F T/R Competition New F-Class Division

[SWRichmond]

I don't have to win to have fun. In fact, I have only won once, and that was a win in the MK division, and I am still having a blast. Do I wish I won more? You bet! It helps motivate me. But I am shooting for fun and to improve.

I shoot F Class because I can't see iron sights anymore. Astigmatism, floaters the size of the Empire State Building, and now cataracts. Fuck me.

I started out with a .300WSM I got second hand but new, and shot off a Harris bipod and no rear bag. I only succumbed to rear bagness about a year and a half ago, but am still using Harris bipods on FO and FTR guns. I use a brick bag, not a bunny-eared board-mounted wonder bag. This is the way I want to do it, and my scores are continually improving. At some point I will probably decide to go Sinclair bipod and bunny bag, which seems to me to mostly reduce the game to ammo and wind reading. In fact, had I done this right up front, I could probably have concentrated more on learning wind reading and worried less about position and technique errors. I HAVE (once) shot master-level scores at LR using the technique described, with FTR. Rifle is an accurised 700, 26" Krieger, sitting in an AICS.

I have learned so much from being in the competitive environment. If you want to get good at something you can reinvent the wheel or you can hang out with people who are already good at it. They will both teach you and challenge you.

We DO obsess about reloading. For real.

Go shoot and have fun.

 

[clmayfield]

I understand the idea behind making the sport more accessible to people on a budget. I point to 3-position Sporter Class Air Rifle as a sport that has effectively created very specific parameters around rifles that must cost $600 or less. They have an approved list of rifles that must be used bone stock. You could do that with F-class and approve, say, the Savage F/TR and the Remington 700 Target Tactical.

The problem with centerfire rifles is that people will still end up tinkering with their gear. They will bed the rifles. They will true the actions. They will stone the trigger. They might even find a custom barrel and get it to cosmetically look like the factory barrel. Where there is equipment, people will modify. And shouldn't they be able to? Some factory rifles shoot well and some don't. Should the guy who happened to get a factory shooter have a better shot than the guy who drew the short straw?

And of course, there will be the ammo race. Prometheus charging machines, annealers, custom dies, etc., etc. $.40 custom bullets. I don't think the equipment makes the shooter, but top shooters are going to do what they can to insure that they have the best possible equipment. And then the shooters who aren't doing as well will look at the top shooters and follow suit.

And then someone will ask the question, "Why don't they add a fourth division of F-class to make it more accessible to all shooters."

 

[QuietShootr]

Just trying to get others opinions.

What I don't like about the two current divisions, is you either shoot a .308 (.223 isn't very popular) or you shoot open. With any sport, I think an important aspect, is getting new competitors involved....making the sport more accessible. The issue (if you want to call it that), is if your rifle isn't a .308, your shooting in open, where guys have as much money in their front rests and rear bags, then you might have in your entire set-up. What I personally would like to see is a Tactical division, and please don't say that's what F/TR is. What's tactical about a 30" heavy barrel gun, with one of those crazy Sinclair type bipod and a 40x scope. Or I guess to appease you, we could call it Hunter class. hell call it Wanna Be class for all I care. Rules would be, something along the lines of a barrel length restriction (26-28" max), an overall weight restriction, a max usable scope magnification (say 30x), maybe a restriction on bipod (like you can only use a foldable bipod). If this was the class, shooters could shoot their tactical/varmint/long range rifles and be competitive. I compete in USPSA, and to put it in perspective, it would be like only having Limited and Open divisions. Sure you can show up with your Glock, but your going to be shooting against $3000 full custom 2011's. But with the Production division, it always shooters with standard type gear to show up and compete versus others with standard type gear and be competitive. Another option, would be to lift the caliber restriction on F/TR to .30 caliber and under, but I wouldn't really want to screw with a division that's already established and doing good. I'm sure many will disagree with my thoughts, I personally don't see the negative in getting new shooters involved in a new division. If you like open, shoot open, it wouldn't change. If you like f/tr, shoot f/tr, it wouldn't change. Just add another division, that makes it easier for new shooters that don't have a dedicated f class rifle.

 

[QuietShootr]

The whole F-Class rules are restrictive with brakes and the like, been there done that. I was annoyed big time when I first went out and started shooting F/TR. My "offensive" tactical rifle with brake and a box mag was evil and etc. I have since built a dedicated F/TR rig and solved those issues, however I still see them with the new shooters that show up. What I have learned over time is that generally the other F-Class guys don't care. Its the Palma/service rifle crowd that gets all fired up over these issues. This whole batch of issues came to a head this past fall at the club/org where I shoot at 1000. The sling and coat crowd and F-Class were at odds and the relay rotations / pit duty cycle / everything had gone way over the top and some serious butthurt was flying form both sides.

Yuuuuuup. I don't know what it is about the jacket-and-sling crowd that attracts such asshole personalities. I'm talking fighter-pilot egos.

The big weekend(s) are now separate and F-Class has grown enough to no longer shoot side by side with the Coat and Sling crowd. I know every venue/club is different in how they enforce the "rules" and what they allow on the line. Kind of like Bench rest guys, most of them are really laid back and chill when not on the line, but mess with them in the middle of a 7 minute string and they will go ape shit. The shooting rules set and rifle type the OP is looking for exists ... it was created from communities like the one here at the Hide .... they are called the TRL and PRS. They are also growing in popularity and number. There are roughly half dozen TRL/PRS type matches in my area a year now and the slots fill up within hours usually. I know a few guys that shoot everything with one rifle and they specifically use Badger FTE brakes so when they show up at F/TR they spin off their brake and spin on a thread protector, snap in a single shot mag follower and shoot. That's the best answer/solution I have seen ...

 

[wwrhodes91]

Not sure why everyone is so hostile to the idea. A large portion of people doing F T/R at local matches around the country are using 20-26" medium barrels, tactical stocks, and Harris bipods. A division that catered specifically to that type of setup makes sense. Brad Sauve won with that kind of setup in 2004, now F-class is more like benchrest but with $400 clunky bipods.

 

[wwrhodes91]

All of you pointing out that people will just bypass the rules... it isn't that hard. Just have a weight limit, 26" barrel limit, tactical style stock, harris type bipod. That is all that needs to be designated for the division. It isn't hard, stop acting like it would be. Tons of shooting sports have successfully regulated class divisions more complicated than this.

 

[damoncali]

I think the resistance comes from the fact that such a division would obliterate TR at many local matches, and the differences are not so dramatic as to need their own class. Most of the TR rifles I see on the line locally would be classified under a "field rifle" class, leaving only a few for TR. Nobody likes to compete in a class with one or two other people. By the time you throw in divisions and skill classifications, you need 100 people at a match before you have anyone to compete with.

 

[wwrhodes91]

I think the resistance comes from the fact that such a division would obliterate TR at many local matches, and the differences are not so dramatic as to need their own class. Most of the TR rifles I see on the line locally would be classified under a "field rifle" class, leaving only a few for TR. Nobody likes to compete in a class with one or two other people. By the time you throw in divisions and skill classifications, you need 100 people at a match before you have anyone to compete with.

If it would obliterate TR, that just shows you that it needs to be its own divison. Too many local TR matches are won simply because of equipment differences. There's too much difference in equipment for them to be in the same class.

They don't want to compete with only one or two other people, even though they are really only competing with one or two people anyways because of equipment.

 

[damoncali]

If it would obliterate TR, that just shows you that it needs to be its own divison. Too many local TR matches are won simply because of equipment differences. There's too much difference in equipment for them to be in the same class.

They don't want to compete with only one or two other people, even though they are really only competing with one or two people anyways because of equipment.

That's probably true to a degree. TR becomes the weird class, and maybe it should. What would you do with TR? Just fold it into open (in other words, kill it), let them continue on as a curiosity? I think that's the issue. You have to pick an upper limit to the .308/.223 only class, and TR does that currently. Downsizing the rifles a little will just exclude the current TR shooters. I don't think that's a very good solution to the problem - you're just excluding one group to include another (who technically isn't excluded anyhow). The divisions are too close together, equipment-wise, to warrant a difference in my opinion. It would be like separating out semi auto match rifles from bolt gun match rifles in XC matches - the differences aren't so great that there isn't more good done by lumping them all together.

I'd be curious to see how many shooters are serious about F class and who would prefer to shoot a field rifle class over TR. I'm not one of them. I like TR the way it is, although I'd be up for some sort of rules on bipods - they're getting ridiculous. Admittedly, I haven't thought about what those rules would be. If TR required sane bipods, I doubt there would be as much clamoring for a field rifle division.

 

[wwrhodes91]

That's probably true to a degree. TR becomes the weird class, and maybe it should. What would you do with TR? Just fold it into open (in other words, kill it), let them continue on as a curiosity? I think that's the issue. You have to pick an upper limit to the .308/.223 only class, and TR does that currently. Downsizing the rifles a little will just exclude the current TR shooters. I don't think that's a very good solution to the problem - you're just excluding one group to include another (who technically isn't excluded anyhow). The divisions are too close together, equipment-wise, to warrant a difference in my opinion. It would be like separating out semi auto match rifles from bolt gun match rifles in XC matches - the differences aren't so great that there isn't more good done by lumping them all together.

I'd be curious to see how many shooters are serious about F class and who would prefer to shoot a field rifle class over TR. I'm not one of them. I like TR the way it is, although I'd be up for some sort of rules on bipods - they're getting ridiculous. Admittedly, I haven't thought about what those rules would be. If TR required sane bipods, I doubt there would be as much clamoring for a field rifle division.

I agree on the bipods. I have more problems with those than anything else. I think adding a division wouldn't effect the larger matches for the current TR shooters. They will have less people in TR at local matches, but again, they weren't REALLY competing with the tactical rifle shooters anyways.

 

[wwrhodes91]

It is like having car races labeled "production division" but 90% of the field at local races are using stock mustangs while 10% use ZR1s, GT-Rs, and 911s. The mustangs weren't REALLY competing so the 10% shouldn't be upset when the 90% want to compete against themselves.

 

[damoncali]

I get what you're saying, but at mid range, I'd argue the difference is too small to worry about, and at 1000, the "tactical rifles" are so far out of their league, they might be better off shooting at the sling targets. Might be better to add a bipod class to sling shooting (watch the fireworks fly on that one!). Shooting a 20 inch .223 at a 1/2 MOA X-ring at 1000 yards with 77 grain mag-length bullets is getting silly. It's just not enough gun for the target. Maybe that's an argument for another division. I'm not sure...

I still think the problem boils down to those ridiculous bipods. Fix that, and everyone's happy that wants to be.

 

[wwrhodes91]

I get what you're saying, but at mid range, I'd argue the difference is too small to worry about, and at 1000, the "tactical rifles" are so far out of their league, they might be better off shooting at the sling targets. Might be better to add a bipod class to sling shooting (watch the fireworks fly on that one!). Shooting a 20 inch .223 at a 1/2 MOA X-ring at 1000 yards with 77 grain mag-length bullets is getting silly. It's just not enough gun for the target. Maybe that's an argument for another division. I'm not sure...

I still think the problem boils down to those ridiculous bipods. Fix that, and everyone's happy that wants to be.

I think I would be satisfied with limiting bipods to atlas/harris styles. It is just getting to the point where I wonder, "Why aren't you guys just shooting benchrest?".

 

[ptd]

I think I would be satisfied with limiting bipods to atlas/harris styles. It is just getting to the point where I wonder, "Why aren't you guys just shooting benchrest?".

What about folks with Sako TRG bipods? Or does that also provide an advantage due to its cradle design and wider stance? (even more so on the original Sako TRG bipod). Clearly its a 'field' bipod... Or do you want to expand it a bit to 'folding' bipods? As Deny mentioned somewhere earlier, it would just be a matter of time till someone engineered a folding 'shooting benchrest' style bipod as you refer to them as...

-pd

 

[wwrhodes91]

What about folks with Sako TRG bipods? Or does that also provide an advantage due to its cradle design and wider stance? (even more so on the original Sako TRG bipod). Clearly its a 'field' bipod... Or do you want to expand it a bit to 'folding' bipods? As Deny mentioned somewhere earlier, it would just be a matter of time till someone engineered a folding 'shooting benchrest' style bipod as you refer to them as...

-pd

You can just have a width limit, and they have to be folding. This isn't hard.

 

[hammerhead]

Anyone who wants to shoot F-T/R at our club has to shoot F-Open class. (F-T/R is just getting off the ground here in Oz and not all clubs have accepted it yet)

We had a bunch of new shooters join the club recently who wanted to shoot/compete with their "field" rig 308s and 223s. While officially we are all shooting FO, we have formed a sub group among ourselves to cater for field rifles. No rules are set in concrete but the following is what we have agreed to:

barrels 26" or less
medium actions
folding bipods (TRG, Harris etc) or sling
operating mags
ammo used must fit in mag (single round feed still applies)
scope power 25x max

These new shooters have found a home and are having a ball.

 

[wwrhodes91]

Anyone who wants to shoot F-T/R at our club has to shoot F-Open class. (F-T/R is just getting off the ground here in Oz and not all clubs have accepted it yet)

We had a bunch of new shooters join the club recently who wanted to shoot/compete with their "field" rig 308s and 223s. While officially we are all shooting FO, we have formed a sub group among ourselves to cater for field rifles. No rules are set in concrete but the following is what we have agreed to:

barrels 26" or less
medium actions
folding bipods (TRG, Harris etc) or sling
operating mags
ammo used must fit in mag (single round feed still applies)
scope power 25x max

These new shooters have found a home and are having a ball.

Sounds good to me, except the mag length cartridges. Not many people (even the ones with "field rifles" ) load their mag in F class. Seems like an unnecessary limitation. It just hurts people with rifles that have long throats or shoot bullets that don't jump well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[hammerhead]

Sounds good to me, except the mag length cartridges. Not many people (even the ones with "field rifles" ) load their mag in F class. Seems like an unnecessary limitation. It just hurts people with rifles that have long throats or shoot bullets that don't jump well.

We don't shoot from the mag. It is just an agreement to compete with mag length rounds. (My rifle has one of those long throats you mentioned. Some 155s were out of the case mouth before they reached the lands. With so many 30 cal options it wasn't too hard to make one work.)

 

[memilanuk]

What the heck. Everyone else has had their say; I might as well chip in my $0.02 as well I'm not referring to anybody in particular's post(s) here, so bear that in mind before you get all up in a huff over my views.

If your local club or association has enough shooters interested in a separate category and you have a match director willing to oversee a separate set of rules, I'd say go for it. When/if that spreads and gets some grass-roots momentum behind it... as in actual bodies participating at matches, not just people flapping their gums... then some discussion on whether it would be appropriate for inclusion in the NRA rule book - and how it would be managed with regard to the existing groups would definitely be warranted. That I don't have a problem with, and I doubt many would.

If a few folks here seem less receptive to some of these ideas of 'new' categories it may because we have literally heard them time and again - from a 'factory' class to some sort of tactical/bipod-only F-Open variant. And while the argument could be made that the recurring nature is indicative of the 'popularity' of the concepts... with very few exceptions, I don't see those with the 'ideas' working very hard on implementing those ideas aside from pounding the keyboard. To those of you who actually get out there and make things happen... BZ.

There are a lot of ideas that sound great in theory but start to come apart in practice. Some of the people who take the role of the opposition (or devil's advocate, take your pick) have more than a few matches under their belts, often as match directors or other support staff, and they've seen some of the chicanery that takes place when folks start trying to do the range lawyer bit. The more specific you make the rules, the more they are going to get picked apart and 'gamed'. The only other option is to make them fairly encompassing and general, with a few hard limits here and there - which is about what we have now with F/TR & F-Open. Those rules have a number of areas that most people I know don't agree with 100% - but they do work reasonably well most days.

Is there a place for some derivative or variation of F-Class that allows field/tactical style rifles to be more competitive amongst themselves rather than directly with the full-blown F/TR & F-Open rifles? Perhaps. I really thought the whole F-Precision Rifle thing might make a go of it - maybe it will yet. But I honestly think thats the direction it needs to go - build momentum and grow at local matches and expand on upwards, rather than have 'demands' (not referring to anyone specifically but if you've followed some of these threads in the past...) for a new category with rules to suit from the top down.

YMMV,

Monte

 

[hammerhead]

.......... With any sport, I think an important aspect, is getting new competitors involved....making the sport more accessible.......

I agree with the OP on this point and it is the reason I became more involved with our club's new shooters. However, the point of my post was to show that rules don't have to be changed "from the top down" to achieve a higher retention rate.

It is a no-brainer that new shooters will want to shoot what they have. It is also a no-brainer that they will not enjoy being handed their a** by a "pro" in competitions. They will also need a lot of tuition in reloading, load development, wind reading etc.

It is my hope that by giving them what they want/need early on in their club experience they will develop their skills to the point where they can make an educated choice about which LR discipline to follow.

 

[XTR]

First of all Vu et al got the Field rifle concept approved. If you like that idea it's been run up the line.

Second, if you go back to the OP and look at the post one of the things that the OP asked for in his new class is to remove the caliber restrictions. Do you really think that will end up being just bring what you got? I guarantee you that it won't be two matches before someone shows up with a purpose build RSAUM with in a oz/mm of the limits, at which point your [insert caliber here] off the shelf rifle will once again be somewhat at a disadvantage.

The racing comparisons are probably appropriate to some extent here, and the point is that in any game there are participants and there are competitors, and the competitors will do whatever they can to gain all possible legitimate advantage, including practice.

I often get to shoot with some really good F-TR shooters, and when Laura, Dale, Phil, Jim, Ronnie, or Denys show up at a match they don't shoot high scores just because they have a good rifle, they shoot high scores because they have put in the time and effort to be good. Billy "brung what you got" is never going to compete with with someone who shoots two or three thousand rounds a yr in practice and testing. It is the difference in participating and competing.

 

[asbestosglove]

I agree with Wade. No one is prohibited from bringing their tactical .308/.223 to an FTR match, sans brake. Participation is encouraged. Just realize your rifle's limitations within the rules and don't get butt hurt if you don't win...then go looking for an excuse. Some guys have 30" barrels!! I don't have one!! Make them shoot what I have!!

 

[Denys]

I get what you're saying, but at mid range, I'd argue the difference is too small to worry about, and at 1000, the "tactical rifles" are so far out of their league, they might be better off shooting at the sling targets. Might be better to add a bipod class to sling shooting (watch the fireworks fly on that one!). Shooting a 20 inch .223 at a 1/2 MOA X-ring at 1000 yards with 77 grain mag-length bullets is getting silly. It's just not enough gun for the target. Maybe that's an argument for another division. I'm not sure...

After watching any number of people coming to shoot their "tactical rigs" at 1000 yards, I can assure you that for .223 or .308 ammo, 24 inch barrels are less than optimum and factory ammo, premium, military or otherwise, are simply not up to the task of F-class centers at that distance.

I should think that it is important to match the target to the capabilities of the equipment and in .223 or .308 the current rules governing F-TR are such that it is barely possible to get a clean at 1000 yards, provided the stars and planets align, the geese fly in the right direction, the wind is discernable and the shooter has a great day. At the 2013 Nationals in Raton, there was a single solitary 20-round clean on Thursday morning. At that same time, I shot a personal best 199-7; something I have not been able to replicate since. So my feeling is that the F-class targets are perfect for F-TR but will be just a source of on-going intense frustration for the tactical rigs. Getting any meaningful classification beyond Sharpshooter will be nigh near impossible, so will you want to have different percentages for that division?

I believe the users of these rigs would be much better served with the regular 2-MOA LR-1 target. This would, of course, bring the whole thing full circle as that is where F-Class originated; scopes and bipods on existing match rifles shooting at the LR-1 target.

For 600 yards and less, the tactical rigs can do well, provided the shooter is up to the task and the ammo is the very best it can be.

I still think the problem boils down to those ridiculous bipods. Fix that, and everyone's happy that wants to be.

It's not the bipods; that's just a visible icon of someone who is a competitor. Next you will say that you can't have heavy contour barrels, or the handloads must be assembled in slipshod fashion.

I especially enjoyed the difference between (gloved) hand use and rear rest use; that was funny.

 

[wwrhodes91]

I agree with Wade. No one is prohibited from bringing their tactical .308/.223 to an FTR match, sans brake. Participation is encouraged. Just realize your rifle's limitations within the rules and don't get butt hurt if you don't win...then go looking for an excuse. Some guys have 30" barrels!! I don't have one!! Make them shoot what I have!!

Such a straw man argument. No one is saying that you eliminate the TR class that stands today. There is absolutely no reason there shouldn't be a class that caters to what a large proportion of shooters bring to local TR matches. The only one's that seem opposed to the idea are guys running purpose built sticks that enjoy beating the tactical rifles by miles. You aren't REALLY competing against them, so why not make it official?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[wwrhodes91]

First of all Vu et al got the Field rifle concept approved. If you like that idea it's been run up the line.

Second, if you go back to the OP and look at the post one of the things that the OP asked for in his new class is to remove the caliber restrictions. Do you really think that will end up being just bring what you got? I guarantee you that it won't be two matches before someone shows up with a purpose build RSAUM with in a oz/mm of the limits, at which point your [insert caliber here] off the shelf rifle will once again be somewhat at a disadvantage.

The racing comparisons are probably appropriate to some extent here, and the point is that in any game there are participants and there are competitors, and the competitors will do whatever they can to gain all possible legitimate advantage, including practice.

I often get to shoot with some really good F-TR shooters, and when Laura, Dale, Phil, Jim, Ronnie, or Denys show up at a match they don't shoot high scores just because they have a good rifle, they shoot high scores because they have put in the time and effort to be good. Billy "brung what you got" is never going to compete with with someone who shoots two or three thousand rounds a yr in practice and testing. It is the difference in participating and competing.

I think you could just have a field rifle division for open and TR. If you had to group them together, there could be a no magnum limit or a MV limit.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[damoncali]

After watching any number of people coming to shoot their "tactical rigs" at 1000 yards, I can assure you that for .223 or .308 ammo, 24 inch barrels are less than optimum and factory ammo, premium, military or otherwise, are simply not up to the task of F-class centers at that distance.

I should think that it is important to match the target to the capabilities of the equipment and in .223 or .308 the current rules governing F-TR are such that it is barely possible to get a clean at 1000 yards, provided the stars and planets align, the geese fly in the right direction, the wind is discernable and the shooter has a great day. At the 2013 Nationals in Raton, there was a single solitary 20-round clean on Thursday morning. At that same time, I shot a personal best 199-7; something I have not been able to replicate since. So my feeling is that the F-class targets are perfect for F-TR but will be just a source of on-going intense frustration for the tactical rigs. Getting any meaningful classification beyond Sharpshooter will be nigh near impossible, so will you want to have different percentages for that division?

I believe the users of these rigs would be much better served with the regular 2-MOA LR-1 target. This would, of course, bring the whole thing full circle as that is where F-Class originated; scopes and bipods on existing match rifles shooting at the LR-1 target.

For 600 yards and less, the tactical rigs can do well, provided the shooter is up to the task and the ammo is the very best it can be.

Isn't that a good reason to have a separate division (perhaps outside of F class, even? The distinction seems odd to me in the first place. Isn't F just a subclass of High power, after all?). I'm generally against making more divisions because it dilutes competition, but when rifle capability is dramatically different (as is the case for tactical rifles at 1000, just like service rifles are at a substantial disadvantage to match rifles), it can make sense. Use whatever target is appropriate for the gear (and I agree - the big targets are more appropriate at 1000). If that means there is a tactical rifle class crammed between f class and sling shooting, why not? We tend to have mixed-matches locally anyhow. A handful of sling shooters will show up for an F class match, and they will use big targets and just not participate officially. There is no need to have F class matches on one day and sling matches on another. Just have high power matches, and divide them up by the predominant gear choices (tactical, sling, f class, whatever). You can't deny that tactical rifles are a very popular choice. It's not like there's just one guy with a tactical rifle who wants to ruin everyone else's fun. I bet at our local matches the tactical-class shooters would outnumber the TR shooters.

It's not the bipods; that's just a visible icon of someone who is a competitor. Next you will say that you can't have heavy contour barrels, or the handloads must be assembled in slipshod fashion.

I especially enjoyed the difference between (gloved) hand use and rear rest use; that was funny.

Some people will always bitch - this is true. But I think there is a legitimate gripe about the bipods. They exist only because of the rules - nobody would make such a thing on purpose. They're goofy, expensive, awkward, and unnecessary. Not sure what you mean about the gloves/bag - that wasn't me.

Personally, I'm somewhat indifferent. I like TR the way it is, even with the stupid bipods, and I shoot Open class anyhow (in part, because of the stupid bipods, but I'm rethinking that when my current barrel goes south). But if serious shooters want another class (which, as you stated, is far less capable at 1000 than TR permits), then I would entertain the idea. Making an equipment class for beginner strikes me as indirect and redundant. That's what sharpshooter and marksman classes are for.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

If you don't like F Class, for whatever reason, borrow a Service Rifle and try NRA LR Service Rifle Division. It's economical, and tests all skills known to be important to good shooting. What could be a better venue to celebrate comprehensive long range shooting skill? I suspect many fear they will produce low scores which would not complement the persona they want to project; but, think about it, how awesome would it be to hit the target using sling instead of bipod and irons instead of scope? What kinda persona would that project?

 

[Denys]

If you don't like F Class, for whatever reason, borrow a Service Rifle and try NRA LR Service Rifle Division. It's economical, and tests all skills known to be important to good shooting. What could be a better venue to celebrate comprehensive long range shooting skill? I suspect many fear they will produce low scores which would not complement the persona they want to project; but, think about it, how awesome would it be to hit the target using sling instead of bipod and irons instead of scope? What kinda persona would that project?

Earlier someone introduced the concept of "straw man argument" in this discussion. The post above is a perfect example of that concept. This thread is about F-class competition and I for one do not appreciate anyone comparing different types of shooting competition for the express purpose of denigrating any of them; I think it shows poor form and definitely displays an elitist attitude.

 

[Denys]

Isn't that a good reason to have a separate division (perhaps outside of F class, even? The distinction seems odd to me in the first place. Isn't F just a subclass of High power, after all?). I'm generally against making more divisions because it dilutes competition, but when rifle capability is dramatically different (as is the case for tactical rifles at 1000, just like service rifles are at a substantial disadvantage to match rifles), it can make sense. Use whatever target is appropriate for the gear (and I agree - the big targets are more appropriate at 1000). If that means there is a tactical rifle class crammed between f class and sling shooting, why not? We tend to have mixed-matches locally anyhow. A handful of sling shooters will show up for an F class match, and they will use big targets and just not participate officially. There is no need to have F class matches on one day and sling matches on another. Just have high power matches, and divide them up by the predominant gear choices (tactical, sling, f class, whatever). You can't deny that tactical rifles are a very popular choice. It's not like there's just one guy with a tactical rifle who wants to ruin everyone else's fun. I bet at our local matches the tactical-class shooters would outnumber the TR shooters.

I don't think anyone here is against a new division. As Monte so eloquently phrased it earlier, knock yourself out; come up with a concept, propagate it and then petition the NRA to sanction it. What I object to is trying to change existing divisions to suit your whims.

I also stated several times that whatever you come up with should use existing targets, be they LR-1 or LR-1FC. At our club we hold competitions three times a month; HP Long Range (for which I am the match director and have been for a few years,) HP Mid-range and XTC. Both HP competitions have match rifles, service rifles, F-Open and F-TR shooters. We run one big line and two types of targets. We also have people now playing with Any/Any at mid-range, and I am one of them.

Some people will always bitch - this is true. But I think there is a legitimate gripe about the bipods. They exist only because of the rules - nobody would make such a thing on purpose. They're goofy, expensive, awkward, and unnecessary. Not sure what you mean about the gloves/bag - that wasn't me.

You have not priced Atlas bipods recently, or some of the new Sinclair tacticals. And if you think some bipods are goofy and expensive (I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean by unnecessary here,) you have not seen some of the high-tech front rests used in F-Open, especially the ones with the attached Espresso maker.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Earlier someone introduced the concept of "straw man argument" in this discussion. The post above is a perfect example of that concept. This thread is about F-class competition and I for one do not appreciate anyone comparing different types of shooting competition for the express purpose of denigrating any of them; I think it shows poor form and definitely displays an elitist attitude.

Threads are an exchange of ideas. Why thwart an idea? What is there to fear? You're making too much out of it. It's just a game. Lighten up! I'm not de de de de denigrating anything. My express purpose is to help shooters have as much fun as I am having with it all. After all, it's too much work not to have fun with it. And, from the OP's complaint, perhaps expanding his horizons to consider alternative competitions may help him in his quest of a shooting sport that fits. Bottom-line, competition in any form is a good idea. Any will reward the shooter for his effort and all will similarly serve to test and celebrate skill, as well as provide an opportunity for good natured banter. Only the unconfident are uneasy with tests and banter as it raises self doubt about abilities which they have claimed for themselves without warrant. There is no competition venue that will satisfy such folks, since all competition is seen by these folks as an albatross.

 

[wwrhodes91]

If you don't like F Class, for whatever reason, borrow a Service Rifle and try NRA LR Service Rifle Division. It's economical, and tests all skills known to be important to good shooting. What could be a better venue to celebrate comprehensive long range shooting skill? I suspect many fear they will produce low scores which would not complement the persona they want to project; but, think about it, how awesome would it be to hit the target using sling instead of bipod and irons instead of scope? What kinda persona would that project?

Not that I speak for everyone, but I think we like F class. Service rifle doesn't interest me. I prefer multi-purpose guns. With a glock 34 and a tactical .308, I have a plethora of disciplines that I can compete in. I think a lot of people are in the same boat as me. Most people don't want to spend upwards of $4000 for a rig that is limited to one purpose. This is why so many people bring tactical rifles to F class matches. IDPA/USPSA have divisions that address this issue. F-class should too. Also, I would be willing to bet that having a division that lets more people be competitive will lead to more people becoming interested in investing in a rifle to compete in the current TR division.

Edit: Clarification: I wasn't trying to say that service rifles aren't multi-purpose.

 

[XTR]

I have to say I think Sterling Shooter has a pretty good point. Service Rifle is the easiest class to get into shooting sports. Heck, you have CMP where you can still shoot an M1. Yep, you can grab up a $900 A2 style AR from your local show and get out and shoot.

Now do you think you can win with a stock DPMS M4 shooting against someone with a White Oak Precision rifle that weighs near 15 lbs with all the lead it it, single feed mags with lead poured in the bottom, an aperture rear sigh,t a custom coat, and lots o' practice? Do you think the average new shooter would do better in that situation with a R700 tactical against my 18lb custom rig? I do get to shoot with John Chubb from time to time and I know damned well he could build an AR out of box parts and outshoot me with my White Oak. Whether it's service rifle or F-TR if you want to be competitive you have to play the game.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Yes, I see your point. I think you are on to something. I'm reminded of how the introduction of M1 Garand Matches has stimulated HP.

 

[wwrhodes91]

I have to say I think Sterling Shooter has a pretty good point. Service Rifle is the easiest class to get into shooting sports. Heck, you have CMP where you can still shoot an M1. Yep, you can grab up a $900 A2 style AR from your local show and get out and shoot.

Now do you think you can win with a stock DPMS M4 shooting against someone with a White Oak Precision rifle that weighs near 15 lbs with all the lead it it, single feed mags with lead poured in the bottom, an aperture rear sigh,t a custom coat, and lots o' practice? Do you think the average new shooter would do better in that situation with a R700 tactical against my 18lb custom rig? I do get to shoot with John Chubb from time to time and I know damned well he could build an AR out of box parts and outshoot me with my White Oak. Whether it's service rifle or F-TR if you want to be competitive you have to play the game.

Yes, you have to play the game... but that isn't an argument for why there can't be a new division to the game. I could say the same thing about people shooting TR and say, "Everyone should shoot open, if you want to be competitive, you have to play the game"

 

[memilanuk]

Yes, you have to play the game... but that isn't an argument for why there can't be a new division to the game. I could say the same thing about people shooting TR and say, "Everyone should shoot open, if you want to be competitive, you have to play the game"

The difference is - in my mind - F-TR (different animal from 'TR') shooters keep on showing up and toughing it out whether there are only two or three in a field of F-Open shooters, just like I've seen Service Rifle shooters show up and take their lumps in Any/Any matches. When there are enough of them, the match director creates a separate award class for 'High Service Rifle', or you start seeing a new category recognized by the NRA or ICFRA (such as F/TR). Yes, its difficult if you don't have a warm reception from the match director to begin with - I understand that. The best way to change that is to show up anyway, shoot, and *help out*. Kill 'em with kindness, as it were F/TR is more or less @ parity with F-Open as far as attendance at a lot of events these days, if not somewhat exceeding, depending on the region. Same with F-Class in general vs. sling - that happened due to people showing up, not just talking about it.

A lot of the contention here is over the concept of wanting rules and classes and awards *first*, before the warm bodies actually show up at the range to shoot or help out with matches. In my experience, the whole idea of 'if you make it they will come' doesn't work so well here. People make a lot of noise on the Internet about how new shooters would come out of the woodwork if there were only this modification or that accommodation... but from what I've seen as a match director and shooter is that the people who really want to compete will get their buts out there and
do it - and help out with the load. The rest... will find excuses not to be there no matter how far you bend over backwards for them.

 

[wwrhodes91]

The difference is - in my mind - F-TR (different animal from 'TR') shooters keep on showing up and toughing it out whether there are only two or three in a field of F-Open shooters, just like I've seen Service Rifle shooters show up and take their lumps in Any/Any matches. When there are enough of them, the match director creates a separate award class for 'High Service Rifle', or you start seeing a new category recognized by the NRA or ICFRA (such as F/TR). Yes, its difficult if you don't have a warm reception from the match director to begin with - I understand that. The best way to change that is to show up anyway, shoot, and *help out*. Kill 'em with kindness, as it were F/TR is more or less @ parity with F-Open as far as attendance at a lot of events these days, if not somewhat exceeding, depending on the region. Same with F-Class in general vs. sling - that happened due to people showing up, not just talking about it.

A lot of the contention here is over the concept of wanting rules and classes and awards *first*, before the warm bodies actually show up at the range to shoot or help out with matches. In my experience, the whole idea of 'if you make it they will come' doesn't work so well here. People make a lot of noise on the Internet about how new shooters would come out of the woodwork if there were only this modification or that accommodation... but from what I've seen as a match director and shooter is that the people who really want to compete will get their buts out there and
do it - and help out with the load. The rest... will find excuses not to be there no matter how far you bend over backwards for them.

We must have very different experiences at matches, because the ones I go to...the majority of shooters are using tactical style rifles. The bodies are already there, but the rules only cater to the minority.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Denys]

I'm only the Long Range (1000 yard) match director at out club, so I can't speak with authority about the Mid-range matches.

The rare times that I see people showing up with "tactical style" rifles, they also bring factory ammo, sometimes even some premium stuff like BHA or FGMM and that doesn't help. A few months back for example, one guy never made it on target and was asked to stop shooting after about 8-10 rounds. Others get scores that require calculators for a match. In high winds we get misses or crossfires. The vast majority never return. I'm sorry to say that F-class targets are not friendly to these rifles/ammo, which is why I was suggesting any proposed division that cater to these shooters should use the LR-1 targets.

 

[wwrhodes91]

I'm only the Long Range (1000 yard) match director at out club, so I can't speak with authority about the Mid-range matches.

The rare times that I see people showing up with "tactical style" rifles, they also bring factory ammo, sometimes even some premium stuff like BHA or FGMM and that doesn't help. A few months back for example, one guy never made it on target and was asked to stop shooting after about 8-10 rounds. Others get scores that require calculators for a match. In high winds we get misses or crossfires. The vast majority never return. I'm sorry to say that F-class targets are not friendly to these rifles/ammo, which is why I was suggesting any proposed division that cater to these shooters should use the LR-1 targets.

I don't have any problem with different targets.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Al_Ski]

I don't have any problem with different targets.

So... If I show at a tac match and demand that I be allowed to engage all targets from the prone position, get a three minute prep time, allowed to use a laser on targets and two shighter shots the MD will accommodate my demands?

 

[wwrhodes91]

So... If I show at a tac match and demand that I be allowed to engage all targets from the prone position, get a three minute prep time, allowed to use a laser on targets and two shighter shots the MD will accommodate my demands?

So many straw man arguments in this thread.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Al_Ski]

It's a strawman argument because it doesn't fit your agenda...

I shoot matches that are attended by the likes of Brad Sauve, Ray Gross and Paul Philips. Maybe I should get a handicap so I can compete against them on a level playing field.

I've tried to place side bets with Brad as long as he spotted me a couple of points... :grin:

 

[wwrhodes91]

It's a strawman argument because it doesn't fit your agenda...

I shoot matches that are attended by the likes of Brad Sauve, Ray Gross and Paul Philips. Maybe I should get a handicap so I can compete against them on a level playing field.

I've tried to place side bets with Brad as long as he spotted me a couple of points... :grin:

I don't think you understand any of the arguments in this thread. Making silly irrelevant analogies and saying that you compete with pros isn't helpful. No one is talking about handicapping or removing TR. Adding a new division like this wouldn't affect shooters like that anyways.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[jrbet83]

Second, if you go back to the OP and look at the post one of the things that the OP asked for in his new class is to remove the caliber restrictions. Do you really think that will end up being just bring what you got? I guarantee you that it won't be two matches before someone shows up with a purpose build RSAUM with in a oz/mm of the limits, at which point your [insert caliber here] off the shelf rifle will once again be somewhat at a disadvantage.
.

So are all rifles/gear shot in open and tr equal? If your answer is no, then what's your point? I don't care what you shoot, f class, uspsa, idpa, skeet, trap, bullseye, bb guns or blow darts. There's never going to be a 100% equal playing field when it comes to equipment. The answer isnt, "well if we can't make it 100% even, then why even try at all"

 

[wwrhodes91]

So are all rifles/gear shot in open and tr equal? If your answer is no, then what's your point? I don't care what you shoot, f class, uspsa, idpa, skeet, trap, bullseye, bb guns or blow darts. There's never going to be a 100% equal playing field when it comes to equipment. The answer isnt, "well if we can't make it 100% even, then why even try at all"

A reasonable post in this thread? What is this?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Al_Ski]

I don't think you understand any of the arguments in this thread. Making silly irrelevant analogies and saying that you compete with pros isn't helpful. No one is talking about handicapping or removing TR. Adding a new division like this wouldn't affect shooters like that anyways.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

If a tac shooter is using a .308 he/she fits in F-TR. All others shoot in F-Open.

 

[wwrhodes91]

If a tac shooter is using a .308 he/she fits in F-TR. All others shoot in F-Open.

Edit: Not going to troll

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[wwrhodes91]

If a tac shooter is using a .308 he/she fits in F-TR. All others shoot in F-Open.

The point is that there's no reason for there not to be a tac division when many local matches have a majority of people shooting tac rifles.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[wwrhodes91]

If a tac shooter is using a .308 he/she fits in F-TR. All others shoot in F-Open.

Where would uspsa and idpa be if they followed that reasoning? You have a pistol so you fit in open. Why make a production or limited division?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Al_Ski]

Where would uspsa and idpa be if they followed that reasoning? You have a pistol so you fit in open. Why make a production or limited division?

We're discussing F-Class. What the IDPA classifications are is irrevelant to the discussion.

 

[wwrhodes91]

We're discussing F-Class. What the IDPA classifications are is irrevelant to the discussion.

The same reasoning that led to the IDPA divisions directly applies here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk