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

#51
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeffvn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't vote, since I shoot F-Open.

I believe if they can sling it with a standard .308 case design by stretching the throat, then they ought to be given the opportunity. I understand the "arms race" concerns, but this is a slippery slope issue that will be hard to control.

Jeffvn </div></div>

Why not a separate class for the field guns, then? We can't beat you on points, so why would you care?
 
#52
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: QuietShootr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Is there any reason we can't publish an F-Tac winner at the local level? </div></div>

I can't think of a good reason why not.
 
#53
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">
I am leery of organizational bodies telling participants what's good for the sport. I think it should work in the other direction.
Greg </div></div>

That's the whole purpose of this discussion. The rules haven't been changed since the inception of the class, this discussion is purely about *whether* to change the rules, a point that seems lost on some. There isn't an organizational body in sight, just shooters.

Darrell
 
#54
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: QuietShootr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Is there any reason we can't publish an F-Tac winner at the local level? </div></div>

I can't think of a good reason why not. </div></div>

Well then, I'm going to make it so. Is there any even proposed definition for that class, or are we breaking new ground here?
 
#56
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"><span style="font-weight: bold">With due respect, the rules have been changed plenty, I already think two classes are too many, and that IMHO, F Class should be represented solely by the F Open definition. </span>When I was intro'd to F Class at the 2002 SOA matches in NM, there was one class, F Class, and it was represented by what we now call F Open, shot on the regular NRA 800, 800yd, and 1000yd target, side by side with the Palma shooters.


Greg </div></div>

And I mean no disrespect, but how does that serve not making all of F-class into an arms race? I hear lots of talk about wanting to get new shooters into the sport, and I don't think making F-Open the standard is conducive to that, any more than making all of IPSC into Open class and making the Production shooters compete directly against the Open class would be.
 
#58
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">With due respect, the rules have been changed plenty, I already think two classes are too many, and that IMHO, F Class should be represented solely by the F Open definition.
Greg </div></div>

You misunderstand me, my comment was focused solely on *F-T/R* as a class. Aside from wording changes for clarification, there have been no changes to the F-T/R rules since the inception of the class.

As regards thinking that everyone should shoot F-Open; you're entitled to your opinion, but the massive growth in F-T/R might indicate that others don't share it.

We completely agree about Palma (and the NRA's) reception for F-Class as a whole. We were/(still are in places) treated like the bastard stepchildren (the SOA pops IMMEDIATELY to mind!). They can't argue with our growth though. Most growth in 'Highpower' shooting is coming from F-Class, and generally F-T/R is driving much of that.

Best,

Darrell
 
#59
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Darrell, I don't mean to lock horns with you on this or anything else. I respect your work and support you whatever you do.

My opinion may well be out of step, and I'm fine with that. Just understand that when I first entered F Class, I made a major commitment and I fell totally in love with it. But as time passed, outside influences transformed it into something I have trouble staring across the bed at anymore.

IMHO, it's just an object lesson about how the NRA 'improves' competition. The Palma Shooters do what they do toward F Classers because the folks in their leadership allow it. The NRA marginalizes F Class because the Palma shooters still swing a lot of weight. As hard as the growth of F class may be to ignore, it won't make any difference. I fully expect to die long before any of that changes.

Burnt once, I am shy longterm. I will not waste further effort trying to work for change in competition from within the NRA structure.

Greg
 
#61
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">Darrell, I don't mean to lock horns with you on this or anything else. I respect your work and support you whatever you do.

My opinion may well be out of step, and I'm fine with that. Just understand that when I first entered F Class, I made a major commitment and I fell totally in love with it. But as time passed, outside influences transformed it into something I have trouble staring across the bed at anymore.

IMHO, it's just an object lesson about how the NRA 'improves' competition. The Palma Shooters do what they do toward F Classers because the folks in their leadership allow it. The NRA marginalizes F Class because the Palma shooters still swing a lot of weight. As hard as the growth of F class may be to ignore, it won't make any difference. I fully expect to die long before any of that changes.

Burnt once, I am shy longterm. I will not waste further effort trying to work for change in competition from within the NRA structure.

Greg </div></div>


No problem Greg! As it happens, you are in luck...

Just so I'm very clear, this discussion has NOTHING to do with the NRA. No one there (or anyplace else that I know of) is contemplating any sort of change at all. I bring this up so that *shooters* can debate the relative risks/benefits of a change/no change to the current rules. That way any change (if opinion shows a change should be made at all) will come PURELY from the shooters, not having it imposed on them. Thus the reason for my posting this 1.5 years before any change could even be possible... plenty of debate time
laugh.gif


Best,

Darrell
 
#62
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: QuietShootr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><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: QuietShootr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Is there any reason we can't publish an F-Tac winner at the local level? </div></div>

I can't think of a good reason why not. </div></div>

Well then, I'm going to make it so. Is there any even proposed definition for that class, or are we breaking new ground here? </div></div>

Talk to the guys in Sacramento, they floated the whole concept of an F-Tac class by the NRA a year or so ago. Their primary problem seems to be getting participation nationally.
 
#63
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: QuietShootr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><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: QuietShootr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Is there any reason we can't publish an F-Tac winner at the local level? </div></div>

I can't think of a good reason why not. </div></div>

Well then, I'm going to make it so. Is there any even proposed definition for that class, or are we breaking new ground here? </div></div>

QuietShootr, There is a huge thread on this in this forum. The short version is that there is discussion with the NRA and if you want to discuss that please take it to another thread. There is some fierce disagreement on the proposed rules and it does not need to come into this thread, it is a separate conversation, this is about F-TR and bullet weights.


RE: bullet weights:

I can live with it either way. Personally I think I'd rather see a 201 limit, though in my mind it's not "fairness to all" or "making new shooters competitive".
I don't think shooting heavy bullets is going to drive anyone away. What drives my opinion is the concept (again, in my mind) that pushing bullets that heavy from a 308 is just silly impractical and completely gaming the system; however, as stated <span style="text-decoration: underline">I can live with it either way.</span> We certainly are not going the way that USPSA/IPSC went. I played that game back when they used to make all courses of fire 1911 neutral and there were no extended mags. Comparing a stock R700 or a Savage to a rifle with a long throat in a custom barrel is a long way from the comparison between a single stack 1911 with irons and a full on IPSC race gun.

As a side, as long as Remington cuts the throats in their stock barrels a 215 might actually be just right.
smile.gif


I'm sure at some point around 230 or so you reach a threshold above that you can't make a bullet with enough BC that it can be pushed fast enough from a 308 to make it to 1000 super sonic, and maybe that is the answer, just leave it alone and one day we all end up shooting 225s or whatever the physics dictate is the "best" combination.
 
#64
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">
I'm sure at some point around 230 or so you reach a threshold above that you can't make a bullet with enough BC that it can be pushed fast enough from a 308 to make it to 1000 super sonic, and maybe that is the answer, just leave it alone and one day we all end up shooting 225s or whatever the physics dictate is the "best" combination.
</div></div>

You might be surprised, that is one of the nice features of the uber-heavies. The retained velocity at 1000 is phenomenal. A *fast* 155.5 (mv=3125) retains about 1400 fps at 1000 yards, a 230 (mv=2590) retains 1550! Most impressive. Compare that with a 185 (mv=2850); retained velocity is 1450.

The uber-heavies really do bring something new to the table.
 
#65
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

The idea of F TR was for a limited class to exists so guys could use basic 308 weapons and be competitive. I first shot F TR in 2006 with a GAP built M40A3 and did very well with 175SMKs.

Today you just cant compete with the long throated 308s with that type of rig, with normal bullet weights and velocities.

Now I am one who has wanted some restrictions since day one because I dont wnat F TR to go the route of IPSC where the weapons no longer serve any function but the class they shoot in. Currently a guy can pick up his sniper rifle or Palma rifle and be competitive in F TR.


What I would like to see is a Overal Length Limit. You can run what ever bullet powder you wnat but if its over SAMI Max Length Specs your have to go to open. I wnat this for several reasons.
1. It is easy to sheck with simple gauge. Which limit of bullet weight would be nigghtmare to check.
2. It still allows guys to experiment but within the specs for a 308win

Which after all is what the class was set up for.

This will drop down the speeds of the 155s and guys will get to try best bullet within SAMI Specs.

Minus that I say limit the bullet weight because its getting stupid what guys call a 308

Seems simple to me.
 
#66
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">The idea of F TR was for a limited class to exists so guys could use basic 308 weapons and be competitive. I first shot F TR in 2006 with a GAP built M40A3 and did very well with 175SMKs.

Today you just cant compete with the long throated 308s with that type of rig, with normal bullet weights and velocities.

Now I am one who has wanted some restrictions since day one because I dont wnat F TR to go the route of IPSC where the weapons no longer serve any function but the class they shoot in. Currently a guy can pick up his sniper rifle or Palma rifle and be competitive in F TR.


What I would like to see is a Overal Length Limit. You can run what ever bullet powder you wnat but if its over SAMI Max Length Specs your have to go to open. I wnat this for several reasons.
1. It is easy to sheck with simple gauge. Which limit of bullet weight would be nigghtmare to check.
2. It still allows guys to experiment but within the specs for a 308win

Which after all is what the class was set up for.

This will drop down the speeds of the 155s and guys will get to try best bullet within SAMI Specs.

Minus that I say limit the bullet weight because its getting stupid what guys call a 308

Seems simple to me. </div></div>

On the surface this seems to make more sense to me. If you are limited to a length under something like 2.9 or 2.95 it would be easy to check and it would make loading the uber heavy bullets less practical because of the loss of case volume.
 
#67
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Yes, and all you have to do is walk donw line and check length of ammo to make sure its all OK. Checking weights would be a nightmare

Limint the overall length and that way atleast the rounds will look like 308s.

Seeing 308s that overall lengths are over 3" is just wrong to me
 
#68
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">Yes, and all you have to do is walk donw line and check length of ammo to make sure its all OK. Checking weights would be a nightmare

Limint the overall length and that way atleast the rounds will look like 308s.

Seeing 308s that overall lengths are over 3" is just wrong to me </div></div>

Agreed.
 
#69
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

The problem, as I see it, is more than just bullet weight. Yes modifying the rules to limit/cap bullet weights might weed out some of the gamers but its only one small piece of the puzzle. Step in the right direction though. The COAL idea is a good one.
 
#70
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">The problem, as I see it, is more than just bullet weight. Yes modifying the rules to limit/cap bullet weights might weed out some of the gamers but its only one small piece of the puzzle. Step in the right direction though. The COAL idea is a good one.
</div></div>

I'm going to handle it like this. If you beat me using a 32" tube gun shooting 3.25" long rounds, don't think you're a better shooter than I am. OTOH, if I beat you with a 24" barreled field gun off a Harris bipod, I'm definitely a better shooter than you are. Works for me.
 
#71
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">
Seeing 308s that overall lengths are over 3" is just wrong to me </div></div>

For illustration:

IMG_6901%2520crop.jpg


The left round is a 'standard' 155.5, OAL 2.95"
The right round is a 230 grain, OAL 3.27"

Darrell
 
#72
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: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Seeing 308s that overall lengths are over 3" is just wrong to me </div></div>

For illustration:

IMG_6901%2520crop.jpg


The left round is a 'standard' 155.5, OAL 2.95"
The right round is a 230 grain, OAL 3.27"

Darrell </div></div>

ENOUGH SAID
 
#74
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Darrell and I have talked about this for several years. Our goal is to attract more shooters and make it so they can be competitive. If you truly want no limits there is F Open Class for all the experimentation. F TR is supposed to be the shooter more than the equipment.

Darrel's idea is a bullet weight limit because he believes in the basic goodness of folks and me, well 25 years as a cop and I believe making it easy and not having to rely on honesty of anyone.

If there is a way to enforce the bullet weight it will work the same way but I just think the overal length is easier. Not better just easier.

Anything that solves this I am for
 
#75
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"><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: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Seeing 308s that overall lengths are over 3" is just wrong to me </div></div>

For illustration:

IMG_6901%2520crop.jpg


The left round is a 'standard' 155.5, OAL 2.95"
The right round is a 230 grain, OAL 3.27"

Darrell </div></div>

ENOUGH SAID </div></div>

Exactly...that's just fucking ridiculous. Go shoot Open if you want to do shit like that.
 
#78
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"><span style="color: #FF0000">The idea of F TR was for a limited class to exists so guys could use basic 308 weapons and be competitive.</span> I first shot F TR in 2006 with a GAP built M40A3 and did very well with 175SMKs.
<span style="color: #FF0000">
Today you just cant compete with the long throated 308s with that type of rig, with normal bullet weights and velocities.</span>

Now I am one who has wanted some restrictions since day one because I dont wnat F TR to go the route of IPSC where the weapons no longer serve any function but the class they shoot in. Currently a guy can pick up his sniper rifle or Palma rifle and be competitive in F TR.


What I would like to see is a Overal Length Limit. You can run what ever bullet powder you wnat but if its over SAMI Max Length Specs your have to go to open. I wnat this for several reasons.
1. It is easy to sheck with simple gauge. Which limit of bullet weight would be nigghtmare to check.
2. It still allows guys to experiment but within the specs for a 308win

Which after all is what the class was set up for.

This will drop down the speeds of the 155s and guys will get to try best bullet within SAMI Specs.

Minus that I say limit the bullet weight because its getting stupid what guys call a 308

Seems simple to me. </div></div>

I think this is an important point in this discussion, so I'll emphasize it again. Whom are we really talking about here? The vast majority of F-T/R shooters compete at the local level, <span style="font-style: italic">not</span> in the upper echelons of national/international competition. <span style="font-style: italic">Very few</span> of these competitors are using long throated .308s with uber-heavy bullets. Most are showing up with their Remmy 700s and FGMM 175 SMKs and at the local level they still have a very good chance to win, or at least place using this type of setup.

So I have to ask the question whether this hypothetical projectile weight limitation is really aimed at the select few competing at the highest level of F-T/R, rather than the <span style="font-style: italic">multitude</span> of local shooters that currently participate at the local level? The more I ponder this issue, the more it seems that this is the case as most competitors at the local level aren't using the rigs or loads in question. Am I wrong? Are we talking about a rule change here predominantly aimed at only the highest level competitors where projectile weight is actually in the process of becoming an issue?

I'm not naive and I understand that the individuals at the top levels of any sport are usually the driving force behind innovation and rule changes meant to accommodate advancement in the technology used in those sports. I'm not trying to stir the pot; my only point is that if this proposed rule change is primarily due to competitors at the highest level, we should be perfectly clear and up front about it for the purpose of this discussion.
 
#79
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

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.

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?
 
#80
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"><span style="color: #FF0000">The idea of F TR was for a limited class to exists so guys could use basic 308 weapons and be competitive.</span> I first shot F TR in 2006 with a GAP built M40A3 and did very well with 175SMKs.
<span style="color: #FF0000">
Today you just cant compete with the long throated 308s with that type of rig, with normal bullet weights and velocities.</span>

Now I am one who has wanted some restrictions since day one because I dont wnat F TR to go the route of IPSC where the weapons no longer serve any function but the class they shoot in. Currently a guy can pick up his sniper rifle or Palma rifle and be competitive in F TR.


What I would like to see is a Overal Length Limit. You can run what ever bullet powder you wnat but if its over SAMI Max Length Specs your have to go to open. I wnat this for several reasons.
1. It is easy to sheck with simple gauge. Which limit of bullet weight would be nigghtmare to check.
2. It still allows guys to experiment but within the specs for a 308win

Which after all is what the class was set up for.

This will drop down the speeds of the 155s and guys will get to try best bullet within SAMI Specs.

Minus that I say limit the bullet weight because its getting stupid what guys call a 308

Seems simple to me. </div></div>

I think this is an important point in this discussion, so I'll emphasize it again. Whom are we really talking about here? The vast majority of F-T/R shooters compete at the local level, <span style="font-style: italic">not</span> in the upper echelons of national/international competition. <span style="font-style: italic">Very few</span> of these competitors are using long throated .308s with uber-heavy bullets. Most are showing up with their Remmy 700s and FGMM 175 SMKs and at the local level they still have a very good chance to win, or at least place using this type of setup.

So I have to ask the question whether this hypothetical projectile weight limitation is really aimed at the select few competing at the highest level of F-T/R, rather than the <span style="font-style: italic">multitude</span> of local shooters that currently participate at the local level? The more I ponder this issue, the more it seems that this is the case as most competitors at the local level aren't using the rigs or loads in question. Am I wrong? Are we talking about a rule change here predominantly aimed at only the highest level competitors where projectile weight is actually in the process of becoming an issue?

I'm not naive and I understand that the individuals at the top levels of any sport are usually the driving force behind innovation and rule changes meant to accommodate advancement in the technology used in those sports. I'm not trying to stir the pot; my only point is that if this proposed rule change is primarily due to competitors at the highest level, we should be perfectly clear and up front about it for the purpose of this discussion. </div></div>

I am surely not at the highest level, and I shot my first year with a 24" barrel, though not in a stock rifle. This yr that rifle has a 30" tube, and I'm OK with that.

A new shooter will always look around and see that the guys who have been doing it for a while are using better or at least different more specialized equipment, and they'll eventually get some. I think where people get discouraged is after they start to gain some skill and realize that they need to get a very specialized tool in order to be competitive at the next level, and whether it's true or not the psychologically they believe they need what the "pros" are using.

All that said, I'm not certain that this discussion is really pertinent to new shooters. They expect that they will not have exactly what they need; at least in my case, I didn't expect my rig to be ideal my first yr. I guess to me it's about what makes sense, and whether or not it can be made to work, shooting a bullet in a 308 that is heavier than what is typically chambered in a 300WM just doesn't make sense to me.



I like the idea of an OAL limit as opposed to a weight limit.
 
#82
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: QuietShootr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sapper524</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem, as I see it, is more than just bullet weight. Yes modifying the rules to limit/cap bullet weights might weed out some of the gamers but its only one small piece of the puzzle. Step in the right direction though. The COAL idea is a good one.
</div></div>

I'm going to handle it like this. If you beat me using a 32" tube gun shooting 3.25" long rounds, don't think you're a better shooter than I am. OTOH, if I beat you with a 24" barreled field gun off a Harris bipod, I'm definitely a better shooter than you are. Works for me. </div></div>

I agree, from my point of view, someone running a 30 inch tube at 3.25" rounds is a open class shooter exploiting the intent of F-TR.

Put the weight about 13-15 lbs, barrel max length at 26 inches, SAMMI spec rounds, etc ... then it will be a "stock" type class. Lets be real ... F-O is benchrest shooting from your belly. Is this a Field Class or a Benchrest class? Why would I want to spend a couple grand to build a rifle I can "use" in a match half a dozen times a year ... at most. Turn F-TR back to being about the Indian and not the Arrow ... my opinion.

Not to drift, back to topic, COAL limitations = good idea
 
#83
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

I have been muling over this for a while now and I would like to see a change in the class definition instead of a simple bullet weight limit.
In the goal of increasing the number of F class shooters on the line, i would like to see 2 classes, an open with front rests and a TR with bipods but with the same calibers offered to open .
this way most guys with a good .260 or .284 or whatever else under .35 can compete right off their bipods.
cheers.
 
#84
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: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Seeing 308s that overall lengths are over 3" is just wrong to me </div></div>

For illustration:

IMG_6901%2520crop.jpg


The left round is a 'standard' 155.5, OAL 2.95"
The right round is a 230 grain, OAL 3.27"

Darrell </div></div>

The one on the right is looking kindda sexy. Sort of makes me want another 308.

Respectfully submitted by a diehard open shooter.
 
#85
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">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.
 
#86
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

I don't think that I caught this in the previous 2 pages, but I could be wrong, a lot of material to read!

How are you going to enforce a bullet weight restriction?

Great to have a rule or law, but it is another thing to try and enforce it!

Are you going to pull bullets at the range and weigh them?

You could try to use AOL/COL, but that is only going to be a "ballpark estimate". Given the variations in brass, powder loads, and bullets, it would be hard to weigh a complete round.

IMHO, if you want to level the playing field, you need something like IROC. Have a sponsor provide the exact same rifles and ammo, everyone shows up and shoots the exact same thing. No worries about the field not being level! You are seeing this more and more in other shooting sports like 3 Gun.

You could try to institute something like Palma, but once again, can you enforce the rules, because someone is going to spend a lot of time figuring out how to get around them. Have any doubts, talk to anyone involved in any type of racing!

I can appreciate the intent, but execution is going to be a real challenge IMHO.

Best of Luck,
M Richardson
 
#87
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Just to throw a wrinkle in here... if we *are* considering limiting the .308 shooters to a given bullet weight, should we not restrict the .223 shooters somewhat as well... i.e. <156gn .308 = ~<81gn .223, <201gn .308 = ~<90gn .223...
 
#88
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: memilanuk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just to throw a wrinkle in here... if we *are* considering limiting the .308 shooters to a given bullet weight, should we not restrict the .223 shooters somewhat as well... i.e. <156gn .308 = ~<81gn .223, <201gn .308 = ~<90gn .223... </div></div>

Valid Point ... As mentioned ... enforcement would be tough. Hence the OAL idea ... so put a OAL on the 223 rounds as well

308 - 2.90
223 - 2.30

little over Standard spec - little wiggle room for load refinement ... but not crazy.
 
#89
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">Valid Point ... As mentioned ... enforcement would be tough. Hence the OAL idea ... so put a OAL on the 223 rounds as well

308 - 2.90
223 - 2.30

little over Standard spec - little wiggle room for load refinement ... but not crazy. </div></div>

Great, you have just taken the .223 out of F-T/R competition with your 2.30 inch limit on COAL. Why don't we have rifle weights just a "little over Standard spec" , like 9 pounds instead of 18?

As this year's match director at the club to which I belong, I can assure you that teching the guns for weight is one thing, teching the ammo for bullet weight is going to be something else.

If you insist on creating artificial limits go for something that will allow some creativity but also force people to chose.

A COAL limit of 2.60 inch for .223 and something like 3.00 or 3.10 for .308. You are forced to load your hyper-heavy bullets inside the case more thus reducing the powder charge or you can soft seat your pipsqueak bullets on top of a casefull of powder.

I could then create some sort of box in which the loaded cartridge fits; easy to measure.

Next, we will want to have a limit on the magnification power of the scope, right?
 
#90
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

wow what alot of reading some very informative others bull shit . i voted for the 201 weight rule but after reading this about the only way to do it without a major hassle would be coal . but as said if you are going to do it for one then do it for both thats only fare. for me i shoot at club level right now and dont really care what grain you shoot if i can beat you with my 155's then thats fine . as for barrel length if i can get a 34" barrel to shoot and make weight then i have done what is needed to be done to make the rule. i currently shoot a lrpv 308 with a 30" tube on it weighing in at 16.7lbs .i also have a 223 with a 26" barrel on it both make weight so its my choice what i want to shoot both are legal i do hear people who complain about them at our club matches and i offer to let them shoot thewm(i always bring extra ammo just encase a new shooter wants to try f class) what i'm trying to say is as long as i make weight then i should be able to shoot in the class to keep it fare make it so we have to all have a limit on coal.
 
#91
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Sapper,

2.450 to 2.550" is considered a 'normal' OAL range for non-magazine fed, slow-fire rounds loaded with ~80gn bullets used in NRA HP XTC. I have one LW .223 Rem barrel for a Savage that has a *very* short throat - B80VLDs jammed 0.010" past a hard jam still only measure 2.400", and there is so much of the bullet down in the case it's effectively ham-strung. Very accurate, mind you - inside 600yds its more than capable - but IMO beyond 300yds its having to rely more on accuracy than it is ballistics, even those of the 80gn VLD.

As for 2.9 OAL for .308... I've gone thru several factory barrels on 12 F/TR and 12 Palma rifles (and a long time ago, a Rem 700VS)... most bullets would be jumping a fair bit seated that 'short'. They still might fly, but it'd be a bit frustrating in ways. I'm sure people would fine a way to work with it, though.

Monte
 
#92
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Darrell; thank you for your clarifications, and I stand corrected on all pertinent points. Whatever contributions I may have made to the BS component, you all have my apologies.

Trying to piece my way through the arguments and illustrations, I an prompted to step back and reserve further suggestion.

From a practical standpoint, I would be sorely taxed to find a way to ensure compliance with any cap. I am minded that a cap exists with Palma, and I have to wonder how they do it.

Sympathizing with protests about how caps can eliminate competitors, I can only surmise that any new rule, or changed rule, will be accompanied by muted moos and bellows in the distance, as the collective oxen get gored. I am not being sarcastic, merely observing events past.

I like the comment directly above most. Leave it be and let the competition sort matters out.

Stepping back a few further, I like it even better, being reminded that he rules best who rules least.

Mainly, though, I don't like rules in general; because I don't like cheating. When you pare it all down to basics, it's often the rules which form the root cause of cheating. Face it, you can't have cheating without rules. Less rules less cheating.

Simplistic, of course. But logically, the logic is probably still sound.

If you must have a weight cap, I like the 175gr-180gr, for the reasons I state.

But I really don't see how any method, short of tearing down ammo on the spot, is going to work; and honestly, I think that would be patently absurd.

Greg
 
#93
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Gee,

13 years ago I participated in some F-Class because it used bags and non-BR gear to open participation to folks with a decent rifle, load and a reasonable skill level. Didn't last long because it became another equipment race with folks meeting the definition but not the spirit of the competition.

It's not a bullet weight race in F-Class, it's all the other equipment race. BTW, I shot some of the Berger 230's last weekend. Didn't group worth a flip. 210 JLKs, on the other hand, did just fine.

I quit caring about F-Class years ago,
DocB
 
#94
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

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

2.450 to 2.550" is considered a 'normal' OAL range for non-magazine fed, slow-fire rounds loaded with ~80gn bullets used in NRA HP XTC. I have one LW .223 Rem barrel for a Savage that has a *very* short throat - B80VLDs jammed 0.010" past a hard jam still only measure 2.400", and there is so much of the bullet down in the case it's effectively ham-strung. Very accurate, mind you - inside 600yds its more than capable - but IMO beyond 300yds its having to rely more on accuracy than it is ballistics, even those of the 80gn VLD.

As for 2.9 OAL for .308... I've gone thru several factory barrels on 12 F/TR and 12 Palma rifles (and a long time ago, a Rem 700VS)... most bullets would be jumping a fair bit seated that 'short'. They still might fly, but it'd be a bit frustrating in ways. I'm sure people would fine a way to work with it, though.

Monte </div></div>

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.
 
#95
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

if you wont to make it fair then i suggest no sponsers giveing you bullets powder guns scopes buy ur own shit i do and all your free stuff is not fair to the average shooter so shoot what u cab buy but no freebees
 
#96
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

Based on the pictures posted above, If you go with the COAL limit then I suspect it probably does not matter what bullet is getting used. People will have to decide if they want high BC or velocity; chances are they cannot have both and meet the COAL limitation.

NO disrespect intended, I apologize if I missed it mentioned above, but how would you verify bullet weight if that were the rule that got imposed? Is the idea to randomly select and pull apart 2, 3, 5 rounds of ammo from every competitor and weigh the bullet?

Jeffvn
 
#98
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

I personally fail to see the issue here. There is no safety issue and the heavy bullets over 200 grains are not dominating. Currently, there is not a problem. If I understand where people are coming from, only a perceived problem exists. As I stated earlier, leave the rules alone unless there is a safety problem or if a clarification is needed.
 
#99
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeffvn</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Based on the pictures posted above, If you go with the COAL limit then I suspect it probably does not matter what bullet is getting used. People will have to decide if they want high BC or velocity; chances are they cannot have both and meet the COAL limitation.

NO disrespect intended, I apologize if I missed it mentioned above, but how would you verify bullet weight if that were the rule that got imposed? Is the idea to randomly select and pull apart 2, 3, 5 rounds of ammo from every competitor and weigh the bullet?

Jeffvn </div></div>

The way it's done overseas (where a bullet weight limit has been a part of life for years) is to randomly draw 6 to 8 guys (out of 150+ competitors) and randomly select 2 rounds out of their ammo stores. An inertial puller and a small scale solve the rest relatively quickly. I'm the first to admit that this won't be hugely palatable for many US shooters. It is entirely possible that Mike's idea of an OAL limit would serve to have the same effect as a bullet weight limit. Certainly a go/no-go gauge machined to the OAL arrived on would be cheap and easy. The round fits, or it doesn't... done!

In any event, this is hypothetical at best. Any possible changes would be years away, heck, any impact on match performance or 'domination' is likely years away as well. It doesn't hurt to think ahead. <span style="font-weight: bold">This discussion is mainly a way to see what direction the guys that actually shoot the class are thinking the we should go, vs. having it dictated from on high some years in the future.</span> If it ends up that most think 'unlimited' is the way to go, so be it, it will at least have been aired.

Best,

Darrell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lawyer
Possible Bullet Weight Options for 2013 US F-TR Reamer in .308
Replies
6
Views
458
Lawyer
Lawyer
Superchunk72
F-Class Open with PRS rig? You better believe it.
Replies
20
Views
4K
CaseFinder
CaseFinder
K
The First Annual Badger Trekker Run-n-Gun, 9/2/23, Oconomowoc, WI (near Milwaukee)
Replies
18
Views
1K
Kevin 149
K
Nubba0681
SOLD 338 RUM with extras
Replies
2
Views
317
Nubba0681
Nubba0681
Bakwa
Casual KAC SR-15 Comparison [a study in performance]
Replies
74
Views
5K
SigSauerM7
SigSauerM7
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts