F T/R Competition Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

[9H_Cracka]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

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

I alos think the resitriction on bullet weight for 308 makes about as much sense as the brake rules </div></div>

I agree with that one as well Mike, but understand Vu's point in putting this in the rules.

If you want to flush out the gamers and identify the shooters, you'd have to drop back to the old days of issuing the rifles and the ammo, later to issuing the ammo only. Those days are gone.

Now, if you could have a quasi-government organization provide equally prepared M40s or M24s and M118LR ammo for no or minimal cost, that would be nice, for a FPR type of match on a KD range. Seems politics has changed though, so the idea of the government fostering a well trained civilian populace at long range shooting is not in the cards.

Maybe we should get the CMP involved Vu and not involve the NRA. Now that they are out of M1s, they are looking for ways to grow their appeal and base.

Something to think about.

Oh and LL if you come to one of my matches, I'll introduce you as my mutant distant 3rd cousin visiting from out of town so that no-one recognizes you and distracts you by treating you as the celebrity you are (Lady Gaga's vibrator). Justin Timberlake seemed to handle it pretty well. Maybe you can take some ques from him.

 

[crewchef]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kengel2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crewchef</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Kengel and jlaw973, have either of you ever attended one of these matches?

At least attend one of these matches as competitor or spectator so you know how it works today before suggesting changes that won't effect anyone. </div></div>

Did you even read the thread? Its only 3 pages, Im not going to repeat what is still there. </div></div>

Let me rephrase, have you ever attended a match for the existing classes. Maybe I misunderstood your post but appears you did attend trial matches specific to the proposed new class or classes. If proposed class is shot stand alone and not in conjuntion with existing F-Class then back to my other post, best of luck. But if that's the case why associate with F-Class at all which seems implied by the name.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crewchef</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kengel2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crewchef</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Kengel and jlaw973, have either of you ever attended one of these matches?

At least attend one of these matches as competitor or spectator so you know how it works today before suggesting changes that won't effect anyone. </div></div>

Did you even read the thread? Its only 3 pages, Im not going to repeat what is still there. </div></div>

Let me rephrase, have you ever attended a match for the existing classes. Maybe I misunderstood your post but appears you did attend trial matches specific to the proposed new class or classes. If proposed class is shot stand alone and not in conjuntion with existing F-Class then back to my other post, best of luck. But if that's the case why associate with F-Class at all which seems implied by the name.</div></div>

I have, it called add another relay,

They already squad the F Class separate from the Palma, at least they did the times I have attended, so what's the issue. if you're shooting with a sling and don't want to be bothered by a brake, add a relay, if you're shooting F T/R and don't want to be bothered by a brake, add a relay, or at minimum put an empty mound between the last existing class and the first F Tac Class shooter, or add a relay.

it's not rocket science, it a firing line, everyone uses them, you can create space, you can create a relay, nobody is suggesting you share a mound with a Palma shooter, however letting Palma shooters make the rules for F Tac is utter bullshit. This is what Tactical Shooters USE, who is a Palma person to say otherwise, especially because the only argument is, "its loud and disruptive" Please ...

 

[scaxeman]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

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

I also think the restriction on bullet weight for 308 makes about as much sense as the brake rules
</div></div>
+1000 here! Especially the bullet weight limit.

The pictured rifle is a Savage .308 "tactical" rifle at a sniper match in Canada. Is the muzzle blast annoying? Yes. Is it going to hinder my shooting? Nope. And yes, I've been in the blast cone of the same style rifle in .338 Lapua Mag. - same comments apply.

Good shooting all,

Darrell

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

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

I have, it called add another relay,

They already squad the F Class separate from the Palma, at least they did the times I have attended, so what's the issue. </div></div>

The first issue arises at the local match level when you don't have enough people to fill out the relay with "those" types of shooters only. The second issue, and again at that the local match level (meaning a limited number of competitors) is throwing a bunch of people in the pits together that don't have experience running pit on a KD range.

I'm not sure what matches you are referring to LL where they run F on its own relay; the SOA, RMP, SW Nats, etc. they run all relays (3 or 4) with sling on one side of the range, all relays with F on the other side of the range, so you are not swapping out targets all day long on every firing point. Based on the shooter count they might have to mix sling and F on one target, but normally they'll put that point on two points and have the target puller/scorer move over to the correct point based on what target is needed/who is firing at the time.

As far as splitting the brakes over to one side, yep did that too. For most brakes, that works very well. For some, not so. A Thruster on a 7 WSM is still concussive 30 feet away. I can't risk having a bunch of people not show up to shoot the match so that a single guy with an obnoxious rifle can shoot.

Now, if someone else wants to run FPR matches with brakes, set up and run the whole match, and make it open to sling and F shooters, that is a different story.

 

[hank440]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

give us all a break on inexperienced people running the pits my 10 yr old son pulls targets like a pro and better and faster than many "experienced" grown men

 

[nhm16]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H_Cracka</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I have, it called add another relay,

They already squad the F Class separate from the Palma, at least they did the times I have attended, so what's the issue. </div></div>

The first issue arises at the local match level when you don't have enough people to fill out the relay with "those" types of shooters only. The second issue, and again at that the local match level (meaning a limited number of competitors) is throwing a bunch of people in the pits together that don't have experience running pit on a KD range.
</div></div>

This.

Also, from someone only shoots F-class in competition, but also owns a couple of tactical style rifles, I think these rules are a good start and appreciate Vu's efforts to expand F-class to be more inclusive. It's better than nothing at all, and gives owners of tactical rifles a place in F-Class. You're never going to get 100% of what you want out of the gate in a situation like this, because you're trying to graft something new (again!) into a shooting discipline that is already established. It's better to start with a baseline and expand, than taking your ball home. After all, if you don't like the rules, nobody's forcing you to compete.

Also, couldn't the rule be that brakes/cans are optionally allowed on a per-match or range basis? Or would that not work because then scores wouldn't be satisfactorily comparable with or sans brakes/cans?

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Wow thinking outside the box... what a novel idea.

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

I find it somewhat humorous that they are creating a new class to attract the shooters who are growing long-range shooting (coming along for the ride, as it were), and then hamstringing it with the same rules and limitations that are ludicrous to the "Outlaw" long-range shooters (ie everyone other than NRA HP shooters). I'm talking about brakes and cans specifically.

The logic that if they want a class to attract the rest of us to their matches, they (at least) need to flat out allow the equipment we actually use is spot on. Earlier in this thread it was noted that with brakes & cans eliminated, all future issued sniper rifle systems are effectively banned if used in stock form. Poignant observation and it should give the NRA something to think about.

If you go back some years on the HP forums, the discussion about silencers in F-class was comical. By some of the same logic they used, they should outlaw AR-15's in Service Rifle because they are banned in a couple states. And then they use the "recoil reduction device" argument, which applies to other things which are allowed per their rules. What it comes down to is that brakes are not allowed because the HP codgers don't like them (and we're not talking .50's here). Silencers got banned from F-class with a variety of excuses. But hey, it's their game and they can make their own rules. But that rule when carried over to this new class is ludicrous if they expect to actually attract people with rifles built for general LR shooting, not specifically legacy NRA HP classes.

For the record, I've shot one F-class match about 5-6 years ago, and they didn't care if I used my silencer or not. There was no one else shooting F-class, and they didn't even have the "new" targets at that time. I got the stink eye and nobody would talk to me until I had shot a few strings and had apparently proven something or other to "make up for" the AI-AW I was shooting.

 

[Rthur]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Vu, your efforts to get more shooters out to the range is a huge step in the right direction. The brake issue could be easily fixed. The powers that be aren't used to not telling everyone how it is going to be. This thread is only a day old and look how many shooters are interested and have an opinion about the brakes. I think that should say something about how many potential shooters that could be shooting, helping and spending their money at these ranges. In the middle of Illinios I am not exactly in tac rifle central. Thus f-class,ftr is the best local option I have to shoot.

 

[crewchef]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Vu, Did NRA come up with this idea on their own or did someone petition them to add FPR?

 

[Tactical]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zak Smith</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I find it somewhat humorous that they are creating a new class to attract the shooters who are growing long-range shooting (coming along for the ride, as it were), and then hamstringing it with the same rules and limitations that are ludicrous to the "Outlaw" long-range shooters (ie everyone other than NRA HP shooters). I'm talking about brakes and cans specifically.

The logic that if they want a class to attract the rest of us to their matches, they (at least) need to flat out allow the equipment we actually use is spot on. Earlier in this thread it was noted that with brakes & cans eliminated, all future issued sniper rifle systems are effectively banned if used in stock form. Poignant observation and it should give the NRA something to think about.

If you go back some years on the HP forums, the discussion about silencers in F-class was comical. By some of the same logic they used, they should outlaw AR-15's in Service Rifle because they are banned in a couple states. And then they use the "recoil reduction device" argument, which applies to other things which are allowed per their rules. What it comes down to is that brakes are not allowed because the HP codgers don't like them (and we're not talking .50's here). Silencers got banned from F-class with a variety of excuses. But hey, it's their game and they can make their own rules. But that rule when carried over to this new class is ludicrous if they expect to actually attract people with rifles built for general LR shooting, not specifically legacy NRA HP classes.

</div></div>

Man I dont understand the no suppressor thing either. It makes it quieter and certainly does not give an accuracy advantage to the guy using one.

On bullet weight restrictions, I have said this before just make a case overall length requirement and you get rid of the gammers. You only get so much velcoity from 2.82" OAL in a 308 so not as much chance of gaming as running a 175 at near 2.95" in a LA magazine. Disclosuer being what it is I shoot Lapua bullets and they have match bullets in 155, 167 and 185 grains in 308 so the rule f's anyone using Lapua, unless we switch to a 170 FMJ. Once again why limit what we really use. A 155 at 2.82" does not have any advantage over a 175 loaded hot at same length anyway. Jusst limit OAL and oyu have a true tactical class. Plus check OAL is easy while check bullet weight is a PIA

In case anyone thinks this is far feteched watch future Nationa F Class mataches and see how many 308s will get dropped in a case gauge to make sure guys are not blowing cases out for poor mans improved 308s. Just add an OAL check and you can do it all in a few seconds. No way they are going to check for bullet weights on National Scale

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Man I dont understand the no suppressor thing either. It makes it quieter and certainly does not give an accuracy advantage to the guy using one. </div></div>

I agree on one count and disagree on the other. I believe the reason NRA is against suppressors is two fold. One, they want to make one set of rules for the whole country, and suppressors are not legal in every state. Two, they want to stay away from potential controversial devices, and to date, you can participate in any NRA sanctioned event and not be required nor allowed to use an NFA device. I guess technically SBRs are not disallowed, though you'd be quite the fool to shoot one in any sort of an NRA match.

On the accuracy thing, many will tell you that the suppressor is an accuracy enhancer in that it can increase the mechanical accuracy of a rifle, plus, and more importantly, its recoil mitigation properties help lessen shooter induced errors in pressure and recoil control.

Ask it this way - if suppressors and brakes were of no benefit to the shooter, why would 70-odd percent of the tactical shooters use them?

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One, they want to make one set of rules for the whole country, and suppressors are not legal in every state.</div></div>
Logic error-- no different NRA rules required. If something is allowed it is not mandatory.

There are at least a couple states where you can't go out and buy a new AR-15 off the shelf and shoot it in NRA HP matches. By the same logic, those should not be allowed in Service Rifle.

They need to grow a pair if they are worried about controversy. We're shooting guns.

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zak Smith</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One, they want to make one set of rules for the whole country, and suppressors are not legal in every state.</div></div>
Logic error-- no different NRA rules required. If something is allowed it is not mandatory.

There are at least a couple states where you can't go out and buy a new AR-15 off the shelf and shoot it in NRA HP matches. By the same logic, those should not be allowed in Service Rifle.

They need to grow a pair if they are worried about controversy. We're shooting guns. </div></div>

Didn't say I agreed with it but it is logical to see them approaching it that way based on state legality.

Your argument on AR15s does not hold water in opposition to my point - you can use modified mags in the states out East and a bullet button in CA and still complete the same course of fire with no detriment to your ability to compete with an AR in all 50 states. Plus, the NRA rules for Service Rifle existed in advance of the stupid state laws, not written new in 2012. This is a different environment now.

 

[taliv]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

i find the no-suppressor rules based on state legality not just illogical, but offensive.

we just had this argument in the PRS thread with a lot more heat than light, where the guys in TX and AZ and CA have put in a lot of work to get the matches they have and don't want them restricted by what's available on the east coast. fair enough. but don't turn around and tell me you support globally outlawing suppressors from NRA matches just because they're illegal in 4 or 5 out of 50 states.

WA just got their law fixed.

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: taliv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i find the no-suppressor rules based on state legality not just illogical, but offensive.

we just had this argument in the PRS thread with a lot more heat than light, where the guys in TX and AZ and CA have put in a lot of work to get the matches they have and don't want them restricted by what's available on the east coast. fair enough. but don't turn around and tell me you support globally outlawing suppressors from NRA matches just because they're illegal in 4 or 5 out of 50 states.

WA just got their law fixed. </div></div>

Tom - it sure would be nice if someone from the NRA rules committee participated in a forum like this and made their views known, or made them known through some other means. At this point we are just guessing at their reasoning.

I had an insider give me his perspective on how things work at the NRA. The committee, the person that actually writes things up, and the disconnects that exist between the two bodies. It turns out the person the writes the rules is not on the committee, and he does not review his writings with the committee before they become effective.

Who knows WHAT would actually make it into writing for FPR.

 

[taliv]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H_Cracka</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had an insider give me his perspective on how things work at the NRA. The committee, the person that actually writes things up, and the disconnects that exist between the two bodies. It turns out the person the writes the rules is not on the committee, and he does not review his writings with the committee before they become effective.

Who knows WHAT would actually make it into writing for FPR.</div></div>

sounds like their headquarters has been too close to DC for too long.

Maybe the best thing to do would be relocate the brass to the TX hill country for a few years to clear their minds, then revisit numerous issues.

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

You mean like this one?
http://www.usrifleteams.com/lrforum/inde...amp;#entry51079

 

[sinister]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Traditional NRA belly shooters DO NOT want nasty, noisy bipod shooters at their venues.

Strictly my opinion, NRA wants their entry fees. Bipod shooters' scores don't compete against sling shooters for titles and trophies.

 

[crewchef]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

F-class wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for some of the NRA belly shooters. I've met several people that use to shoot sling but are now shooting F and even a few that shoot booth at different times. It is a way to still shoot and be competitive for the shooters who for physical reasons can't deal with the position or their vision makes it tough to use irons. I haven't met a sling shooter yet that made me feel unwelcome at a match.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crewchef</div><div class="ubbcode-body">F-class wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for some of the NRA belly shooters. I've met several people that use to shoot sling but are now shooting F and even a few that shoot booth at different times. It is a way to still shoot and be competitive for the shooters who for physical reasons can't deal with the position or their vision makes it tough to use irons. I haven't met a sling shooter yet that made me feel unwelcome at a match.</div></div>

Please the first F Class Match I attended and was attended with me by a Group of shooters from this site we were treated terrible by the Palma shooters. and some F Class Shooters because we weren't up their standards.

Some old fucker who looked like Wilfred Brimley came up to us and said, "you know what F Class stands for, fuck head" they were dicks the entire week. It was extremely disappointing showing up for a National Match for the first time.

It took at least 2 other events before they treated us half way respectable...

it was one of the main reasons I never went back after the 3rd trip to a national combined event. I am sure local events are totally different but the "big boys" were complete assholes. Excuse my french accent ... LOL

 

[kengel2]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crewchef</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Vu, Did NRA come up with this idea on their own or did someone petition them to add FPR? </div></div>

If I remember correctly, Vu went to the NRA with this idea. It's all here on this forum from start to finish of you want to search for it.

 

[AtOne]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Might be time to start the new SHRA, "Snipershide Rifle Association" for setting up shooting events that pertain to our style of shooting and not what the NRA determines it should be.

I'm sure with the Hides member base and a $50 membership fee it would go a long way to get the organization going in the right direction for us all.
Add in volunteer's to help get the details worked out and I'm sure we could show the NRA how it should be run on a national level.
Hell the SHWW (Snipers Hide Western Washington ) group thread has over 2 million views alone with some incredibly talented match organizers I'm sure all of us up here would be more than willing to organize a match for it.

Frank I'll be the first member to join up where do I send the money and what do you need help with ?

 

[taliv]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

lowlight, they are more likely just dicks to everyone, not just F-class shooters. When I attended my very first prone match, i guess a bit over 10 years ago, I showed up with pretty much zero gear, and a rem700 VSS in 308 and a turner sling that i barely knew how to use. The first guy to greet me walked up as I was moving my gear to the line before prep and without somuch as a "hi" or "my name is...", just sneered at my rifle and said "you know you won't be competitive with that".

and that's in the part of the country known for hospitality.

 

[Pthfndr-CA]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

When Vu and I were thinking this out, one of the reasons for the bullet weight limit in the FPR Limited class (.308Win and .223Rem) was due to what is available in factory loaded ammunition.

I can't speak to other states, or even other venues, but since the HP MD at the Sac Valley range started having the new "tactical" class last winter, we've had probably 30-40 new shooters. A lot of who do not as yet hand load ammunition.

Now before anyone starts saying, "if they want to compete let them learn to hand load", remember, a big part of this concept is to get more shooters out there shooting. At the Sac Valley public 100 yard range they are getting 200-250 people PER DAY on the weekends. A large number of those are shooting what they think of as off the shelf "tactical rifles" and are shooting factory loaded ammo. Vu and I saw that and he asked, "how can we get them out on the long range competing?".

FPR-Open is because these days most of the serious tactical competitors are going to something other than .223/.308.

Vu and I have discussed with others making up case/COL gauges to use also. So that is not completely out of the question yet. But it is a logistical issue. At our local HP club matches, whether it's service rifle/Palma/F class, everything is on the honor system right now.

 

[memilanuk]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

IIRC, the primary objection to silencers was that people were putting them on to circumvent the 'no brakes' rule, and then claiming something else (noise reduction). Unless everybody is running silenced, the noise reduction angle is a crock, at best.

If the new class does allow brakes, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="text-decoration: underline">then</span></span></span> I'd say let 'em run cans as well. If someone wants to run silenced, more power to them. Those that live in states where suppressors aren't legal for civilians can still run brakes - which was the whole point of the exercise to begin with - keeping things somewhat even.

Where it'll run afoul of some versions of the proposed FPR rules is the barrel length, including brake - do they get an exemption/extension for a can, and if so, how much?

There are a lot of things that sound good as rules to make the playing field level - until you're the match director having to figure how to just how much you actually give a $hit about checking barrel lengths and bipod size/shape/footprint and gawd-only-knows what ever else... as someone already pointed out, we can't get match officials to use a properly calibrated scale or gauge cases to check the rules we already have - and now we're going to add more?

I'm not saying it can't/won't work, but the harder you (not pointing fingers here, but if the shoe fits, wear it) make it to run the additional classes, the less welcome you're going to make yourself when showing up to a given Prone/Palma match and wanting things done 'your' way to accommodate 'your' class.

Re: the earlier comment along the lines of 'f$ck the HP/Palma types; they are dying out anyways'. Whether or not that may be true, they *are* the ones who are running the matches, because they *are* the ones who volunteer their time to show up early, set things up, clean up after everybody else leaves, do the stats, submit the paperwork before and after, etc. *Very* few ranges have F-class or 'tactical' types doing that work, or even offering to help - but they demand to be accommodated nonetheless. And we wonder why the Palma types are cranky old curmudgeons when it comes to F-class, much less any other 'new' discipline.

This whole thing reminds me a lot of when a few years back, Jedi went off the friggin' deep end lecturing people both here and on the long-range.com forums about how they should allow/require mag-feed in F-Class - despite never having fired a shot one in the discipline (at the time). You can just imagine about how much traction *that* got. At least Vu is trying this out, working thru some of the snags, talking with the right folks rather than going postal in online forums, etc. I imagine he may be getting an ongoing education regarding the old maxim about not being able to make everyone happy all the time...

but at least he's trying. I may not agree with some of his rules (I'd pitch the bullet weight bit, primarily due to lack of enforceability) but more power to him otherwise.\

 

[Zak Smith]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SHRA, "Snipershide Rifle Association"</div></div>
Based on the disagreements about how matches should be run in other threads, I'm not sure we'd see more success here. Might be best to just run the types of matches "you"'d like to see. This is the "Sanctioned" vs. "Outlaw" dynamic that's been going on for decades in practical shooting.

 

[scaxeman]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crewchef</div><div class="ubbcode-body">F-class wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for some of the NRA belly shooters. I've met several people that use to shoot sling but are now shooting F and even a few that shoot booth at different times. It is a way to still shoot and be competitive for the shooters who for physical reasons can't deal with the position or their vision makes it tough to use irons. I haven't met a sling shooter yet that made me feel unwelcome at a match. </div></div>

I would debate this. F-Class is now a viable division of long-range shooting (with it's own "critical mass") primarily due to the obnoxious, in-your-face types that wouldn't take no for an answer when confronted by the belligerent "Palma" types in their ivory towers. Yes, there are plenty of cross-overs into F-Class from the Palma ranks, but much of our numbers (especially F-T/R) are made up of newer shooters that have never strapped on a thick shooting jacket.

Don't get me wrong, there are some good guys and gals in the sling and irons community, but in the Pacific Northwest, we are constantly putting up with pointless BS and crap from the "Old Guard" Octogenarians. Even when the F-Classers are making up 50% of their entry fees, we have to fight tooth and nail to merely get our F-Class winners announced.

To be sure, things are slowly changing. The British Columbia Championships (a match that has been shot since the 1870's) has been evolving over the last few years from a pure Palma match with no F-Class participation whatsoever, to around 50-50 F-Class/Palma. The match director there is making a conscious effort to reduce the us-vs-them mentality on the line and has actually integrated the firing line, alternating one F-Class target, one Palma target, and so forth.

Heck, we've almost completely converted one of the best Palma shooters out there (Michelle Gallagher) to shooting full-time F-T/R. I've certainly co-opted Mid Tompkins and (at times) Nancy Tompkins to coach for the US F-T/R Team.

Stick with the effort. We'll never get anywhere if people get pissed off and never come back to the matches. Almost all of the new long-range participation is in F-Class, and if properly implemented, F-Tactical could be a working part of this.

Best,

Darrell

 

[AtOne]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zak Smith</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SHRA, "Snipershide Rifle Association"</div></div>
Based on the disagreements about how matches should be run in other threads, I'm not sure we'd see more success here. Might be best to just run the types of matches "you"'d like to see. This is the "Sanctioned" vs. "Outlaw" dynamic that's been going on for decades in practical shooting. </div></div>
`
Zak I hear you.
But I think the advantage of an in house association would be that bureaucratic chain is much shorter and quicker to adapt to accommodate the different styles of shooters.
Franks "just run another relay" is good example of a solution. It may not fit every match that would be run but at least its a option to keep everyone happy and to keep it moving along.

Use the gun you have whether it has a brake, suppressor or you just purchased it at the sporting goods store.
To interest people in field precision shooting especially new shooters keep it simple and stress that its about self improvement and not winning the match and everyone will go home happy and willing to come out again.

 

[NorCal Vu]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

All,

Thank you for everyone's input...agree or disagree.

What I may do is link the HP commmittee members to this thread so they can see the discussion as well.

The other link will be the muzzle brake voting thread. For a huge site like this, it would be nice to see a few thousand members vote on that subject.

Guys, I honestly was just working on this lil project to give all of another venue to shoot in. That is all. Not to cause drama, not to cause no arguments, brake vs. no brakes, vs suppressed, vs no suppressed.

Keep the discussion going.

 

[Tactical]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pthfndr-CA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When Vu and I were thinking this out, one of the reasons for the bullet weight limit in the FPR Limited class (.308Win and .223Rem) was due to what is available in factory loaded ammunition.

I can't speak to other states, or even other venues, but since the HP MD at the Sac Valley range started having the new "tactical" class last winter, we've had probably 30-40 new shooters. A lot of who do not as yet hand load ammunition.

Now before anyone starts saying, "if they want to compete let them learn to hand load", remember, a big part of this concept is to get more shooters out there shooting. At the Sac Valley public 100 yard range they are getting 200-250 people PER DAY on the weekends. A large number of those are shooting what they think of as off the shelf "tactical rifles" and are shooting factory loaded ammo. Vu and I saw that and he asked, "how can we get them out on the long range competing?".

FPR-Open is because these days most of the serious tactical competitors are going to something other than .223/.308.

Vu and I have discussed with others making up case/COL gauges to use also. So that is not completely out of the question yet. But it is a logistical issue. At our local HP club matches, whether it's service rifle/Palma/F class, everything is on the honor system right now. </div></div>

Brother disagree on what is available as factory ammo.

Blackhills, Hornady, Lapua, Federal and several others make factory match ammo in 155 grain. There has been a push to use this in sniper circles for about five years and its often classed as OTM ( Open Tip Match) to please the JAG types. There is no good reason to not allow 155s in this.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Mike is correct

Hornady TAP Ammo for LE is available in the 155gr variety from the Hornady LE Section :

http://www.hornadyle.com/products/detail54f6.html?id=72&sID=79


308 WIN 155 gr. A-MAX® TAP PRECISION®

 

[mjh30]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Vu, obviously you have put a lot of time and effort in to this idea and I applaud you. My only real point is I don't see a lot of the guys that I shoot with interested in being on the line shooting at paper targets. Now I am not sure if that would dramatically change if they could suddenly shoot for score at a match and get their name in some sort of record book. But most of them are interested in field/precision type shooting, multiple positions, multiple distances, that is their shooting avenue. Having attended several f-class matches this year, I really didn't see anyone from the field/precision crowd out on the line shooting. Its not to say here in the northwest you can't, an example Machias on average holds two 500 yard matches a month, that are Any/Any, Any Iron, Service, F-Class. Now perhaps they don't know about these matches, but I heavily lean to the idea that the guys and gals with what little time they have, want to shoot their type of matches. Obviously its different in other parts of the country, the PRS is an excellent step for the shooters that I know.

 

[scaxeman]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no good reason to not allow 155s in this. </div></div>

+1

The local SERT Team that I work with has been using 155's (Federal GMM) for some time for longer range work where barriers aren't an issue.


Darrell

 

[taliv]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My only real point is I don't see a lot of the guys that I shoot with interested in being on the line shooting at paper targets. Now I am not sure if that would dramatically change if they could suddenly shoot for score at a match and get their name in some sort of record book. But most of them are interested in field/precision type shooting, multiple positions, multiple distances, that is their shooting avenue. Having attended several f-class matches this year, I really didn't see anyone from the field/precision crowd out on the line shooting.</div></div>

you're missing the point... F-class is a gateway drug to real shooting

people naturally progress from just owning guns, to learning how to shoot them on square ranges, to shooting them in more practical situations, to....

f-class is a great way to learn to shoot long range. it's a lot of fun at first. it just gets boring quickly, since the only thing that changes is the weather.

taking a total n00b rifle shooter to a practical match is just going to frustrate them. letting them use practical gear in a f-class match will help them and eventually result in more practical shooters, when they get tired of paper

 

[mjh30]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Taliv I would disagree that f class is a gateway drug to real shooting. I think f class opened the door to those who wanted to compete in a NRA shooting discipline when Palma or HP didn't appeal to them for one reason or another. In December, I will be ro, ing a small practical/ tactical match, of those 30 or so shooters that are attending, I would say that I know of three that have participated in a f-class type match. As I stated before, I just don't think its there thing, I am one of those shooters who took his precision rifle and has gone and shot on a line squadded with all the other disciplines, I was there challenging myself no-one else. Up here in the NW we are lucky enough to have several venues were you can take your rifle and go shoot. I just don't see many or any of the field/precision crowd there.

 

[Mendocino]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

If the NRA F-Class brass is reading this is for you:

I am relatively new to competitive shooting, having started in 2009. Since then I have competed in quite a few regional matches. In 2011 I have shot about 13 matches, the majority of which were practical long-range precision, required an overnight, and lots of preparation. Two of those matches were the Steel Safari and the Thunder Beast Team Challenge. I expect to shoot as many or more matches in 2012.

I am interested in shooting other matches and different matches than the ones I shot in 2011. However, I am not going to modify my gear to accomodate what appears to me to be arbitrary rules. I think you need to define "success" and then set the rules accordingly. If you want more tactical long range shooters embrace them and their methods, don't handicap them or tell them that they have "controversial" equipment and need to change.

I wish Vu et al success. There are more matches geared to my style of shooting than I can attend and will pass on the the tactical F-class if I need to change my kit.

 

[mjh30]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Mendocino, there is no f-class brass that is going to making the decisions. Its the NRA HP committee, what Vu is working on is simply having a separate category for those of us that have precision rifles and would like to compete with similarly equipped shooters in NRA sanctioned matches. Unfortunately it seems that certain shooting accessories, such as brakes and suppressors don't fit into what the NRA HP committee are willing to approve. Will this mean that Vu will stop trying from making this new catergory, hell no, but don't blame the existing. f-class shooters for something they have nothing to do with. My point is and you reaffirm this, is that existing precision shooters are not going to change their equipment that works for them in field/precision matches, to shoot a match, that most honestly aren't really interested in the first place.

 

[Tactical]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mjh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mendocino, there is no f-class brass that is going to making the decisions. Its the NRA HP committee, what Vu is working on is simply having a separate category for those of us that have precision rifles and would like to compete with similarly equipped shooters in NRA sanctioned matches. Unfortunately it seems that certain shooting accessories, such as brakes and suppressors don't fit into what the NRA HP committee are willing to approve. Will this mean that Vu will stop trying from making this new catergory, hell no, but don't blame the existing. f-class shooters for something they have nothing to do with. My point is and you reaffirm this, is that existing precision shooters are not going to change their equipment that works for them in field/precision matches, to shoot a match, that most honestly aren't really interested in the first place. </div></div>

Yes, to piggy back on this you have the F TR Captain, Vice Captain and Team Wookie in this thread saying we could care less about brakes or suppressors.

I would also not gang up on the Palma Guys as they have gone out of there way to help out far more than the occassional knuckle head that does something dumb.

 

[Terry Cross]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Would/could this conflict be settled by debating the body that dictates FPR Class rules?

If one could get them to clearly state the intent of their restrictions, I bet they could be addressed without giving up anything. Vu is smarter than the average bear and my money would be on him and his ilk coming forward with diplomatic and administrative response to the FPR concerns.

Possible example:
FPR doesn't want brakes on the line due to disturbing other competitors. Simple fix that I did at our LRA Tact match - One extra field on the Excel sheet for brake shooters + "sort by" = instant squads or relays that are segregated by Brake or No Brake. Obviously those using brakes would not mind having brake users on either side of them. Problem solved.

Another possible example:
FPR doesn't want suppressors on the line due to perceived advantages or legal availability. Educate and debate the FPR body on the reality. While suppressors do reduce shooter fatigue, they do take up valuable weight needed for other components to still make a weight limit. Suppressors in general still have enough squirrels running around with how they behave hot and cold that I believe they do not offer any accuracy advantage over a clean barrel.

As far as suppressor availability in all areas, as stated above by others the entire group cannot be limited by poorly written laws in a few locals. This has to be recognized as a limit placed by government on certain areas and should not translate to a blanket policy for the entire country. Obviously, anyone traveling to and competing in a restricted zone would have to abide by the local laws, etc. Heck, there is a move on currently by NRA and others to repeal the ill conceived suppressor restrictions anyway.

Putting suppressors in the same relay or squad as naked barrels would not have to be an issue because they are extremely neighbor friendly. Therefore, if they were allowed by rule there would be no additional administrative tasks to classify the users at each match as I would suggest for the brake shooters above.

As far as competitive advantages (in this shoting format) by brakes and suppressors versus clean barrels, I do not think it exists. Within the rules, distances shot and targets engaged, I believe that there is room for several different approaches to equipment if the body governing FPR were to be engaged head to head. Within the proper framework, this would allow the widest allowable spectrum of shooter from the ones just outside F-class to the most hardcore ghillied up Tactical shooter.

Send it up the flag pole and dare them to run it for a year. I think we can have our cake and shoot it too. Just because I have issues with someone's equipment choice doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to compete.

NO RIFLE LEFT BEHIND........

 

[scaxeman]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Terry Cross</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As far as competitive advantages (in this shoting format) by brakes and suppressors versus clean barrels, I do not think it exists.

</div></div>

Oh, there is a distinct advantage to slapping a brake or a suppressor on the end of your muzzle. If someone waved a wand and made it legal for F-T/R (and F-Open for that matter), I think you'd see that virtually everyone would do it. You can simply run hotter, heavier loads in the same rifle and not pay a price for it, either in added recoil, less time to get back on target, etc.

That said, for this prospective "tactical" class, as long as they are segregated either in space or relay from more conventional F-Class shooters, I can't see a reason in the world that brakes/suppressors shouldn't be written into the rules.

Darrell

 

[Terry Cross]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Darrell,

My opinion is different than yours on this one.

If we were trotting out one shooter at a time onto the line, I would give you possiblility of advantage. However, when you have a bunch of shooters, all running brakes, in close proximity to each other it is a different game.

My experience is that any fatigue reduction caused by less recoil is offset in this example by the increased fatigue you endure from brake shooters to each side of you. You are going to suck up roughly 44 rounds of blast from your buddies on each string of fire. Besides the physical stress on your ears and eyes, there is also those crazy, whacky fun times when you are in the middle of a shot and one or both of your neighbors shock you and your rifle. I also think it would be hilarious to try to get a mirage read through your glass when all the brakes are raising hell (and dirt and debris) across the firing line.

As far as going to hotter, heavier loads.... let them go for it. This will only increase the hostile emsisions of the brakes and add to the joy of the shooters to either side of the rifle.

Additionally, there is a point of diminishing returns on heavy/hotter loads. Getting a magnum to behave over a 22 round string is not as easy as the mid sized cartridges. Even in our tactical matches, there is relatively no caliber restriction yet you see the 6mm and 6.5mm standard sized cartridges swarming the top 20 places at every match where magnums are allowed. I predict that without caliber restrictions, FPR will be dominated by 6mm and 6.5mm medium cased cartridges anyway. We're not punching light armor at 1200 yards here. If you take away the need for energy on target, the winning match rounds are mimicking the magnum's trajectory and flight behaviours but without the blast, barrel heat and rifle distrubance (with or without a brake the rifle damn sure moves a lot during the shot release). Getting back on target is a moot point in FPR since the targets would be pulled and scored for each shot (I assume).

If I remember correctly, the term "fratricide" is what I think will happen when you put a relay of brake shooters in close proximity to one another.

I say allow them but segregate their relay. The winning shooters always drive the future equipment selection of the sport and I believe that this particular discipline will take care of the problem by natural selection on its own.

I'll make you a deal. Let's get this passed so that they are segregated but allowed. If that equipment choice does not devolve (lower percentage of FPR competitors choosing to brakes) over the first 24 months of competition, I will send you a $40.00 OutBack gift card. If I'm right I want something similar.

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Terry Cross</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Darrell,

My opinion is different than yours on this one.

</div></div>

It is different than a lot of people's opinion Terry.

I have documented repeatedly on my 30 cal rifles how brakes and cans reduce group dispersion in varying field positions and shooter pressure on the rifle as well as on the flat range doing group shooting. A recent experiment with a new large frame AR in 308 I did I could cut the 10 o'clock shot dispersion in half with the can on versus plain muzzle when purposely inducing shooter pressure on the rifle inconsistencies.

6mms and 6.5s - besides the ballistic advantages over the 30 cals, we/I st least also shoot them because of their forgiving POI dispursion when shot with less than perfect position and pressure.

I don't think you'll have many in your camp on this one.

As far as where one puts weight when they have a weight limit, it goes in the barrel. One generally associates this with the light bench rest classes. I doubt many consider 22 lbs (F-Open) a weight limit that would cause some difficult build decisions if brakes or cans were legal in F-Class. That is plenty of mass to work with in creating an optimized rifle that delivered the velocity, accuracy, and shootability with a suppressor or brake as part of the system.

It is worthy to note that since F-Open has evolved from the 6.5 to 7mm bore, scores have not gone up across the board. Now that the straight 284 and 284 Shehane has been abandoned and the short magnum taking over to reach the magical 2950 FPS with a 180, barrel life is back down to where it used to be with the 6.5-284. The big difference is this - the 6.5-284 could be shot free recoil in a 22 lb rifle. The 7 magnums cannot. Even with its ballistic advantage, scores across the board are not improving. While a few shooters have been able to figure out how to shoot them and a few new records set, there has been no across the board improvement.

Brakes and cans would take F-Class scores to the next level in the 7 magnums on the shootability/repeatability aspect, even capping the rifle weight at 22 lbs.

 

[taliv]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Terry is spot on. yeah, they're an advantage shooting by yourself, but i'd rather shoot 20 rounds for record with no brake than have a brake on either side of me blasting me in the face 40 rounds. my bet is scores would go down on the brake line.

 

[Terry Cross]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

9H,

I understand and respect your stance. I already stated earlier that I am by far in the minority and not many are in my camp. Nothing new there. I still stand by my opinion and forecast.

Please keep in mind the context of my thinking. Context being muzzle brakes on magnums all grouped up on the line shooting within the same time slot.

What will the weight limit be on FPR? Has it been determined yet? I would think running the same limit as F Open would be veering away from the "Field" concept. On the other hand, anyone running a 22 pound rifle in even a large caliber should have most of the shooter input dampened by the weight alone. "Tactical" shooters that shoot in FPR with such a weight limit would be stupid not to add weight to their rifle up to the limit under such rules.

Again, I stand firm in my position that if you make a bunch of braked magnums fire 3 relays side by side, their scores will suffer. In fact, I bet that in short order, the first and last position of each such relay will become prized real estate due to the 50% less hostile environment offered in which to shoot accurately.

Do brakes offer benefits to the shooter of said rifle? You bet.
Can they take advantage of them in an environment that is created by the addition of brakes on both sides of them? I am betting against it.

The perception of benefits will be trumped by actual results in the X ring in this case.

20 years ago, the top shooters at the Masters were shooting brakes on their LR handguns. They put them in individual bays with walls between each shooter to keep the blast from effecting the other shooters. In very, very short order, the brake shooters were using plugs, gel pads and motorcycle helments (no shit) so that they could endure their own blast.

 

[AJ300MAG]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

My own persornal observations...

F-Class has drifted too far from the original intent and concept of the discipline. F-Open is a step too far, let alone F-Class Benchrest (which shouldn't even be considered under the F-Class classification). Muzzle breaks have never been allowed in NRA Highpower, I can understant the reluctance of the NRA to allow it now. I'm all for getting people out to the range and participating in regestered events, There still needs to be limits placed on equipment.

Secondly, the majority of our matches are either 3 or 4 relay events. Adding another relay and extending the match by another hour and a half is going to create issues with those who travel long distances to attend matches...

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My own persornal observations...

Secondly, the majority of our matches are either 3 or 4 relay events. Adding another relay and extending the match by another hour and a half is going to create issues with those who travel long distances to attend matches...</div></div>

Really, adding time to a match... Ya that's an argument against adding a relay. Oh wait, if the idea is to increase participation isn't that going to add to it naturally?

This type of thinking is one of the main problems in my opinion.

 

[AllenP]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My own persornal observations...

F-Class has drifted too far from the original intent and concept of the discipline. F-Open is a step too far, let alone F-Class Benchrest (which shouldn't even be considered under the F-Class classification)</div></div>
That's the nature of EVERYTHING competition related and it isn't exclusive to the shooting sports either.
At one time stock car probably meant "stock"

 

[427Cobra]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

I used to shoot F/TR, the NRA can call it whatever they want, I ain't playing any more F-Class games, and I am sick n tired of people who live Commie States bitch about not being allowed to have stuff the US Constitution 2nd Ammendment guarantees as a right of every Citizen, do something(crying on the Internet doesnt count), move, or STFU.