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

#203
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

I've said I'm playing devils advocate here, so for the record, I'd love to see a tactical class that allows brakes and/or comps.

I've also been involved with or closely followed competitions from shooting USPSA/IPSC in the late 80s and racing mountain bikes in the 90s, to sailboats and motorcycles and one think I am certain of is that in competition someone out there will use anything that the rules do not outlaw, or that cannot be proven to gain advantage. Intent usually has no place in a rules dispute, and there is always someone willing to sacrifice sportsmanship to win. (ever watch parents at any kids sport?).

That this is a first step, work with it, not against it.
 
#204
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

dang... check these out too

3.4.15 Color -
Field Precision Rifle coatings and finishes are restricted to Coyote Brown, Foliage Green, and Multicam.

3.4.15.1 ACU, Woodland Camo, and "black" are depreciated and no longer acceptable.

3.6.29.3 Flush Cups -
Field Precision Rifle stocks are limited to 8 total flush cups. Only 4 of these flush cups can be "heavy-duty".

guess i need to order a new rifle
 
#205
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

I'm gonna paint my rifle pink to comply as the factory black is illegal
grin.gif
 
#206
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

As I remember, Vu's original proposal over on another forum was to have a class with

1. Lower Maximum Weight than current FTR 18.18 lbs
2. Maximum Scope Power of 25x
3. Folding Leg Bipods - No Sinclair F-Class or Center Shot Outriggers

My original understanding of the whole concept was to have rules that make the class more competitive for people to run what they had with field rifles rather than compete head on with purpose build FTR and F/Open Rifles that operate within the maximum limits of the rules.

Now as far as brakes, years ago I was waiting for a new F-Open rifle to be built and it was late so I shot a silhouette rifle I had just to get out there. The rifle weighed 10.5 lbs with scope and I can tell you shooting next to people with larger cartridges, the muzzle blast without a brake was enough to buffet the lighter rifle on a close quarters line. I am getting ready to start shooting my own 30 cal wildcat and it will thump without a brake, but I chose to do what I am doing and I can't expect others to say "let me shoot with a brake"

Fast forward to Vu's original concept. We had many discussions about how to incorporate his ideas to expand the number of people who can shoot in our 1,000 yard matches.

The best concept we came up was to allow people to use brakes was to segregate braked shooters to the 3rd relay so they all shoot together. Unfortunately, the questions of what to do if you don't have enough people to have balanced relays came up. So the other concept was to place braked shooters at the far end of the line and insert an empty shooting position between anyone with a brake and shooters without it. That idea seemed to have more merit, but still nothing went forward and people who have rifles that normally have a brake, just take them off when they show up. Honestly, the issue is a rare occurrence.

F-Class grew by joining in on NRA Prone matches and that has not been without pain as many sling shooters don't like the guys shooting "Belly Benchrest". Now, many sling shooters are contemplating a switch to F-Class because F-Class outnumbers the sling shooters and they are tired of only competing against the same handful of guys.

NRA willing to expand F-Class to include a 3rd segment and allow people to be classified in this segment is a good thing. However, compromise is a necessity if you want to join what already has been established. You can't say "we want 1,2,3 or no deal". If you want it that way, just don't participate.

In speaking to many F-Class shooters, what NRA says really has little meaning. F-Class grew without the NRA and NRA has included it in its ranks to exert some influence. If the NRA trys to over dictate its influence, they will find F-Class not really caring what they say.











 
#207
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: 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. </div></div>

I think a COL Gauge is a great idea. You see limited OAL and no gaming and no advantage with any bullet really. Its a simple walk down line and throw loaded round in gauge and hand back to shooter.


I agree with 25x max scope magnifications also for Tactical
 
#208
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

I'm already shooting tactical rifle in F class matches.

I shoot F-O with a 700 Rem
26" Barrel, I don't know the profile (got it second hand)
.300 WSM
Harris Bipod
AICS
16X Super Sniper scope
No rear bag
Weighs about 18#


I can't believe you guys whining about your muzzle brakes. For Christ's sake, it's really unseemly. While they might seem like no problem to you, they are damned uncomfortable to shoot <span style="font-style: italic">next to</span>. The more efficient the brake, the more gas (sound) gets sent sideways and rearward. That's how they work, you see; they direct the blast sideways and backwards. Just muffs or just plugs are not enough protection. Why should I have to do that for you? On a dusty day or even worse in sandy conditions they're more of a hazard.

At our club the guys with brakes get sent down to the other end of the firing line so they can hammer each other's ears and blow shit in each other's eyes, <span style="font-style: italic">and not ours.</span>
 
#209
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SWRichmond</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't believe you guys whining about your muzzle brakes. For Christ's sake, it's really unseemly.</div></div>

That really doesn't contribute anything to the issue, does it?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While they might seem like no problem to you, they are damned uncomfortable to shoot <span style="font-style: italic">next to</span>.</div></div>

So some people have said. The reality is, at most tac rifle matches guys shoot next to other guys with brakes. It's part of the match and they deal with it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why should I have to do that for you?</div></div>

No one is asking YOU to that for US. We're asking it be done for the good of the sport, in other words to get more shooters on the line at more venues.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At our club the guys with brakes get sent down to the other end of the firing line so they can hammer each other's ears and blow shit in each other's eyes, <span style="font-style: italic">and not ours.</span> </div></div>

That's what our HP MD does at his matches. Our tac rifle guys who shoot his matches have no complaints and neither does the MD.
 
#210
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So some people have said. The reality is, at most tac rifle matches guys shoot next to other guys with brakes. It's part of the match and they deal with it.</div></div>

Exactly. Brakes aren't currently part of our matches now. Who's to say F-Class or sling shooters want to put up with brakes? They put the gas guns at the end of the line for matches here...

Do you always go into someone's house and demand they do things your way? Good luck with that.
 
#211
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: SWRichmond</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't believe you guys whining about your muzzle brakes. For Christ's sake, it's really unseemly.</div></div>

That really doesn't contribute anything to the issue, does it?</div></div>

Please read the information the OP asked for at the beginning of the thread; the whining started immediately thereafter, with the very first response. More posters whining than providing the information asked for by the OP, who is using a lot of his own time and effort trying to further the sport.

So who isn't contributing to the issue now, huh? DA

<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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While they might seem like no problem to you, they are damned uncomfortable to shoot <span style="font-style: italic">next to</span>.</div></div>

So some people have said. The reality is, at most tac rifle matches guys shoot next to other guys with brakes. It's part of the match and they deal with it.</div></div>

Tac matches aren't really shot with many shooters on the line at the same time, are they? The pictures of the ones I've seen, and the descriptions of the matches I've read, indicate they are shot in series and not in parallel.
<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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At our club the guys with brakes get sent down to the other end of the firing line so they can hammer each other's ears and blow shit in each other's eyes, <span style="font-style: italic">and not ours.</span> </div></div>

That's what our HP MD does at his matches. Our tac rifle guys who shoot his matches have no complaints and neither does the MD. </div></div>

Yes, but this is at a regular, formal range with a long firing line, and if there's room for it, then it's a great accommodation. But if guys with brakes start showing up at crowded sanctioned F class matches and want to lay down on the line with everyone else because there's no "extra space away from everyone else", the regular F class shooters will stop coming. That might be OK with you, but it wouldn't with OK with them. I can shoot without interfering with you, but you <span style="font-style: italic">can't</span> shoot without interfering with me. See?

What you really want is access to the ranges; isn't that right? You have access to them now, as you just described it. Your match director accommodates you. So is there more to it than that?
 
#212
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">So some people have said. The reality is, at most tac rifle matches guys shoot next to other guys with brakes. It's part of the match and they deal with it.</div></div>

Exactly. Brakes aren't currently part of our matches now. Who's to say F-Class or sling shooters want to put up with brakes? They put the gas guns at the end of the line for matches here...

Do you always go into someone's house and demand they do things your way? Good luck with that.

</div></div>

Still with the problems and not solutions...

All you do guys do it bitch and moan about the possibility of a brake being close to you without acknowledging nobody with a brake wants to shoot with you anyway... the majority of us have figured out long ago you're a bunch of douche bags, who think you're shit doesn't stink... so if it wasn't for NRA approaching the guys at Sac about this, we would continue to match to our beat, and I suspect before you see any of us on the line with you, instead you'll be reading about our matches getting bigger and more frequent.

Face it, nobody really wants to play that game otherwise we'd have rifles that fit your mold... instead we've all chosen another direction. The issue is, we're not going to let you hijack the term "tactical" so you can artificially inflate your ranks.

Plenty of matches accommodate brakes with no issue, your just too stupid or stubborn to see and keep ignoring the facts as presented to you. I suggest you find your site to cry at... you're not adding a single positive thought to the discussion.
 
#213
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

On the note of brakes (for suggestions): Would limiting the size of the brake help? For instance, on AR's for multigun USPSA matches, they can be no bigger around than 1", no longer than 3". I am not suggesting that size be used, as many factory brakes are larger. BUT, some of the giant v-shaped, tank style brakes are worse than obnoxious. Also, limit them to 90 degree only? I personally dont care if a guy shoots next to me with a brake. But, I have not had to shoot next to a guy 2 feet from me, so that opinion could change.

In USPSA, before the "Single Stack" division was a fully recognized division, they called it "provisional" and underwent changes throughout it's inception. Matches were shot, and proposed changes sent to the main office. Can this be worked into this new segment of F-class? Maybe start with an acceptable compromise between what "we" want and what the head brass at NRA want, then work from there?

FPR ammo, in my mind, should be limited to factory case sizes (not the open class). My reasoning: If we are gearing this to military personnel and law enforcement officers, they have to use factory ammo, so a factory size case needs to be used. (No "poor mans" improved case sizing or whatever it was called a page or two back). Bullet weight I think is a bad idea as there is plenty of 110 - 178 grain match ammo for 308.

I agree with the max magnification. I do not really care for the only colors available for this reason. Remington and Savage make more than a few different "tactical" style rifles. They are ALL black. Black stock, black barrel, black action. Just sayin. (Yeah, I am going to get mine cerakoted in dark earth or coyote, but for "Joe Baggadonuts" that just bought a "Tactical Rifle" and wants to shoot FPR, his rifle is black and does not fit that rule.)

I have not read all the rules, just the ones that were listed a few posts above.

Uh, supressors and brakes. As Frank said, they are here to stay. Put a barricade or a bag or something between shooters. Don't know what else to say. Suppressors are the cats ass and would shoot next to one ANY DAY. How many "tactical" rifles come pre-threaded for comp/supressor these days. I can not think of one manufacturer that HAS NOT put this option on at least ONE rifle.

Supressors, brakes, magazines all are parts of a tactical rifle. I hate all or none and will try NOT to preach that. However, I think we at least need a starting point.
 
#217
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SWRichmond</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tac matches aren't really shot with many shooters on the line at the same time, are they? The pictures of the ones I've seen, and the descriptions of the matches I've read, indicate they are shot in series and not in parallel.</div></div>

Some are, some aren't. At the Nor Cal TBRC, half the match is shot on the HP range. 14 stages and 79 rounds on it.

ncpprc_tbrc_2011_hl_full27.jpg


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you really want is access to the ranges; isn't that right? You have access to them now, as you just described it. Your match director accommodates you.</div></div>

I (me,myself) am not trying to get access to any range for me. I can't afford to go to away matches, and I have access to my range. I have keys
smile.gif


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So is there more to it than that?</div></div>

We (Vu and I) thought it would be good if we could find a way to get more shooters, in more venues, shooting against people with like equipment, with minimal sacrifice on anyone's part.

Why is that so hard for anyone to grasp without all the drama.

More shooters, in more places = good for the sport.

If we - tac rifle shooters and the other side - can find a way to compromise, great. If not, the concept dies. And if it does it's not a loss for me personally because at our range we've all managed to work things out to our mutual satisfaction.

Neither Vu or I have any vested interest in this other than forwarding the sport of shooting. Though I'll admit, when someone tells Vu he can't make something succeed he puts all his effort into proving them wrong. LOL

And just so you know I am not ignorant to what say, the weekend following our monthly tactical long range match (of which I am the match director) I shoot the High Power matches slung up in a coat shooting iron sights.
 
#219
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All you do guys do it bitch and moan about the possibility of a brake being close to you without acknowledging nobody with a brake wants to shoot with you anyway... the majority of us have figured out long ago you're a bunch of douche bags, who think you're shit doesn't stink...</div></div>

OK, that made me laugh. Somebody had to say it, better it should be the head guy on the forum.
 
#221
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 majority of us have figured out long ago you're a bunch of douche bags, who think you're shit doesn't stink... so if it wasn't for NRA approaching the guys at Sac about this, we would continue to match to our beat, and I suspect before you see any of us on the line with you, instead you'll be reading about our matches getting bigger and more frequent.

Face it, nobody really wants to play that game otherwise we'd have rifles that fit your mold... instead we've all chosen another direction. The issue is, we're not going to let you hijack the term "tactical" so you can artificially inflate your ranks.

</div></div>

Wow... That's a pretty broad brush. You've already had the F-Class leadership (both Captains, and the Vice-Captain) on here pretty much completely supporting the concept.

If this is truly your attitude, by all means, keep doing what you're successful at, but don't run down what you're not familiar with. Far from needing to "artificially inflate" our ranks, note that worldwide, F-Class (F-T/R in particular) is far and away the fastest growing segment of organized long-range competition. The "us vs them" crap is rather silly anyway as a fair percentage of f-class types (myself included) are also shooting tactical matches as well - with a brake.

That "NRA guy" that is interested in getting the concept class run through is hardly another pencil pusher, Trey Tuggle spent a good deal of time as a Seal Team sniper. I'm guessing he's got an idea what makes a tactical rifle.

F-Class wasn't accepted overnight by the highpower/palma crowd, but we kept fighting at it until we got the robust, fast-growing class that we have today. For something that was only a concept itself a dozen years ago (F-Class), we now have over 4200 classified shooters. I am hardly going to jump to the NRA's defense on most things, but the advantages of having one rule book, standard course of fire, standard targets, etc. so that scores from one match can be compared to scores from another are hardly something to sneeze at. To say nothing of one National Championship.

Darrell
 
#222
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Where do I start...

First off, I'm not your yes man or a leg humper. If you have issues because I don't agree with you, too fuckin bad. You ask for opinions, I've CLEARLY stated mine.

Secondly I couldn't care less about reading about your matches, I'm busy enough getting ready for or shooting in a match. As I've stated before, there isn't any tac matches around here. So if someone is looking for trigger time and y'all decide you can't play by our rules it's your loss.

I could give a flying fuck about your rules, I would suspect you guys will police your own and not need a MD to get involved. You want a solution as long as it includes the use of muzzle brakes, it's either your way or the highway. Well, take off!

And you ain't ever gonna get that sand out of your mangina if you keep using muzzle brakes...
 
#225
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

jhfc...talk about missing the point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More shooters, in more places = good for the sport.</div></div>

I agree 100%. Don't like the NRA and the NRA's rules? Put your own organization together, get access to ranges, and shoot whatever you want to, at whatever you want to, whenever you want to, with whatever paint job you want to. Why is THAT so hard for YOU guys to understand? It seems you've already done that anyway, and kudos to you for it. Tactical shooting looks like a lot of fun and I intend to try it. Since I'll be visiting you I'll bring plugs and muffs. But the pictures of lots of shooters side by side, there's nothing really tactical about that, is there, it's just different rifles. So hold your matches on different weekends and without NRA sanction. If you guys hate the NRA so much why do you care about them?

You want the imprimatur of NRA sanction but not the rules that go along with it; I get it. You want bragging rights about having won an "NRA" tournament. Just shooting, and being good at shooting, isn't enough. Personality issues? Too bad. So who are the real prima donna's here, eh?

Why does the concept die without sanction? You're already bragging that you outnumber regular f class shooters.
 
#226
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Is the NRA man , Trey Tuggle , really interested in tactical matches ?

We have been putting on a field precision rifle match at NRAWC since 04 . In the year and a half or so that the new tactical position has been around we have yet to get a call . It doesn't get much easier than endorsing a successful match at one of your own facilities does it ?

This isn't about competition for the NRA its about revenue and getting in on the " tactical " craze . Pretty sure the reason nobody has contacted us is that they get a check for 1k every match already .
 
#227
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

The NRA mission statement has changed substantially since inception. What was the driving force is now supporting it's current mission statement.

I shoot F T/R with a great bunch of guys at Palo Alto. Two of them started an FPR match on the Saturday following the monthly F-Class match. It is FUN and I look forward to it spinning back up again in March 2012. As far as I know, if anyone was troubled by brakes they didn't complain about it.

I've read all five pages of this thread. Just to throw my opinion on the pile: if I take the NRA on the face of its apparent intent, they want to attract and bring more shooters to sanctioned (fee generating) matches. If that includes tactical, banning suppressors and brakes is a nonsensical non-starter. My opinion.
 
#229
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

As one of the MD's at Palo (where kengel2 shoots), we wanted to offer this concept of FPR to as many folks as possible to see its viability and to offer folks a chance to shoot rifles at mid-range (600 yds) that they might otherwise not get a chance to do so. So, since there are no sanctioned rules, just a set of proposed guidelines, we kept most in place, adapted a few others and dropped a couple of more (bullet restriction, for one). We do allow muzzle brakes and suppressors. Southwest Gun Glub in Mississippi, also runs FPR matches, but do not allow brakes.

We hold our matches on a seperate Saturday than the F-O, F-TR and Prone matches. Two of the primary reasons are 1) It allows new shooters the chance to ease into competitive shooting without the pressure of a sanctioned NRA match and 2) we can spread the folks out with brakes. Our 600 yard line is covered and brakes are a bit louder under it, than in the open.

I shoot both F-TR and FPR and both are fun (at least to me)in their own way. We have also had several folks who came out to shoot FPR find out they really can do it and that their equipment fits into F-TR, so they now shoot both.

We have notified our shooters of the concept approval and will follow these proceedings to their final resolution. If approved, we plan to allow our shooters to help us decide the direction we go in. Follow the NRA rules and roll those folks into the sanctioned match that wish to go that way and/or keep this seperate non-sanctioned match for those that don't.

I don't see it as an either/or, take it or leave it proposition. I see it as the shooters that make up this sport going in the direction they feel is best for them as individuals and the sport as a whole.

But, that's just my opinion.

Rick
 
#230
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Far from needing to "artificially inflate" our ranks, note that worldwide, F-Class (F-T/R in particular) is far and away the fastest growing segment of organized long-range competition.</div></div>
I'd be really interested to see the data from <span style="text-decoration: underline">other than NRA matches</span> that lets you come to this conclusion. If your data only comes from NRA matches, then you can only say that F-class is the fastest growing segment of <span style="text-decoration: underline">NRA long-range competition</span>.

Look at the competition forum right here on SH. It's filled with match announcements for (non-NRA) long-range matches - "major", regional, and local, and those many of those matches are filling up to capacity or getting 50-100 shooters. The big ones sell out year after year.
 
#231
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Read what I wrote early on,

I have offered solution after solution, discussed compromise and still the only sound the F Class shooters on here can make is, "Its loud and disruptive" so not on my range, regardless of the fact 65% of the tactical shooters out there use them, the military uses them, etc.

if the shoe fits, wear it, if not, then clearly I am not speaking to you. But the blanket refusable to even consider the possibility of a separate line, a divided relay, or a barrier placed between the shooter is not worth the support of this tactical shooter. I mean 30 seconds laying in bed this morning I figured those short plywood boards you can buy at Home Depot given to each shooter from #2 back placed on the left side solves a lot of this problem.

I can do it myself, standardize a set of rules, a course or fire, made for a square range and hosted from this location with 60k members, I mean we had 4175 members on 11/20/11, and ready made sponsors the likes of which I have never seen a the F Class matches. (Ps Darrell no disrespect I have been on the line with you) I won't need fundraisers as I have companies coming to me. I live near Byers, I am a member of Colorado Rifle Club with its great HP range..> I can make it work because I have imagination and know my audience unlike you.

Cheers, I'm out ...
smile.gif
 
#232
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

I would be interested to see what the new revised hypothetical rifle regulation looks like since it is seems that everyone has stated their opinion of F-Class and whether they will not come out and shoot if they cant have a muzzle brake.

From what I remember of Vu's hypothetical post, I think the following rifle parameters would fit a wide range of individual's rifle whether factory built or custom made.

1. Maximum Weight including bipod 8 Kilograms or 17.6 pounds
2. Maximum Barrel length 26 inches (to make it easy to measure, can be 26 inches from the forward edge of the action to the barrel crown.
3. Maximum Scope Power - 25x
4. Rifle can either have a folding leg bipod with a maximum distance between the feet of 12 inches when placed on the ground or can be shot off a rolled up matt, jacket or sand bag - No mechanically adjustable front rests.
5. Maximum Caliber - 308
 
#233
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

For what its worth I will help with the new Tactical where I am asked.

No problem wih brakes and already saw the simple 50 bmg type solution of barriers for anyone with a sore vaginal passge over the brakes. Crap I will make some up and use this year on line just to tick folks off anyway. Cost about 10.00 each.

The NRA needs to lighten up and allow suppressors. We never get any where with kissing the libs butts they just want tongue after getting wetted down. Suppressors are good for the sports and help protect hearing.

Frank I knew who you where talking to and knew it was not the guys who support this. You and Darrell should talk off line as he can be a help as well and is a great guy


Guys who resist this understand many resisted the 308 Class and treated us like shit in the beginning. We are close to 50/50 percent on the line now. The new Tactical class will be bigger than both F TR and F Open if given a chance and frankly this is about getting more shooters on line in sanctioned matches so we dont lose any more rights not about egos
_________________________
http://www.tacticalintervention.com/

Mike/TIS
 
#234
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Vu, I applaud your and others efforts in the attempt to provide more shooting venues for those wishing to shoot their Field/Precision rifles in a NRA sanctioned match. Unfortunately the no brakes/no suppressors rule seems to have brought a tremendous amount of controversy to the table. I have read about your monthly FPR matches and they provide a great venue for shooters to get some trigger time in. Unfortunately around the coutry, we don't have as many forward thinking match directors willing to provide a venue or match for shooters using field/precision type rifles. Perhaps they are unaware of the large number of FPR shooters looking for a new venue to shoot or perhaps they are unwilling to accomodate them. Up here near Seattle, I can shoot monthly at Machias with my field/precision rifle, would they allow me to shoot if the rifle had a brake or suppressor, that I am unsure off. But as the match rules stand now I can and I do, the location is reasonably close and it allows me an avenue to test loads and to get some trigger time. The one thing I will mention is that I don't see many other FPR shooters out there taking advantage of this range. Now perhaps they don't know of the matches, perhaps its not their thing (shooting at paper) or perhaps which has mentioned numerous times is that they don't want to change their rifle setup that works for them to compete in a forum that not their thing. And one more thing, everyone, as in all sports they are those who do not like change, but things do develope, our enemy is not fellow shooters and should never be. I have been extremely lucky to have only met some excellent shooters in the various disciplines that have been insightful and offered encouragement to me.
Marty
 
#235
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Perhaps a different approach is appropriate. The NRA understands money and when approached from a business perspective with some forecasts for revenue they might not be so deaf. When provided with numbers and the potential for increased revenue without a lot of investment they might see the light. The NRA could start an Outlaw class and begin sanctioning the precision rifle matches around the country. Many of the events like the Sporting Rifle Match is held without any impact on their "boxes". It's been my observation that the folks at NRA Whittington Center sure like the money from the Sporting Rifle Matches.
 
#236
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Lurker for a while, but here goes...

I'm a sling-and-irons shooter (including Palma), so here's my perspective on the matter.

First, I'm all for folks getting out and shooting, whether that happens to be the style of shooting I'm interested in or not.

Second, I've found fellow competitors to be nothing but helpful and welcoming to new shooters, and I'm sorry if y'all had other experiences, including the f-class/sling shooter animosity. Locally, VA area, the two groups seem to get along very well, and again, I'm sorry to hear others have had bad experiences.

Now, the actual thing I wanted to mention: muzzle devices. I don't have an opinion on suppressors, so I'll leave that alone. I am, however, strongly opposed to muzzle brakes on the line. The reason is that if the guy next to me (often very close) has a muzzle brake, he gets the benefit of less recoil, but I (and the guy on his other side) are the ones who pay the price in extra noise and concussion--Especially when you don't have a bipod or f-class rest to support the gun. (The muzzle blast can, and does, cause substantial movement in your hold)

It's definitely not nice to have your front sight dance off of the aiming black every time your neighbor touches one off with a brake. Also, it's substantially worse than having a gas gun toss brass on you. (Which happens frequently in across-the-course shooting, though much less often in LR where there are vastly fewer gas guns on the line)

So, anyway, I really don't want to shoot next to a brake, but would welcome having any of y'all come try out a KD long range match. It's a lot of fun. And, as I hope you discover, not boring at all--different from tactical/field matches for sure, but the challenge of wind reading (and holding/position refinement of sling-shooting) is a serious challenge all its own.

Hope to see y'all on the range, whether you're shooting under F Open/TR/FPR or whatever rules.

Nate
 
#238
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Casey Simpson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is it. Gvan got it. </div></div>

Thinking You probably should have read my posts because thats what I have said in 3 of 4 of my posts to this thread .
 
#239
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"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Casey Simpson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is it. Gvan got it. </div></div>

Thinking You probably should have read my posts because thats what I have said in 3 of 4 of my posts to this thread . </div></div>
Sorry Chuck ... hey everyone, +1 for what Chuck said!
 
#240
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

The Sporting Rifle matches might be a good analogy... while I think it was originally intended to be a route to regular NRA High Power XTC (hence the very similar format), the people who shoot it don't seem to shoot conventional HP very much, if at all. Not much animosity (that I know of) but two very different groups doing (essentially) the same thing. The differences are such that doing them together at the same time is not going to happen... might be the way to go for the Practical/Tactical crowd - rather than try to shoe-horn both groups into one match.

Then again, I bet a lot of conventional Prone shooters that I know would have been overjoyed if *F-class* had done just that and left them alone...
 
#242
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

The Sporting Rifle name came about to appease the director of the NRAWC , Mike Balew ( sp ? ) , who was anti competition as a whole and the text book example of a " fudd " and thought that anything " tactical " should go away .

The match is shot with " tactical " rifles in natural terrain across approx 2 miles of trail . Also I'd say that 75 percent of the rifles have muzzle devices with supressors making up half of that .


The match is an outlaw match in the purest form as there was no cash outlay from the NRA and all they do is come pick up the match fees for using the facility on Sun morning . We will draw between 35 and 75 shooters at 20 bucks a head 7 times a year sunshine to blizzard so you do the math . And no they have no support costs other than the outhouse on site , the original cash was provided by shooter donations and maintaince money comes from match fees .
 
#243
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 match is an outlaw match in the purest form as there was no cash outlay from the NRA and all they do is come pick up the match fees for using the facility on Sun morning . We will draw between 35 and 75 shooters at 20 bucks a head 7 times a year sunshine to blizzard so you do the math . And no they have no support costs other than the outhouse on site , the original cash was provided by shooter donations and maintaince money comes from match fees . </div></div>
Correction ... match fee is $30.00.
 
#245
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">Is the NRA man , Trey Tuggle , really interested in tactical matches ?

We have been putting on a field precision rifle match at NRAWC since 04 . In the year and a half or so that the new tactical position has been around we have yet to get a call . It doesn't get much easier than endorsing a successful match at one of your own facilities does it ?

This isn't about competition for the NRA its about revenue and getting in on the " tactical " craze . Pretty sure the reason nobody has contacted us is that they get a check for 1k every match already . </div></div>

Not even a Christmas card and cordial thank you ?

I've been to the SRM twice. I still think it's the best LR rifle match around. If it weren't 9 hours away and on the same weekend of a local match I attend I'd come more often. Keep up the good work guys! I appreciate what you do for the shooting sports and thank you for it.

Steve
 
#246
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">FYI, the "Sporting Rifle Match" as discussed in this thread (so far) is not NRA HP "Sporting Rifle".

http://sportingriflematch.com/ </div></div>

My mistake!

That does look like a pretty interesting match. Nothing quite like that up here, unfortunately.
 
#247
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

I understand the issue with brakes they can be hard to shoot next to, however i really don't understand the no suppressor thing. if anything they should encourage suppressors, for god sakes if nothing else its less noise pollution. I would even enjoy it if they let all the guys with suppressors shoot together so we can reap the benefits of them.

i think without brakes suppressors this is a waste of time. I don't feel like it really encourages anything new to the game. so the weight restrictions are alittle less and you have to use a bipod doesn't seem worth it to me.

just my .02cents and some say its not worth that.
 
#248
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Again... the brakes and cans need to go hand in hand. Most of the people wanting to run suppressed are after the recoil reduction - the noise reduction angle is just PR BS. Unless the whole line is running suppressed, you'll still have to wear plugs/muffs. Since cans aren't legal everywhere, brakes need to be allowed as well to keep things somewhat even. No brakes, no cans. At least thats my take on it. And while some brakes can be okay to shoot next to, others are downright miserable - so I don't see it gaining a lot of traction. Maybe I'll be wrong. <shrug>
 
#249
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: memilanuk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> And while some brakes can be okay to shoot next to, others are downright miserable - </div></div>

Prepare to have your manhood assaulted Monte.
 
#250
Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Something that reinforces one of Frank's positions, the following was posted on Long-Range.com by David Liwanag, commander of the U.S. AMU.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While the current US military bolt-action 7.62mm M24 and M40 sniper rifles do not have a suppressor the M2010 is a .300 Winchester Magnum with a brake and an optional fit-over suppressor. The semi-automatic 7.62mm M110 also has a fit-over suppressor.

The next generation USSOCOM PSR will be a 33-caliber magnum with a muzzle brake and fit-over suppressor. The US Army and Marine Corps are both generally paralleling SOCOM's requirements.

To say a currently-issued line combat sniper rifle does not qualify to shoot in a "Tactical" bipod F-class borders on the absurd.

Are brakes noisy and unpleasant? Sure. Does it matter if they're suppressed since they're shooting off a bipod? Do we ever fill Rodriguez at Camp Perry during Long Range Week?

I doubt any of the individual "Tactical" class has ever fired 4-man teams with two on a point. I seldom see other F-class shooters do so either.

If a line is going to have a mix of LR and F-targets anyway what's the big deal with squadding them on the extreme left or right of the line -- no extra relays required?

Opportunities to shoot long range are fewer back east as opposed to heading to the wide-open public lands out west. Are we really inviting new shooter participation (regardless of hardware) or shutting them out because that's the status quo?

North State's matches at Butner were the most accommodating I had ever seen or experienced (i.e., allowing anything that goes bang to shoot their matches). I was shocked at how young some of the F-class shooters were (pre-teens, albeit shooting under direct parental control). Squad the brakes and suppressors on one end and split their relays -- I don't think they'll care, and in fact they may just be grateful they have a venue to shoot at. </div></div>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Training Courses Florida Precision Rifle Class
Replies
10
Views
491
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