) and expensive rifle but if you can't read the wind and just plain shoot, you will never be competitive, even with the heavies going fast.
I like to see all of the bullet/brass/powder/prime/barrel etc combinations people put together that work. I like that time spent at the reloading bench and at the practice range fine-tuning are what seem to really pay off versus just spending money at the gunsmith.

When I look at the top shooters (some I have shot with, others I have spoken to) I don't see filthy rich people that bought their way to the top of the ranks; I see average, hard working people that paid their dues, were once right where I am today and spent countless hours reloading & shooting to get where they are now. As I have said before, they are where they are because they are GOOD. These same guys have always gone out of their way to help me out when I asked a question...that in itself is amazing as I come from a drag racing world and things are the complete opposite in that arena.

My first and only match, I obviously didn't win but I wasn't the lowest score either, close though lol. I don't have to win or be in the top 10 to want to come back out..I had a blast. As long as I am showing improvement (both with loads and shooting) and able to compete with other friendly shooters of the same skill level, that's all that matters to me.

Ok sorry for the rant. I vote to keep the rules as they are, let people experiment and do what they wish (within the current rules) and don't penalize the people that have spent and are spending the time to get these heavies to work. I find it fascinating to see just how far the .308 can be pushed.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

J-Rod. That was a great post.

As I explained earlier, because I'm this year's LR match director at the club, I get calls from people who have heard about us and want to come out and try to shoot at 1000 yards.

They usually come out with a .308 and most times with factory ammo from work or that they bought, loaded with 175gr SMKs. They have no expectation or even desire to win; they just want to try out and see what it's like. They get to meet shooters and they ask lots of questions and many take notes. Some never come back, but most do and they learn and they persevere and get better. They see what works and what the top shooters are using. We have all manners of F-T/R rifles on the line, with the Savage F-T/R decently represented.

Some of the new guys take note of my current rig, which is about as cheap as you can get, and they see me do pretty well with it. They realize it's more about the shooter than the equipment and many are eager to start the journey. Our F-T/R contingent fluctuates depending on the season (we shoot year round, but it's HOT in the summer,) but it has been steadily growing. (I remember when I was the only one and had to compete with the F-Openers all the time.)


Also, I would like to thank Darrell for starting a great thread. I fully understand his concerns and I believe having this discussion now, on our terms, so to speak, will go a long way to control the situation if required to do so in the future.

The arguments for and against presented here and in other fora are, I am sure, exactly what Darrell was hoping to get.

Well done, Darrell. Thanks again.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

I don't see the positive side of adding any new rules. As far as I know, there haven't been any perfect scores in F-T/R at 600 or 1000. When 200-20X becomes the norm, I think we could have this discussion, but I don't think that will ever happen with a 223 or 308.

If this rule is implemented, it will show that we are headed down the wrong path. There will be more restrictions within a few years and it will choke the growth of F-T/R.

It is a game like any other shooting sport and those who put in the time and resources will be on top. Saying that restrictions will encourage more new shooters is a fallacy. No new shooter will ever be competitive right out of the gate. Equipment is not the largest factor in good scores and unless we all get this in our heads, the restrictions will continue until we all are shooting the same rifle with factory ammo.

I am also strongly against the idea of a limited overall length. This is the same thing as limiting weight, because it would be impractical to shoot heavier bullets that take up case capacity. I am currently a 155 shooter, but I don't want to be regulated to any weight.

The only reason I believe we are seeing support for the overall length restriction is that is enforceable and the lesser evil of two choices. When you want $10 and give someone the choice of giving you $10 or $20, you will get $10 everytime. I am seeing the results in the polls on 3 different forums and it looks like most are against any restrictions. Lets leave the rules alone and allow F-Class to continue being the fastest growing shooting sport.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You want to know why it's getting harder to get a decent turnout? Change it again and find out.
</div></div>

It's actually not. Attendance numbers, looking at Nationals as a guide, have never been higher; increasing greatly nearly every year. This discussion is simply to bring up a development that may limit that at some point in the future.

As regards multiple rule changes, F-T/R rules haven't changed beyond a word or two of clarification since the class was introduced 8 odd years ago.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Denys</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Also, I would like to thank Darrell for starting a great thread. I fully understand his concerns and I believe having this discussion now, on our terms, so to speak, will go a long way to control the situation if required to do so in the future.

The arguments for and against presented here and in other fora are, I am sure, exactly what Darrell was hoping to get.

Well done, Darrell. Thanks again. </div></div>


Denys, you are absolutely correct, the *reasoned*, *civil* arguments are PRECISELY what I was looking for. Maybe the rule needs to be changed, maybe it doesn't. What's clear to me though is that it's past time we stopped sitting around and bitching when rule changes are foisted upon us from the ivory towers, and started being proactive... well ahead of time.

ANY potential rule changes should have had a good long airing in the group of shooters that will be affected by them, and honestly, the petition for a rule change should come from the shooters. If it turns out that the general feeling <span style="font-weight: bold">of the shooters that shoot the class</span> is against the notion of a bullet weight limit, well, you won't see me submit it.

Good shooting,

Darrell
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

the price of bullets in not a not a great cost $3000 scopes $1200 for stocks and the rest makes $100 bullets seem cheap to me what will limet me is changing the rules and have to by a different gun and scope because someone does not think it is fair
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Denys</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sapper524</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Good info on the 223 slow fire OAL ... heaviest I shoot is 77g and I load all my rounds to mag length(s) be it 308 or 223. Now, with that said, I understand why guys load so long in chasing accuracy. Isn't that what Open is for though? Keeping the OALs short and near factory/SAMMI with normal rifle specs is what F-TR should be IMO. Keep the equipment race in Open. </div></div>

Since you use strictly maglength bullets, I suspect you have never shot LR F-class. The 77SMK does not get to 1000 yards supersonically at sea level out of a .223. As for a 308, the shorter bullets that would fit loaded in a magazine would be iffy at best at that distance, even without considering the accuracy issue that Monte brought up.

It's one thing to think of limiting what some may perceive as going "too far", whatever that means, but it's another to simply render the discipline impossible and even dangerous. </div></div>

I only shoot the 800/900/1000 matches ... and I do it with 175 SMKs. I hold my own and really could care less if someone with a 30 inch deep throat puts up a higher score. I go to get time on the 1000 yard line with someone marking targets for me to improve my wind game.

rendering the discipline impossible? hardly ... I know the rules will never be changed in a way to take the gamers off the line. Someone will always try to find a way around the rules to get an advantage. Inovation of sorts is a good thing and leads to progress for the sport, but IMO belongs in the OPEN class. I know this is a pipe dream, but its the way I see it.

Open = Extreme / wildcats / whatever... so if your chambering and loading way out of spec ... its not a 223 or 308 anymore (IMO). By definition its a grey area. So from my point of view ... this puts you in the OPEN class.

TR in 308 and 223 was intended to be the stock class with the 223 being used at the 600 and shorter ranges and the 308 for the longer ranges. Lighter rifles with no belly benchrest tools. Am I off base here?
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sapper524</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
TR in 308 and 223 was intended to be the stock class with the 223 being used at the 600 and shorter ranges and the 308 for the longer ranges. Lighter rifles with no belly benchrest tools. Am I off base here?
</div></div>

F/TR derived from TR aka 'Target Rifle', which in Fullbore is roughly analogous to our 'Palma' Rifle - i.e. single-shot, long barrel, adjustable / target stock, etc. As such a Palma rifle bears little to no resemblance to either a tactical rifle, nor any sort of 'stock' rifle (excepting a Savage 12 Palma), so as far as I know... no.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Yes, you are off base. It is not possible to get to 1000 yards supersonically with a maglength .223 with any load that is safe (or even unsafe.) So, if we followed your rule, that would take out everybody who uses .223 at F-T/R LR.

Does that make you happier?
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gstaylorg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lets be clear here. Anyone one of us who competes at the top levels could shoot anything we want so its not about us. Most of us are sponsored by one or more factories/builders who will build anything we like.

Its about making sure the sport grows and is fair for all levels of competitors. As the Captain/Darrel and Vice Captain/Me of the F TR Team we have a responsibility to all not just our self interest.

<span style="color: #FF0000">So I ask what is better to attract new shooters and make it fair to all. Limit what you can shoot or jump into a rifle version of Nascar?</span> </div></div>

Tactical,

I want to make it clear that I certainly intend no disrespect to yourself or anyone else that is skilled enough to compete at the highest level. The point I'm trying to bring out in this discussion is that the average competitor in local F-Class events is not shooting any uber-heavy load out of a 32" barrel. I regularly participate in F-Class (F-T/R) shoots in both Omaha, NE and San Diego, CA. I have spoken with most of the F-T/R competitors at these events, and I have yet to hear that anyone is using anything over a 190 gr load out of a pretty typical factory rifle. I'm perfectly willing to admit that these two localities are a pretty small sample size, but I haven't seen much in shooting forums about the average F-T/R competitor going this route either. So I'm simply asking you and Darrel and others that participate at the highest shooting level to carefully consider the notion that heavy projectiles and long barrels really don't seem to be a problem at the local level, prior to making any recommendations for a permanent rule change. I'm pointing this out here because, in all likelihood, you all are the individuals whose word will ultimately carry the most weight in the decision making process, which I believe was the purpose for bringing this topic up in an open forum.

As I stated previously, I think leaving things alone would probably be the best, but I really don't think capping the load limit at 201 gr would be that big of a deal, either. It's the discussion of going to 156 gr for everyone that really got my attention. I have shot with a number of first time shooters that got into F-T/R because they already had a rifle that fit the qualifications, so they picked up some match grade ammo at Cabelas and went out to compete and have some fun. These people aren't likely to load up a $5000.00+ rig with 230 gr bullets. In fact as I alluded to above, I'm unsure exactly where people are doing that, but I suspect it's at a much higher level than the average competitor participates. I also want what is best for the sport as a whole, and I believe that allowing potential F-T/R participants to show up at their local match with their Remmy 700 and some FGMM 175s is what will attract the most new shooters to this sport, rather than telling them they can only shoot this specific ammo. In any event, sorry for the rant and again, not trying to step on any toes, but I've said my piece, so I'll shut up now. </div></div>

Brother, I took no offense at anything you said. We are just a group of shooters discussing a potential problem and possible sollutions. It is all good
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Denys</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, you are off base. It is not possible to get to 1000 yards supersonically with a maglength .223 with any load that is safe (or even unsafe.) So, if we followed your rule, that would take out everybody who uses .223 at F-T/R LR.

Does that make you happier? </div></div>

I never said I wanted mag length ammo as a "rule" ... I said ... that is what I do. You didn't like my proposed COAL ... thats cool. Thats your opinion and what this discussion is all about. As for shooting a 223 to 1000 with mag length ammo ... I do it with factory 77g HSM ammo often. Maybe ill shoot a match with it just for shits an giggles.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Denys</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let us know how that works out for you. </div></div>

No prob ... Ill bring a rifle with a big offensive brake on it as well !!!
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sapper524</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No prob ... Ill bring a rifle with a big offensive brake on it as well !!!
</div></div>

It's <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">possible</span></span> to make a .223 brake big and offensive?!?
grin.gif
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Darrell Buell</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sapper524</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No prob ... Ill bring a rifle with a big offensive brake on it as well !!!
</div></div>

It's <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">possible</span></span> to make a .223 brake big and offensive?!?
grin.gif
</div></div>

We both know ... If it had a brake, and it <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">looked</span></span> mean and loud, even it it was on a 22LR ... someone would have kittens.

But on a serious note ... the gamers and envelope pushers will be against restrictions/rules ... and the guys who want a stock style class will be for them. Hence the discussion. I have made my point of view known ... Some will agree some won't.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

i can shoot a 223 at 1000 yds all day on COD4
On a serious note, I can appreciate what Darrel is doing but i don't think the bullet weight is the biggest issue here, those giant, cumbersome, ungainly, overstabilizing bipods are more like it.
cheers.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Restricting bullet weight on paper targets is a bad idea. You already limit it to 223 and 308.

Why make it hard for someone to play the game?
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

(I am one of those evil position shooters, so I am an outsider who doesn't matter...but this thread gave me enough entertainment this afternoon while waiting for fish to bite...but I will entertain the idea anyway.)
<span style="font-weight: bold">
The Problem (Or Maybe Not)</span>
1.a
Darrel, and others are concerned about FTR becoming a cartridge/barrel game in a few years, where in order to be competitve at the highest level, it requires that shooters run a special heavy bullet rifle for LR, and a medium bullet rifle for mid-range. Or something along those lines. The possibility of this situation could have the potential to make F/TR daunting for a new competitor who wants to advance, but is informed by winning shooters that two rifles and uber-heavy bullets loaded to over 3 inches are a decisive advantage.

1.b
The counterpoint to this is that anyone that is capable of winning at the highest level is not going to care as much about cost of the rifle and projectile in the larger picture when compared to the overall cost of match fees, powder, travel, and anything else you can think of. And regardless of the rules, the best shooter is always going to rise to the top.

<span style="font-weight: bold">The Solution</span>
2.a
Among current F/TR shooters imposing some sort of weight limit is an unpopular option as of right now, because the new bullets have not proven themselves in competition. The best bet is to wait and see what happens with them. Most do not think that the uber-heavies are going to make a signficant difference. As it is, the unlimited bullet rule should stay as it is.

2.b
The most obvious solution to increase the appeal of F-Class is to create a 'Tactical/Practical/Varmint' class. Why? Because there are a lot more shooters that already have a tactical or varmint rifle of some sort, and would like to shoot it at distance. Believe it or not, there are those that turn their noses up to the "impractical" contraptions that are used in F/TR.

A new TPV class should have unrestricted caliber to maximize initial participation and interest at first. Make it so any of the tacticool kids can come out and play without having to conform to mundane rules. Once there is an established pool of shooters, it could be a good option to split it into TPV-Open and TPV-Limited (.308/.223)

TPV should have a limited rifle weight, barrel length, bipod, optic power, and ammo length. (26 inches bbl length, 13.5 pound rifle, folding bipod, 10-power magnification*, and cartridges have to be fed from the magazine, and no short action calibers loaded in long-actions for example) That would create another playing field that would appeal to entry-level shooters, and rifles in this class would more or less resemble rifles that are practical field pieces, and not 'belly-benchrest' rifles.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Oh good Lord, just what we need; another class.

I can tell you how that will go over; not well.

The first they will realise is that the targets are too small and they will demand to use the regular high power targets. F-class is not geared to tactical rifles. Beyond the precision required and the distances involved there is the (not so) small thing as the number of shots over a short period of time. Guess what happens with many tactical-size barrels after 5 or 6 shots in a few minutes? Then continue for 15+ more rounds.

Lets leave well enough alone.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

I do not envy Darrell his job. Do, don't; danged either way.

I think the basic concept of the F T/R is flawed from the getgo. Putting a Palma rifle on a bipod and giving it a scope simply extends the Palma arms race into F Class. I suppose I could rail against it interminably, but that would be impractical (and futile); it's here to stay.

Good, bad, indifferent; restricting it further yet does not seem to me to bring any practical benefit. If anything, the current lack of a bullet weight cap probably helps assauge some of its Palma inspired weirdness.

Shifting the playing field will almost certainly alter participation. How, I can't say, and I doubt anyone's crystal ball holds that answer.

I think the downside would overshadow the upside. Times are tough for most of us. Change can wait for better days.

Sometimes leaders get antsy, thinking they have to make a difference to be effective. I don't know if that's the case here, I suspect it isn't. But whenever it does apear, I think it does more harm than good. In times like these; simply holding the line, reinforcing the status quo in contrast with the surrounding decay, can be difference enough.

Again, if change is the answer; I still think it can wait for better days.

As I said, F T/R isn't going away. At least leave it alone.

Open is what once constituted the whole of F Class, with there being but one, easily recognizable distinction; Bipods and rests. I thought it worked well, others brought changes. F T/R appeared, the targets diverged from Highpower targets. If you wanted to compete within a bipods only class, you were caliber rstricted. F Class was not scored with Highpower, yet it was deemed that shooting F Class was flawed without the smaller targets, too many ties.

I proposed a second, half sized XX ring target paster for the original Highpower target. It never flew, for reasons I never really got to see.

Today, I reframe the proposal as a transparent XX ring scoring overlay instead of an XX ring target paster. At least it would allow the same basic conventional Highpower target. Ties could be broken without the added expense and pit complexities that employing a completely different F Class target would trigger. F Classers could shoot alongside other Highpower shooters with no separate squadding or other distinctions whatever; instead of enduring their different, 'other' status.

None of this would be impossible today. I think it would simplify the process, and bring all of us Highpwer Shooters back into the same, main fold.

I can't implement this, but others here could.

Greg
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

I like Greg's suggestion and approach.
If the intent is to minimize the cost of equipment to enable new shooters to be competitive, you will chase your tail forever trying to either create a new classification or enforce rules that adhere to that philosophy (NASCARish). The only time I have ever seen this happen with any success was when a Manufacturer showed up with 20 brand new production weapons and 5000rds of the same ammo/lot and all competitors used that equipment...good luck getting Savage/Remington to pony up at all the matches.
I personally think that time/effort would be better spent in training/workshops for the new shooters - bring them up to a higher level rather than restricting those that push the envelope of the rules that already exist. Emphasize the basics - shooting position, consistent hold/cheek pressure, trigger control, follow thru, wind reading, etc. - not the equipment.
It is the competitive nature of everyone to make their gear achieve the best results. I have upgraded 3 times already and I have only been competing for a few years. As your skill level increases so should your equipment....otherwise you stagnate.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

I've seen factory gun formulas come and go here over the past decade. In practice, I don't think they are really workable. I also doubt that A) factory guns are truly generic, and believe that B) shooters are the key factor, regardless of what they are shooting.

I honesty believe that of all the makers, Savage has the best commitment to competitive shooters, and that the idea of a bank of factory rifles could be made to work if the liability issues could be resolved. Good luck with that.

I like the idea of fostering beginners. After considering it for many years and seeing proposals, I just don't think that anyone has (or will) come up with the magic plan.

Tactical addressed the question of numbers at events, and I replied thus:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think one improves the numbers of shooters at the higher levels of competition by investing more recruiting effort at the less stressful end of the competitive spectrum. I believe, personally, that it's more than just an option. One cannot expect participation gains at the top levels without investing one's own time into some sort of tangible grassroots outreach. If we don't, who will? Looking around, I don't see that person anywhere but in a mirror.

That's what STP is doing (and rather successfully, I'll venture), with the FV program our local club runs.

It pits the new shooter against an MOA-consistent to F Class target at a more reasonably acessible local range. It stresses an informal manner that follows a similar course of fire, and allows for an ensemble approach to aid and assist the shooter toward success in a many practical ways as possible. No, repeat no, awards are given; just scores posted where the shooters can find them ASAP afterward online (on this forum under the FV250 label).

The shooter is nurtured into a more enjoyable involvement to competitive shooting, but with the emphasis on gradual improvement rather than vying for top status. They learn at their own pace, with readily available assistance, and 'go for it' whenever they're ready, no peer pressure, and with the full support of their fellow participants.

Success is measured in repeat participation, improving performance, better cognizance of the tasks and routines involved, and some growing insurgence toward simalar programs at neighboring clubs.

I think it's working.

BTW, it's the <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">only</span></span> competitive program our Club runs on a frequent and regular basis. An average good turnout probably runs around a dozen shooters; but perhaps twice as many have appeared on occasion, with women and teens often prominent in the pack. Not at all oddly, the skill sets run the full gamut, and nobody feels either unwelcome or outclassed. The program runs twice each month when the snow isn't obviating a seasonal break. For a local club program, I think it gets full marks.</div></div>

Greg
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Denys</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh good Lord, just what we need; another class.

I can tell you how that will go over; not well.

The first they will realise is that the targets are too small and they will demand to use the regular high power targets. F-class is not geared to tactical rifles. Beyond the precision required and the distances involved there is the (not so) small thing as the number of shots over a short period of time. Guess what happens with many tactical-size barrels after 5 or 6 shots in a few minutes? Then continue for 15+ more rounds.

Lets leave well enough alone. </div></div>

For what its worth, this sounds a lot like the Palma vs Service Rifle stuff. If Camp Perry is any indicator, Service Rifle makes up the bulk of the Highpower sport, and the CMP Games (M1 Garand Match, Vintage Rifle Matches etc) have done more to bring more and more new shooters into the fold than anything else.

Even in *gulp* 3-Gun, I can show up with just about anything and be put into a class that I at least have the potential to be competitive in. I don't have to compete against all the Uber-gamers with their super effecient compensators, and 40gr .223 bullets. The only 3-gun match that I went to still had more competitors than the Leupold Cup at Douglas Ridge.

There should be a way into Long-Range that allows people to bring what they already have and still have a venue to compete in with reasonable chances of success.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

As someone just getting started, I can tell you this without reservation, the only thing I'm looking for is a friendly environment. I just want to learn and hopefully have people around that will answer my questions. It's been 22 years since I attended sniper school and I have been long absent from the range. I've probably forgotten more than I remember.
I have friends and a son interested as well. The key to our involvement will be how enjoyable the experience is, not whether we win or take a butt kicking. I don't know that making it less challenging would be any more fun. Everyone aspires to be the best. Personally, I'd rather be 23rd of 25 than #1 or 2 in some beginner class. I know where I stand that way and where I need to go. I just hope the people winning are gracious enough to impart a little knowledge when asked. That's all most are looking for. If it's friendly and educational people will continue to compete. JMHO.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

forget the bullet weight issue and remove the caliber restriction of TR, keep everything else, it will bring in way more people than not allowing .30 cal bullets over 201 gr.
that way anybody who has a scoped rifle and a bipod can compete without having to build a caliber specific rifle for TR.
cheers.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: attherange</div><div class="ubbcode-body">forget the bullet weight issue and remove the caliber restriction of TR, keep everything else, it will bring in way more people than not allowing .30 cal bullets over 201 gr.
that way anybody who has a scoped rifle and a bipod can compete without having to build a caliber specific rifle for TR.
cheers. </div></div>

Uh...they already can. It's called F-Open. Some people shoot Open with a bipod, just so they can use any caliber they want. You are not <span style="font-style: italic">required</span> to use a front rest in Open and even though you would not be at the top using a bipod at the regional or National level, you can definitely be competitive at the local matches. The F-Open winner at our last 3x1000 match at Camp Pendleton used a bipod. F-T/R was limited to .223 and .308 for a reason. The main thing I like most about F-T/R is trying to get the most out of myself and the most out of a round that is far from optimal for LR shooting.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
None of this would be impossible today. I think it would simplify the process, and <span style="font-weight: bold">bring all of us Highpwer Shooters back into the same, main fold</span>.

I can't implement this, but others here could.

Greg </div></div>

And use the same target? I fail to see how this is desirable in any way, shape or form.

The FC centers already fit over the standard highpower targets. At the club we shoot sling and F-class side by side and oftentimes we may have a slinger pull an F-class target or vice-versa. No big deal.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

I would concur... the existing system works pretty well in terms of target interchangeability. If one target has both sling and F-Class shooters on it, its not that big of a deal to slap a new center on between relays. Certainly less of a PITA, I would think, than expecting people in the pits to juggle a scoring template every few shots. I'd be willing to bet the number of challenges from the line over whether or not the shot was 'in' or 'out' would go up considerably... not something likely to endear F-Class further to the local match directors.

YMMV,

Monte
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

I would like to post from the perspective of the "new shooter" being referred to so often.

My experience started with stock rifles and grew over a couple of years to a custom rig (though not a extremely expensive rifle). My skill has developed in shooting, wind reading,and loading. My first classification was Expert and I never expected to be competitive when I first started mush less win. I knew the only way I would be competitive was to learn more and practice a lot. I never believed there was a magic pill and still don't.

In October 2011 I shot the TN State Championship at MSSA in Memphis and won F/TR ( Since I don't live in TN I couldn't be state champion but was overall high shooter in F/TR. I set two national records (Which still have not been posted by the NRA) and made High Master at that match.

My point for saying all of this is that one of the best parts, to me, about the whole thing is the experimenting I've done with guns, barrels, stocks, triggers, scopes, bullets, powder,...well you get the point. The other best part is the people I have met since I started shooting.

I have seen people who have multiple thousand dollar rigs who don't practice, can't read the wind,or aren't careful loaders AND who aren't competitive. On the other hand, I've seen people who practice a lot, study and practice wind-reading skills, and load really good ammo, who can compete at the top with a stock Savage.

I honestly don't believe the equipment is as much of an issue as most think. I know shooters who shoot 155 SMK's that constantly beat everyone (but they are often talking about their barrels having over 5k rounds on them)and you don't get that good by buying high dollar equipment. I do have one question about the whole thing:

Who are the extremely shortsighted people who think competitive people will just stick with basic equipment, ammo, etc. out of the goodness of their hearts? Any area of any class left unspecified will be manipulated to the nth degree to obtain an advantage over everyone else. My opinion is that F/TR should be left alone and another class created where everyone is forced to compete with all the same gear and ammo. In all seriousness I think this class should be created and compared to F/TR to see which one grows the fastest.

Another question is: We are talking about changing a class that is GROWING? Does that make sense? Do new shooters really expect to be competitive when they start and do they quit when they don't win, or at least finish well? I think this may be coming from somewhere other than "new" shooters. Forget about it and IF the discipline starts to decline THEN make some changes (IF you can show EVIDENCE people are leaving the sport due to it being too much trouble and expense to experiment with the various components. People want to experiment or else they wouldn't do it. Start restricting it and you'll take the fun out of it.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

I think there are bigger issues in ftr than just bullet weight also. Last time I looked down the firing line in a match, not one damn person but me even had their shoulder on the gun. Everybody had bag riders and them big Sinclair lattice looking rest. What the hell happened to a folding bipod and small rear bag, loading the bipod slightly and making a good shot???
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Yes. You're not required to use a front rest in open, but if you want to shoot in a bipods only environment, you're required to shoot a Palma chambering. With respect, if you think bipods and rest shoot the same, you're in a minority.

I respect the views of the team representatives here. If all you're getting out of my posts here is the part about the targets, then I'm fairly sure I'm not making my key points.

So let me rephrase myself. If Farky was still here, would he approve of what's been done with his original concept? That 'F' is his namesake. Would he take the current direction gladly?

That's at the core of what I'm talking about. I recognize that change is inevitible. I think it remains to be seen whether it's wise.

I'm not disputing change, I'm discussing whether the changes that have already been imposed have helped the discipline or served mainly to alienate and marginalize F Class away from the Highpwer mainstream.

When I was introduced to F Class, we shot two shooters to a mound. I was paired with a very nice Palma shooter. We shot the same target. Not identical targets, the same physical target.

It's said it's no trouble to use the paste-ons, but could you see them being used that way? I think not. All you're telling me when you say you can't see the value is that your vision is narrow.

I have tried to engage this subject in a civil and respectful manner. I have tried to be constructive. I have offered my opinions when asked.

I have been alternatively nitpicked and ignored. Rather than accept my opinions along with the rest, they have been offered up for refutation. I have offered my points for all to examine and consider. Nobody has given me the courtesy of a private message as a means of engaging disagreements, it's all been out there for the entire forum to see.

I believe I've done as much as I can to air my views, and that my further participation will only engender more and more disputation as the latest responses have demonstrated. That was never my intention, and I'm retiring from this dialogue before it gets any more pronounced.

Greg
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

With all due respect, I still do not understand what you are striving for, so I must be dim-witted and narrow minded.

The reason for this thread, as I understand it, was to get from current F-T/R competitors a sense of their views on the rules and what the reactions might be if further rules were imposed regarding bullet weight. The reason for a bullet weight limitation was to ostensibly make it easier for new shooters to start in the discipline. I think the idea of limiting the weight out of deference to new shooters has been examined and found to be not required and perhaps even harmful. The poll shows a majority wanting to keep things as they are.

In this bullet weight discussion you talk about transparent overlays of double Xs and express a desire to use the exact same target as the highpower shooters, but you do not explain WHY that is a desirable goal. That is probably the reason why you have been ignored, in my opinion. So when I asked you what your motivation is for wanting to go back to the old target, you consider that nitpicking. Go figure.

As I explained earlier, at the club, slingers and F-classers shoot alongside one another and one can sometimes be found pulling another type of target than what he or she is shooting. Not a big deal. I will go one step further. As a pure F-T/R shooter, I talk with the slingers as well as the F-classers because my rifle and load are equivalent to the ones used by the slingers and my scope, rear rest and targets are the same as the F-openers. I live in both worlds and that makes my vision narrow? Gotcha. Just so you know, the only thing unique to F-T/R is the bipod and as you pointed out that is not the same as, or as good as a rest.

Let me suggest to you the following instead of your transparent double X overlay as a target. Why don’t you propose that everybody use the F-class target instead of your overlays. The aiming black and rings are the same size for the highpower and the F-class targets. The only visible difference is that the F-class target has an extra inner ring (what you can think of as the double X,) and I seriously doubt this ring can be seen by a Palma shooter through his or her sights.

Now you will probably come back and complain that the ring values are not the same, but that is definitely where I just don’t see the point of your harangue. F-class shooters can be more precise because they use rests and optics and I think a lot of slingers would resent competing head to head with F-classers. If that were to happen I would make Master after two matches, if not High Master. And I would not consider that legitimate. So, I just don’t see your point and perhaps instead of just circling around it, you might go directly to it.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

And here we have a case study in the evolution of an unmoderated internet discussion. We started out with a question about a possible bullet weight limitation and have d-evolved to targets, scoring, bipods and explaining to people that TR means Target Rifle not Tactical Rifle.

Darrell, nice try. I think your relating the bullet weight limitation to new shooters was a mistake and what made this go sideways. It allowed people to take the discussion off on tangents.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

My thoughts are factory tactical rifles do not stand a chance in FT/R competitions. I admit I am a fairly novice shooter. I have good shooters to mentor me. With said,my Rem 700 PSS, Harris bipod, good handloads, and Leupold scope will never compete with precision rifles on the line.Some of us can't afford Nightforce scopes, Phoenix bipods.

Is there any difference in bullets and technology around them? As long as there is an edge,the competitors will gravitate, spend, and excel.

My hopes will be a "factory" class one day in F-Class FTR.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Everytime I read this thread, either on this site or the other, I can't help but laugh! Why???? Because just as it's been said so many times..... Get Back on Topic! It's about bullet weight folks. It's not about Scopes, Bipods, Bags or Barrels.....

With that being said, I voted to leave it unlimited. Now, excuse me while I get back out to the range and work on my surprise for everyone.....Some of you spend too much time on these forums.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nora23</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like to post from the perspective of the "new shooter" being referred to so often.

My experience started with stock rifles and grew over a couple of years to a custom rig (though not a extremely expensive rifle). My skill has developed in shooting, wind reading,and loading. My first classification was Expert and I never expected to be competitive when I first started mush less win. I knew the only way I would be competitive was to learn more and practice a lot. I never believed there was a magic pill and still don't.

In October 2011 I shot the TN State Championship at MSSA in Memphis and won F/TR ( Since I don't live in TN I couldn't be state champion but was overall high shooter in F/TR. I set two national records (Which still have not been posted by the NRA) and made High Master at that match.

My point for saying all of this is that one of the best parts, to me, about the whole thing is the experimenting I've done with guns, barrels, stocks, triggers, scopes, bullets, powder,...well you get the point. The other best part is the people I have met since I started shooting.

I have seen people who have multiple thousand dollar rigs who don't practice, can't read the wind,or aren't careful loaders AND who aren't competitive. On the other hand, I've seen people who practice a lot, study and practice wind-reading skills, and load really good ammo, who can compete at the top with a stock Savage.

I honestly don't believe the equipment is as much of an issue as most think. I know shooters who shoot 155 SMK's that constantly beat everyone (but they are often talking about their barrels having over 5k rounds on them)and you don't get that good by buying high dollar equipment. I do have one question about the whole thing:

Who are the extremely shortsighted people who think competitive people will just stick with basic equipment, ammo, etc. out of the goodness of their hearts? Any area of any class left unspecified will be manipulated to the nth degree to obtain an advantage over everyone else. My opinion is that F/TR should be left alone and another class created where everyone is forced to compete with all the same gear and ammo. In all seriousness I think this class should be created and compared to F/TR to see which one grows the fastest.

Another question is: We are talking about changing a class that is GROWING? Does that make sense? Do new shooters really expect to be competitive when they start and do they quit when they don't win, or at least finish well? I think this may be coming from somewhere other than "new" shooters. Forget about it and IF the discipline starts to decline THEN make some changes (IF you can show EVIDENCE people are leaving the sport due to it being too much trouble and expense to experiment with the various components. People want to experiment or else they wouldn't do it. Start restricting it and you'll take the fun out of it. </div></div>

OK when your done patting yourself on your back let us know. We all have a few trophies around the house. The idea that you set a record in another state and did not get credit is nothing new. Wait until you set a World Record and dont get credit in US or the host country. Ask Stan Pate and Monte about that one.

Now onto your rant. Its not about keeping folks from attempting to get an edge its about keeping a 308 and a 223 a 308 and 223. We wanted to find a way to get a grip before F TR went the route of IPSC and the end result looked nothing like it started. Look at a current IPSC pistol and tell me thats a combat pistol. This started so us broken down folks could still compete and on level playing field.

We did not come up with this on our own we came up with this because folks complained about folks cheating to get an edge.

Frankly I vote in the end we do what ever the majority wants and right now I see more pissed at a potential change than want more limits
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Now onto your rant. Its not about keeping folks from attempting to get an edge its about keeping a 308 and a 223 a 308 and 223. We wanted to find a way to get a grip before F TR went the route of IPSC and the end result looked nothing like it started. Look at a current IPSC pistol and tell me thats a combat pistol. This started so us broken down folks could still compete and on level playing field.</div></div>

well said and I agree that this needs consideration. a 3.25 OAL round is not a 308 anymore in my opinion.


 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

No, you made your point. I failed to make mine. The world will continues to spin in greased grooves.

Let's all just cool our jets and enjoy our Fathers' Day. I just got back from our club's FV250 match, and I had a good day.

I hope all yours are good too.

Greg
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

This post has now enjoyed 4 days of voting and spirited discussion at three different sites. For those interested, here is a voting summary for each site, as well as the overall votes.

Slide1-14.jpg
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Darrell, nice try. I think your relating the bullet weight limitation to new shooters was a mistake and what made this go sideways. It allowed people to take the discussion off on tangents.
</div></div>

Actually, this discussion has been very close to what I was after. I got a *massive* interest in a *very* short period of time. That tells me two things; 1. most guys aren't interested in any sort of a bullet weight limit at all, and (perhaps more importantly) 2. there is a *boatload* of interest in F-T/R in general... Never a bad thing!!

I too can see the results of the polls, and generally gstaylorg's tally is correct. There is perhaps a bit of bias to some of them, as a raftload of Palma shooters and F-Open types that will never touch an F-T/R rifle voted, but in general, the 'totals' are valid, and telling. To date, most folks seem uninterested in having any sort of bullet weight limit at all.

Darrell
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: attherange</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so now that we all agree, what is a good load for the 208 gr in a .308 and will they work in a 1-12 twist or should i use a faster twist?? </div></div>

LOL... I'd go with a 1:10 twist.
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

All I can say is If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I for one am sick of folks wanting the rules changed to protect their skill set.
If you want to limit anything, start a new class for factory stock chamber rifles. A factory rifle will not be able to chamber the heavies with enough case volume to make 1K competitively.
It has been a struggle for F-TR class to get any recognition. The NRA still does not seperate the f classes in regional competitions. We need this class to be competitive to the highest level. That also means load and gun development to reach the top.
I may not ever reach the top of this sport, but I don't want to be limited in my eforts to try.
By the way, I have shot more than my share of 155's and like them alot. They made me a better shooter.
Rob
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gstaylorg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This post has now enjoyed 4 days of voting and spirited discussion at three different sites. For those interested, here is a voting summary for each site, as well as the overall votes.

Slide1-14.jpg
</div></div>

I think the vote is a lot closer that those graphs show. 178 voting for some type of cap vs 190 for no cap. How representative is that 368 person sample, and how many of those already shoot >200gr pills? I'm a new F/TR shooter and if I could manage the recoil of a 215/230gr bullet I would use it for fear of getting smoked by it, but then I would have a rifle that I would for most tense and purposes be a single facet tool (and that I wouldn't enjoy shooting). Just my simple minded musings. Very good topic Darrel
 
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

You should definitely cap the limit to 180 grains, and in a few years time when Berger introduce their new .30 cal 210gr XLDVLD Hybrid with a BC of .700 you can watch the rest of the world beat you with your own bullet
smile.gif