F T/R Competition New F-Class Division

[Denys]

Appears to be real, click below for source

Richard King?s Radical .223 Rem F-Class Rig « Daily Bulletin

-pd

I think Richard was shooting that rifle or something similar at TSRA last month. He was on the firing point next to mine but I didn't really look at his rifle much except to notice that it looked very esoteric, especially compared to mine. It didn't bother me at all that he would be using such a rifle.

 

[Denys]

Don't kid yourself. Shooting is a "Martial Art" quote from Kevin a long time ago.

I would like to see the Tactical Rifle have its own class in F Class and I would drop my F TR rig in a heart beat to shoot that class. I used a Tactical Rig in F TR for a long time until it just could not compete with the long barrels and heavy bullets.

Well duh, most every sport has a "martial" beginning.

As has been stated many times before, no one is against another class. Just make sure it qualifies under Highpower rules and uses existing targets; I did recommend using the regular non-FC targets for that class, but whatever...

And please come up with some simple, easy to manage rule; this business about shooting holding your bag or not holding your bag is an example of a stupid rule. Barrel length is another unenforceable rule as is 25X max on variables. They have to be simple rules with enforceable limits not ones that are left open to interpretation by various MDs. Weight is a great one; easy peasy to enforce.

If you want to be specific about bipod, you need to name the make and model that is acceptable.

 

[Denys]

The rifle in that video wouldn't be legal for F-Class Open

I don't worry about the rifle so much as I think the concept of "fired from the shoulder" is totally absent from this shooter's method.


Rule 3.4 F-Class Rifle-
(a) (3) The rifle must be fired in the prone position from the shoulder of the competitor using rifle rests as
defined in Rule 3.4.1(a).

Rule 3.4.1 Rifle Rests -
(a) (2) This discipline is a modification of high power prone shooting, not a form of bench rest and should not
be construed as such.

Methinks that shooter is contravening both of those rules.

 

[crackerbacks]

I think one easy simple change would be no joysticks on bipods. I watched people use them last year at Perry, they don't even need to touch the gun. bipods should have gross adjustments only.

I have only been shooting Fclass TR for 2 years but I can tell you I got into it so I would not be shooting against benchrest shooters. Joysticks are for bench rest....

 

[Tactical]

Well duh, most every sport has a "martial" beginning.

As has been stated many times before, no one is against another class. Just make sure it qualifies under Highpower rules and uses existing targets; I did recommend using the regular non-FC targets for that class, but whatever...

And please come up with some simple, easy to manage rule; this business about shooting holding your bag or not holding your bag is an example of a stupid rule. Barrel length is another unenforceable rule as is 25X max on variables. They have to be simple rules with enforceable limits not ones that are left open to interpretation by various MDs. Weight is a great one; easy peasy to enforce.

If you want to be specific about bipod, you need to name the make and model that is acceptable.

As I said sunshine the class idea is not mine. Not perfect but could be modified to work well.
Barrel length is enforceable. It only takes a simple measuring device. Measure from bolt face. Use a marked cleaning rod.
myself I would go with chamber and throat gauges because if it is spec it wont game well. 215's at 2.8" OAL suck
Folding legs bipod seems simple to enforce.
shooting with hand on or off rear bag makes no difference to me

 

[Tactical]

Well duh, most every sport has a "martial" beginning.

As has been stated many times before, no one is against another class. Just make sure it qualifies under Highpower rules and uses existing targets; I did recommend using the regular non-FC targets for that class, but whatever...

And please come up with some simple, easy to manage rule; this business about shooting holding your bag or not holding your bag is an example of a stupid rule. Barrel length is another unenforceable rule as is 25X max on variables. They have to be simple rules with enforceable limits not ones that are left open to interpretation by various MDs. Weight is a great one; easy peasy to enforce.

If you want to be specific about bipod, you need to name the make and model that is acceptable.

Originally Posted by Erud View Post

"I'm afraid you are making the common mistake of confusing shooting matches(any sort) with some sort of military/post-apocolypse training. It's just a hobby. The chances are infinitesimally small that whichever skill-set you develop in your chosen game will ever be used for anything other than the game. If you enjoy some particular style of shooting, develop the skill and be proud of it. But don't kid yourself - your neighbor down the street is equally proud of his cabinet full of bowling trophies, and you both have skills that are equally useful in the real world."


Sunshine my Martial Art post was directed at the post above, so Duh

 

[Al_Ski]

I don't worry about the rifle so much as I think the concept of "fired from the shoulder" is totally absent from this shooter's method.


Rule 3.4 F-Class Rifle-
(a) (3) The rifle must be fired in the prone position from the shoulder of the competitor using rifle rests as
defined in Rule 3.4.1(a).

Rule 3.4.1 Rifle Rests -
(a) (2) This discipline is a modification of high power prone shooting, not a form of bench rest and should not
be construed as such.

Methinks that shooter is contravening both of those rules.

Ya, this point has been argued before...

One of our local shooters went so far as to Email Dennis Willing questioning as to what is an acceptable definition of being "fired from the shoulder". There's a few Open competitors who don't use shoulder pressure against the butt of their rifle which constitutes "free recoil". IIRC Mr. Willing's reply was that the current method is acceptable.

No need to design/print new targets for F-SO, scores are relitive. It would be akin to F-TR demanding new targets so that we could compete against Open on a level playing field.

Next thing ya know we'll be computing handicaps for all of those who attend.

 

[ryanjay11]

If you are looking for a reason not to shoot you can always find one. The TN State F-Open champion the last two yrs in a row shot a 260 with a long barrel, with the brake screwed off, in either a McM or a Manners camo stock with a plate mounted to the front stud so it would ride the bags. I scored for him both times.

If you want to shoot nothing is going to stop you, if you are looking for reasons to sit at home a grouse, the opportunities are infinite.

This post perfectly sums up the reason this topic pops up every 4-6 months. There are plenty of opportunities out there to shoot, but I think there are lots of people that just like the idea of shooting and not actually doing it.

 

[ptd]

...
Next thing ya know we'll be computing handicaps for all of those who attend.

Isn't the shooter classification system a handicap type system?

-pd

 

[aqualung]

My thinking was, that there are shooters who would like to shoot non .308's in a non open divison. Obviously I was wrong, sorry for bringing the topic up.

Well, I would!!

My best rifle (most accurate) is a 7mm-08Rem. All up, the whole rig probably costs less than one of those fancy joystick front rests.

Yes, I could turn up at my local F-class club, and I could shoot, errrr, against myself. But no matter how much I might improve, I'm going to get sick of seeing my name near the bottom of the scorecard, I'm going to get disillusioned, and I'm going to give up. Why? Because I just CANNOT afford to purchase beyond my equipment limit.

Is this what you nay-sayers want? People to come into F-class, then leave, then bad mouth the whole sport when they can't afford to be competitive? I thought that was the whole point of F-t/r, a LESS equipment dominated, less EXPENSIVE form of F-class? Or have I not been paying attention in class?

As I read the OP, he's NOT suggesting changing ANY aspect of the current F-open/F-t/r divisions, just adding another class that newbs like me can compete effectively in, WITH THE EQUIPMENT WE CURRENTLY OWN.

The option is always there for me to move to another division, but at the moment, what is putting me off starting F-class is the fact that I KNOW I'm not going to be competitive, And lets face it, if we all weren't competitive, we wouldn't be members of this site.

FURTHERMORE, please bear in mind that I live in a different country, but F-class is F-class, it's a worldwide game. BUT, I am told that the nearest F-class club to me is VERY sniffy if you don't turn up with the RIGHT equipment, and you get sent off to the far end of the line, and shunned. NOT welcoming.

This is just hearsay, as I have not YET attempted to shoot at that club. When I have first-hand experience I will report further.

I'm confident that, with my $300 rifle, I can out-shoot the idiot with "All the gear, no idea", but why go somewhere like that during MY leisure time, which is precious to me? THAT's not attracting people into the sport, and without fresh blood, ANY sport will wither and die.

Frankly, it's SNOBBERY like that that prevents me from joining a golf club and playing golf, the ultimate me against myself sport. (Apparently I could be pretty damn good at it!).

Yes, it's the UK, where class is still a huge issue, but, Psychology 101, People, you will always have an 'IN' group and an 'OUT' group, where one group shits on the other to make themselves feel better about themselves. I think the OP was just hoping to create another group.

I really like the sound of FPR by the way. Never heard of it before, but I think I'm going to push for it at my club. I reckon that I can get 15 or 20 blokes interested in that, and the 3 who shoot F-class, can just carry on with that.

Hope this makes sense. (Didn't get a lot of sleep last night!)

N

 

[Denys]

As I said sunshine the class idea is not mine. Not perfect but could be modified to work well.
Barrel length is enforceable. It only takes a simple measuring device. Measure from bolt face. Use a marked cleaning rod.
myself I would go with chamber and throat gauges because if it is spec it wont game well. 215's at 2.8" OAL suck
Folding legs bipod seems simple to enforce.
shooting with hand on or off rear bag makes no difference to me

Oh wow, I would never have thought of that idea.




Well except that I did and posted that way back in response #43 on page 1 when I was critiquing invented rules used by a club somewhere:

B. Barrel length is limited to 30” measured from forward edge of recoil lug to crown of barrel.

How do you check that? For 400 people? You could change the rule and make it from the bolt face and stick a wooden dowel down the muzzle with a mark on it at 30 inches. If the mark is below the crown, the barrel is too long. Bring hacksaws.

For the folding bipod, I cautioned:

Just wait until some enterprising person produces a carbon-fiber Moon module pod with folding legs for $500. The Harris bipod users will have a fit.

And in response to the use of hand support Vs rear bag, the choice that makes no difference to you, the dialog went as follows:

F. No portion of the rifles butt or pistol grip may rest on the ground or any hard surface. Class A- No rear bags or mono-pods allowed. Must be supported in rear by competitors body e.g. fist bare or gloved and or shoulder. Class B- A rear bag will be allowed for shooting.

Wow, you already have sub-sub classes. Does sub-sub-class FPR-A compete against FPR-B shooters? Do you have separate ratings for these sub-sub-classes?

I have some interesting glove designs in mind, are there limitations on the glove?

This definitely underlines what I have been saying all along; if you create a new division, make sure the rules are well defined, easy to enforce and actually make sense. I will state that the choice of calibers has a lot more to do with how well you will shoot 1000 yards than any other aspect beyond marksmanship. The little bipods and holding your bag and measuring the length are simply ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

[Denys]

Ya, this point has been argued before...

One of our local shooters went so far as to Email Dennis Willing questioning as to what is an acceptable definition of being "fired from the shoulder". There's a few Open competitors who don't use shoulder pressure against the butt of their rifle which constitutes "free recoil". IIRC Mr. Willing's reply was that the current method is acceptable.

No need to design/print new targets for F-SO, scores are relitive. It would be akin to F-TR demanding new targets so that we could compete against Open on a level playing field.

Next thing ya know we'll be computing handicaps for all of those who attend.

I was not saying that we need new targets, in fact I was saying this class should use existing targets, makes it simpler for MDs to manage. The problem with using the FC targets for that proposed division is something that I have addressed several times in the past here; the issue of matching the target to the capabilities of the equipment.

Let's say they restrict that division to .308 Winchester and 20 or 24 inch barrels with Harris bipods, 25X on the scope and you have to hold your bag when you shoot, I strongly suggest they use the existing LR-1 targets, not the LR-1FC.

I will be the first to tell you that equipment wise, ignoring ammo and marksmanship, the biggest boost to my scores has been a longer barrel; I get 200FPS over a 24 inch barrel and that makes a difference for every shot. The next item was jumping from 10X to 36X; anything after that was just slightly incremental. The Sinclair bipod simply allowed be to shoot faster when conditions were favorable.

Working on my ammo production was essential for better results.

Most importantly, watching and learning to read conditions over time and reacting properly are what helped my scores the most.

 

[XTR]

Well, I would!!

My best rifle (most accurate) is a 7mm-08Rem. All up, the whole rig probably costs less than one of those fancy joystick front rests.

Yes, I could turn up at my local F-class club, and I could shoot, errrr, against myself. But no matter how much I might improve, I'm going to get sick of seeing my name near the bottom of the scorecard, I'm going to get disillusioned, and I'm going to give up. Why? Because I just CANNOT afford to purchase beyond my equipment limit.



N

If you can't afford the rifle, you can't afford the tools, then you can't afford to play enough that your name will not always be at the bottom of the lists, and that is the fact. The gun doesn't win. If your budget is so limited to under $1000 on a rifle then you will never be able to afford just the bullets to seriously compete. Berger bullets cost $50±/100 here in the US. I got 3000 delivered to start this season, and as I understand it I don't come close to what the really good shooters use up. Improvement comes with practice, and in this game practice runs aroound 50¢ a shot. The gun is actually the cheapest part of the package in the long run.

AND in F-TR it doesn't take a fancy rig to win. Don't believe me, look at Russell Simmons. There is only one person posting here who beat him in the FCWC. He shoots a $150 Choate stock, 155gr bullets, and a Sightron scope. Won the FCWC 4 yrs ago and missed a repeat at Raton by one freaking point. (He does use funky looking bipod, and a Barnard Action.)

 

[RStewart]

Oh wow, I would never have thought of that idea.




Well except that I did and posted that way back in response #43 on page 1 when I was critiquing invented rules used by a club somewhere:




For the folding bipod, I cautioned:


And in response to the use of hand support Vs rear bag, the choice that makes no difference to you, the dialog went as follows:





This definitely underlines what I have been saying all along; if you create a new division, make sure the rules are well defined, easy to enforce and actually make sense. I will state that the choice of calibers has a lot more to do with how well you will shoot 1000 yards than any other aspect beyond marksmanship. The little bipods and holding your bag and measuring the length are simply ignoring the elephant in the room.

And once again you miss the point. Every rule we use has a rationale behind it. Our shooters have no issues with them and we have been shooting matches since 2011. Also, we are open to suggestions from them for changes.
You, on the other hand, would rather ridicule and criticize. Instead of being the all knowing purveyor of what everyone should have or need in shooting sports, get off your ass and do something to attract more shooters?
But, I guess it's easier to make fun of others than to do something yourself. And yeah I know you're an MD, so what? So am I. But I don't think I'm smarter than everyone else.

 

[Denys]

AND in F-TR it doesn't take a fancy rig to win. Don't believe me, look at Russell Simmons. There is only one person posting here who beat him in the FCWC. He shoots a $150 Choate stock, 155gr bullets, and a Sightron scope. Won the FCWC 4 yrs ago and missed a repeat at Raton by one freaking point. (He does use funky looking bipod, and a Barnard Action.)

And his barrel is probably longer than 24 inches.

 

[dar1246]

I think it looks great. If you take a AI rifle and take off the skins. You will have a weird looking rifle also. The point I was making is that some not all don't even look through their scope when pulling the trigger. I think their is need for a extra class but don't know if it will happen. This rifle is no big deal. It is basically a rifle set in a aluminum stock per say.

Dang, even FTR rigs are getting out there...

-pd

 

[damoncali]

I think it looks great. If you take a AI rifle and take off the skins. You will have a weird looking rifle also. The point I was making is that some not all don't even look through their scope when pulling the trigger. I think their is need for a extra class but don't know if it will happen. This rifle is no big deal. It is basically a rifle set in a aluminum stock per say.

I would argue that not having to look through the scope is almost the definition of return to battery, and such rifle/rest is against the current rules at least in spirit.

 

[dar1246]

Here is the thought. Some clubs will not allow suppressors or brakes but do allow this. The basic topic is If you shoot a 6mm 6.5 7mm off bipods you are in the open class. When competeing it would be hard to beat some with a similar rig. It can be done. But like I said You will need to bring your A game with you. Having another class would allow some shooters to shoot with their current setup and compete.

 

[wwrhodes91]

This post perfectly sums up the reason this topic pops up every 4-6 months. There are plenty of opportunities out there to shoot, but I think there are lots of people that just like the idea of shooting and not actually doing it.

Can't speak for everyone, but why do you think we don't shoot? The straw men keep coming in bunches

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Flat Tire]

This post perfectly sums up the reason this topic pops up every 4-6 months. There are plenty of opportunities out there to shoot, but I think there are lots of people that just like the idea of shooting and not actually doing it.

I think there are a lot of people who want to own a tactical rifle. They just look cool. I am building one right now, because they just look cool. It will replace an old hunting rifle, but they just look cool. I want one of the XLR Carbon stocks because they just look cool.......................... but i will take my target rifles to an F-Class Match

 

[Al_Ski]

I would argue that not having to look through the scope is almost the definition of return to battery, and such rifle/rest is against the current rules at least in spirit.

Not if he has to re-aim after every shot.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

NRA HP and LR has its roots in advancing military marksmanship. The focus, all along, has been on marksmanship excellence. This is understood as a producing a good result from the shooter, gun, and ground relationship, where the shooter's consistent control is foremost to success. Although there are marksmanship elements found in F Class, its emphasis, all along, a has been on the equipment supporting the result; and, since this can make marksmanship incidental to F Class, I think the NRA should get out of it. Other appropriate governing bodies which would treat the discipline essentially as benchrest without the bench would do a better job at satisfying shooters who enjoy F Class. Imagine, there could be all sorts of F Class divisions if the marksmanship element was totally abandoned. The NRA cannot do that. This is because the NRA is not about satisfying the shooter; instead, it is about developing marksmen through competitions that reward the shooter's marksmanship, exclusive of equipment, i.e. Service Rifle Competition. This is a conflict which cannot be resolved, since traditional marksmanship development demands the shooter do things which cannot be addressed with equipment. In fact, the traditional NRA Competitions force the novice shooter to do a lot of things which actually make it seem too hard; but, what seems too hard is exactly what supports development of overall shooting excellence.

 

[XTR]

...Although there are marksmanship elements found in F Class, its emphasis, all along, a has been on the equipment supporting the result; and, since this can make marksmanship incidental to F Class, I think the NRA should get out of it. ....

You are quite entitled to believe what ever you like, but I would submit that you would be wrong on the first count and that reality will never allow the second. You have made clear on many occasions your contempt for F class. I get that.

F class does not promote the skills of building position, true, there is artificial support. Is it easier to stay in the black with an F-TR rig than a Palma gun, yes, no argument. My first ever shot at 1000 yards was in the black. I doubt I could do that with a Palma gun, but the equipment is only the deciding factor when the condition is dead calm. Beyond that if the shooter can't read wind he's not finishing on top. You say that the traditional shooting promotes marksmanship. You do realize that the military is not far from abandoning teaching iron sights? Oh and as to equipment, you aren't seriously going to argue that there is not an equipment race in HP? Custom Coats that cost more than an F-Open rest, sights that run as much as a NF scope and space gun socks, front sights with believe it or not glass in them! The reloading is the same in both disciplines.

To my second point, the reality. Sling and coat shooting is withering on the vine. Very few people are interested in learning position shooting. Look at the attendance at Camp Perry. The High Power Long range matches took less than 100 firing points on Viale. The NRA is by no means my favorite bunch, but they have F class, and they want the money. The F-class Nationals will be held at Perry in 2016 I believe (much to my dismay even though it is 3-4x closer to me than Raton or Ben Avery). No, the NRA will never give up control of the fastest growing competitive shooting class that it recognizes. Did you see that the NRA has introduced provisional F class rules for small bore?

Shooting with a scope and support is the most popular type of shooting out there. You may not want to play, and you may not agree with the rules, but you will be seeing F class shooters on the line.

 

[dar1246]

Shooting with a coat and sling is a finer skill set. But once you have learn the position, you are solid as a rock. At least everybody is on the same playing field in that. I shot this one year. Although I wasn't great at it but wanted to learn. I respect the guys who do this. Learned some from them. Great group.

 

[XTR]

Shooting with a coat and sling is a finer skill set. But once you have learn the position, you are solid as a rock. At least everybody is on the same playing field in that. I shot this one year. Although I wasn't great at it but wanted to learn. I respect the guys who do this. Learned some from them. Great group.

Don't misinterpret what I wrote to be disrespectful of the skills of sling shooters, none was intended. I was responding to what I perceive as disrespect for F class shooting from Sterling Shooter.

 

[wwrhodes91]

NRA HP and LR has its roots in advancing military marksmanship. The focus, all along, has been on marksmanship excellence. This is understood as a producing a good result from the shooter, gun, and ground relationship, where the shooter's consistent control is foremost to success. Although there are marksmanship elements found in F Class, its emphasis, all along, a has been on the equipment supporting the result; and, since this can make marksmanship incidental to F Class, I think the NRA should get out of it. Other appropriate governing bodies which would treat the discipline essentially as benchrest without the bench would do a better job at satisfying shooters who enjoy F Class. Imagine, there could be all sorts of F Class divisions if the marksmanship element was totally abandoned. The NRA cannot do that. This is because the NRA is not about satisfying the shooter; instead, it is about developing marksmen through competitions that reward the shooter's marksmanship, exclusive of equipment, i.e. Service Rifle Competition. This is a conflict which cannot be resolved, since traditional marksmanship development demands the shooter do things which cannot be addressed with equipment. In fact, the traditional NRA Competitions force the novice shooter to do a lot of things which actually make it seem too hard; but, what seems too hard is exactly what supports development of overall shooting excellence.

Yeah, the positioning is harder in F class, but you have to shoot tighter groups. If positional difficulty determined marksmanship, then maybe we should all train by shooting .50 BMG standing. Prone without a bipod is an unnecessary position to learn. I do agree that F class is moving in a direction that forgives marksmanship error...a tactical division would fix this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Sapper524]

I do agree that F class is moving in a direction that forgives marksmanship error...a tactical division would fix this.

F/TR needs to tighten up the definition of a bipod with a max width and put a max length on the round(s) ... put wind back in the game a bit more. I think this route makes more sense simply because the NRA will never put muzzle brakes on the line with other highpower shooters ... much butthurt will flow.

I still say that F-O is what it is ... OPEN race class ... let the gamers game

 

[memilanuk]

Just for giggles... how do you propose to get that sort of change in place for international matches? Think dealing with the NRA is frustrating? Try ICFRA sometime....

Sent from my Samsung S4

 

[Al_Ski]

F/TR needs to tighten up the definition of a bipod with a max width and put a max length on the round(s) ... put wind back in the game a bit more. I think this route makes more sense simply because the NRA will never put muzzle brakes on the line with other highpower shooters ... much butthurt will flow.

I still say that F-O is what it is ... OPEN race class ... let the gamers game

The gentleman who shoot the heavies/wide stance bipods well would do the same with bullet/bipod restrictions... :wink:

 

[XTR]

F/TR needs to tighten up the definition of a bipod with a max width and put a max length on the round(s) ... put wind back in the game a bit more.

Do you actually shoot!? (Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question) I shoot F-TR, a whole f-ing lot I shoot F-TR, like close to 2000 rounds yr for record.

First of all, adding a check to verify bullet length, really, you want to try to be that match director with 400 competitors at the FCNC?

As to "put wind back in the game" you obviously have less understanding of 1000 yard shooting than I do of astrophysics. Pay attention now, this is hard to understand, AT LESS THAN 5000 FEET ELEVATION THERE IS NO BULLET CURRENTLY FIRED IN F-TR THAT WILL HOLD THE 10-RING ON A ONE MILE PER HOUR FULL VALUE SHIFT AT 1000 YARDS. One freaking MPH costs you a point if you are holding center. Most of the world population can't even feel a 1MPH wind, and for reference that is about 2x the drift of the average F-Open rifle.

How the hell do you think wind is not in the game. This is the typical response of an interwebz BB HM who thinks that you can buy the stuffs to get to a Master classification in F class. If you think wind is not in the game you obviously don't shoot F-TR at 1000 yards.

Bullet weight restrictions, bipod widths, bullet length, are all just more stuff to make life hard on the MDs, give people more to worry about and make very little difference.

 

[memilanuk]

Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate here... pretty sure there were about 400 F-class shooters total @ FCWC, more or less evenly split btwn F-Open & FTR. Normal US FCWC attendance for FTR has been more like 150ish; let's say 200 allowing for continued growth.

That said... the folks running these matches generally take the approach of checking weight only on every gun.... anything else only gets looked at if someone else questions it and brings it to the attention of a match official. As much as I think maybe there should be a little more checking going on... There just isn't. So you might want to lay off the straw horse of any proposal has to be viable for 400 FTR shooter. Generally speaking I'm on your side here... just figured I'd point this out.

Sent from my Samsung S4

 

[anon]

FTR is fine as it is. Bifurcate F-Open, F-Open Rest and F-Open Bipod. Leave F-Open Rest alone and let the F-Open Bipod shooters use their caliber of choice. Just give the F-Open Bipod shooters the same weight restrictions as FTR.

The classification system takes care of the handicaps.

Also, without the match directors we'd have no sport. Make their lives easy.

 

[jrbet83]

They are in fact about ideal for their intended purpose.

So you consider these practical vehicles? They are ideal for their intended purpose.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Yeah, the positioning is harder in F class, but you have to shoot tighter groups. If positional difficulty determined marksmanship, then maybe we should all train by shooting .50 BMG standing. Prone without a bipod is an unnecessary position to learn. I do agree that F class is moving in a direction that forgives marksmanship error...a tactical division would fix this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Prone with bone alone is THE position to learn. It allows recognition for when the elements and factors of a steady position have been properly integrated from the feel of being muscularly relaxed. With the introduction of any artificial support, the sense of properly building the position is dulled; and thus, the shooter does not know if the position is muscularly relaxed. Therefore, if a shooter were to take your advice, starting off with a bipod, it would not be possible to understand shooter consistency from shot to shot, and, in fact, the shooter would not have the success desired from any sort of shooting discipline, since unpredictable recoil resistance produced by the shooter's inconsistency would lead to angular error increasing with distance. This kind of error would likely be incorrectly analyzed by the novice shooter as not correctly countering for wind, an unsatisfactory rifle, or defective ammunition. A tactical division would not fix it as you suggested.

A novice shooter who chooses to jump into F Class before getting some basic marksmanship training will not become the shooter he is aspiring to be. Thing is, this shooter is not likely to get any basic training since he does not know that execution of the two firing tasks is not synonymous with marksmanship. This shooter believes that by just participating in F Class he will become a champion once his equipment is in order. What then happens is results don't come about for this "shooter" and he thinks he needs better equipment, or as seen on this thread, another division of F Class. Now, since the shooter is going after equipment rather than what he really needs, which is basic marksmanship training, the sort fostered by traditional shooting competitions which serve as conduits for marksmanship development, he is frustrated that his vision of greatness is not materializing as planned.

Interestingly, when I became interested in LR, I was required to attend an M1 Garand Clinic before I could enter an NRA governed LR tournament. This clinic helped me to see from the start what good shooting was all about. Today, this requirement has been dropped in my neighborhood, which I think is a mistake, since such clinics, as well as the USAMU's SAFS provide a breadth of understanding about what's really important to good shooting no matter what shooting discipline floats the novice shooter's boat.

BTW, what's really funny is that most all novice shooters think equipment will get them to the promised land. New shooters always want to know what bullets, powder, barrels, and triggers champion shooters are using. It seems they don't understand that winning is simply about having the discipline to practice the principles to perfection and correctly counter for the effects of gravity, drag, wind, and weather. I wonder how many novice shooters buy a book or video about some kind of shooting sport and only read the section on equipment thinking that's the important thing.

At any rate, I don't think F Class needs more sub divisions. The shooter just getting into it should consider that the accomplished shooters who created the rules knew what they were doing having a more panoramic perspective on it all than the shooter just getting into it. The shooter just getting into any kind of shooting sport should first read the program's mission statement to determine if shooter and program objectives are compatible.

One more thing, to those who address traditional shooting competitions as coat and sling events, alluding to their antiquity, such as to cast F Class as a more meaningful experience for today's shooter within the pop culture, you might want to consider that whatever the popularity of F Class it does not correlate to traditional competitions dying on the vine. The fact is that all traditional shooting competitions have a secure future since they address comprehensive skill set development, which is seen to be just as important to our national interests today as when Theodore Roosevelt first promoted "a nation of marksman". Perfection of shooting as advanced by traditional shooting competitions have never been subject to the whims of popularity but only to the best means to accomplish a needed task. Only when such tasks become unimportant, uninspiring, or unnecessary to those in pursuit of comprehensive shooting excellence will traditional competitions vanish. What's more likely is basic marksmanship will become more important with longer distance shooting now in the arena of lightweight small arms capability.

 

[Denys]

So you consider these practical vehicles? They are ideal for their intended purpose.

I think you just made XTR's point for him.

The intended purpose of that dragster is to reach the maximum speed possible from a standing start inside one quarter mile. I believe there are multiple classes in the pursuit of this goal but none of them involve the family minivan, which would be impractical for that purpose.

The intended purpose of that rock crawler (whatever its name,) is to get through impassable terrain. Once again, the family sedan would be impractical for that purpose.

A top-end F-Class rifle is designed to produce a high score on a miniature target at very long distances with a large amount of shots. This is something that is not practical with the family hunting or tactical rifle.

The prone on bone atop stones crowd use rifles that have very long barrels and fancy sights while bunched up in tailor-made leather jackets and super-tight slings. This equipment is designed to also produce high scores at long distance with a large amount of shot. I would say those rifles and the ancillary equipment are totally impractical for hunting of tactical purposes.

 

[Al_Ski]

Just give the F-Open Bipod shooters the same weight restrictions as FTR.

Nope...

18.2lbs is an unrealistic weight for a tacti-cool rifle. Limit the weight (including bipod) to 14lbs. No one will game the system with excessive barrel length.

 

[anon]

Nope...

18.2lbs is an unrealistic weight for a tacti-cool rifle. Limit the weight (including bipod) to 14lbs. No one will game the system with excessive barrel length.

My Remington VLS in a PST stock with a Leupold scope and a Harris bipod will make the 14lbs. With a 26" Krieger #8 Standard Target it looks that it would be over.

What do the AI rifles weigh w/bipod and scope?

What does a Tacticool rifle that someone stand hunts with weigh?

What do the rifles being shot in the current FPR matches weigh?

The Remington Defense page shows the complete M-24 at 14.85lbs. Remington Defense

 

[wwrhodes91]

Prone with bone alone is THE position to learn. It allows recognition for when the elements and factors of a steady position have been properly integrated from the feel of being muscularly relaxed. With the introduction of any artificial support, the sense of properly building the position is dulled; and thus, the shooter does not know if the position is muscularly relaxed. Therefore, if a shooter were to take your advice, starting off with a bipod, it would not be possible to understand shooter consistency from shot to shot, and, in fact, the shooter would not have the success desired from any sort of shooting discipline, since unpredictable recoil resistance produced by the shooter's inconsistency would lead to angular error increasing with distance. This kind of error would likely be incorrectly analyzed by the novice shooter as not correctly countering for wind, an unsatisfactory rifle, or defective ammunition. A tactical division would not fix it as you suggested.

A novice shooter who chooses to jump into F Class before getting some basic marksmanship training will not become the shooter he is aspiring to be. Thing is, this shooter is not likely to get any basic training since he does not know that execution of the two firing tasks is not synonymous with marksmanship. This shooter believes that by just participating in F Class he will become a champion once his equipment is in order. What then happens is results don't come about for this "shooter" and he thinks he needs better equipment, or as seen on this thread, another division of F Class. Now, since the shooter is going after equipment rather than what he really needs, which is basic marksmanship training, the sort fostered by traditional shooting competitions which serve as conduits for marksmanship development, he is frustrated that his vision of greatness is not materializing as planned.

Interestingly, when I became interested in LR, I was required to attend an M1 Garand Clinic before I could enter an NRA governed LR tournament. This clinic helped me to see from the start what good shooting was all about. Today, this requirement has been dropped in my neighborhood, which I think is a mistake, since such clinics, as well as the USAMU's SAFS provide a breadth of understanding about what's really important to good shooting no matter what shooting discipline floats the novice shooter's boat.

BTW, what's really funny is that most all novice shooters think equipment will get them to the promised land. New shooters always want to know what bullets, powder, barrels, and triggers champion shooters are using. It seems they don't understand that winning is simply about having the discipline to practice the principles to perfection and correctly counter for the effects of gravity, drag, wind, and weather. I wonder how many novice shooters buy a book or video about some kind of shooting sport and only read the section on equipment thinking that's the important thing.

At any rate, I don't think F Class needs more sub divisions. The shooter just getting into it should consider that the accomplished shooters who created the rules knew what they were doing having a more panoramic perspective on it all than the shooter just getting into it. The shooter just getting into any kind of shooting sport should first read the program's mission statement to determine if shooter and program objectives are compatible.

One more thing, to those who address traditional shooting competitions as coat and sling events, alluding to their antiquity, such as to cast F Class as a more meaningful experience for today's shooter within the pop culture, you might want to consider that whatever the popularity of F Class it does not correlate to traditional competitions dying on the vine. The fact is that all traditional shooting competitions have a secure future since they address comprehensive skill set development, which is seen to be just as important to our national interests today as when Theodore Roosevelt first promoted "a nation of marksman". Perfection of shooting as advanced by traditional shooting competitions have never been subject to the whims of popularity but only to the best means to accomplish a needed task. Only when such tasks become unimportant, uninspiring, or unnecessary to those in pursuit of comprehensive shooting excellence will traditional competitions vanish. What's more likely is basic marksmanship will become more important with longer distance shooting now in the arena of lightweight small arms capability.

Using a Harris bipod, you still have to learn how to get into a stable position. I competed in 10 meter air rifle for several years and it is ENTIRELY about getting a stable shooting position prone and standing. It is boring. Bipods and optics don't make the rifle any less practical and you still have to have marksmanship skills to be successful with them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Al_Ski]

My Remington VLS in a PST stock with a Leupold scope and a Harris bipod will make the 14lbs. With a 26" Krieger #8 Standard Target it looks that it would be over.

It's already been suggested to limit barrel lenght to 20" for the Tactical Class...

The Remington Defense page shows the complete M-24 at 14.85lbs. Remington Defense

The M-24 is based on a .308 Win. The rifle would fit in the F-TR Class.

 

[anon]

It's already been suggested to limit barrel lenght to 20" for the Tactical Class...

Where do the new shooters who show up with what they already own shoot? That is the first part of the question.

The M-24 is based on a .308 Win. The rifle would fit in the F-TR Class.

I'll make sure to not rebarrel my 22-250 to an M-24 profiled 6mm Creedmoor.

The complaint is against specific use rifles. How do you include shooters who only shoot locally and don't have the time or budget for a bunch of rifles?

 

[Denys]

Where do the new shooters who show up with what they already own shoot? That is the first part of the question.



I'll make sure to not rebarrel my 22-250 to an M-24 profiled 6mm Creedmoor.

The complaint is against specific use rifles. How do you include shooters who only shoot locally and don't have the time or budget for a bunch of rifles?

It has been my observation that the vast majority of shooters who want to come out and play at 1000 yards with their "tactical" rifles actually shoot .308 Win and they have Harris bipods. So I squad them with the F-TR crowd and let them shoot on the F-class targets. Most of them never return because, and here's a shock for you, scoring decently on an F-class target is very hard to do with a 20 or 24 inch barreled rifle with a 10X scope using factory ammo. There is more luck than marksmanship involved, especially when the wind starts blowing.

This is why I keep saying that if you really want a new class for "tactical" rifles, meaning impractical for LR F-Class, you should use the regular targets that are 4 times the size of the F-class targets, because a pure F-tacticool shooter will have a hard time achieving any rating beyond sharpshooter on F-class targets.

Of course, as soon as you use a target other than F-class, then it's no longer F-class now, is it?

 

[damoncali]

Wasn't F class still F class before they switched to the new targets? I don't think anyone is hung up on the name. They just want a NRA sanctioned format to shoot high power with a field rifle.

 

[Al_Ski]

Where do the new shooters who show up with what they already own shoot? That is the first part of the question.



I'll make sure to not rebarrel my 22-250 to an M-24 profiled 6mm Creedmoor.

The complaint is against specific use rifles. How do you include shooters who only shoot locally and don't have the time or budget for a bunch of rifles?

Your reference to the Remington M-24 in your post is a .308Win. If you have the means to afford rebarreling your rifle I would think you can also afford a set of titanium rings and rail to get the weight down.

 

[Denys]

Wasn't F class still F class before they switched to the new targets? I don't think anyone is hung up on the name. They just want a NRA sanctioned format to shoot high power with a field rifle.

F-Class originated in Canada and the DCRA was the first one to adopt it. In the US, before the NRA sanctioned it, it was indeed called F-class. However, now that is has been sanctioned by the NRA, ICFRA, DCRA and other national associations, creating a division of it that would not follow their established rules or use their targets or classifications where applicable, would set it up for failure from the onset.

And I totally disagree, everyone who proposes such a division wants to call it F- something, they are definitely hung up on it. F-class is the fastest growing rifle competition format anywhere, and it appears that some may want to grab the F-coattails.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Using a Harris bipod, you still have to learn how to get into a stable position. I competed in 10 meter air rifle for several years and it is ENTIRELY about getting a stable shooting position prone and standing. It is boring. Bipods and optics don't make the rifle any less practical and you still have to have marksmanship skills to be successful with them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

The purpose of any good position is to support the principles of marksmanship. Your statement that prone without bipod is unnecessary to learn is not correct. It is indeed necessary to first learn how to build a prone position with bone alone to come to understand how to properly integrate the elements of a steady position. Without this building block approach it will be unclear to the novice shooter whether or not there is any support produced from bone or if muscle has been integrated to the artificial support instead of bone. BTW, did not your shooting coach who taught you basic marksmanship first have you shoot from unsupported prone?

 

[gstaylorg]

AAT LESS THAN 5000 FEET ELEVATION THERE IS NO BULLET CURRENTLY FIRED IN F-TR THAT WILL HOLD THE 10-RING ON A ONE MILE PER HOUR FULL VALUE SHIFT AT 1000 YARDS.

Mine will...on the internet .

 

[wwrhodes91]

It has been my observation that the vast majority of shooters who want to come out and play at 1000 yards with their "tactical" rifles actually shoot .308 Win and they have Harris bipods. So I squad them with the F-TR crowd and let them shoot on the F-class targets. Most of them never return because, and here's a shock for you, scoring decently on an F-class target is very hard to do with a 20 or 24 inch barreled rifle with a 10X scope using factory ammo. There is more luck than marksmanship involved, especially when the wind starts blowing.

This is why I keep saying that if you really want a new class for "tactical" rifles, meaning impractical for LR F-Class, you should use the regular targets that are 4 times the size of the F-class targets, because a pure F-tacticool shooter will have a hard time achieving any rating beyond sharpshooter on F-class targets.

Of course, as soon as you use a target other than F-class, then it's no longer F-class now, is it?

As long as they are competing against each other, who cares what targets they use? Brad Sauve won with a tactical rifle. Was his rifle impractical? Was it just luck? Tactical rifles can do fine at 1k, it just takes better wind skills than current TR rifles.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[wwrhodes91]

The purpose of any good position is to support the principles of marksmanship. Your statement that prone without bipod is unnecessary to learn is not correct. It is indeed necessary to first learn how to build a prone position with bone alone to come to understand how to properly integrate the elements of a steady position. Without this building block approach it will be unclear to the novice shooter whether or not there is any support produced from bone or if muscle has been integrated to the artificial support instead of bone. BTW, did not your shooting coach who taught you basic marksmanship first have you shoot from unsupported prone?

I came in with my experience from shooting bipod prone and it took all of 5 minutes to get an unsupported prone position down. The unsupported prone has its own problems for new shooters. What shooters need to learn first is breathing and trigger control. Positions can be taught later.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[wwrhodes91]

It's already been suggested to limit barrel lenght to 20" for the Tactical Class...




The M-24 is based on a .308 Win. The rifle would fit in the F-TR Class.

I shoot 20", but that is unreasonably short for a limit. 24" would be fine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Sterling Shooter]

I came in with my experience from shooting bipod prone and it took all of 5 minutes to get an unsupported prone position down. The unsupported prone has its own problems for new shooters. What shooters need to learn first is breathing and trigger control. Positions can be taught later.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Breathing, really? I gather you are self taught? Where are you now in your shooting journey? Do you have any mentors or coaching from anyone?