Any advice on the best optics for this discipline would be great.
Scope, magnification, choice of reticle etc.
Many thanks
Scope, magnification, choice of reticle etc.
Many thanks
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
F T/R Competition Optics recommendation
- Thread starter EventHorizon
- Start date
Re: Optics recommendation
Why the optics choice change from TR to Open ? I goofed up and built myself a 6mm RAT AR15 thinking it would be fun to go shoot one of these sometime. We don't have any immediate locale, but can get to a place within a few hours. Well later on I discover that having something other than a 5.56 or 308 puts one into the open class right off the bat. Doesn't matter if you have never fired a shot downrange in your life, you are now in the open class.
Why the optics choice change from TR to Open ? I goofed up and built myself a 6mm RAT AR15 thinking it would be fun to go shoot one of these sometime. We don't have any immediate locale, but can get to a place within a few hours. Well later on I discover that having something other than a 5.56 or 308 puts one into the open class right off the bat. Doesn't matter if you have never fired a shot downrange in your life, you are now in the open class.
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: esromvre</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TR 8-32 NF... open 12-42 Nf </div></div>
I shoot a NF 8-32 with an NP-2DD, any of the fine cross hairs ret. You don't need a ranging reticle, it's 1000 yds to the target. It just clutters the view (and typically adds cost)
There are a lot of guys liking the Sightron with the 8-32 or 10-50 with either the fine X air or the x hair dot for 1/2 the price of a NF. I know there are a lot of magnification whores out there but I'm not sure how useful 50X really is. I can see the 2" "X" in the X ring on 36 power, and it doesn't take a lot if mirage to make me dial back to 28 or so. I gotta imagine that a 50X is not going to be used often.
MOA knobs are better than mils because the target is laid out in MOA (x=1/2moa, 10=1moa 9=2moa etc...)
You really don't want a heavy reticle in F class. The X ring is only 1/2 MOA
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: esromvre</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TR 8-32 NF... open 12-42 Nf </div></div>
I shoot a NF 8-32 with an NP-2DD, any of the fine cross hairs ret. You don't need a ranging reticle, it's 1000 yds to the target. It just clutters the view (and typically adds cost)
There are a lot of guys liking the Sightron with the 8-32 or 10-50 with either the fine X air or the x hair dot for 1/2 the price of a NF. I know there are a lot of magnification whores out there but I'm not sure how useful 50X really is. I can see the 2" "X" in the X ring on 36 power, and it doesn't take a lot if mirage to make me dial back to 28 or so. I gotta imagine that a 50X is not going to be used often.
MOA knobs are better than mils because the target is laid out in MOA (x=1/2moa, 10=1moa 9=2moa etc...)
You really don't want a heavy reticle in F class. The X ring is only 1/2 MOA
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ARPredatorHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...Well later on I discover that having something other than a 5.56 or 308 puts one into the open class right off the bat. Doesn't matter if you have never fired a shot downrange in your life, you are now in the open class. </div></div>
You can shoot any glass, the 308 next to me this weekend had a 10-50 Sightron, and one of the guys I was scoring for was running a Weaver T-36.
Yes, anything other than 308 Win or 5.56 is open.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ARPredatorHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...Well later on I discover that having something other than a 5.56 or 308 puts one into the open class right off the bat. Doesn't matter if you have never fired a shot downrange in your life, you are now in the open class. </div></div>
You can shoot any glass, the 308 next to me this weekend had a 10-50 Sightron, and one of the guys I was scoring for was running a Weaver T-36.
Yes, anything other than 308 Win or 5.56 is open.
Re: Optics recommendation
wished I would have known about that restriction before I built this 6mm RAT. I was liking the "belly benchrest" tag that was associated with it. I liked the idea of just laying proned on the ground and shooting from a Harris. Then I read some of the friggin rules. RTFR failure for me. So now I have a custom built AR15, that I have to single load, that I also have to shoot off my bipods against folks shooting major dollar rigs with front rests that cost more than my gun. Sort of took all the fun out of it for me and I don't even shoot the rifle now.
To the optics part of this topic. I have already put a 12-42 NightForce BR scope onto this rifle and it has an R2 reticle in it. I was wondering if I had messed up on the rules for that too
wished I would have known about that restriction before I built this 6mm RAT. I was liking the "belly benchrest" tag that was associated with it. I liked the idea of just laying proned on the ground and shooting from a Harris. Then I read some of the friggin rules. RTFR failure for me. So now I have a custom built AR15, that I have to single load, that I also have to shoot off my bipods against folks shooting major dollar rigs with front rests that cost more than my gun. Sort of took all the fun out of it for me and I don't even shoot the rifle now.
To the optics part of this topic. I have already put a 12-42 NightForce BR scope onto this rifle and it has an R2 reticle in it. I was wondering if I had messed up on the rules for that too
Re: Optics recommendation
Try a March 10-whatever x52. Fantastic. I've got a 10-60x52, although I rarely shoot it above 20x.
I shoot F 'standard' as it's called down here, off a bipod and tab rear bag against belly benchrest types with the expensive front rest/rear bag combos. Seem to hold my own ok.
Try a March 10-whatever x52. Fantastic. I've got a 10-60x52, although I rarely shoot it above 20x.
I shoot F 'standard' as it's called down here, off a bipod and tab rear bag against belly benchrest types with the expensive front rest/rear bag combos. Seem to hold my own ok.
Re: Optics recommendation
March makes fantastic scopes
I think there 5-50 with 34 tube is a great F TR and F Open scope. Cost hurts though at 3000.00 plus
I am running a fixed Leupold Comp 35X right now and frankly just plain love it. Cost is under a 1000.00 and it works right every time. Glass is fantastic as well
March makes fantastic scopes
I think there 5-50 with 34 tube is a great F TR and F Open scope. Cost hurts though at 3000.00 plus
I am running a fixed Leupold Comp 35X right now and frankly just plain love it. Cost is under a 1000.00 and it works right every time. Glass is fantastic as well
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ARPredatorHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why the optics choice change from TR to Open ? I goofed up and built myself a 6mm RAT AR15 thinking it would be fun to go shoot one of these sometime. We don't have any immediate locale, but can get to a place within a few hours. Well later on I discover that having something other than a 5.56 or 308 puts one into the open class right off the bat. Doesn't matter if you have never fired a shot downrange in your life, you are now in the open class. </div></div>
The F class rules are available for free on line from the NRA Competitions website.
I never cease to be amazed at the people like you who build a gun for competition before checking the rules of the competition they plan to enter, then feign surprise/indignation when told their gun will place them in a hypercompetitive class or is flat out not allowed.
Read first. Spend money later.
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ARPredatorHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why the optics choice change from TR to Open ? I goofed up and built myself a 6mm RAT AR15 thinking it would be fun to go shoot one of these sometime. We don't have any immediate locale, but can get to a place within a few hours. Well later on I discover that having something other than a 5.56 or 308 puts one into the open class right off the bat. Doesn't matter if you have never fired a shot downrange in your life, you are now in the open class. </div></div>
The F class rules are available for free on line from the NRA Competitions website.
I never cease to be amazed at the people like you who build a gun for competition before checking the rules of the competition they plan to enter, then feign surprise/indignation when told their gun will place them in a hypercompetitive class or is flat out not allowed.
Read first. Spend money later.
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated).
Re: Optics recommendation
Prone, be careful here, there have been two sets of folks talking about this issue.
One was just being obnoxius but the other wanted to start a F Tactical Division. He has his shit together and many of us, including me support his idea.
You dont wnat to have a bruise on your short wood here so tred lightly
Prone, be careful here, there have been two sets of folks talking about this issue.
One was just being obnoxius but the other wanted to start a F Tactical Division. He has his shit together and many of us, including me support his idea.
You dont wnat to have a bruise on your short wood here so tred lightly
Re: Optics recommendation
The most common scope seen at matches will be the 12-42 Nightforce BR. Now that they are making the NXS with 1/8 moa clicks, some people are going that route. I have one 12-42 BR with a NP-R2 reticle. I also run a Sightron 10-50 on another gun. It has the target dot. I prefer the R2. Reticles are personel preference. You don't really need any ranging capability.
The most common scope seen at matches will be the 12-42 Nightforce BR. Now that they are making the NXS with 1/8 moa clicks, some people are going that route. I have one 12-42 BR with a NP-R2 reticle. I also run a Sightron 10-50 on another gun. It has the target dot. I prefer the R2. Reticles are personel preference. You don't really need any ranging capability.
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The F class rules are available for free on line from the NRA Competitions website.
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
I just read the section in the NRA rules that cover F/TR equipment (weight, bipods, rear rests etc) and there's nothing about rifles not allowed to be magazine fed. Can you point me to the relevant section please?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The F class rules are available for free on line from the NRA Competitions website.
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
I just read the section in the NRA rules that cover F/TR equipment (weight, bipods, rear rests etc) and there's nothing about rifles not allowed to be magazine fed. Can you point me to the relevant section please?
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The F class rules are available for free on line from the NRA Competitions website.
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
I just read the section in the NRA rules that cover F/TR equipment (weight, bipods, rear rests etc) and there's nothing about rifles not allowed to be magazine fed. Can you point me to the relevant section please?
</div></div>
F-Class is a part of High Power. As such, high power rules also apply.
http://www.nrahq.org/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-w10.pdf
10.1.6 Loading in Slow Fire - In all slow fire events, the rifle will be loaded with only one cartridge at a time.
The cartridge shall be inserted in the magazine or chamber only when the rifle is pointed down range. Resting a
loaded rifle on a shooting stool or the foot, is prohibited. (See Rule 10.1.3).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The F class rules are available for free on line from the NRA Competitions website.
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
I just read the section in the NRA rules that cover F/TR equipment (weight, bipods, rear rests etc) and there's nothing about rifles not allowed to be magazine fed. Can you point me to the relevant section please?
</div></div>
F-Class is a part of High Power. As such, high power rules also apply.
http://www.nrahq.org/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-w10.pdf
10.1.6 Loading in Slow Fire - In all slow fire events, the rifle will be loaded with only one cartridge at a time.
The cartridge shall be inserted in the magazine or chamber only when the rifle is pointed down range. Resting a
loaded rifle on a shooting stool or the foot, is prohibited. (See Rule 10.1.3).
Re: Optics recommendation
For optics I use a NF NXS 12-42, I do like the side parallax, the BR scopes offer smaller adjustment though. For reticle I have the NP R1, I bought the scope used, the clutter doesn't bother me so much. At local matches I have seen Sightron, March Leupold, Weaver, pretty much whatever folks prefer or can afford.
As for the discussion above, I use my tactical rifle for matches at the present, the rifle has a Seekins AICS mag system I load one round at a time, the magazine is in the rifle. In Canada, I believe many matches have a factory only classification, which really levels the playfield.
For optics I use a NF NXS 12-42, I do like the side parallax, the BR scopes offer smaller adjustment though. For reticle I have the NP R1, I bought the scope used, the clutter doesn't bother me so much. At local matches I have seen Sightron, March Leupold, Weaver, pretty much whatever folks prefer or can afford.
As for the discussion above, I use my tactical rifle for matches at the present, the rifle has a Seekins AICS mag system I load one round at a time, the magazine is in the rifle. In Canada, I believe many matches have a factory only classification, which really levels the playfield.
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DGosnell</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The F class rules are available for free on line from the NRA Competitions website.
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
I just read the section in the NRA rules that cover F/TR equipment (weight, bipods, rear rests etc) and there's nothing about rifles not allowed to be magazine fed. Can you point me to the relevant section please?
</div></div>
F-Class is a part of High Power. As such, high power rules also apply.
http://www.nrahq.org/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-w10.pdf
10.1.6 Loading in Slow Fire - In all slow fire events, the rifle will be loaded with only one cartridge at a time.
The cartridge shall be inserted in the magazine or chamber only when the rifle is pointed down range. Resting a
loaded rifle on a shooting stool or the foot, is prohibited. (See Rule 10.1.3). </div></div>
thank you!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DGosnell</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The F class rules are available for free on line from the NRA Competitions website.
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
I just read the section in the NRA rules that cover F/TR equipment (weight, bipods, rear rests etc) and there's nothing about rifles not allowed to be magazine fed. Can you point me to the relevant section please?
</div></div>
F-Class is a part of High Power. As such, high power rules also apply.
http://www.nrahq.org/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-w10.pdf
10.1.6 Loading in Slow Fire - In all slow fire events, the rifle will be loaded with only one cartridge at a time.
The cartridge shall be inserted in the magazine or chamber only when the rifle is pointed down range. Resting a
loaded rifle on a shooting stool or the foot, is prohibited. (See Rule 10.1.3). </div></div>
thank you!
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Prone, be careful here, there have been two sets of folks talking about this issue.
One was just being obnoxius but the other wanted to start a F Tactical Division. He has his shit together and many of us, including me support his idea.
You dont wnat to have a bruise on your short wood here so tred lightly </div></div>
I'm not really sure what is to be gained in "tacticalness" by filling up the magazine when you have to wait for the target to be serviced before shooting again.
PS, as an NRA life member and a highpower competitor for over a decade, I do think I have a right to an opinion on rule changes to the sport.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Prone, be careful here, there have been two sets of folks talking about this issue.
One was just being obnoxius but the other wanted to start a F Tactical Division. He has his shit together and many of us, including me support his idea.
You dont wnat to have a bruise on your short wood here so tred lightly </div></div>
I'm not really sure what is to be gained in "tacticalness" by filling up the magazine when you have to wait for the target to be serviced before shooting again.
PS, as an NRA life member and a highpower competitor for over a decade, I do think I have a right to an opinion on rule changes to the sport.
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Prone, be careful here, there have been two sets of folks talking about this issue.
One was just being obnoxius but the other wanted to start a F Tactical Division. He has his shit together and many of us, including me support his idea.
You dont wnat to have a bruise on your short wood here so tred lightly </div></div>
I'm not really sure what is to be gained in "tacticalness" by filling up the magazine when you have to wait for the target to be serviced before shooting again.
PS, as an NRA life member and a highpower competitor for over a decade, I do think I have a right to an opinion on rule changes to the sport. </div></div>
I wouldn't want to be baking my rounds in the chamber for 45 seconds to a minute between shots, longer if you decide to wait out the wind doing something that you don't like. Varget may not be that temp sensitive, but by the end of a 20 shot string it's getting pretty toasty in there.
The NRA seems like they can be pretty stogy about somethings. I'm almost a little surprised that they acknowledged F-class. Guess they couldn't ignore the popularity.
Edit: <span style="font-style: italic"> After re-reading the posts here I'm understanding that there is a conversation going on that I'm not really party to. My comment about loading from mags was aimed at gas guns. </span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Prone, be careful here, there have been two sets of folks talking about this issue.
One was just being obnoxius but the other wanted to start a F Tactical Division. He has his shit together and many of us, including me support his idea.
You dont wnat to have a bruise on your short wood here so tred lightly </div></div>
I'm not really sure what is to be gained in "tacticalness" by filling up the magazine when you have to wait for the target to be serviced before shooting again.
PS, as an NRA life member and a highpower competitor for over a decade, I do think I have a right to an opinion on rule changes to the sport. </div></div>
I wouldn't want to be baking my rounds in the chamber for 45 seconds to a minute between shots, longer if you decide to wait out the wind doing something that you don't like. Varget may not be that temp sensitive, but by the end of a 20 shot string it's getting pretty toasty in there.
The NRA seems like they can be pretty stogy about somethings. I'm almost a little surprised that they acknowledged F-class. Guess they couldn't ignore the popularity.
Edit: <span style="font-style: italic"> After re-reading the posts here I'm understanding that there is a conversation going on that I'm not really party to. My comment about loading from mags was aimed at gas guns. </span>
Re: Optics recommendation
Proneshooter, you have right to opinion as to what you want to see in NRA Comp.
You dont have a right to call a man a "Tool" who wanted to start a class where the rounds had to be fed from the magazine so guys would not have long loaded ammo. I thought his reason was sound but thought he should just require guys to use a chamber gauge so no long ammo was in restricted class. He wnated guys to have a class where they could show up with sniper type rifles and compete on even ground, believing the longer dedicated F TR rifles with long loaded ammo to have a big advantage. His thought was not to have the ammo cook in the magazine.
As to a whole decade of NRA Comp, some of us have been doing NRA comps for three plus decades and I am a puppy with guys I shoot with, so I wont just bow right away.
Here is your original post
"Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated)."
That person you are refering to is a member here and runs a rather large rifle shooting club.
I am a member on Longrange as well. I post under Mike Miller, Vice Captin US F TR Team
Proneshooter, you have right to opinion as to what you want to see in NRA Comp.
You dont have a right to call a man a "Tool" who wanted to start a class where the rounds had to be fed from the magazine so guys would not have long loaded ammo. I thought his reason was sound but thought he should just require guys to use a chamber gauge so no long ammo was in restricted class. He wnated guys to have a class where they could show up with sniper type rifles and compete on even ground, believing the longer dedicated F TR rifles with long loaded ammo to have a big advantage. His thought was not to have the ammo cook in the magazine.
As to a whole decade of NRA Comp, some of us have been doing NRA comps for three plus decades and I am a puppy with guys I shoot with, so I wont just bow right away.
Here is your original post
"Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated)."
That person you are refering to is a member here and runs a rather large rifle shooting club.
I am a member on Longrange as well. I post under Mike Miller, Vice Captin US F TR Team
Re: Optics recommendation
http://www.sportoptics.com/schmidt-bender-pm-12-50x56-SPORT-MOA.aspx
what i'm using on my build
http://www.sportoptics.com/schmidt-bender-pm-12-50x56-SPORT-MOA.aspx
what i'm using on my build
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
As Tactical has mentioned, the person you referred to as "a tool" is a well respected match director on this forum. I also post on Long-range.com, and the response over there was split about 50/50 as to the validity of his idea for the F-Tactical class. It had a slightly better response on this forum.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
As Tactical has mentioned, the person you referred to as "a tool" is a well respected match director on this forum. I also post on Long-range.com, and the response over there was split about 50/50 as to the validity of his idea for the F-Tactical class. It had a slightly better response on this forum.
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pthfndr-CA</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
As Tactical has mentioned, the person you referred to as "a tool" is a well respected match director on this forum. I also post on Long-range.com, and the response over there was split about 50/50 as to the validity of his idea for the F-Tactical class. It had a slightly better response on this forum. </div></div>
The guy I'm talking about was a coarse as sandpaper. He was banned post haste from long-range.com, and IMO for a good reason.
I'm all for civilized debate on rules that affect my sport, but this guy was over the top ridiculous *demanding* that we accommodate his pet desires.
Like Mike already said, there were <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">TWO</span></span> threads on LR.com, one apparently well reasoned and civilized, the other (the one I remember well) was definitely NOT so.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pthfndr-CA</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
As Tactical has mentioned, the person you referred to as "a tool" is a well respected match director on this forum. I also post on Long-range.com, and the response over there was split about 50/50 as to the validity of his idea for the F-Tactical class. It had a slightly better response on this forum. </div></div>
The guy I'm talking about was a coarse as sandpaper. He was banned post haste from long-range.com, and IMO for a good reason.
I'm all for civilized debate on rules that affect my sport, but this guy was over the top ridiculous *demanding* that we accommodate his pet desires.
Like Mike already said, there were <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">TWO</span></span> threads on LR.com, one apparently well reasoned and civilized, the other (the one I remember well) was definitely NOT so.
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ARPredatorHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why the optics choice change from TR to Open ? I goofed up and built myself a 6mm RAT AR15 thinking it would be fun to go shoot one of these sometime. We don't have any immediate locale, but can get to a place within a few hours. Well later on I discover that having something other than a 5.56 or 308 puts one into the open class right off the bat. Doesn't matter if you have never fired a shot downrange in your life, you are now in the open class. </div></div>
The F class rules are available for free on line from the NRA Competitions website.
I never cease to be amazed at the people like you who build a gun for competition before checking the rules of the competition they plan to enter, then feign surprise/indignation when told their gun will place them in a hypercompetitive class or is flat out not allowed.
Read first. Spend money later.
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
Tool checking in.....
Thank you Mike for trying to educate the man.
Proneshooter, if you are talking about the F-Tactical/Field Precision Rifle Class thread on Longrange.com then you may want to re-read the thread and concept. The concept has 0 impacts on the F-TR or F-Open classes. This concept was proven during March Madness at Sac Valley where about 20 to 25 "tac" rifle shooters shot side by side with HP and F-Class shooters.
Jim O'Connell was the MD, and you may want to talk to him on how well things went. I am sure with your 10 years of experience in the HP world; you probably shot with Jim, or heard of the man.
Jim allowed muzzle brakes on the line with 0 issues were reported. All of our shooters were respectful and courteous to our neighbors in F-Open, F-TR, and sling & coat. A few of them even moved themselves to the end of the line so that the braked shooters were as far away as possible. We just put our packs up as barriers for the brakes.
F-Tactical has been adopted by a few MDs around the country, including Jim here at Sac Valley Shooting Center. He allows pretty much anyone that wants to shoot LR on the line. After all, isn't that the goal of matches and the NRA? Getting more shooters out there?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ARPredatorHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why the optics choice change from TR to Open ? I goofed up and built myself a 6mm RAT AR15 thinking it would be fun to go shoot one of these sometime. We don't have any immediate locale, but can get to a place within a few hours. Well later on I discover that having something other than a 5.56 or 308 puts one into the open class right off the bat. Doesn't matter if you have never fired a shot downrange in your life, you are now in the open class. </div></div>
The F class rules are available for free on line from the NRA Competitions website.
I never cease to be amazed at the people like you who build a gun for competition before checking the rules of the competition they plan to enter, then feign surprise/indignation when told their gun will place them in a hypercompetitive class or is flat out not allowed.
Read first. Spend money later.
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
Tool checking in.....
Thank you Mike for trying to educate the man.
Proneshooter, if you are talking about the F-Tactical/Field Precision Rifle Class thread on Longrange.com then you may want to re-read the thread and concept. The concept has 0 impacts on the F-TR or F-Open classes. This concept was proven during March Madness at Sac Valley where about 20 to 25 "tac" rifle shooters shot side by side with HP and F-Class shooters.
Jim O'Connell was the MD, and you may want to talk to him on how well things went. I am sure with your 10 years of experience in the HP world; you probably shot with Jim, or heard of the man.
Jim allowed muzzle brakes on the line with 0 issues were reported. All of our shooters were respectful and courteous to our neighbors in F-Open, F-TR, and sling & coat. A few of them even moved themselves to the end of the line so that the braked shooters were as far away as possible. We just put our packs up as barriers for the brakes.
F-Tactical has been adopted by a few MDs around the country, including Jim here at Sac Valley Shooting Center. He allows pretty much anyone that wants to shoot LR on the line. After all, isn't that the goal of matches and the NRA? Getting more shooters out there?
Re: Optics recommendation
I've shot F-Open for several years, and primarily have been using NF 12-42BRs. As Gosnell notes, reticles are personal preference, but I'll add that the less distractions in the reticle, the better you can watch the conditions.
I have recently switched over to the NXS models since they started shipping a few with the 1/8s, and I am happy with them so far. I think the BRs are a little bit more clear (one less lens), but the side parallax and extra eye relief is sure nice.
As far as adding F-Tactical, I sure welcome it. I can see it making squadding a bit tougher in a big match, but the more people we can get out, the better off the future of the sport in general.
I've shot F-Open for several years, and primarily have been using NF 12-42BRs. As Gosnell notes, reticles are personal preference, but I'll add that the less distractions in the reticle, the better you can watch the conditions.
I have recently switched over to the NXS models since they started shipping a few with the 1/8s, and I am happy with them so far. I think the BRs are a little bit more clear (one less lens), but the side parallax and extra eye relief is sure nice.
As far as adding F-Tactical, I sure welcome it. I can see it making squadding a bit tougher in a big match, but the more people we can get out, the better off the future of the sport in general.
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ARPredatorHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why the optics choice change from TR to Open ? I goofed up and built myself a 6mm RAT AR15 thinking it would be fun to go shoot one of these sometime. We don't have any immediate locale, but can get to a place within a few hours. Well later on I discover that having something other than a 5.56 or 308 puts one into the open class right off the bat. Doesn't matter if you have never fired a shot downrange in your life, you are now in the open class. </div></div>
The F class rules are available for free on line from the NRA Competitions website.
I never cease to be amazed at the people like you who build a gun for competition before checking the rules of the competition they plan to enter, then feign surprise/indignation when told their gun will place them in a hypercompetitive class or is flat out not allowed.
Read first. Spend money later.
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
Tool checking in.....
Thank you Mike for trying to educate the man.
Proneshooter, if you are talking about the F-Tactical/Field Precision Rifle Class thread on Longrange.com then you may want to re-read the thread and concept. The concept has 0 impacts on the F-TR or F-Open classes. This concept was proven during March Madness at Sac Valley where about 20 to 25 "tac" rifle shooters shot side by side with HP and F-Class shooters.
Jim O'Connell was the MD, and you may want to talk to him on how well things went. I am sure with your 10 years of experience in the HP world; you probably shot with Jim, or heard of the man.
Jim allowed muzzle brakes on the line with 0 issues were reported. All of our shooters were respectful and courteous to our neighbors in F-Open, F-TR, and sling & coat. A few of them even moved themselves to the end of the line so that the braked shooters were as far away as possible. We just put our packs up as barriers for the brakes.
F-Tactical has been adopted by a few MDs around the country, including Jim here at Sac Valley Shooting Center. He allows pretty much anyone that wants to shoot LR on the line. After all, isn't that the goal of matches and the NRA? Getting more shooters out there? </div></div>
Before this turns into a huge dogpile on my account, I want to be clear that there were evidently two thread about the subject on LR.com.
One was obviously yours and the other, the one I remember, was a screamfest from one guy who for whatever reason could not take any questions, pushback, or opposition to his proposal with any level of grace.
His tone and demeanor definitely do not strike me as yours.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: proneshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ARPredatorHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why the optics choice change from TR to Open ? I goofed up and built myself a 6mm RAT AR15 thinking it would be fun to go shoot one of these sometime. We don't have any immediate locale, but can get to a place within a few hours. Well later on I discover that having something other than a 5.56 or 308 puts one into the open class right off the bat. Doesn't matter if you have never fired a shot downrange in your life, you are now in the open class. </div></div>
The F class rules are available for free on line from the NRA Competitions website.
I never cease to be amazed at the people like you who build a gun for competition before checking the rules of the competition they plan to enter, then feign surprise/indignation when told their gun will place them in a hypercompetitive class or is flat out not allowed.
Read first. Spend money later.
Along similar lines I remember some tool who came over to the long-range.com forum (a forum strictly for NRA long range both conventional and F class) to piss and moan about why we should allow loading from magazine because F/TR meant F/Tactical Rifle. Well, it ain't. F/TR is F/Target Rifle based on the Target Rifle definition of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (where F class originated). </div></div>
Tool checking in.....
Thank you Mike for trying to educate the man.
Proneshooter, if you are talking about the F-Tactical/Field Precision Rifle Class thread on Longrange.com then you may want to re-read the thread and concept. The concept has 0 impacts on the F-TR or F-Open classes. This concept was proven during March Madness at Sac Valley where about 20 to 25 "tac" rifle shooters shot side by side with HP and F-Class shooters.
Jim O'Connell was the MD, and you may want to talk to him on how well things went. I am sure with your 10 years of experience in the HP world; you probably shot with Jim, or heard of the man.
Jim allowed muzzle brakes on the line with 0 issues were reported. All of our shooters were respectful and courteous to our neighbors in F-Open, F-TR, and sling & coat. A few of them even moved themselves to the end of the line so that the braked shooters were as far away as possible. We just put our packs up as barriers for the brakes.
F-Tactical has been adopted by a few MDs around the country, including Jim here at Sac Valley Shooting Center. He allows pretty much anyone that wants to shoot LR on the line. After all, isn't that the goal of matches and the NRA? Getting more shooters out there? </div></div>
Before this turns into a huge dogpile on my account, I want to be clear that there were evidently two thread about the subject on LR.com.
One was obviously yours and the other, the one I remember, was a screamfest from one guy who for whatever reason could not take any questions, pushback, or opposition to his proposal with any level of grace.
His tone and demeanor definitely do not strike me as yours.
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.sportoptics.com/schmidt-bender-pm-12-50x56-SPORT-MOA.aspx
what i'm using on my build </div></div>
Those are nice. Just out of my price range.
Hey, you want to sponsor a F-Open team?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.sportoptics.com/schmidt-bender-pm-12-50x56-SPORT-MOA.aspx
what i'm using on my build </div></div>
Those are nice. Just out of my price range.
Hey, you want to sponsor a F-Open team?
Re: Optics recommendation
Prone, I remember a guy on LR from long ago, probably over a year plus, that made AH of himself because he wanted to shoot his AR15 from the Magazine. Is this the one you are talking about? Because that one had no mention of F Tactical. He wanted to shoot F TR.
He had several other threads where he went off on folks as well.
Prone, I remember a guy on LR from long ago, probably over a year plus, that made AH of himself because he wanted to shoot his AR15 from the Magazine. Is this the one you are talking about? Because that one had no mention of F Tactical. He wanted to shoot F TR.
He had several other threads where he went off on folks as well.
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Prone, I remember a guy on LR from long ago, probably over a year plus, that made AH of himself because he wanted to shoot his AR15 from the Magazine. Is this the one you are talking about? Because that one had no mention of F Tactical. He wanted to shoot F TR.
He had several other threads where he went off on folks as well. </div></div>
I'm pretty sure that was him. I'm not sure if he had an AR or a scoped tactical rifle, but he was a flamer of the first order and his only answer to reasonable questions and opposition was more flames.
Definitely not moderator material here, there, or anywhere. And I'm pretty sure it's not Vu who I'm talking about.
Anyway, I apologize for the derail and confusion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Prone, I remember a guy on LR from long ago, probably over a year plus, that made AH of himself because he wanted to shoot his AR15 from the Magazine. Is this the one you are talking about? Because that one had no mention of F Tactical. He wanted to shoot F TR.
He had several other threads where he went off on folks as well. </div></div>
I'm pretty sure that was him. I'm not sure if he had an AR or a scoped tactical rifle, but he was a flamer of the first order and his only answer to reasonable questions and opposition was more flames.
Definitely not moderator material here, there, or anywhere. And I'm pretty sure it's not Vu who I'm talking about.
Anyway, I apologize for the derail and confusion.
Re: Optics recommendation
No apologies needed, I can be an asshat sometimes, just not in this particular case.
No apologies needed, I can be an asshat sometimes, just not in this particular case.
Re: Optics recommendation
While the NF BR scopes are probably the most popular (where I have shot), I think they are far from being the best choice. While I am not a NF fan, I would pick a NXS with 1/8 MOA adjustments over the BR.
The masses choose the highest power available, but I don't think one needs a 42x or 50x scope to win; however, the ones with the 50x scopes will say your pissin' in the wind with anything less. Personally, I think 25x or so is plenty.
With that said, I think the "best" choice is whatever 25x or greater scope with plenty of travel, good repeatibility and good glass that you are comfortable with. For me, I like the fixed 32x Leupold Mark 4 that sits on my rifle when shooting F/TR. It tracks like a champ, has dependable repeatiblity, great glass and a ton of adjustment. Is it the "best" scope for F-class? Yes, because I have it and it works.
While the NF BR scopes are probably the most popular (where I have shot), I think they are far from being the best choice. While I am not a NF fan, I would pick a NXS with 1/8 MOA adjustments over the BR.
The masses choose the highest power available, but I don't think one needs a 42x or 50x scope to win; however, the ones with the 50x scopes will say your pissin' in the wind with anything less. Personally, I think 25x or so is plenty.
With that said, I think the "best" choice is whatever 25x or greater scope with plenty of travel, good repeatibility and good glass that you are comfortable with. For me, I like the fixed 32x Leupold Mark 4 that sits on my rifle when shooting F/TR. It tracks like a champ, has dependable repeatiblity, great glass and a ton of adjustment. Is it the "best" scope for F-class? Yes, because I have it and it works.
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: matchking</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While the NF BR scopes are probably the most popular (where I have shot), I think they are far from being the best choice. While I am not a NF fan, I would pick a NXS with 1/8 MOA adjustments over the BR.
The masses choose the highest power available, but I don't think one needs a 42x or 50x scope to win; however, the ones with the 50x scopes will say your pissin' in the wind with anything less. Personally, I think 25x or so is plenty.
With that said, I think the "best" choice is whatever 25x or greater scope with plenty of travel, good repeatibility and good glass that you are comfortable with. For me, I like the fixed 32x Leupold Mark 4 that sits on my rifle when shooting F/TR. It tracks like a champ, has dependable repeatiblity, great glass and a ton of adjustment. Is it the "best" scope for F-class? Yes, because I have it and it works. </div></div>
matchking's comment on travel is worth noting. I shoot an 8-32 BR. They only have 50 MOA of travel. When mine was zeroed at 100 yds on a 20 MOA rail it was 18 MOA off of the bottom. In Oak Ridge my 175 SMKs take 36.75 MOA to get to the X ring at 1000 yds, that math won't work. Fortunately I figured it out on JBM before I went to the 1000 yd range and couldn't get over the berm.
A 32x fixed has a weakness, I've only been going to the 1000 yd line for a month and I've see mirage that forced me to back down to about 28x so that I stopped seeing 2 scoring disks. I'd definitely get a variable for days when it boils. Another thing to think about is that if your like me and your rifle is more tactical than target and you don't have a mirage shield on the barrel, and you get into a groove and start hammering the target, you're going need to dial down after about 15 rounds on a calm day because the mirage from your barrel is going to completely obscure the target. (I made a shield after doing that once)
With 32 power I can read the X. My dot is fine enough that I can hold off on the quarters of the X ring, not that I hit more than 2 or 3 per match, but I can see it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: matchking</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While the NF BR scopes are probably the most popular (where I have shot), I think they are far from being the best choice. While I am not a NF fan, I would pick a NXS with 1/8 MOA adjustments over the BR.
The masses choose the highest power available, but I don't think one needs a 42x or 50x scope to win; however, the ones with the 50x scopes will say your pissin' in the wind with anything less. Personally, I think 25x or so is plenty.
With that said, I think the "best" choice is whatever 25x or greater scope with plenty of travel, good repeatibility and good glass that you are comfortable with. For me, I like the fixed 32x Leupold Mark 4 that sits on my rifle when shooting F/TR. It tracks like a champ, has dependable repeatiblity, great glass and a ton of adjustment. Is it the "best" scope for F-class? Yes, because I have it and it works. </div></div>
matchking's comment on travel is worth noting. I shoot an 8-32 BR. They only have 50 MOA of travel. When mine was zeroed at 100 yds on a 20 MOA rail it was 18 MOA off of the bottom. In Oak Ridge my 175 SMKs take 36.75 MOA to get to the X ring at 1000 yds, that math won't work. Fortunately I figured it out on JBM before I went to the 1000 yd range and couldn't get over the berm.
A 32x fixed has a weakness, I've only been going to the 1000 yd line for a month and I've see mirage that forced me to back down to about 28x so that I stopped seeing 2 scoring disks. I'd definitely get a variable for days when it boils. Another thing to think about is that if your like me and your rifle is more tactical than target and you don't have a mirage shield on the barrel, and you get into a groove and start hammering the target, you're going need to dial down after about 15 rounds on a calm day because the mirage from your barrel is going to completely obscure the target. (I made a shield after doing that once)
With 32 power I can read the X. My dot is fine enough that I can hold off on the quarters of the X ring, not that I hit more than 2 or 3 per match, but I can see it.
Re: Optics recommendation
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NoahbodyImportant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am very happy with my Sightron SS S3 8-32x56 </div></div>
I have the same rig and agree. I did notice Plenty of NF BR as well as NXS's.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NoahbodyImportant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am very happy with my Sightron SS S3 8-32x56 </div></div>
I have the same rig and agree. I did notice Plenty of NF BR as well as NXS's.
Re: Optics recommendation
Tactical/proneshooter/vu,
Glad we got that sorted out
Pretty sure I remember the name of at least one 'tool' that caused somewhat of a stink over on l-r.com over the whole mag-fed thing - and it wasn't Vu. I might have a minor niggle over one or two of his rules, but he's going about things in the right way IMO.
Anywho, back to optics... NF 12-42 BR is my preferred glass at the moment. If starting from square one I'd give a long hard look at a Sightron SIII 10-50x if funds were a bit tight, or the March if my pockets were that deep
Monte
Tactical/proneshooter/vu,
Glad we got that sorted out
Anywho, back to optics... NF 12-42 BR is my preferred glass at the moment. If starting from square one I'd give a long hard look at a Sightron SIII 10-50x if funds were a bit tight, or the March if my pockets were that deep
Monte
Re: Optics recommendation
I would think F/Tactical would be a real popular addition to shooting especially on a site such as this seeing everyone seems to have a GAP or Terry Cross build. Who wouldn’t want the opportunity to shoot out to 1,000 to test there skills. It also wouldn’t hurt to get more shooting at distance in preparation of upcoming tactical matches.
As an aside how many of you have a tac rifle (tac like rifle) vs. a F class rifle.
I would however be a rule breaker and get a long action build, in 308 so that I could seat my bullets LOOOONG to best suit the rifle and up my velocity.
Variable is a must in my eyes. turn the scope down to ensure that i am on paper and not skipping the round 20 feet in front of the target because i bumped the scope somewhere along my travels.
As to scopes I think more power is better. 8-32 or 12-42 I’d take the 12-42 and did I have a NF 12-42BR with NPR-2 reticle. The up side to more power is a more precise aiming point when conditions allow. The other benefit is that at the higher magnification you can pick up mirage when lower powers can’t. This can give you an edge when others are relying on flags to tell the story. Conversely you can see ALLOT of mirage on certain days. From speaking with several Texas area shooters that are on the F open team few turn down the power on their 12-42 and shoot through conditions.
If money would allow I would by the March 8x80 can I use 80 not most days but the superior glass does allow you to turn up the power to over 50 and the difference between the two 5-50 vs. the 8-80 is significant. Ask the current Australian small group record holder how he did it….the conditions allowed him to leave it on 80 he shot a 2.6” group at 1,000.
And the weight savings on the March 9oz over the nightforce.. that is huge, and allows you to use a better bipod or heavier barrel.
I would think F/Tactical would be a real popular addition to shooting especially on a site such as this seeing everyone seems to have a GAP or Terry Cross build. Who wouldn’t want the opportunity to shoot out to 1,000 to test there skills. It also wouldn’t hurt to get more shooting at distance in preparation of upcoming tactical matches.
As an aside how many of you have a tac rifle (tac like rifle) vs. a F class rifle.
I would however be a rule breaker and get a long action build, in 308 so that I could seat my bullets LOOOONG to best suit the rifle and up my velocity.
Variable is a must in my eyes. turn the scope down to ensure that i am on paper and not skipping the round 20 feet in front of the target because i bumped the scope somewhere along my travels.
As to scopes I think more power is better. 8-32 or 12-42 I’d take the 12-42 and did I have a NF 12-42BR with NPR-2 reticle. The up side to more power is a more precise aiming point when conditions allow. The other benefit is that at the higher magnification you can pick up mirage when lower powers can’t. This can give you an edge when others are relying on flags to tell the story. Conversely you can see ALLOT of mirage on certain days. From speaking with several Texas area shooters that are on the F open team few turn down the power on their 12-42 and shoot through conditions.
If money would allow I would by the March 8x80 can I use 80 not most days but the superior glass does allow you to turn up the power to over 50 and the difference between the two 5-50 vs. the 8-80 is significant. Ask the current Australian small group record holder how he did it….the conditions allowed him to leave it on 80 he shot a 2.6” group at 1,000.
And the weight savings on the March 9oz over the nightforce.. that is huge, and allows you to use a better bipod or heavier barrel.
Re: Optics recommendation
started with a super sniper 20x, great scope except the crosshair is too thick to really find the middle of the X at 1000yards.
Got the chance to look through a NF BR and a sightron SIII the same day. Couldn't tell any difference in clarity between the two except the price. the guy with the SIII won the match at rattlesnake and the guy with the NF was close second, both shooting 284 win with 180 berger.
I now have two SIII and am very vey pleased with it.
started with a super sniper 20x, great scope except the crosshair is too thick to really find the middle of the X at 1000yards.
Got the chance to look through a NF BR and a sightron SIII the same day. Couldn't tell any difference in clarity between the two except the price. the guy with the SIII won the match at rattlesnake and the guy with the NF was close second, both shooting 284 win with 180 berger.
I now have two SIII and am very vey pleased with it.
Re: Optics recommendation
For the Sightron's, would the LD be acceptable or should the obvious choice be the FCH?
For the Sightron's, would the LD be acceptable or should the obvious choice be the FCH?
Re: Optics recommendation
Try shooting High Power Mid-Range prone, and shoot with a sling. No caliber restictions and the target is bigger. They made the F-Class target smaller so that it is about equal to the High Power one, shot from the prone, using a coat and sling. Or, you can use your bipod with a sling, or a front sand bag, when you are shooting Open. By the way, when shooting F-TR the sling with the bipod is also legal.
Try shooting High Power Mid-Range prone, and shoot with a sling. No caliber restictions and the target is bigger. They made the F-Class target smaller so that it is about equal to the High Power one, shot from the prone, using a coat and sling. Or, you can use your bipod with a sling, or a front sand bag, when you are shooting Open. By the way, when shooting F-TR the sling with the bipod is also legal.
Re: Optics recommendation
N/F 8-32 or 12-42 BR are the standard by which all other F-class scopes are judged. That said, my fixed Weaver T-24 has been flawless...at 1/5 of the price.
N/F 8-32 or 12-42 BR are the standard by which all other F-class scopes are judged. That said, my fixed Weaver T-24 has been flawless...at 1/5 of the price.
Similar threads
