A father and his teenage son

PEI ROB

PEI ROB

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
94   0   0
Its been bothering me for some time now and I feel the need to speak up a little. Being from a small province there isn't a lot of shooting going on and a few years ago when Bob Barwise invited me to come and shoot with the PEIRA at a club match Saturday morning, I was extremely excited. I was surprised how friendly and welcomed I was because they were shooting iron sights off their elbows and here I was with a scoped hunting rifle. These men were experienced to say the least, Bisley this, Grand Aggregate that, flags up, targets in place, strange looking equipment manipulated with confidence while harassing with each other with good natured ribbing that made them all smile. They sure didn't need any of my help. "Do you have an elevation?" Awkward pause while I'm deciphering it out. "Do you know where your zero is?" "Ah, I sighted it in for one hundred and shot it at 500 last night. I think I have 300 figured out to about 2 minutes up from 100." "Sounds good, don't worry. You have two sighters to walk it in before your ten for score. You'll be fine." They took care of me right off the bat and even smiled and said I've done that before when I cross fired on my first shot. With their amazing amounts of patience and encouragement the new guy with a scope is taken in like a lost puppy. The coaching continued and it hasn't stopped.

Fish and Chips with a Keiths is always a high point of the day. This is where I get to hear most of the stories, and let me tell you there is a lot of them, the one's you wished you were there kind of stories. Many from before I was born, even though I was born in '69. Over 80 years old and still going strong, I can only dream of it. The history to them isn't history at all, its still ongoing life experience. These guys lived it and its why I'm rambling on.

Well let me think for a second, and it only takes a second to figure out how its all possible. There was no shooting going on here before these guys and nothing else now for long range scoped shooters. Certainly at least nothing as organized, just them. Them. Makes me wonder who "Them" are, where did "They" come from, how they got where they're at and most importantly to me how do I fit in. Some with well over 60 years dedication to their sport, defending it, organizing it, living it are forced to accept change all of a sudden. Like a blown primer, something different just happened. How could it feel right to them?

George Farguharson was well known TR shooter that understood the future of the sport, after all, he was the founder of F Class which bears his name. With modern technology and tired eyes the change breathed new life into many TR shooters. The constant smiles returned to many whose giant hearts forcefully mustered up a friendly face for old comrades and young upstarts. Dale, a great shooter in the PEIRA hasn't been this happy in years, at least since I've known him. He still shoots off his elbows but now he can clearly see what is going on. It isn't him I'm worried about.

Respect is what I'm worried about. We scope shooters, are new. We walk in with everything already organized for us and do things different, against the grain, outscoring them almost from the start. Many new scope shooters have almost zero wind skills and can often pull a better score, surely that doesn't help smooth things over. Where would we be without our TR "Fathers" ? Who showed us how its done? Who was already there and invited us in? Taking Dad for granted again. Not really, we love and respect our fathers, but just don't say it. I suppose its a two way street but come on, we know how it works, both of us can be stubborn. We need to find ways to stay shooting together.

At the DCRA Canadian Nationals in Connaught I heard the F Class shooters and the TR shooters did not get to shoot together. That does not sit well with me, not at all. The F Class target was too different? Can we not simply add a small X circle inside the V bull? TR guys get scored the same except a few X's which are still V Bulls, no difference. When they see the orange score marker placed a notch above the V spot, it isn't hard to figure out its still a V. Hey, maybe ties could be settled by X's if they wish. F Class score the X simply as better than a V. For example, 50 5V 2X. People working the butts have no added work, nothing confusing thrown in.

Cheers,
Rob Steele
PEIRA
F Class Open
Wants to shoot with his buddies, all of them.
 
Hi Rob,

Your thoughts are poiognant and they evoke some thinking.

Like every ex-military shooter, I learned to shoot with open sights off my elbows and using only a sling. I admire the challenge of this sort of shooting and the accomplishements of many Canadians that have devoted a lifetime to this dicipline is indeed impressive and inspiring.

I am a serious F-Class Open shooter; I love the sport and I am passionate about promoting and growing our sport. It is indeed a sport that descended from TR, and to this day we have (had) a class that allowed TR rifles to shoot with scopes and bipods. I know the story of George Farquharson intimately as I am a member of his former club and I shoot with many folks including Paul Reibin that knew George almost all his life. I just finished building the expanded range that is to bear his name.

Although I see the benefits of a strict symbiotic realtionship with TR, I also see the detractors. With our new ICFRA targets being strongly tied to TR, the result is a target that is relatively unchanged for TR, (a blck blob is a black blob) but the new short range F-Class target has sparked outrage on the part of several shooters, particularly our elder shooters that find using black reticles on black targets with dimensions that do not coincide with scope adjustments to be obtuse. We have lost two shooters who refuse to shoot at the new targets. They have lost the fun factor.

This change was done so that a simple half-dimension center is added to a TR target.

It bothers me that F-Class is being relegated to receiving changes that seem to convenience TR match logistics, not necessarily for the betterment of F-Class. If you shoot in Ottawa, BC, and the US, you will see that each venue is using a different target. The new changes obviously aren't popular enough to promote their immediate adoption, or their adoption - period.

I guess what I am saying is that while I want to see all shooting sports as healthy as possible, I do not want the future and the growth of F-Class inextricably linked to TR shooting. I would love to see a move towards F-Class exclusive matches and a sanctioning body that thinks and acts independent of TR requirments.

Snow boarders and downhill skiiers don't compete in the same matches; stock cars and Formula 1 don't race in the same races, football and rugby players don't hold concurrent matches in the same game. All of them use venues and equipment that are extremely similar to each otehr, but they are distinctly different.

Embracing those differences is not a sin and we can do so while maintaining nothing but the highest mutual respect.

Ian Hames
 
We walk in with everything already organized for us and do things different, against the grain, outscoring them almost from the start.
Click to expand...

The TR shooters did the same thing back when there was only service rifle so why would we feel bad? Same story for a different generation.
 
Thanks Ian, I appreciate the reply. Correct me if I'm wrong, the BCRA F Class Championship had 16 F Class shooters attend and the TR Championship had 30 shooters. Honestly I can't see how running two matches with these numbers is good for anybody. If the numbers were large, sure I can see how things may be smoother to organize and tuned better for each discipline but again there is an unnecessary segregation. The 127th DCRA Fullbore Championships had only 28 F Class shooters. Where are all the F Class shooters to warrant an entirely new division within the DCRA? Or is there a plan to leave the DCRA?

As an F Class Open shooter, a white patch in the middle of the V bull makes me happy. It isn't required but it sure is nice and the TR guys don't mind. It doesn't take much to get along. Concerning improvements to F Class, changing the target to suit us better can be as simple or complex as we want. I'm saying why not add a small circle inside the existing V Bull. It changes nothing for the TR shooters and gives us a better target. At 300, the center will take a beating. A 1.5" white circular sticker shouldn't cost a fortune and would solve patching and scoring issues as they arise. Extra work for the patcher but not much.

Why is it I get the feeling some do not want to shoot with the TR guys and are looking for reasons not to?
 
PEI ROB,

We had less F-Class numbers than last year. Last year we had almost an even number of F and TR shooters. Because of people getting back from Bisley 1 day before the BCRA Provincials, the numbers were down by 1/2 this year as those who usually come to the BCRA Provincials did not have time to prepare and make it to the shoot.

I believe we had 30 F'rs last year if memory serves me correct.
 
Good morning gentlemen, having just returned from the CFRC, I must admit I liked the segregation of the classes at Ottawa. I believe most, if not all the F Class shooters attending felt likewise. The TR types really didn't seem to care one way or the other. We shot on our own targets and similarily were not concerned with the others idiosyncrasis or habits. F Class shooters are a bit less concerned with traditon and strict adhearance to the code of conduct so rigidly employed in TR, ergo, we're a bit more relaxed and to say the least chatty during the match firing. No one was offended in either case. The typical interdiscipline snipping was a non issue. Perfect. The good natured kibitzing was still prevalent but happened well away from the firing points, at a social level and a lot of fun.

As far as numbers, I believe they are more a function of the inevitable time vs. money conflict we all face in the current economy. I know several individuals that are now financially incapable of attending the matches of importance and others who have the means but have completely exhausted their holiday banks by attending a once in a life time international get together. In both cases it equates to reduced participant numbers locally and nationally.

Regarding the target, what difference does it make? None that I've seen shooting in the East ,West or US for that matter. We're all shooting for the center. Some are more successful than others on a given day but no one was disadvantaged comparatively. There are those in every sport that tend to tilt at windmills and F Class is by no means immune to the affliction. I defy anyone to be able to discern a 7mm differential at 900m.

I thank you for your time.
Cheers, Glen
 
Rob,

There is far more to the story than just the numbers in the BCRA Provincials. F-Class was indeed down but that was due to a couple of things: Mainly Bisley (All but 2 Americal shooters including Team Savage were at Bisley), The CDN Champs only two weeks later (All our prairie regulars had to choose where their financial resources would be used up) , some regular shooters that will not use the ICFRA target, and several shooters that were dealing with personal crises including forest fires.

Additionally, I had tried to have F-Tactical (a new classification) included and I had more than 20 people with committments to come and shoot, but the match director would not allow it. He and his family do a superb job, but they were also in charge of hosting the World Police and Fire games immediately after the provs, so they were not interested in any more work.

The moral of the story is that had this been an F-Only match, we would have the latitude to include a factory/sporter class as well as a Tactical class that would provide a number of entry-level classes to promote new participation. The other moral of the story is that its promotion would have been far more genration-y oriented as well.

BCRA does far too little to promote itself and its matches and it reaps what it sows. I do what I can to help, but my energies are towards F-Class.

With respect to the ICFRA target, I have two thoughts... First, as an individual, I tend to dislike it, but i will shoot at anything. It is a poor target for everyone, so we are all on the same footing.

Second, as a member of the DCRA F-Class Advisory Committee, I have a responsibility to represent the wishes and comments from those I am ostensibly supposed to represent. To that end, I have reams of emails and written correspondence complaining about the target. Older shooters in particular hate the target, and many have been less eloquent in their asserions about our sport being dictated by non F-Class disciplines, but you get the general idea. The best comments I can find are lacking in affect. So Glen, I guess to answer your question, It apparently makes plenty of difference to plenty of people! :)

The overhwelming concensus of those who have taken the time to express their thoughts are that they hate the target. I am still waiting for the minutes of the ICFRA meeting and to see how Canada waded in on the subject.

FYI, who, other than BC shooters has actually shot at the new .4MOA ICFRA short range target?
 
Hi Ian, before we get into the debate surrounding what .4 MOA (designated as 1/2 value) to a .5 MOA differential actually is dimensionally, I haven't heard any complaints except from BC. We've shot at this type of target (1/2 MOA added "V") in Alberta, the US and more recently Sask. This was the type used at the CFRC this year, also no complaints. I would have assumed the complaints would be surrounding the reduction of the 4 and 3 ring dimensions; they are smaller on the ICFRA suggested version that they are on the standard DCRA version with the F Class 1/2 whatever V added.

What came from the CFRC F Class Pow Wow was discussion on returning the original F Class version of the TR Rifle to the existing DCRA TR target. This was just a discussion mind you and seemed to have some following within those present. It also harkens back to the TR-Optical days albeit with a bipod. Further, it seemed to stay closer to Farkey's intention rather that what we presently have via tinkering and evolution. Target dimensions hardly entered into other business discussed except to acknowlegde the current practice appears to work acceptably.

Everyone seems to be trying to muddy the waters with the ICFRA dictums. Currently, from a PRA perspective, ICFRA need not apply unless you are seeking their sanction for an International Match. You are free to use up all your old DCRA targets with the added "V" or what ever similar representation you choose. Not every PRA is so affluent as to pitch hundreds of dollars worth of useable targets for the sake of a few millimeters. I don't see any particular urgency to convert to a target that, for the time being, will not really affect anything other that pure asthetics or personnal preferences. To me it's the same as having gophers bred with a red spot on their chest instead of a white one.

For the foreseable future, we'll be shooting at slightly different target configurations based on where you are and where you go to shoot. The center is still the center in all of them, so what's the big deal.
Cheers, Glen
 
Hi Glen,

Since no F-Class shooters in BC can afford to Shoot Ottawa, I guess what they hear, do and say there makes no difference. I also wonder what the point is in having DCRA and PRA infrastructures in place if input into the future of a sport is based on participation at one match, eschewing the overwhelming majority of very active participants that have neither the means nor the time to shoot across the country for 2 weeks.

This notion of the Farky class being given a separate target (the TR target) and given a completely separate scoring (V-6) because the new F-Class target is putting htem at a technical disadvantage should be a wake-up call.

It is odd that ICFRA should decide to decree a target dimension (and an unpopular one) when by its own admission, it doesn't include short range shooting at any of its sanctioned matches.

My problem here is that TR is shot largely by people with the time and the "means" to do so. They DO frequent Bisley, Ottawa, Sacaramento, Ratone, Rattlesnake, Douglas Ridge and other big shooting destinations. They want targets that conform to international standards, and by default since F-Class is so inextricably linked to TR, we have little choice but to use the "F-Class Accessory" to the TR target.

I re-assert that I think that the majority of F-Class shooters would be better served by a body that listens and responds to their needs, and understands that getting people to Bisley and Ottawa isn't the problem: Getting people to Calgary, Mission, Nokomis and Kamloops is. Make it too difficult, and people will just not show up.

BR and Tac Rifle are looking better all the time.
 
For F Class, I'm thinking the PRA representatives should consider prairieguy's suggestion to hold a 2010 F Class shoot in Manitoba. They should also push to get this sanctioned by the DCRA. This type of event can be used as a recruitment, and proving ground for the next world championship team. If this sounds a little farfetched...the US teams have already voted in their respective captains for the next world's championship in Raton, NM. Their ball is rolling already. As for target size, the smaller the better.
 
Gentlemen,
As a competitive shooter and also a non competitive pleasure shooter, I have always looked into new developments in styles and shooting sports with enthusiasm.We shooters have choosen to participate in a "politically and socially disdained" hobby having to defend our avocation against ignorant and outright stupid biases.(Not news to anyone here)
We have many historically established rifle,shotgun and pistol sports that each in thier own right deserve the respect of all shooters, for the talent a participant must develop and maintain.
At issue here ,I believe, and a growing concern of mine,is the ability to continue to develop new shooting sports without alienating the existing traditional factions.
I shot at the CFRC matches in Ottawa for the first time this year almost in it's entirety.
I enjoyed the shoulder to shoulder competition with other F Class shooters and also preferred the use of the smaller modified target (I believe there were NO?? tie shoots in F Class needed but correct me if I'm wrong).
I have in the past also shot F Class in along with exceedingly talented TR shooters at a number of matches. I did not miss chatting with my TR friends as there is more time spent "chatting" on the range then shooting let alone in the mess and elsewhere.
I believe that TR competitors have developed skills with slings and peeps that I could never hope to master and am envious of their abilities.I also respect their history and traditions.
Given the history and reasoning of the development of the original Farky Class,I think that the original Farky Class (a TR rifle under same restrictions and rules, with scope and bipod) should continue as a class unto it's own and be allowed to continue to shoot alongside TR shooters on the same targets and given recognition as such.

However, as a sport,F Class has/is growing into it's own with differences enough to require smaller targets,seperate squadding,differening rules and recognition.The sport although similair is just not TR.
Hopefully ,with enough input from those who actually attend or would attend matches,a universally ( dream??) accepted format for an expanded F Class will develop or at least be near on the same page.
I expect to hear disention and disagreement as there never was a way to please everyone.If we continue to proactively work at it ,leave egos and biases aside,this really can grow and benefit both TR and Fers of all denominations,Precision Rifle shooters(Tac) alike.PRA's and DCRA together need to continue to build strength in association as I beleive can and will happen with input.

If facilities can accomodate combined matches ,I think that would be great as I enjoy meeting and talking to shooters from all areas.If some matches are limited in the scope of competitor types or styles,well, it is now already.
(can't shoot F Class at our Benchrest Matches here no matter how I suggest:))
Success will ONLY come with growing participation in all matches in every province that holds them.Not everyone can afford the time and money to attend all,but get out and support the matches you can.
For those who can plan ahead and save,I highly recommend the 10 day Disneyland of shooting events at next years DCRA CFRC.Met some great people there and learned alot.As to next years calendar ,I hope to make some other PRA's matches as health, money and time allow.It'd be great if we all could "meet in the middle" for a Canadian First.

I appologize from having missed the powow,but just could not make it.I understand that some interesting ideas were shared and look forward to seeing their development.

Just my 2 pesos worth.
Regards
Gord O
 
Hi Ian, I don't agree with the statement what's said or done out west or back east doesn't count. If you mean whatever happens in one area doesn't have much impact in another, I'd agree, that is true. It won't change anytime soon. We are a country of regions. To that end, I submit that the CFRC is an east central region event, particularly for F Class. Even the "locals" stayed away in droves this year, whatever the reasons.

While it may help putting something together in Winnipeg, there are going to be regions shooters won't come from because it's to expensive or takes to long. That's just the economics we all have to struggle with. What now? I suppose we'll continue to shoot locally and pray for the funds/time to attend a "big one" wherever that may be.

What's been said on this stump is one's opinion of the current state of affairs. In time Mr. Rumbold will issue an official DCRA set of Pow Wow minutes to all the Prov's coordinators to mull over and submit to those we represent and reply to in kind.

Would it help to spread out the Canadian F Class Nationals timewise and hold it every 2or 3 years? That way we could all bank time and funds to get there and have enough time to prepare without giving the wife another reason to tornado and continue shooting all the local stuff along the way.

We need all of us committed to finding methods or structure to make all things well, in all places, for all participants. I wish us good luck.

Thanks Gord, it was a blast. I didn't get to read yours when I was pecking away at this one.
Cheers, Glen
 
Ian it sounds to me like BC F-Class shooters are particularly unhappy with shooting on the ICFRA F-Class target system (Or is that a fair statement? I know that at least a small number are very unhappy; I don't have a good feel as to whether the majority are happy, unhappy, or grudgingly accepting).

There is no compelling reason for anybody, provincial or national, to shoot on ICFRA-dimensioned scoring rings. It is a choice that is up to the match organizer to make. While standards are nice, and by default we might as well use them, we should feel free to go our own way and use something better, if the offered "standard" is badly out of line with what we want. If your guys are truly unhappy about it, you should seriously consider shooting on a target system that you are happy with - and there a number of ways that this could be done cheaply and effectively.

One way is to adopt another system that you prefer - e.g. use the US F-Class target system (though it's a system designed for yards distances only, so if you shoot it on a meters range you'll probably end up more or less with ICFRA-like dimensions - the "X" will be less than 0.5 MOA).

Or, have special F-Class patches made up to BCRA F-Class specs. You might want to make your 5-ring either the same size as the TR target's V-bull, or if you prefer you could make it 1.0 MOA (either way would be fine, and would allow quickly changing a target from TR to F-Class configuration, and back again, by only pasting in a new TR Repair Centre, or an F-Class Patch). Inside that, you could make a 0.5 MOA V-bull, which could be a solid white disc if you wish. One thing I will pass on, is that while some F-Class shooters *want* a solid white ~1/2-MOA circle in the middle, others explicitly do *NOT* want it. In the design of the ICFRA long range F-Class target, this was considered, discussed and ultimately rejected - I don't recall the reason why it was rejected, but I do know that it was voted out. But if BCRA shooters really do want it, then they should go ahead and do it. The Australian "F-Class Championship" target system uses a solid 0.5 MOA white centre, so you'd be in good company.

You're the BC F-Class director. You work hard at it, you have the best interests of shooting at heart, and you know what your guys (both actual and potential shooters) want. Having tried the ICFRA F-Class target system for a year now, you probably have a pretty fair idea if it is right for you, or wrong for you, or if it is something that you should (or should not) "live with". If you think that you would be better served by trying different targetry, then that is something you really should look into doing. You would not be "betraying" BCRA nor DCRA nor ICFRA, nor would you be doing anything "wrong" if you were to shoot on a target system of your own making. If you do decide to try something different, please do so - and after you've used it a year, please also tell everybody all about your experience with it. Others (e.g. DCRA, ICFRA) need to know what has been done out there, what has worked well, and what has not worked well. Maybe ICFRA needs to hear in a couple of years that BCRA has used the ICFRA F-Class targets, and also their own design, and they have reasons X Y and Z for suggesting that the ICFRA F-Class target system be improved/modified.
 
I completely oppose any movement to return F T/R to the old TR targets. Why would anyone want that? Are they upset because they find themselves unable to shoot 50 10V more often than not?

I shot a F T/R rifle in the MPRA provincials on the new F-Class targets and took high F class score in the Lieutenant Gov's and third high score (down only four points) in the grand agg. Once again that was high score of ALL F class.

F T/R rifles can compete against the open guns

In the end, the middle of the target is in the same place for everyone and it all comes down to wind reading and mental preparedness.

I have serious doubts that the F class discussion at Connaught adequately reflects the opinion of the vast majority of F class shooters. To my knowledge, no F class shooters from Mb were present at that pow wow. The one and only time anyone has ever solicited my opinion about how the DCRA runs F Class was a email survey sent round by Jim Thompson. He wrote back to say he didn't like my answers and so I suspect my comments fell on deaf ears.

F class needs it's own national executive. I believe that the fine folks that are currently on the exec now do their honest best to do what they think is right for F class, unfortunately most of them are TR shooters who just don't see or get the issues we want addressed.

Let's face it, the current F class chair shot TR at the nationals. No slight against Daniel, I know he does his damndest to see we get good representation but shouldn't the F class chair shoot F class?

Who was present at this pow wow? Why was there not a call for comments, concerns etc to the PRA's beforehand?

There are national meetings where the PRA's send reps to Ottawa on a periodic basis to deal with national issues. In Mb, without exception the reps are TR shooters. I know that they have tried to represent my concerns and grievances in the past but I don't feel it has much impact.

Is there some reason that we could not have F Class reps from the PRAs that meet periodically and work out the issues we face. That group could then take their decisions to the DCRA general assembly for debate or a rubber stamp.

What is necessary is for some F class shooters to step up and demand an equal place at the national DCRA table and equal representation from their PRA's. Nothing is going to change so long as F clas has a sub committee that has to go cap in hand to the DCRA exec and convince a bunch of TR shooters of anything.
 
Last edited:
I have specifically tried to avoid making direct references to the fact that at most organizational levels, F-Class interests are being represented by TR participants. That cat is out of the bag, so I will just add my concurrence to what Les has said. I also see it as a source of controversy, even if it is just a perception.

Maybe the time is right to float the concept of a Canadian F-Class Association.
 
rnbra-shooter said:
Ian it sounds to me like BC F-Class shooters are particularly unhappy with shooting on the ICFRA F-Class target system (Or is that a fair statement? I know that at least a small number are very unhappy; I don't have a good feel as to whether the majority are happy, unhappy, or grudgingly accepting).
Click to expand...

Daniel,

There are 2 shooters that were passionatley not happy with the new ICFRA target. One of the 2 flatly refused to shoot and packed his stuff and went home, the other stayed and shot with the rest of us.

I have talked to quite a few shooters and a good number are not enthralled by the new target but it isn't going to stop them from shooting on it. No one is at a distinct disadvantage because of it, we are all shooting at the same dimensional target.

I personally could care less how big (or small) the V-Bull is, if it decided that the V-Bull will be a dime sized area, I will still continue to strive to put all 10/15/20 rounds in a string into the center of the target.

It may because I have only been in this sport a short time (2.5yrs) and have not really grown accustomed to any particular target size. I started shooting on the ISSF target locally, shot on the DCRA 1/2 min target at Chilliwack and Alberta last year and now the ICFRA targets both locally and at the Lower Mainland Regionals and BC Provincials at Vokes in Chilliwack.

rnbra-shooter said:
In the design of the ICFRA long range F-Class target, this was considered, discussed and ultimately rejected - I don't recall the reason why it was rejected, but I do know that it was voted out. But if BCRA shooters really do want it, then they should go ahead and do it. The Australian "F-Class Championship" target system uses a solid 0.5 MOA white centre, so you'd be in good company.
Click to expand...

Is there a count of the number of F-Class shooters that were on the committee that made this particular decision?

I personally do not have a problem with the black center but most definitely would prefer a a white center. We can obviously do this on a local level but it will not be done at the provincial level. I would find it a disadvantage to get used to a white aiming center in practice and then have to adjust to the black center when going to a BCRA event at Chilliwack.
 
Actually gents, for accuracy, the DCRA F Class Comitttee Chair is currently Dave Rumbold (and F Class Shooter of grand repute). He did not shoot the CFRC this year for personal reasons but expects to return for 2010.

Jim Thompson has ceased to be involved in anything other than minor administrative duties. He's done so much over the years and performed a thankless task as an unpaid volunteer, organizer and CFRC match director for years and is plain burned out.

Daniel is the current CFRC organizer. Jim T just wants to shoot and I don't blame him. Daniel is the DCRA ICFRA representative along with Roger M because no one else was willing to take this on.

He's looking for his successor, any one interested? Here's your chance to get with it and cure the evils of non participation and gross misunderstanding.

I was previously tasked with being the "western region F Class rep on a rules sub committee. The last MPRA contact person I had is Steve Allstead I think. There really hasn't been a bunch to pass around to anyone. The Pow Wow was a discussion only. I say again, nothing hard or otherwise permanent came from this discussion. It was initially to bounce ideas around as to how to get more shooters involved but primarily at the CFRC. Nothing more.

Mr Dave Rumbold is undertaking the production of the Pow Wow minutes. When they are complete, they will be distributed to everyone in every region for review and further discussion. I'll make sure they're posted here too.

As far as getting the PRA's F Class Reps together periodically? It's probably about the same as getting F Class shooters together for a match. When? Can't make it. Where? It's to far. How much? I can't afford it. Good luck with that.

All of the issues we see before us now has been waded through years before this, at least 8 or 9 years ago. Nothing substantial or constructive was ever determined. Just more #####ing. The names change a bit but precious little else does. It's as true now as it was then. Most of those with the outspoken attitude have no intention of shooting anywhere but their own back yard so what difference does it make.

There's a large number of F Class shooters from all over Canada I've had the pleasure of shooting with over the years that no longer participate. None can explain why they stop competing....I've asked!

If we can't maintain the shooting numbers we have, there's no hope for the future no matter how many meetings, pow wows or ##### sessions on this infernal machine we endure.

I'm tired. Good luck and goodnight
Glen
 
prairieguy said:
I completely oppose any movement to return F T/R to the old TR targets. Why would anyone want that? Are they upset because they find themselves unable to shoot 50 10V more often than not?
Click to expand...

One useful thing that came out of the "Pow Wow" was that there seem to be a couple of different kinds of .223-.308 F-Class shooters out there. One kind is former TR shooters who have put a scope on their TR rifle. The other kind (mostly people who have never been TR shooters) are straight-out all-up fully competitive F-Class shooters. It probably shouldn't be a surprise that the former group mostly prefers to shoot amongst TR shooters, and also considers the new F-Class targetry to be beyond the capabilities of their gear. And that the latter group couldn't disagree more.

I suspect that this might end up solving our "Canadian F/Farquharson vs. US+ICFRA F/TR" problem for us. Perhaps the solution is that the "Farky kind" of F-Class shooting be done on TR targets, squadded with TR shooters, using scoped and rested TR rifles (and ammo), as more of a "mostly sociable" kind of shooting. Scoring could be V=6, or arguably even just straight-up TR scoring.

Whereas F/TR would be fired and organized as an all-out, fully competitive kind of F-Class (as you note, an F/TR rifle is fully as accurate as an F/Open rifle). Shot on specialized difficult F-Class targets, not squadded with TR shooters but only with F/TR and F/Open shooters, using rifles gear and ammo that would be fully at home (and competitive) at an international championship match. To be determined is whether shooters would prefer to use international rules w.r.t. equipment (8.25kg max weight, bipod, no bullet weight), or not.

F class needs it's own national executive. I believe that the fine folks that are currently on the exec now do their honest best to do what they think is right for F class, unfortunately most of them are TR shooters who just don't see or get the issues we want addressed.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We need hard-working agitators, who not only can figure out what's wrong and how it can be fixed, but who also grab the bull by the horns and start fixing things, organizing things, doing things. Like Ian (trying to bring tactical guys in), and you (regional F-Class match), and Bill Flintoff (taking a team to Bisley).

If any F-Class shooter wants to serve on the DCRA Executive, or on the F-Class Advisory Committee, or in some other role - just say the word, and step up. F-Class shooting needs good leaders and organizers.

Let's face it, the current F class chair shot TR at the nationals. No slight against Daniel, I know he does his damndest to see we get good representation but shouldn't the F class chair shoot F class?
Click to expand...

Fully agreed. I am a former (and perhaps future) F-Class shooter, but I would really, *really* like to find an F-Class shooter to take over my job (ICFRA F-Class Committee), it would be much better that way.

Is there some reason that we could not have F Class reps from the PRAs that meet periodically and work out the issues we face. That group could then take their decisions to the DCRA general assembly for debate or a rubber stamp.

What is necessary is for some F class shooters to step up and demand an equal place at the national DCRA table and equal representation from their PRA's. Nothing is going to change so long as F clas has a sub committee that has to go cap in hand to the DCRA exec and convince a bunch of TR shooters of anything.
Click to expand...

Sure (though it might work better to "meet" electronically most of the time). The DCRA's F-Class Advisory Committee is an attempt to be exactly this. While it presently consists of (five or so?) regionally selected people, there's no reason it couldn't instead consist of an F-Class rep from each PRA that cared to provide one. The problem isn't in forming committees though, the problem is to get a committee to discuss and decide something, and then to get somebody who is willing to do what the committee has decided (for example "we need a new target system" - somebody has to design it and get it printed. Or, "we need new rules" - somebody has to write them, and even more importantly, maintain them. Or, "we need a shooter classification system" - somebody has to design a workable system, put it in place, and run it)

There won't be any need for F-Class shooters to go cap in hand to the DCRA exec; if a well thought out idea comes from a group of F-Class shooters who want something done and are ready to do it, the last thing that's going to happen is for the DCRA Executive to stand in the way (i.e. don't worry, it'll get rubber-stamped if that is what is needed).
 
CyaN1de said:
In the design of the ICFRA long range F-Class target, this was considered, discussed and ultimately rejected - I don't recall the reason why it was rejected, but I do know that it was voted out. But if BCRA shooters really do want it, then they should go ahead and do it. The Australian "F-Class Championship" target system uses a solid 0.5 MOA white centre, so you'd be in good company.
Click to expand...

Is there a count of the number of F-Class shooters that were on the committee that made this particular decision?
Click to expand...

100%. This was the ICFRA F-Class Committee; everybody on it is an F-Class shooter, many of them fiercely so. They are an independent ornery bunch who brook no interference (but I do repeat myself, having already said that they are F-Class shooters... ;-)

I personally do not have a problem with the black center but most definitely would prefer a a white center. We can obviously do this on a local level but it will not be done at the provincial level. I would find it a disadvantage to get used to a white aiming center in practice and then have to adjust to the black center when going to a BCRA event at Chilliwack.
Click to expand...

What is the reason that you'd prefer a white centre? As a higher contrast aiming point, or some other reason? In your shooting style, do you aim off small amounts (0-1/2 MOA)? Do you aim off larger amounts? Do you make some/most/all of your adjustments with the scope knobs, or not?

When firing on a target that has a shot indicator in the V-bull bull that is off-centre, would a white centre be any better or worse?

One thing about the centre of the target is that that is where most of the action is. Things get shot up, pasted, repaired, shot indicators move in and out, scoring lines get shot through, etc.

The DCRA 500 yard target has a small (perhaps 1.5") white square below the TR 5-ring of the target, as an identification mark (to distinguish it from the 600 yard centre). I used it as an aiming mark for F-Class shooting on a few occasions, it worked well, though I never adopted that as my preferred way of shooting. What would your thoughts be on using a small, high-contrast aiming mark that is not located at the centre of the target (so it would hardly ever get shot up or covered with a shot indicator)?

Why not try out a white centre locally, and if you and most other F-Class shooters prefer it, you can tell (though perhaps not in so many words) the BCRA that this is the target that F-Class shooters choose to be shooting on.
 
I don't believe we need another Independent Association for F Class but use the same efforts to build the representation of Fers within the DCRA/PRA's.
Last year when asked for input,I asked for a new smaller bull/Vbull and Fers squadded together.
This year at both the ORA (the attempt was made) and at the DCRA the entire match was shot by Fers with a smaller bull/Vbull and squaded together.Sounds to me like someone listens to input within the PRA here and the DCRA.
I would like to be able to shoot next year in the ORA Provincials,An F Class Central Match(DO IT GUYS) and if still kickin ,the DCRA CFRC match.
We don't need separation ,but strengthen our unification.

Gord
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom