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

#152
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

IF you have enough shooters to fill a relay it wouldn't be an issue. Might be different elsewhere, we've had only 3 tactical shooters attend our matches last year. They fired in their respective classes (F-TR & F-Open) their rifles weren't fitted with brakes. You can see where this is headed. Running 4 relays the line isn't full so the MD would try to accommodate the lone shooter who shows up with a brake, there may not be enough room to isloate said competitor from the rest...
 
#153
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IF you have enough shooters to fill a relay it wouldn't be an issue. Might be different elsewhere, we've had only 3 tactical shooters attend our matches last year. They fired in their respective classes (F-TR & F-Open) their rifles weren't fitted with brakes. You can see where this is headed. Running 4 relays the line isn't full so the MD would try to accommodate the lone shooter who shows up with a brake, there may not be enough room to isloate said competitor from the rest...
</div></div>

More bullshit assumptions and still part of the problem not wantIng to even entertain a solution, as if 1 shooter with a brake would cause havoc with the line.

This concept is DOA
 
#155
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what's the solution?</div></div>

There isn't one as long as the die hards refuse to consider any form of compromise to what they are currently doing.

The solution is beyond simple, and has been discuss more than once in these threads, however as long as the establishment refusing to consider any of them, it will be nothing more than what you already have by a different name. clearly people like yourself aren't interested in working on one. All you care about is how it effects you, never considering that instead of 1 or 2 tactical shooters you might get 10 or 12. But then you've already made it clear you don't like the idea of that compromise. In your mind that is a negative.

The true solution based on your comments and others, a completely separate event, not to be shot at the same time as the traditional F Class COF with the current group of established shooter. The events clearly need to be split in order to work beyond anything but a token gesture towards tactical shooters.

You have no interest in presenting a solution because really you don't want it to happen, and I am sure you're not alone.

Sad,
 
#156
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what's the solution? </div></div>

I don't shoot with you and continue to shoot major matches that sell out in hours and regional matches that are over-full but still take all comers. You guys can have F-Class; you're not "making any friends" with the current rhetoric...
 
#157
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

After reading this thread it appears that this is another textbook example of the NRA run matches not wanting to do anything different than they have always done and if you don't like it oh well . Evolution is a process of normal life that they have been ignoring for decades because " thats the way it's always been done " .

The attendance at the NRA style matches is dropping consistently but the " outlaw " precision rifle matches of all types regularly sell out and new matches pop up all the time .

It would seem if the NRA wanted to attract more shooters they should cater to the shooters demands not the other way around . It really is as simple as the shooters are your customers and you need to provide a service they want to use , they will vote with there wallets and shoot the matches that interest them . When you have a product with little or no demand then you need to look at making changes to the format to make it more desirable not say if you don't like it pound sand .

In looking at the responses here I would have absolutely no interest in a match that I can't take the gear I already run and shoot without having to make changes just for 1 match when wherever else I shoot I'm GTG . When you add equipment conundrums to the already tediously boring F class format that is a deal breaker when for Feb through Sept on the front range of Colo there will be 5 different monthly " outlaw " precision rifle match's to choose from .
 
#158
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

It is pretty bad when guys miss the point. The guys already shooting F TR dont care if brakes or supressors are allowed. Its the NRA High Power folks who say otherwise.

To attack us who shoot F Class because the NRA says no is not the right thing to do. I have spoke up for allowing tactical rifles there class for a long time. So have others who actually shoot F on a national level.

The NRA does things no one will ever understand and this is just one of the less than perfect NRA things out there. The no brake suppressor thing by NRA is equal to the idea of 168-175 grain bullets in stupidity.

I say take it as it is currently allowed and then when enough guys shoot to make a difference apply pressure for change.

Every orginization has its weird rules. Heck I know some clubs that dont allow semi autos in tactical matches?
 
#159
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you add equipment conundrums to the <span style="font-weight: bold">already tediously boring F class format</span> that is a deal breaker when for Feb through Sept on the front range of Colo there will be 5 different monthly " outlaw " precision rifle match's to choose from .</div></div>


So why the wailing and gnashing of teeth? You ask for another venue to participate in and you get it. You talk about compromise but if the rules don't match your agenda 100% you get all pizzy, gonna take your ball and go home...


Hey, we see more shooters every year who've never shot past 100 yards buy a heavy barreled .308 come out and shoot with us. Our matches are getting close to where 50% of the competitors are F-Class shooters, the sport is growing! There aren't any tactical matches held in this area, would have to drive to Pensilvania for the closest matches.
 
#160
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

None of you must be married...

Its called compromise, and somewhere it has to happen for anything to grow. Otherwise it gets stagnant and then its gone..

I would love to shoot more and this might be a great way to make that happen without traveling so much. I just have no interest in shooting my 308 and would rather shoot my comp rifle.

I could give two shits about having a brake on my gun, but if it brings more people to the line then bring it on.
I happen to agree with terry and don't think its a big enough advantage. With or without a brake i would be willing to bet its the same people in the top 10%. MB's are great for spotting your own miss, but when theres no miss to spot its just a recoil tamer. If you cant deal with the little ammount of recoil from a 18lb 308 then i dont think a brake is going to help you all that much anyway.

NO RIFLE LEFT BEHIND........ LMAO...Thanks Terry.
 
#161
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Would it be best to let the ball get rolling on this new class, then start asking for rule changes or is that worse? Im not sure how it works with the whole rules and permission thing. Im of one of those guys that takes the forgiveness rout because it is always much easier
smile.gif
 
#162
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you add equipment conundrums to the <span style="font-weight: bold">already tediously boring F class format</span> that is a deal breaker when for Feb through Sept on the front range of Colo there will be 5 different monthly " outlaw " precision rifle match's to choose from .</div></div>


So why the wailing and gnashing of teeth? You ask for another venue to participate in and you get it. You talk about compromise but if the rules don't match your agenda 100% you get all pizzy, gonna take your ball and go home...


Hey, we see more shooters every year who've never shot past 100 yards buy a heavy barreled .308 come out and shoot with us. Our matches are getting close to where 50% of the competitors are F-Class shooters, the sport is growing! There aren't any tactical matches held in this area, would have to drive to Pensilvania for the closest matches. </div></div>

Typical, 20 paragraphs written to you specifically, including your call for a solution and you pull something unrelated out of context.

Well here is another reason "why".

Guy builds a $4500 tactical rifle in 260 for the one or even 2 big tactical matches a year he attends. It's his primary rifle for it happens to live near you and the most common match around is YOUR F Class match. Now he wants to supplement his training shooting FClass but can't use his expensive rifle because of the brake.

Out here we have a lot of "tactical" as Chuck said but not everyone does, that is a luxury to only a few states. Still if you look at the poll 65% of the tactical rifles out there have muzzle brakes or suppressors. With that majority why should they compromise. If a guy invests in a brake that needs to be timed pulling it off is not an option.

If the only difference between what is currently allowed and the new proposal is a Magazine fed weapon and a bipod in the same division it's pointless to even go in that direction. Especially if they are going to limit it more by dictating bullet weight in a caliber like 308 as Mike pointed out.

The same rifle currently used but with a magazine and bipod, well heck that is just FTR all your adding is an open class for the calibers other than .30 & 223. Add a magazine to that division, stop trying to exploit the tactical community because you realize this is becoming more popular.
 
#163
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

If the NRA wants a piece of the action for practical/tactical/field shooting, they could sign on as a sponsor for the exemplary matches of that type. Every match can use more sponsors and cash is welcome on prize tables and to pay for expenses.

In contrast, NRAWC recently refused to host a new large tactical rifle match at any price. The message seems pretty clear to me.
 
#164
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

The biggest issue I see with the NRA HP match system as a whole is when you look at the history .

The match was started as a training tool with military arms to supplement the pretty much nonexistent military program at the time , ie martial skills .

In the current form all the common issue weapons and sighting systems are not legal for use . The purpose of the program has strayed so far from the original intent for whatever reasons that maybe there should be a good hard look a the whole thing not just F class .

As I see it the whole concept has huge fundamental flaws that need addressed .
 
#165
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

LL, re: your example above of the the guy with the 260, I'll bet you that in most cases if he went to the match and asked he could shoot, they'd put him on the end, and not report his scores to the NRA, and the impression I get from the statements here is that most are scoffing at scoring anyway. (that would however change I'm sure)

I'm playing devils advocate here to some extent. I do agree that the NRA is stuck in their ways. I deal the results here every match. Camp Perry is only 8 hours away, because of that there are a lot of people who would shoot F class who shoot Palma instead because they want to go to Perry and there is no F class there. I've seen a couple of guys switch over from F to Palma for this reason and I know there are guys staying in Palma for the same.

I've done enough competitive sports to know that as soon as it is a competition someone will find a way to work the rules to their advantage. I don't care if it's racing fiddler crabs, for beers someone i will find a way to make one faster and I see this as a real possibility with cans. I'll guarantee you that if you let people hang cans that allow lengths beyond the limit of barrel length that is allowed in a class with restricted barrel length someone will get a threaded barrel extension with a couple of holes in it to call it a can and buy more MV, and suppression be damned.

On to brakes, brakes allow people to shoot bigger calibers w/o suffering as much from the recoil. You put brakes on the line and I will guarantee you that you'll see a line with the real competitors shooting 338s or 300WMs. 7mags, or what ever the best BC bullet you can fling down the range for the least windage. F-O is already becoming the 7RSAUM class. On the 1000 yd line the 260 shooter in LLs post will be moot as far as the competition goes, he can participate but he won't compete. The blast from a brake on a magnum is not a gentle breeze, it is real and it will have to be dealt with if brakes are to be allowed, combine that with my prediction of big calibers it is even more so. People w/o brakes don't want it, and "just grow a set and deal with it" is never going to get results. If you take nothing else from this paragraph get this, if brakes go on the line your current small caliber tactical rifles will not be competitive, bet on it, and if you want to participate you can most likely do it today, just not on the record book.


It is fine to vent here, but I also know that in almost any situation standing up and demanding something, particularly a change to established rules, is not a recipe for success. When I read this thread I get a lot of chest pounding us vs. them noise. As for the call for compromise, the only compromise I see anyone here asking for is to do it their way, sounds like the DC version of compromise.

All the above said, I think there are a lot of people who are just looking for a reason to bitch on the interwebs and would not come out regularly no matter the rules. This year I've been shooting a 308 with a 24" tube, so what if I had to screw the freaking brake off, it's a 308 for gods sake. ORSA locally has had half a dozen matches and during daylight savings we do squadded practice from 1000 on Monday afternoons. All that and most matches I'm lucky if I have two other F-TR guys to shoot against. I took home the TN State Championship Plaque a couple of months ago. The MD had already gotten it engraved, or it shouldn't have been handed out, not much to be proud of, there were only three of us in the class. So TN residents who could shoot better than a 909, you missed a chance to take home some hardware.


In the mean time I've shot in a bunch of matches, done a bunch of squadded practice and burned close to 1000 rounds from the 1000 yd line alone. If a brake is the difference between someone playing the game and not I don't think they really want to play. If someone has a $3500 or $4000 rifle with a brake I'm betting they have one w/o one too. (or they have a thread protector) If you enjoy shooting and want to compete I can't believe that one piece of equipment not allowed is a deal breaker. Vu's proposed rules get a lot of things into the game and do make guns like mine more competitive. I disagree with a lot of it, bullet weights/lengths in particular, but give it a change and get in the game and prove that there are the numbers there to participate then work to get brakes and cans in the game.

One more thing to remember, the NRA didn't propose this, Vu did. He, ee, you, us, someone is asking for a change and a new class, they didn't come out and ask anyone to come pay and play.

 
#166
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If a guy invests in a brake that needs to be timed pulling it off is not an option...</div></div>

BULLSHIT!!!

If the brake isn't timed using a crush washer put a witness mark on the bottom of the barrel and the brake, unscrew the thing and install a thread protector. Don't try and blow smoke up my aze by telling me brakes are installed using some sort of voodoo magic and once in place they can't be removed.
 
#167
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If a guy invests in a brake that needs to be timed pulling it off is not an option...</div></div>

BULLSHIT!!!

If the brake isn't timed using a crush washer put a witness mark on the bottom of the barrel and the brake, unscrew the thing and install a thread protector. Don't try and blow smoke up my aze by telling me brakes are installed using some sort of voodoo magic and once in place they can't be removed. </div></div>

Dude not everyone is comfortable removing them, and in fact some are rockset on ... How does Joe Average do this ... ? And again, 65% are using them, so why should they ?
 
#168
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

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

Unfortunately my few experiences with the closest XTC crowd/match were unpleasant as well. I even had a legit F-class rifle ??? When I asked questions it seemed to aggravate and annoy some of those guys even worse. Well how the heck are you supposed to learn if you don't ask? The top dog,at least he acted like it,I think the MD,had the worse disposition I've ever had the displeasure of meeting,well except maybe my ex mother in law's,LOL. All in all I got a bad taste in my mouth about the whole discipline. One guy in particular was very nice and helpful. I wish I remembered his name,I'd mention it right now!

I think I'll keep shooting the practical precision matches,AZPRC,Sportsman rifle style matches and leave my brake's screwed on. That way I don't have to pull targets in the pits next to two 13 year old girls again. Talk about painful,LOL.
 
#169
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 say take it as it is currently allowed and then when enough guys shoot to make a difference apply pressure for change.
</div></div>

Well said Mike! No-one gets what they want the first time around.

Come out and enjoy the matches. This subject should not turn into Us versus Them. We all love to shoot - period! Also, not every venue can add a relay. The last F-Class Nationals that took place in Sept.2011 in Lodi was sold out and had 6 relays.

From what I have read, Tactical matches are exciting, and the wind reading skills that I learned from shooting at a F-Class five inch X ring at 1000 yards would certainly come in handy in a tactical match. Would love to shoot that someday. In fact, Chad's building me a Tactical rifle now - and it will have a brake.
 
#170
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: C Ward</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The biggest issue I see with the NRA UP match system as a whole is when you look at the history .

The match was started as a training tool with military arms to supplement the pretty much nonexistent military program at the time , ie martial skills .

In the current form all the common issue weapons and sighting systems are not legal for use . The purpose of the program has strayed so far from the original intent for whatever reasons that maybe there should be a good hard look a the whole thing not just F class .

As I see it the whole concept has huge fundamental flaws that need addressed . </div></div>

Exactly they like the idea and name of it, but nothing else...

Personally I woud probably use it since Byers is my home range and their HP Range is excellent... I could see myself participating but not if I have to compromise to fit their mold. I would rather have a F T/R rifle built and work that angle but that's not my game, I would rather work with my AI with my Suppressor so when I do hit the field I have solid numbers for it.

I personally find people like AJ300 the norm, and frankly have no interest in shooting alongside people like that. I can hit CRC during the week and shoot all day without anyone on the line so it bothers me little. But for some with less of a foundation, if the opportunity was more open I can see the draw. Instead they would rather you choose one or the other. You can't balance both but they sure as shit want to use the title.
 
#171
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
On the 1000 yd line the 260 shooter in LLs post will be moot as far as the competition goes, he can participate but he won't compete.
...
If you take nothing else from this paragraph get this, if brakes go on the line your current small caliber tactical rifles will not be competitive, bet on it, </div></div>

I'll take that bet.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ORSA locally has had half a dozen matches and during daylight savings we do squadded practice from 1000 on Monday afternoons. All that and most matches I'm lucky if I have two other F-TR guys to shoot against. I took home the TN State Championship Plaque a couple of months ago. The MD had already gotten it engraved, or it shouldn't have been handed out, not much to be proud of, there were only three of us in the class. So TN residents who could shoot better than a 909, you missed a chance to take home some hardware. </div></div>

you should shoot at tullahoma, TN. it's the other way around. usually 3-4 sling shooters and 25-30 F.
 
#172
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: steve123</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Unfortunately my few experiences with the closest XTC crowd/match were unpleasant as well. I even had a legit F-class rifle ??? When I asked questions it seemed to aggravate and annoy some of those guys even worse. Well how the heck are you supposed to learn if you don't ask? The top dog,at least he acted like it,I think the MD,had the worse disposition I've ever had the displeasure of meeting,well except maybe my ex mother in law's,LOL. <span style="font-weight: bold">All in all I got a bad taste in my mouth about the whole discipline.</span> One guy in particular was very nice and helpful. I wish I remembered his name,I'd mention it right now!

I think I'll keep shooting the practical precision matches,AZPRC,Sportsman rifle style matches and leave my brake's screwed on. That way I don't have to pull targets in the pits next to two 13 year old girls again. Talk about painful,LOL.

</div></div>

worth repeating -- maybe they will learn something and understand why people have an issue.
 
#173
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

As a noob, I recognize the words - Palma, F-class, tactical, whatever. I've got a rifle, I'm willing to participate, put me in the line where I should be and be courteous that I've got a learning curve relative to regulars.

When siting a rifle in at the range for hunting or practice, I get no say whether the guy next to me has a brake on a uber caliber. It's a courtesy to set them up on one end with a piece of plywood between us, doesn't always happen.

I will tell you that as a noob, if I've spent good money buying a rifle or having one built, I'm sure as chit not going to screw (or unscrew it) for anyone once it's working for me. Hell, once a scopes working on a rifle I don't want to change it out, would rather buy another.
 
#174
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 say take it as it is currently allowed and then when enough guys shoot to make a difference apply pressure for change.</div></div>

And what only half the numbers show up because they use brakes?

Does the class get dumped because the numbers arent there to support it?
 
#175
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I personally find people like AJ300 the norm, and frankly have no interest in shooting alongside people like that.</div></div>

Awe Frank, you're killin me here...


If I were gonna show up at one of your matches I'd build a rifle that's compatible with the rules of the competition, not bring along something opposite of what's being used and then demand the rules be changed to accommidate my equipment.
 
#176
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I personally find people like AJ300 the norm, and frankly have no interest in shooting alongside people like that.</div></div>

Awe Frank, you're killin me here...


If I were gonna show up at one of your matches I'd build a rifle that's compatible with the rules of the competition, not bring along something opposite of what's being used and then demand the rules be changed to accommidate my equipment. </div></div>

But its the NRA who wants in on the "tactical" crowd. They should conform to us.....but honestly the less involvement those idiots have the better.
 
#177
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I personally find people like AJ300 the norm, and frankly have no interest in shooting alongside people like that.</div></div>

Awe Frank, you're killin me here...


If I were gonna show up at one of your matches I'd build a rifle that's compatible with the rules of the competition, not bring along something opposite of what's being used and then demand the rules be changed to accommidate my equipment. </div></div>

Nice try,

We don't have restrictions in my Matches... in fact the only restrictions i have seen in Tactical Matches involves steel and over penetration. They usually limit the MV to protect the steel. You run what you have... muzzle brake, suppressor, magazine fed, not, doesn't matter, we just say 5.56 to 338 anything in-between.

But we have had guys shooting 5.56 on the line shooting next to guys with a 338, and the 338 doesn't win just because. But we don't restrict the rifle. So you need to understand what a Tactical Rifle Match is, and means.

Try again,
 
#178
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">not bring along something opposite of what's being used and then demand the rules be changed to accommidate my equipment. </div></div>

I didnt bring along something opposite of the rules. The rules for FPR stated muzzle devices were allowed. Now they have changed without a valid reason why.
 
#179
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Poison123</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I personally find people like AJ300 the norm, and frankly have no interest in shooting alongside people like that.</div></div>

Awe Frank, you're killin me here...


If I were gonna show up at one of your matches I'd build a rifle that's compatible with the rules of the competition, not bring along something opposite of what's being used and then demand the rules be changed to accommidate my equipment. </div></div>

But its the NRA who wants in on the "tactical" crowd. They should conform to us.....but honestly the less involvement those idiots have the better. </div></div>

No, actually. GCE* As my instructors at Nuclear power school would have put it. This is a result of someone (Vu) asking for a new class, not anyone at the NRA "wanting in".

Now do a mandatory remedial re-read.

*Gross Conceptual Error
 
#180
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
AJ300MAG said:
Still if you look at the poll 65% of the tactical rifles out there have muzzle brakes or suppressors. With that majority why should they compromise.</div></div>

Last time I looked the number for those with brakes was at 365.

Just for comparison, the total number of shooters at:
2010 F Class National Championships - 110
2011 F class National Championships - 150

Granted, not everyone who shoots F Class goes to the FCNC, but even if just 10% of the people in the poll who had brakes went if brakes were allowed, that would be a significant percentage of the total.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
#181
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: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">not bring along something opposite of what's being used and then demand the rules be changed to accommidate my equipment. </div></div>

I didnt bring along something opposite of the rules. The rules for FPR stated muzzle devices were allowed. Now they have changed without a valid reason why. </div></div>

There has never been an approved set of rules, do you get that?

Vu proposed a set of rules, and in the minds of the people who make and approve the rules for HP competition there obviously is a valid reason, to not go along with muzzle devices, and to some extent there are people here who agree. It's only an approved concept.
 
#182
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">
Lowlight said:
AJ300MAG said:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still if you look at the poll 65% of the tactical rifles out there have muzzle brakes or suppressors. With that majority why should they compromise.</div></div>

Last time I looked the number for those with brakes was at 365.

Just for comparison, the total number of shooters at:
2010 F Class National Championships - 110
2011 F class National Championships - 150

Granted, not everyone who shoots F Class goes to the FCNC, but even if just 10% of the people in the poll who had brakes went if brakes were allowed, that would be a significant percentage of the total.

</div></div>

Lats two years FC Nationals turned folks away because of limited space. In the future hopefully we will settle on ranges with large enough venue to support more or come up with another idea

I am with Frank on the brakes I dont want to take the thing off once I have it working correctly. I see brakes allowing more shooter in as well. Many guys have f'd up bodies and a brake is less demanding on the human body
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
#183
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No, actually. GCE* As my instructors at Nuclear power school would have put it. This is a result of someone (Vu) asking for a new class, not anyone at the NRA "wanting in".

Now do a mandatory remedial re-read.

*Gross Conceptual Error </div></div>

No, you are the one who is incorrect. Vu did not go to the NRA and ask them for anything. He had an idea and we came up with a concept. It was floated here and at Long-Range.com to get some feedback. The NRA's new (at that time) director of tac rifle competition, Trey Tuggle, was contacted and he asked to be sent a copy. A year later - 2 weeks ago - the NRA contacted Vu and ASKED HIM to participate in a conference call with the rules committee to explain the concept in more depth.

They came to him. At no time did we go to the NRA.
 
#184
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

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

Lats two years FC Nationals turned folks away because of limited space. In the future hopefully we will settle on ranges with large enough venue to support more or come up with another idea</div></div>

This is true (for those who aren't familiar with the FCNC)
 
#185
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There has never been an approved set of rules, do you get that?

Vu proposed a set of rules, and in the minds of the people who make and approve the rules for HP competition there obviously is a valid reason, to not go along with muzzle devices, and to some extent there are people here who agree. It's only an approved concept. </div></div>

I get that, but the proposed rules were the ones everyone was playing by. Those are the rules that were used to judge interest in the class. Those were the rules that lured enough shooters to have the NRA approve the class. Now they are changed and Im willing to bet that they will lose over half the shooters. Seems kind of dumb doesnt it?
 
#187
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"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No, actually. GCE* As my instructors at Nuclear power school would have put it. This is a result of someone (Vu) asking for a new class, not anyone at the NRA "wanting in".

Now do a mandatory remedial re-read.

*Gross Conceptual Error </div></div>

No, you are the one who is incorrect. Vu did not go to the NRA and ask them for anything. He had an idea and we came up with a concept. It was floated here and at Long-Range.com to get some feedback. The NRA's new (at that time) director of tac rifle competition, Trey Tuggle, was contacted and he asked to be sent a copy. A year later - 2 weeks ago - the NRA contacted Vu and ASKED HIM to participate in a conference call with the rules committee to explain the concept in more depth.

They came to him. At no time did we go to the NRA. </div></div>

Then I'm missing something because you state here:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The NRA's new (at that time) director of tac rifle competition, Trey Tuggle, was contacted and he asked to be sent a copy.</div></div>

Maybe I don't get the whole cast of characters but you are saying that someone, maybe not Vu, but someone contacted the NRA (Trey Tuggle being a representative of the NRA) and sent them the proposed rules. Looks to me like you/he/we someone outside of the NRA initiated the conversation.
 
#188
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">
Lowlight said:
AJ300MAG said:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still if you look at the poll 65% of the tactical rifles out there have muzzle brakes or suppressors. With that majority why should they compromise.</div></div>

Last time I looked the number for those with brakes was at 365.

Just for comparison, the total number of shooters at:
2010 F Class National Championships - 110
2011 F class National Championships - 150

Granted, not everyone who shoots F Class goes to the FCNC, but even if just 10% of the people in the poll who had brakes went if brakes were allowed, that would be a significant percentage of the total.

</div></div>

The average has maintained, you're talking a literal translation of a cross sectional "view" of the overall. this is a good measure of the percentage and not meant to say, "only 365 people have them" that is all that responded to the poll, yesterday 4100+ people were on this site in less than 1 hour. That was unique people so clearly a larger percentage of them didn't participate.

In the past the SH Matches have filled within 3 minutes or less with 60 to 100 shooters depending. For the last 7 years that required everyone to travel to South Texas, of which only about 5% where local, meaning within an 1 hour drive. So you have 95% of shooters coming from around the country. As well it should be noted we felt that this number was a reasonable number to hold people to a weekend. So we did not accommodate everyone who signed up. It was not uncommon to turn a significant amount of shooters away. In fact Matches like ASC have held multiple weekends to accommodate more shooters. If I said that the next Sniper's Hide Match was going to accommodate 200 shooters, I suspect depending on the venue and the distance from a reasonable jump off point, I could fill that match in 24 hours.

The Local Matches CWard / Zak spoke about here generally average 35 shooters or more. I believe the Raton Sporting Rifle Match sees as many as 70 local shooters and a few who travel in excess of 4 hours. That is a monthly "outlaw" as they put it, tactical match. As he stated there are no less than 5 tactical matches a month out here, multiple that by state, say, 20 diehard new or potential shooters per region coming to a worthwhile national match... you can figure even if 1/5 show in a 10 state block, that is minimum 50 new shooters, bare minimum, not even counting those who are local, that number can be anywhere from 50 to 200 alone.

Calculate the turnout at Sac Valley and say, if you had a gateway available in just 5 surrounding states what that would mean if you guys hosted a Tactical F Class Type Match, with the understanding those surrounding state shooters could work from the same course of fire locally before moving on. That is what the NRA is doing, calculating it down the numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
#189
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: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There has never been an approved set of rules, do you get that?

Vu proposed a set of rules, and in the minds of the people who make and approve the rules for HP competition there obviously is a valid reason, to not go along with muzzle devices, and to some extent there are people here who agree. It's only an approved concept. </div></div>

I get that, but the proposed rules were the ones everyone was playing by. Those are the rules that were used to judge interest in the class. Those were the rules that lured enough shooters to have the NRA approve the class. Now they are changed and Im willing to bet that they will lose over half the shooters. Seems kind of dumb doesnt it?
</div></div>

These rules are not now being used in any sanctioned match. No F class matches are shot under these rules. I don't understand where the "lured shooters" are? As far as I know there has never been a sanctioned match shot under these rules. There may have been some matches our there on a club level but they are just that, club matches.
 
#191
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Then I'm missing something because you state here:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The NRA's new (at that time) director of tac rifle competition, Trey Tuggle, was contacted and he asked to be sent a copy.</div></div>

Maybe I don't get the whole cast of characters but you are saying that someone, maybe not Vu, but someone contacted the NRA (Trey Tuggle being a representative of the NRA) and sent them the proposed rules. Looks to me like you/he/we someone outside of the NRA initiated the conversation. </div></div>

At that time we didn't even know who Trey Tuggle was, or that there was such a position with the NRA. The name and suggestion to contact him came from someone else. When he was contacted and asked if he was interested, he said yes and said send him a copy.
 
#192
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
kengel2 said:
These rules are not now being used in any sanctioned match. No F class matches are shot under these rules. I don't understand where the "lured shooters" are? As far as I know there has never been a sanctioned match shot under these rules. There may have been some matches our there on a club level but they are just that, club matches. </div></div>

I know the matches arent sanctioned. There have been several "FPR" matches listed on this forum. You can find the results here and elsewhere if you want to look. None of them were sanctioned, do you really think they are going to just add a class and not have any idea what kind of numbers would show up?

Its called a "test" phase. Obviously, the number of lured shooters that showed up were enough for the concept to be approved be your beloved NRA.

FWIW, matches using these rules started back in March, just so you know. Its not something that just popped up last week.
Click to expand...
 
#193
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

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

The average has maintained, you're talking a literal translation of a cross sectional "view" of the overall. this is a good measure of the percentage and not meant to say, "only 365 people have them" that is all that responded to the poll, yesterday 4100+ people were on this site in less than 1 hour. That was unique people so clearly a larger percentage of them didn't participate.</div></div>

Exactly, that was kind of what I was trying to point out. Even if one were to assume some things, and extrapolate the numbers based on the people online (who have an interest in these kinds of firearms) or even just those who viewed the thread (2000+ who have an interest in the specific subject), that would be a very significant number of potential competitors that the NRA should take notice of.
 
#194
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

The outlaw term is taken from 3gun where it is used to describe the matches that are not put on by a sanctioning body , ie the USPSA and NRA .

The NRA is trying to get its nose into 3gun also and the matches that signed on told them that they were not making any changes and to take it or leave it . This is about the NRA keeping itself in business with the decline in interest of all of there classic venues and the huge growth in the action shooting sports .

If they want the participation of the practical shooting crowd they need to present a format that will attract them not chase them away .

The way it was explained to me the two biggest money makers for the NRAWC were the RM3G 3gun match then the sporting rifle match 2nd , this came from the program director down there . Neither one of these remotely similar to the classic formats , food for thought .
 
#195
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: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There has never been an approved set of rules, do you get that?

Vu proposed a set of rules, and in the minds of the people who make and approve the rules for HP competition there obviously is a valid reason, to not go along with muzzle devices, and to some extent there are people here who agree. It's only an approved concept. </div></div>

I get that, but the proposed rules were the ones everyone was playing by. Those are the rules that were used to judge interest in the class. Those were the rules that lured enough shooters to have the NRA approve the class. Now they are changed and Im willing to bet that they will lose over half the shooters. Seems kind of dumb doesnt it?
</div></div>

I haven't talked to the match director of the matches, it looks like the Palo Alto club in LA have held more than anyone (and looking at the pictures there were a lot of no brake guns there) but it doesn't even come close to looking like some nefarious bait and switch scheme by the NRA to get people interested. Those rules were the ones that were developed by people outside of the NRA and proposed to them. Vu posted them here quite a while back. I notice that the rule set for the LA shoots only incorporated a portion of the rules that Vu posted here. Just on a browse they don't make up groups by caliber but only 2 groups with/without rear bags and they don't get into the bullet limitations.

The match director will surely know for sure, but I think you have read too much into this with regard to testing for the NRA.
 
#196
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't talked to the match director of the matches, it looks like the Palo Alto club in LA have held more than anyone (and looking at the pictures there were a lot of no brake guns there) but it doesn't even come close to looking like some nefarious bait and switch scheme by the NRA to get people interested. Those rules were the ones that were developed by people outside of the NRA and proposed to them. Vu posted them here quite a while back. I notice that the rule set for the LA shoots only incorporated a portion of the rules that Vu posted here. Just on a browse they don't make up groups by caliber but only 2 groups with/without rear bags and they don't get into the bullet limitations.

The match director will surely know for sure, but I think you have read too much into this with regard to testing for the NRA. </div></div>

Maybe I read to much into it, maybe it wasnt a formal test, but to think they would just approve a new class without some sort of evaluation just seems silly.

And yes, the rules for the palo alto match varied from Vu's match. Ill let the MD speak to that. Overall though Id bet generally there was 10% muzzle brakes at each match. If we are just counting muzzle devices in general Id bump that number up to 50%. As far as bullet limitations, I think that was one of the new things added the other day which doesnt make any sense.
 
#198
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Mike the only dumb rules seem to be their own...

Bullet weight restrictions, scope magnification restrictions, ammo length restrictions, bipod weight restrictions geeze. The only rule the NRA wants is the muzzle attachments. Take the damn brakes off and fire in the established class your rifle already fits in. You don't need mag fed ammo for speed (though there are times I'd like to hammer down a follow up shot to wake the puller up
grin.gif
) and seeing your own bullet trace is a non-issue in F-Class.
 
#199
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is my prediction.

If F Tactical becomes a real go without dumb rules it will quickly overtake all other NRA forms of competition </div></div>

Mike

Since you are a regular F-T/R shooter, and think the bullet weight restriction for the FPR limited class is not a viable idea, do you think a blind end case gauge of sorts that limits COL to a specific spec, made to SAMMI .308Win chamber specs, but with a straight throat (to accommodate various bullets) is a viable solution for checking cartridges at major matches?

Any and all technical feed back Vu and I can get from people is valuable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Training Courses Florida Precision Rifle Class
Replies
10
Views
492
MikeMiller
M
J
Training Courses Precision Rifle course (2 Day) Sanford, NC. Everything’s Provided (AI, Vortex, MARS, Ammo)
Replies
0
Views
217
JackOfAllTrades
J
pangris
Sons of Liberty Armorers Class - AAR
Replies
53
Views
2K
bfoosh006
bfoosh006
T
Firearms **SOLD** New, never fired: Seekins Precision Havak Hit Pro 6.5 PRC with Nightforce NX8 4x32-50 F1 MIl-XT and extras. $4,800
Replies
9
Views
909
Marine555
M
338LM_Sniper
Firearms ***SOLD*** GA-Precision GAP-10 Sniper Rifle in .308 Caliber. (Like New) ***SOLD***
Replies
5
Views
657
Flyperk
Flyperk
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts