Cognitive Bias in Shooting Community
- Thread starter Maple57
- Start date
Another classic example is the all so common help me with my 6x47L or 6.5x47L load threads.
It will have no shortage of moral support from those claiming the x47 works so well, but let me ask you something...
Where are all the 6XC help me with my load threads?
There's not a grain of difference between these two cartridges but only the X47L small primer guys are looking for load development help. The large primer 6XC guys run any darn load and are happy with it, not looking for help from anyone.
And don't dare ask what kind of velocity spreads these x47 guys are getting because they never use a chronograph and have evaded the use of one, yet insist they don't have a velocity "problem".
It just doesn't shoot well.... See the contradiction?
Could it possibly be the small primer is the root cause of failure?
But hold on... it's made by Lapua so it must be good. Talk about brand power... OMG.
It will have no shortage of moral support from those claiming the x47 works so well, but let me ask you something...
Where are all the 6XC help me with my load threads?
There's not a grain of difference between these two cartridges but only the X47L small primer guys are looking for load development help. The large primer 6XC guys run any darn load and are happy with it, not looking for help from anyone.
And don't dare ask what kind of velocity spreads these x47 guys are getting because they never use a chronograph and have evaded the use of one, yet insist they don't have a velocity "problem".
It just doesn't shoot well.... See the contradiction?
Could it possibly be the small primer is the root cause of failure?
But hold on... it's made by Lapua so it must be good. Talk about brand power... OMG.
Last edited:
Welcome to the human race. - dan
This one has me curious. Didn't realize so many people were struggling with 6.5x47L in Canada. The 6x47L is known to be finicky and from what I understand you have to constantly tune your load to stay in the node, along with chasing lands. The 6.5x47 is very easy from everything I've heard from those around me.
Lot's of people down in the USA have success with the 6.5x47L, perhaps its an ignition issue in Canadian winters. Where are all these threads? Are they in the reloading section?
As mentioned in the other thread, I've never specifically tested LRP vs SRP. Never saw a reason too, as I've had good success with both. However, what has worked better for me in my reloads is Lapua brass, so that's what I shoot in both my 6BRA and 6.5 Creedmoor. I see much better consistency in velocity with Lapua brass versus other brands. My loads have SD's of between 3-5 with about ~3/8 MOA accuracy (they have produced sub 0.10 MOA groups with 5 shots on occasion), so I really can't complain about SRP.
From the information you've presented thus far I don't see any compelling argument that LRP is superior to SRP. I personally don't have strong feelings either way, but I can't help to feel that your cognitive/experiential bias is showing here. Lot's of people have success with SRP, myself included.
Are there any studies down on SRP vs. LRP? Or is it all just anecdotal evidence to this point?
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
There is such a thing called match primers.
The biggest issue to make the 6.5 x 47L shoot is to watch the side clearance on the neck. A lot of the reamers in Canada were made from the PTG drawing that shows a neck diameter of .291". If you use non-neck turned brass that you may get pressure spikes due to pinching the brass and bullet together. If you turn the necks then you eliminate the pinching and the 6.5 x 47 becomes very easy to tune. If you run a .295" non-turn reamer neck diameter and neck turn to .012" and the cartridge is simple to tune and is extremely accurate.
Most 6.5 x 47L brass run neck thickness' of about .015" so that equals a loaded neck diameter of .294" if you don't neck turn. So you can see squeezing that into a .291" neck can cause issues.
Run CCI 450 primers as these have proven to be the best combo with Varget and H4350 in a large variety of '47L rifles.
Tight necks migrated from benchrest into F-Class when those people moved over. In high shot volume disaplines such as F-Class and PRS tight necks are a real PITA. Also, tight necks do not improve accuracy in our worlds and, yes, we have done the experiments to prove that. If fact, tests have shown that as you increase neck clearance you improve accuracy.
Most 6.5 x 47L brass run neck thickness' of about .015" so that equals a loaded neck diameter of .294" if you don't neck turn. So you can see squeezing that into a .291" neck can cause issues.
Run CCI 450 primers as these have proven to be the best combo with Varget and H4350 in a large variety of '47L rifles.
Tight necks migrated from benchrest into F-Class when those people moved over. In high shot volume disaplines such as F-Class and PRS tight necks are a real PITA. Also, tight necks do not improve accuracy in our worlds and, yes, we have done the experiments to prove that. If fact, tests have shown that as you increase neck clearance you improve accuracy.
Last edited:
nowarningshot
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Just quickly. The 90 grain bullet your talking about is designed for the 22 Valkyrie, probably a 1:8 or 1:7.5. The biggest differences in 223 is the dicotomy of cheap plinking out of Ar's vs Long range/competition high bc/large for bore target bolt guns.
Looking at 30 cal. Which is better ...308, 06, 300wm. Really it's the same bore size, not a great difference in velocity between the 06 and the others, but 400+ ft/sec between the 308 and 300. So it comes down to the purpose, dialing the 308 a few more clicks to hit paper....no difference. Packing a 14 lb, 308 target rifle bushwacking in grizzly country.....i would opt for the 1moa 300wm hunting rifle with premium bullets.
Same applies for the new wonderkynd, 6.5 creedmore. Probably 5-600 behind my 264, which is better, depends on the purpose of the rifles and projectiles. How about a frangible bullet designed to fragment at lower speeds/long range. Which is better....neither...the above 300 pushing the same bullet from the same manufacturer but 70 grains heavier. The .264 bore simply has less mass, smaller fragments, less inertia, a much smaller margin of error and effective ethical use on game.
When i hear members like Ganderite or Eagleeye talking powders and game performance of bullets, its humbling. An analogy of my being in high school, they taught the teacher, leading my high school class.
In firearms, its not just going down the rabbit hole, its how many rabbit holes you go down. The OP, is really describing someone who doesnt see all the rabbit holes, ego, self righteousness, finances, talent, work ethic.........it is all limiting.
Isn't it grand.....
Looking at 30 cal. Which is better ...308, 06, 300wm. Really it's the same bore size, not a great difference in velocity between the 06 and the others, but 400+ ft/sec between the 308 and 300. So it comes down to the purpose, dialing the 308 a few more clicks to hit paper....no difference. Packing a 14 lb, 308 target rifle bushwacking in grizzly country.....i would opt for the 1moa 300wm hunting rifle with premium bullets.
Same applies for the new wonderkynd, 6.5 creedmore. Probably 5-600 behind my 264, which is better, depends on the purpose of the rifles and projectiles. How about a frangible bullet designed to fragment at lower speeds/long range. Which is better....neither...the above 300 pushing the same bullet from the same manufacturer but 70 grains heavier. The .264 bore simply has less mass, smaller fragments, less inertia, a much smaller margin of error and effective ethical use on game.
When i hear members like Ganderite or Eagleeye talking powders and game performance of bullets, its humbling. An analogy of my being in high school, they taught the teacher, leading my high school class.
In firearms, its not just going down the rabbit hole, its how many rabbit holes you go down. The OP, is really describing someone who doesnt see all the rabbit holes, ego, self righteousness, finances, talent, work ethic.........it is all limiting.
Isn't it grand.....
Last edited:
6xc SR and LR shoot ever thing equally well in my experience and 6.5x47 is the most easily tunable cases out there over a wide range of bullet weights in any temp I have run it up to -30 right to +30
and are typically very easy 3 to 5 FPS SD in velocity with varget and H4350 . If your having that much issue like many I have worked on I would look beyond the specific round as most likely you are having to tune the load to much to errors in the way the gun was built.
and are typically very easy 3 to 5 FPS SD in velocity with varget and H4350 . If your having that much issue like many I have worked on I would look beyond the specific round as most likely you are having to tune the load to much to errors in the way the gun was built.
Going back to the original topic here... I think it mostly just has to do with "People thinking what they run is best". Doesn't matter what the topic is (shooting, archery, golf, etc.). You ask a golfer to recommend a driver, and I guarantee you he's going to mention the one he has in his bag or at least the brand. Same goes with shooting, whether it's caliber, components, or loads.
There are a few general rules to follow (Ie: Do your own load development, don't trust what works in someone else's rifle will work for yours even if it is recommended. That's just common sense I hope). But for the most part, what works for one person, doesn't necessarily mean it will work or be liked by the next. Hence the reason we have so many options nowadays. I like to examine all the options I can, and make an educated decision based on what meets my priorities best. I don't care if it's the hottest item on the market or hyped up online by whomever.
And then there is the mentality of the people who "have been shooting longer than you've been alive" and refuse to change their ways of thinking or even listen to a reasonable argument. These are the type of people you should just nod your head to and walk away.
There are a few general rules to follow (Ie: Do your own load development, don't trust what works in someone else's rifle will work for yours even if it is recommended. That's just common sense I hope). But for the most part, what works for one person, doesn't necessarily mean it will work or be liked by the next. Hence the reason we have so many options nowadays. I like to examine all the options I can, and make an educated decision based on what meets my priorities best. I don't care if it's the hottest item on the market or hyped up online by whomever.
And then there is the mentality of the people who "have been shooting longer than you've been alive" and refuse to change their ways of thinking or even listen to a reasonable argument. These are the type of people you should just nod your head to and walk away.
Advice is also given through the lens of ones own experiences.
If you ask a 100 yard bench rest guy how to load bullets he will give you advice that could well be the stupidest thing you could possibly do as a long range shooter.
Classic example is the 100 yard guy who doesn't give a hoot about his velocity spreads, while 1000 yard guys need to obsess about it.
I know a 1000 yard bench rest shooter who chronographs each piece of brass separately over and over and then creates lots of brass that shoot the closest possible speeds.
If you ask a 100 yard bench rest guy how to load bullets he will give you advice that could well be the stupidest thing you could possibly do as a long range shooter.
Classic example is the 100 yard guy who doesn't give a hoot about his velocity spreads, while 1000 yard guys need to obsess about it.
I know a 1000 yard bench rest shooter who chronographs each piece of brass separately over and over and then creates lots of brass that shoot the closest possible speeds.
100%.
The big problem on this forum is people going from one discipline into a new one, trying to re-invent the wheel, and then try to tell/sell to others inappropriate gear and generally poor advice for the discipline that they have little experience at.
I'm all about trying new things and experimenting to find what works and what doesn't work - evolution of the sport doesn't happen without that. In some cases, it's refreshing to see thoughts and experiments from others in the sport. What I really dislike and I think does a huge disservice to the sport in Canada, is when those that are very new to a discipline are representing themselves as self-proclaimed "experts" in the discipline (and trying to reinforce that message by showing off trophies from winning bush league club matches) and directing those new to the discipline or trying to get into it blatantly bad gear and advice, while actively trying to discredit those that have a lot more experience in the sport/discipline. And sadly I think a lot of it is done for personal gain. Perhaps the intentions may be good at times, but we are setting new members up for failure, frustration and a lot of disappointment.
There's a lot of mixed messages on this forum for PRS type shooting. A lot of new people are joining it, and starting the learning and evolution cycle for the gear and techniques of this new discipline for them. A lot of people are still very early on in this process, and some of the self-proclaimed, trophy showing "experts" are very early on in their learning evolution. Great for them, but hardly in a position to be dolling out advice and representing themselves as "experts". It would behoove those on here that want to get into PRS shooting to check out other forums, such as snipershide, where the collective PRS experience is much, much greater then it is here. And the advice reflects that. You may be entertained how much different the advice is, and it's a reflection of the experience level.
We need to set new members of the discipline up for success. Go for the proven recipe that is known to work, rather then set them up in a bastardize experimental setup that isn't fit for purpose for the discipline they want to shoot. I don't tell benchrest or f-class shooters how to shoot their discipline, nor am I telling them how to reload or what gear they should be using.
PS - a lot of 1000 yard benchrest guys don't care about their velocities or ES/SD. A lot don't even know what their velocity or ES/SD is. A lot of times the smallest ES/SD does not correlate to the smallest group size at a set distance, like 1000 yards.
I would not put any "other site" on any particular high ground.
From what I've seen, "other sites" frequently share very narrow view point and if you don't do it their way, you can only be doing it wrong.
PS, Wow KT, you truly amaze me sometimes. Have you ever once considered the vertical offset that occurs as the result of velocity fluctuation? You would do well to take up F Class for a year or two and then return to PRS.
Seems you're confused between 100 yards and 1,000 yards.
There's probably some 1000 yard guy out there who doesn't care about velocity, but he's setting no records.... He's just cannon fodder and there for the fun.
You do not hold a 1/2 MOA V Bull at any distance without consistent muzzle velocity, but that's just F Class. What's the 1000 yard record these days 1.5 inches or so? Ya like that guy doesn't care about velocity spreads.
That's so classic though... if I don't measure it... it must be good.... and the other classic... I didn't see a problem. (read... as I shoot 3 MOA steel plates)
From what I've seen, "other sites" frequently share very narrow view point and if you don't do it their way, you can only be doing it wrong.
PS, Wow KT, you truly amaze me sometimes. Have you ever once considered the vertical offset that occurs as the result of velocity fluctuation? You would do well to take up F Class for a year or two and then return to PRS.
Seems you're confused between 100 yards and 1,000 yards.
There's probably some 1000 yard guy out there who doesn't care about velocity, but he's setting no records.... He's just cannon fodder and there for the fun.
You do not hold a 1/2 MOA V Bull at any distance without consistent muzzle velocity, but that's just F Class. What's the 1000 yard record these days 1.5 inches or so? Ya like that guy doesn't care about velocity spreads.
That's so classic though... if I don't measure it... it must be good.... and the other classic... I didn't see a problem. (read... as I shoot 3 MOA steel plates)
Last edited:
If you don't believe me, check out accurateshooter.com. There's a few world record setting gunsmiths and shooters over there, including the gunsmith that's built more then a few world record setting rifles.
They tune their loads to the distance they shoot - so in our example 1000 yards. They test the charge weights that gets them the least vertical spread at distance. They don't chronograph, as the target doesn't lie. Who cares what ES/SD is if the group is the smallest at distance?
It's called positive compensation, and it's a popular load development method for the benchrest crowd. Here's a quick thread I found on it, but there's plenty of others. See in particular Alex Wheeler's comments, who's one of the most famous benchrest gunsmiths that has built many of record holding rifles.
Do I utilize that load development method? No, I don't shoot at set distances. Like you, I value low ES/SD. Because I shoot at distances from 100 yards to a mile + with the same load. I need velocity consistency for ballistics predictability. If I was a 1,000 yard benchrest shooter, I would probably employ a different load development method.
Just because one load development method works for one discipline, doesn't make it the best for another discipline (or gear, or techniques). There's plenty of ways to do things, there's a reason why one discipline may do things one way, and other disciplines a different way. Different goals and challenges. It's good to understand what those are before jumping into a new discipline and telling people why they are wrong and you should do it a different way. That's the whole essence of this thread, yet here you are yourself with your own cognitive bias getting in the way of understanding why benchrest shooters may employ a different load development method.
Last edited:
And I don't really care how anyone shoots their own rifles, or what gear they use. What I do care about is setting up our newer shooters for success. If they have a very frustrating go at the sport, they will be quick to leave. There's a lot to learn as it is, and there's no need to make it a more difficult and frustrating process then it already is.
There's a reason why certain gear is very popular, and why there is a lot of consensus on forums for gear when the community is full of experience. Newer shooters should be set up with tried and true setups, gear with modularity and aftermarket support that they can grow in to.
Again, I applaud peoples ability to experiment and try new things out. I find your .223 thread interesting. I think it's neat when I see other people experimenting with new gear or techniques, and I'm curious to see how it works out. I just don't think that we need to be setting up our newer shooters with experimental gear, in which they will essentially be the beta testers.
There's a reason why certain gear is very popular, and why there is a lot of consensus on forums for gear when the community is full of experience. Newer shooters should be set up with tried and true setups, gear with modularity and aftermarket support that they can grow in to.
Again, I applaud peoples ability to experiment and try new things out. I find your .223 thread interesting. I think it's neat when I see other people experimenting with new gear or techniques, and I'm curious to see how it works out. I just don't think that we need to be setting up our newer shooters with experimental gear, in which they will essentially be the beta testers.
Positive compensation is an interesting theory and I have actually attempted it, except it doesn't work in reality.... From my testing anyways.
If you are lucky and have a barrel that actually shoots a fast one low and a slow shot high, then sure, go for it... It might even work, but only in a narrow set of conditions.
I have personally not found such an ideal condition that remotely plays into the concept. Usually I've seen stringing along some sort of 8 o'clock to two o'clock angle with fast shots going high right and slow going low left.
Far better to do the work and develop loads that simply go the closest possible speed with no tricks.
If you are lucky and have a barrel that actually shoots a fast one low and a slow shot high, then sure, go for it... It might even work, but only in a narrow set of conditions.
I have personally not found such an ideal condition that remotely plays into the concept. Usually I've seen stringing along some sort of 8 o'clock to two o'clock angle with fast shots going high right and slow going low left.
Far better to do the work and develop loads that simply go the closest possible speed with no tricks.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
As they say, "some don't know what they don't know". And it is always fun to read those who, due to lack of understanding or just experience, say one thing, contradict in another post... but it sounds goods, fits a paradigm and agrees with their tribal beliefs.
FYI, F class is where the vast majority of current LR ballistics tech used has originated. The load tuning used here would actually serve all other disciplines well. BUT you would know that if you actually understood how to tune a load and tested at various distances. F class is shot at every distance from 300 to 1000yds in North America... almost no one reloads for the different distances... because we don't need to. And some matches needs you to shoot near and far in the same day.. sometimes in alternating relays.
Best to understand a sport before discounting its value ....
Seems that I am being used in a 'passive aggressive' way as a harbinger of bad intel... I smile at that given the width of my experience but hey, this is the internet so ones opinion can rapidly become fact.
I wonder how much experience some of these posters have? Have they won any match at any level? Have they placed in the top 10, top quarter... maybe even top half at a large event? They like to talk down others... let's see what they have achieved?
And this is truly the sad place we are in social culture... the 'call out' society where if you don't believe something or someone, just yell loud and disagree. never show evidence as to WHY or HOW their info may be wrong. Don't need to prove anything.. doesn't agree with my little world... must be wrong.
I test extensively what I chat about... maybe old school but first hand experience before tossing an opinion into a discussion is how I work. Seems many others don't share this belief.
I have had the pleasure of shooting with and chatting with a number of really nice PRS shooters in the Pac west area that have come to the F class matches in Rattlesnake range. They have arrived with all manner of current gen kit, calibers and set ups... some really nice stuff. We are happy to help them learn and understand why none of them can hit spit at the various long range distances we typically compete at (800, 900, 1000).
from the smaller cals to magnums for ELR PRS, I don't believe a single shooter has beaten my match scores and I am shooting a 308. This is not a slag on them or some way to say F class shooters are 'superior'. it is simply that at the current state of misunderstanding, many techniques championed in prs games aren't doing what they think. The proof is on paper and most don't ever test at distance on paper... it would be very enlightening.
it seems that gone are the days where shooters keep an open mind and learn from experts in ALL disciplines. The lack of experience and tribal nature and call out society puts many on edge.
it is a shame that some will profess to know the experience of others... they tend to be dead wrong. But maybe they are truly at the top of their sport and dominate in their region... or maybe just parroting their tribal views???? nowadays, hard to know for sure.
Love to see their invite to the finales.....
I try very hard to not make these discussions personal.. some always try to make it some passive aggressive personal jab. maybe that is how they live their lives and simply just being themselves.
We are ALL shooters enjoying various GAMES. We all have varying experiences - some vastly more then others. But at the end, ALL games are evolving and the body of understanding continues to grow and change. Much of the tech considered cutting edge in one game may actually be very old news in other disciplines...
For me, my proof is taking my concepts and ideas into competition whether at a local, provincial/state or National level. Getting on the podium vs my peers is my metric for saying, I might be be doing something right.
YMMV
Jerry
FYI, F class is where the vast majority of current LR ballistics tech used has originated. The load tuning used here would actually serve all other disciplines well. BUT you would know that if you actually understood how to tune a load and tested at various distances. F class is shot at every distance from 300 to 1000yds in North America... almost no one reloads for the different distances... because we don't need to. And some matches needs you to shoot near and far in the same day.. sometimes in alternating relays.
Best to understand a sport before discounting its value ....
Seems that I am being used in a 'passive aggressive' way as a harbinger of bad intel... I smile at that given the width of my experience but hey, this is the internet so ones opinion can rapidly become fact.
I wonder how much experience some of these posters have? Have they won any match at any level? Have they placed in the top 10, top quarter... maybe even top half at a large event? They like to talk down others... let's see what they have achieved?
And this is truly the sad place we are in social culture... the 'call out' society where if you don't believe something or someone, just yell loud and disagree. never show evidence as to WHY or HOW their info may be wrong. Don't need to prove anything.. doesn't agree with my little world... must be wrong.
I test extensively what I chat about... maybe old school but first hand experience before tossing an opinion into a discussion is how I work. Seems many others don't share this belief.
I have had the pleasure of shooting with and chatting with a number of really nice PRS shooters in the Pac west area that have come to the F class matches in Rattlesnake range. They have arrived with all manner of current gen kit, calibers and set ups... some really nice stuff. We are happy to help them learn and understand why none of them can hit spit at the various long range distances we typically compete at (800, 900, 1000).
from the smaller cals to magnums for ELR PRS, I don't believe a single shooter has beaten my match scores and I am shooting a 308. This is not a slag on them or some way to say F class shooters are 'superior'. it is simply that at the current state of misunderstanding, many techniques championed in prs games aren't doing what they think. The proof is on paper and most don't ever test at distance on paper... it would be very enlightening.
it seems that gone are the days where shooters keep an open mind and learn from experts in ALL disciplines. The lack of experience and tribal nature and call out society puts many on edge.
it is a shame that some will profess to know the experience of others... they tend to be dead wrong. But maybe they are truly at the top of their sport and dominate in their region... or maybe just parroting their tribal views???? nowadays, hard to know for sure.
Love to see their invite to the finales.....
I try very hard to not make these discussions personal.. some always try to make it some passive aggressive personal jab. maybe that is how they live their lives and simply just being themselves.
We are ALL shooters enjoying various GAMES. We all have varying experiences - some vastly more then others. But at the end, ALL games are evolving and the body of understanding continues to grow and change. Much of the tech considered cutting edge in one game may actually be very old news in other disciplines...
For me, my proof is taking my concepts and ideas into competition whether at a local, provincial/state or National level. Getting on the podium vs my peers is my metric for saying, I might be be doing something right.
YMMV
Jerry
I don't use positive compensation for my loads, I like a small ES/SD for similar reasons as you. But positive compensation loads have won world records in benchrest competitions, so if done correctly it does absolutely work for that purpose. Would I use it for PRS or ELR? No. But I would consider it for other disciplines.
Best place is 12th at a large 2 day national PRS match, and I usually shoot in the top half/bottom of the top third of national 2 day PRS matches. Sometimes I struggle and I do worse. I'm sure I would have quite the trophy rack if I started a local grass roots PRS league and shot against a bunch of people that are brand new to the sport. I shoot PRS matches occasionally for the challenge, keeping up my skillset, shooting with my friends and meeting new people. Trophies aren't my end goal, I leave before the prize table opens up as I'm not a material person and don't need more sh*t.
I don't care to show off, I don't need to show off, and I'm only here to help other people learn. I don't sell any equipment myself, and have nothing to gain from people buying any product. I have spent a lot of money on this sport, and have learned a lot along the way and want to pass that on so that PRS continues to grow in Canada. I've shot multiple national level 2 day matches, and many club matches in Texas shooting against some of the best PRS shooters. I've spent time and money taking professional training from people such as Chase Stroud (Pumps Precision Rifle Training/Applied Ballistics ELR team shooter), Rifles Only, K&M, Aaron Roberts, etc. I've shot matches in Texas, Oklahoma, Washington, Ontario, Utah, Colorado, etc. Already have training planned with Jake Vibbert and Jon Pynch next year prior to a PRS match.
I'm not here to boast or attack people, but I will call people out on their BS. One of the best examples of this is your advice about the 783 as the "best" and "only" budget PRS rifle available, which is disingenuous and flat out wrong. Cool that you are experimenting with the system, I have zero qualms with that, but you are setting people that want to get into PRS up for disappointment. It has almost zero aftermarket support, and you can't "grow" into the system as you start the learning evolution and learn what works and doesn't work. Very limited chassis/stocks and triggers for it, and these two components are the most important interface between the shooter and the rifle, and has a big impact on how the shooter may do down range. If the 783 gets a lot more aftermarket support, it may be considered a decent option for beginners. But until then it's far from a "fit for purpose" system for a beginner.
Different disciplines, different gear and techniques. It's not surprising that PRS shooters aren't beating F-class shooters at F-class. PRS is not the be all end all, and PRS shooters aren't coming on here and telling you guys how you need to shoot F-class or benchrest. No one on here is discounting F-class, or any other discipline. No one here is saying any one discipline is better. I'm not sure why you think that anyone is discounting F-class, as myself nor anyone else from what I can tell has said anything disparaging about F-class shooting.
There's lots of great experience on this board, I appreciate and respect that. You can learn anything from any discipline, I've learned a lot from those very knowledgeable in other disciplines. But some of the shooters coming into PRS because it's the hot new girl in town are pretty quick to tell those that have been doing it for a while, and more unfortunately the new people on how to do it. It's very clear that yourself and others are fresh to the sport and at the beginning of the learning curve. Awesome that you are participating, but some humility and open mindedness about how and why this sport has gotten to where it's at, and the evolution of the current gear we employ would greatly shorten the learning curve. The current evolution of the sport is due to a accumulation of a lot of time, money, effort and frustration spent shooting in diverse and hostile/adverse conditions. Don't discount all the learnings of others, you're not learning anything new or on track to revolutionize the sport.
